MЕCHANICAL PROPERTIES OF REINFORCED SOIL CUSHIONS ON SOAKED SUBSIDING SOIL IN THE TERRITORY OF MONGOLIA

Автор(ы): Nyamdorj Setev, Dashjamts Dalai
Рубрика конференции: Секция 14. Технические науки
DOI статьи: 10.32743/SpainConf.2022.5.19.340392
Библиографическое описание
Nyamdorj S., Dashjamts D. MЕCHANICAL PROPERTIES OF REINFORCED SOIL CUSHIONS ON SOAKED SUBSIDING SOIL IN THE TERRITORY OF MONGOLIA// Proceedings of the XIX International Multidisciplinary Conference «Prospects and Key Tendencies of Science in Contemporary World». Bubok Publishing S.L., Madrid, Spain. 2022. DOI:10.32743/SpainConf.2022.5.19.340392

CHANICAL PROPERTIES OF REINFORCED SOIL CUSHIONS ON SOAKED SUBSIDING SOIL IN THE TERRITORY OF MONGOLIA

Nyamdorj Setev

Doctor (Ph.D) Frofessor Mongolian State University of Scence and Technology,

Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar

Dashjamts Dalai

Doctor (Sc.D) Frofessor Mongolian State University of Scence and Technology,

Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar

 

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Non-genic loess deposits of the Quaternary age, widespread in Mongolia, are often used as the foundation of buildings and engineering structures, most of which are classified as loess-like subsidence soils, mainly of type I by subsidence. To improve their construction properties by the method of applying rational innovative solutions of reinforced soil cushions of shallow and relatively lightly loaded foundations, taking into account the regional peculiarities of the base soils, it is an important task of construction in the appropriate soil conditions in Mongolia.

Materials and methods: This article discusses the results of stamping (A = 2500 cm2) field tests to determine the deformation moduli of highly compacted soil cushions made of crushed stone-sand mixtures and local sandy loam soils with horizontal geosynthetic reinforcements from flat geo-shots and geotextile, simulated in 4 different combinations on a preliminary soaked subsidence bases. To compare the results obtained, 2 soil cushions were also prepared from a crushed stone-sand mixture and local sandy loam soils without reinforcement and stamp tests were carried out.

Results: The data of measurements of stamping tests were obtained and, on their basis, the numerical values of the modulus of deformation of reinforced and unreinforced soil cushions from different soil materials were determined, taking into account the moisture and density of the latter. Comparative analyzes of the numerical values of the stamping modulus of deformation depending on the variable factors of modeling soil cushions that have been carried out.

Conclusions: According to the test results, it was established that the numerical values of the modulus of deformation of soil cushions, depending on the moisture regime of the base soils, the type of soil materials of the cushion and geosynthetic materials for reinforcement, can be in wide ranges towards improvement.

 

Keywords: loess-type soils, technogenic soil wetting, bearing capacity, subsidence, geosynthetic materials for reinforcement, periodic consolidation, stamping test.

 

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, experimental and theoretical studies have been actively conducted in the world to improve traditional soil cushion solutions in the direction of using geosynthetic materials for horizontal and vertical reinforcement. Neogenic losse sediments of the Quaternary age, common in Mongolia, are often used as the foundation of buildings and engineering structures, most of which are classified as loess-like subsidence soils, mainly of type I in terms of subsidence. To improve their construction properties by the method of applying a rational innovative solution of a reinforced soil cushion for shallow, lightly loaded foundations, taking into account the regional features of the foundation soils, it is an important task for the construction of Mongolia [1;2;3]. Under normal soil conditions, the estimated cost of foundation and foundation works is 13-15% of the total estimated cost of the building, and for buildings built in difficult soil conditions, including on the subsiding soil of Mongolia, it reaches 30%.

Based on this provision, the issues of reducing the cost of material, technical and labor resources are an important task. To solve these problems, different methods of using pile and other foundations are used, as well as preparing an artificial foundation [4; 5]. Of these, the soil cushion method without reinforcement and with geosynthetic reinforcement in a horizontal and vertical position and from different soil materials. The use of a highly compacted soil pad can be a reliable simple method, from an economic point of view, the most acceptable method that does not require expensive imported machines and equipment for special construction work on the base and foundation [6; 7; 8].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For a long time, mankind has used reinforced soil structures for the construction of various buildings and structures, the earliest of which are the upland buildings of the city of Dur-Kurigatsu and the Great Wall of China and others. Before our Era, the Romans used the method of soil reinforcement for the construction of the soil dam of the city of Rome [7;9]. Since the beginning of the 20th century, research work has begun in the United States on the use of the method of strengthening soil structures with reinforcement from various materials. In the 1960s, the French engineer Henri Vidal first proposed the use of metal tapes as soil reinforcement, and he is also the founder of the idea of ​​using polymeric materials to reinforce various soil elements and structures [10;11].

In the works of Russian scientists Abelev M.Yu., Dalmatov B.I., Konovalov P.A., Krutov V.I., Morareskula N.N., Mangushev R.A., Ponomarev A.B., Usmanov R.A. ., Tsytovich N.A. and scientists from other countries Brand H., Perrier H., Alexiew A., Girard H., Giroud J.P., Paul A., Koerner R.M., Schlosser F., Schwerdt S., Sobolewsk J., Uscimura T., Vidal H. and others reflect the results of experimental and theoretical studies on the method of calculations and modeling, the introduction of the design of reinforced and non-reinforced soil pads and other soil elements.

At present, in the conditions of Mongolia, research work on the introduction of reinforced soil structures has not been carried out due to the lack of a corresponding provision in BNbD 50.01-16 and other regulatory documents. In international practice, ground pads with geosynthetic reinforcement are widely used for the following purposes [12;13;14]:

- to exclude subsidence of the base during technogenic soaking and thawing of frozen soil;

- increase in the bearing capacity and stability of the base;

- reducing the depth of laying a lightly loaded foundation up to 2 times;

- reduction of the mutual influence of closely located foundations and redistribution of stress in the soil located below the base of the foundation;

- decrease in the value of the compressible thickness of the water-saturated underlying soil of the base;

- reducing the degree of heaving of the soaked clay soil;

- the possibility of using energy-saving insulated shallow foundations as a modern green technology.

Engineering-geological conditions of the experimental site. The experimental site is located on the territory of the Darkhan branch of the Mongolian State University of Science and Technology, where:

EGE-1. bulk soil with a thickness of 0.3 m;

EGE-2. subsidence silty sandy loam ),  type I in terms of subsidence, with a thickness of 0.3-6.8 m;

EGE-3. gravelly loam (a-p), with a thickness below 6.8m.

When drilling a well to a depth of 15.0 m, no groundwater was found. The general view of the experimental site is shown in Figure 5, The depth of seasonal freezing is -3.40 m, the physical and mechanical properties of the soils are given in Table 1.

Table. 1.

Physical and mechanical properties of soils

Indicators

Designation

Unit of measure

Dusty sandy loam

Gravelly loam

                                                                                      Physical indicators

1

Natural moisture

share units

0,042

0,068

2

 

Moisture yield point

share units

0,207

0,180

3

Rolling limit moisture

share units

0,159

0,137

4

Plasticity number

share units

0,048

0,043

5

Skeleton density

2,66

2,64

6

Natural density

1,69

1,98

7

Density of dry soil

1,48

1,86

8

Porosity

share units

42,8

29,58

9

Porosity coefficient

share units

0,73

0,42

10

Moisture degree

share units

0,32

0,43

11

Consistency indicator

share units

Mechanical performance

1

 

Sliding strength

          kPa

           21

           7,6

29

 

2

 

Internal angle of friction

         degree

18

13

25

 

3

Deformation modulus

12,1 (1,21)

4,6 (0,46)

33 (3,3)

4

Design resistance

/BNbD 50-01-16/

280

(2,8)

350

(3,5)

 

Photos of equipment and devices for testing to determine the modulus of deformation of reinforced and unreinforced soil pads from different soil materials are shown in Figure 1÷4.

 

Figure 1. Flat geogird

 

Figure 2.Geotextile

 

Figure 3. Soaking the pit soil

 

Figure 4. Stamp tests

 

Methodology for conducting a field stamp test. In the program of test work, the depth of the pillow sole was modeled at -1.50 m, the elevation of the foundation sole was -0.7 m, based on the idea of ​​designing shallow foundations with insulation in vertical and horizontal positions, taking into account the regional features of the climatic conditions of Mongolia, from the “Thermoplex” panel ".

The purpose of the size and design of soil pads and reinforcement from geosynthetic materials and without reinforcement are shown in Figures 4 and 5, taking into account the works of A.B. Ponomarev [15], R.A. Usmanov [16], D.G. Zolotozubov [17]. The test program for experimental soil pads was compiled on the basis of the methods of R.A. Mangushev [7], Rawal A., Shah T.H., Anand S.C. [10], Recommendation [11], V.I. Klevko [18], D.A. Tatyannikova [19], S.Schwerdt [20], Jones C.J., Lamont-Black J., Glendinning S. [21].

After excavation of 6 experimental pits, they were filled with pipeline clean water for 7 days to simulate a wetted weak subsidence base, the total amount of water for soaking each pit was about 10 m3. In each pit, where there will be reinforced pillows, on the border of the soaked soil of the base and the pillow, 1 layer of geofabric was laid out to avoid the separation phenomenon [22;23;24]. Design options for reinforced and non-reinforced soil pads are shown in Table-2.

In the process of preparing soil pads, they were compacted in layers at  with a thickness of 20 cm (Fig. 5), after compaction of each layer, the density ρ and W of the compacted soils were determined in the laboratory. SBR ratio, frontal resistance , adhesion force c, angle of internal friction φ according to the dynamic device for determining the compactibility of soil materials of the cushion “PORTABLE BEARING CAPACITY TESTER. MODEL MIS-244-062. MARUI CO., LTD. OSAKA (JAPAN)” (Fig. 6).  Calculation schemes of soil pads in Figures 7 and 8, photos of stamp tests in Figure 4.

 

 

 

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The results of measuring the vertical displacements S=f(P) of a rigid die (S=2500cm2) are shown in Table 2. The general graph of the dependence S=f(P) of compacted soil pads is shown in Fig.9. The results of determining the modulus of deformation of highly compacted soil cushions according to the modeling option are given in Table 3.

Table 2.

Results of measurements of the stamp settlement

Variants

Designing a soil cushion

3,0х3,0х0,8(h) m

Pressure, MPa  /=2500/

 

2,5тн

1кг/см2

5тн

2кг/см2

7,5тн

3кг/см2

10тн

4кг/см2

Sum ,

 mm

1

I

Pillow of local sandy loam soils reinforced with 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geogrid

3.21

4.82

8.65

16.572

16.572

2

II

A cushion made of local sandy loam soils reinforced with 4 layers of geotextile

3.86

5.38

10.53

21.75

21.75

3

III

Pillow made of a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sands with reinforcement from 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geogrid

2.78

3.62

5.16

13.81

13.81

4

IV

Pillow made of a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sands with reinforcement of 4 layers of geotextile

3.13

5.11

8.49

17.42

17.42

5

V

Pillow made of a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sands without reinforcement

6.21

9.76

19.38

 

Stamp drawdown

19.38

6

VI

Pillow of local sandy loam soils without reinforcement

7.32

11.46

23.71

23.71

 

Figure 9. General plot of dependence S = f (P) for variants of highly compacted soil cushions

 

Design characteristics ∆P and ∆S are determined by the formula .

Table. 3.

Generalized results of stamping tests for the definition of E and other tests

Variants

Stamp tests

 

Dynamic density meter test results

Cutting ring tests

CBR

A. Ground cushions from local sandy loam soils

1

VI variant: without reinforcement

9,32

15,9

1252,3

92,2

27,4

1,98

0.144

0.65

2

II variant: with reinforcement of 4 layers of geotextile

12,35

22,84

1989,2

122,7

31,9

2,09

0.132

0.60

3

I variant: with reinforcement from 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geonet

14,71

23,3

1826,5

124,9

32,2

2,03

0.136

0.61

B. Ground cushions from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand

1

V variant: without reinforcement

11,31

22,6

1759,4

121

31,7

2,06

0.146

0.66

2

IV variant: with 4 layers of geotextile reinforcement

15,28

26,1

1990,6

134,2

33,5

2,08

0.146

0.66

3

III variant: with reinforcement from 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geognet

33,27

26,2

2047,2

137,4

33,9

1,97

0.140

0.63

C. Ground cushions with flat geonet reinforcement

1

VI variant: without reinforcement from local sandy loam soils

9,32

15,9

1252,3

92,2

27,4

1,98

0.144

0.65

2

V variant: without reinforcement from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand

11,31

22,6

1759,4

121

31,7

2,06

0.146

0.66

3

I variant: with reinforcement from 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geonets from local sandy loam soils

14,71

23,3

1826,5

124,9

32,2

2,03

0.136

0.61

4

III variant: with reinforcement from 1 layer of geotextile, 3 layers of geonets from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand

33,27

26,2

2047,2

137,4

33,9

1,97

0.140

0.63

D. Geotextile Reinforced Soil Cushions

1

VI Variant: without reinforcement from local sandy loam soils

9,32

15,9

1252,3

92,2

27,4

1,98

0.144

0.65

2

V variant: without reinforcement from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand

11,31

22,6

1759,4

121

31,7

2,06

0.146

0.66

3

II variant: with reinforcement of 4 layers of geotextile from local sandy loam soils

12,35

22,84

1989,2

122,7

31,9

2,09

0.132

0.60

4

IV variant: with reinforcement of 4 layers of geotextile from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand

15,28

26,1

1990,6

134,2

33,5

2,08

0.146

0.66

 

Comparative analysis of the results of stamp tests. The deformation modulus of highly compacted soil pads with horizontal reinforcements made of geosynthetic materials and without reinforcement from local sandy loamy soils and a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sands with moisture  increase compared to the deformation modulus of local sandy loamy soils of the experimental site, with natural moisture E = 12.1 MPa and after soaking E=3.6MPa:

a) E pillow VI option from part A of table 3 without reinforcement from local sandy loamy soil on a base with moisture  compared to E local base soil at W 1.15 times less, to E local base soil at  2.59 times more.

E cushions of the 1st option (with reinforcement), compared to E of the local base soil with natural moisture content, 1.22 times more, or 4.09 times more in a water-saturated state,

The E cushions of the II option (with reinforcement) are 1.03 times greater than the E of the local base soil with natural moisture, or 3.43 times greater in the water-saturated state.

b) E cushion V option from part B of Table 3 without reinforcement from a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sands on the base soil with moisture content  compared to E of the local base soil at W 1.07 times less or approximately equal to E of the local base soil at  is 3.14 times larger.

E pillows of the III option (with reinforcement) are 2.94 times larger compared to the E pillows of the V option;

E pillows of the IV option (with reinforcement) are 2.17 times larger compared to the E pillows of the V option;

c) E pillow VI option from part C of Table 3 compared to E pillow V option 1.21 times less, E pillow I option 1.58 times less, E pillow III option 3.57 times less.

d) E pillow VI option from part D of Table 3 compared to E pillow V option 1.21 times less, E pillow II option 1.33 times less, E pillow IV option 1.65 times less.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The modulus of deformation of highly compacted soil pads from local sandy loamy soil and a mixture of crushed stone-coarse sand with or without reinforcement from a geogrid and geotextile on a pre-wetted weak base compared to the base soil at natural moisture or water-saturated state according to option 1.03- 4.09 times increase.

2. The modulus of deformation of a highly compacted soil cushion of option VI from local sandy loamy soil without reinforcement is 1.15 times less than E of natural state soil with moisture content W. From this we can conclude that due to layered high compaction () local clayey soil, it is possible to create relatively stable soil pads under conditions of technogenic soaking than a natural clay subsidence base of shallow foundations of buildings and structures.

3. The use of local clayey soil for highly compacted soil pads with and without reinforcement made of geosynthetic materials can significantly reduce the estimated cost of foundation and foundation work by eliminating many well-known costs. In addition, in terms of environmental protection, there is no need to develop a crushed stone and sand quarry.

4. Based on the test results, it was found that the numerical values ​​of the deformation and strength characteristics of soil cushions, depending on the moisture regime of the soil of the base of the cushion, the type of soil material of the cushion and the geosynthetic material for reinforcing the soil cushion, can be in a wide range towards improvement.

 

References:

  1. Dashjamts D. 2015. Mechanics of structurally unstable soils. UB. 432P
  2. Nyamdorj S. 2021. Bases and foundations of buildings on collapsible soils. UB. 261P
  3. Nyamdorj S. 2019 Central region leoss type soil collapsibility and compressibility jroperties study of Mongolia //ISSMGE. Asian regional   conference on Soil mechanics and geotechnical Engineering. Taipei. 
  4. Pol M. Main, Matthew R. Kuhn, Sarah M. Springman, An-Bin Huang, Yorge G. Zornbeg. 2012. Behavior of Geomaterials and Geotechnical Testing // Urban Development and Geotechnical Construction. Issue №1 / 2012. S 1-140 Dalmatov B.I. et al. Foundations and foundations // M., ASV, 2002.387 p.
  5. Romanov N.V., Racine Jerome. 2018. Review of modern methods of strengthening and stabilizing weak bases // Vestnik MGSU. Volume13. Issue 4. 2018. С499-513, Djouns K.D. Reinforced soil structures // M., Stroyizdat, 1989.268 p.
  6. Ter-Martirosyan Z.G., Ter-Martirosyan A.Z., Akuletskiy A.S. 2021. Stress strain state of weak and bulk soils, reinforced with reinforced concrete and soil piles, respectively. Vestnik MGSU. Volume16. Issue 90.2021. Pp1182-1191.
  7. Mangushev R.A. et al. 2012. Methods of preparation and arrangement of artificial foundations. Benefit. SPb .: ASV, 280 p.
  8. Muzdybayeva T., Zhussupbekov A., Toleubayeva S., Muzdybayev Y.   2018.     Analysis of interaction of geosynthetics and collapsible soils on the examples of the use in Kazakhstan. //11th International Conference on geosynthetics 2018 (11//GG). Seoul, South Korea, 16-21 september 2018. Vol 2.  Pp 1673-1680.
  9. Fellenius H. 2014. Basics of foundation Design. Revised Electronic Edition. Sidney, Canada. 2014. 413p.
  10. Rawal A., Shah T.H., Anand S.C.  (2016). Geotextiles in civil engineering // Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc Handbook of Technical Textiles (Second Edition), 2016, pp. 111-133.
  11. Recommendation for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures using Geosynthetic Reinforcement- EBGEO, 2015.
  12. Tatari A., Black J. 2018. Interaction behavior of soil and Geogrid reinforcement. //11th International Conference on geosynthetics 2018 (11//GG). Seoul, South Korea, 16-21 september 2018. Vol 3.  Pp 2514-2521.
  13. Ofrikhter V.G., Ponomarev. A.B., Kleveko V.I., Reshetnikova. K.V. Methods of construction of reinforced soil structures // Perm: Publishing house of Perm. state tech. University, 2010.145 p.
  14. Ziegier M., Derksen J.  2019.  Interaction behaviour of geogrids in transpasent soil //Proceeding of the 17th African Regional conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 7-9 2019. Cape Town. Pp 267-272.
  15. Ponomarev A.B., Kleveko V.I., Tatyannikov D.A. 2014. Analysis of changes in the strength characteristics of geosynthetic materials during operation // Bulletin of the Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Building and arch. 2014.No. 3 (35), pp11-16.
  16. Usmanov R.A. 2013. Increasing the efficiency of using compacted soil cushions on soft soils // Vestnik MGSU. No. 5. pp 69-79.
  17. Zolotozubov D.G. 2011. Analysis of the work of reinforced foundations during deformations of soil massifs // Diss. ... Cand. tech. Sciences: 05.23.02. Volgogr. state architect.-builds. un-t. - Perm., 119 p.
  18. Kleveko V.I. 2002. Assessment of the stress-strain state of reinforced bases in silty-clayey soils // Diss. ... Cand. tech. Sciences: 05.23.02. Perm. state tech. un-t. Perm, 152 p.
  19. Tatyannikov D.A., Ponomarev A.B., Kleveko V.I. 2015.  Investigation of the characteristics of the interaction of geosynthetic materials with soil for assessing the bearing capacity of reinforced foundation pads // Actual problems of geotechnics: collection of articles. Art., dedicated. 60th anniversary of prof. A.N. Bogomolov. - Volgograd: VolgGASU Publishing House, pp 310-317.
  20. Schwerdt S. et al. 2018.  Comparison of pullout test results carried out on steel grid and geosynthetic materials // 11ICG [Electronic resource] : 11th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Coex, Seoul, Korea, Sept. 16-21, 2018 / Korean Geosynthetics Soc., Korean Chap. of Intern. Geosynthetics Soc. Electronic data. [Seoul: Korean Geosynthetics Soc.]. 2018.  8 pp. 1 electronic optical disk. Title from screen.
  21. Jones C.J., Lamont-Black J., Glendinning S. 2011. Electrokinetic geosynthetics in hydraulic applications. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol.29, Issus 4. August 2011. Pp381-190.
  22. Tatyannikov D.A., Ponomarev A.B. 2016. Numerical modeling of the work of the structure of reinforced soil cushions. Vestnik MGSU. 11/2016. pp21-31
  23. Melo D.L. 2014. Shear strength of RCDW /nonwomen geotextile interface /D.L.Melo, E.C.G.Santos //10ht International Conference on Geosynthetics.-Berlin, 2014, Vol 7.
  24. Wright J., Kim S., Kim. B. 2018. Stress responses of geosynthetic-reinforcement pavement foundation. //11th International Conference on geosynthetics 2018 (11//GG). Seoul, South Korea, 16-21september 2018, Vol 2. pp1200-1206.