Advertisement

Effect of Modulus of Elasticity and Water Table on Uplift Capacity of Granular Anchor Pile: An FEM Approach

  • AbhishekEmail author
  • Ravi Kumar Sharma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 30)

Abstract

Expansive soils are considered as one of the most challenging soils due to their enormous volume variations. These volumetric alterations pose problem of stability of structures particularly the lightly encumbered structures founded on them. The bearing capacity of these soils is very low and uplift load resistance is almost nil. Development of cracks takes place on the structures originated on expansive soils. Granular Anchor Pile (GAP) is a new foundation practice to increase pullout behavior and bearing capacity of foundations founded on expansive soil. In the present paper, a numerical study was carried out to predict the behavior of GAP in expansive soil using three-dimensional finite element PLAXIS software. The effect of modulus of elasticity of soil and position of water table on the uplift capacity at different prescribed displacements was examined using load-displacement curves. With the increase in value of elasticity modulus of soil there was an increase in uplift resistance of the GAP system. With the rise in water table to the ground surface, the uplift capacity of GAP system decreased.

Keywords

Expansive soil Modulus of elasticity Uplift capacity Upward movement Granular anchor pile 

References

  1. Abhishek, Sharma RK (2018) A numerical study of granular pile anchors subjected to uplift forces in expansive soils using PLAXIS 3D. Indian Geotech J 1–10Google Scholar
  2. Acosta H, Edil T, Benson C (2013) Soil stabilization and drying using fly ash. Geo Engineering Report No 03–03, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  3. BabuShanker N, Appayanna M, Shankaraiah B (1980) Design and testing of under – reamed piles. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, Bombay vol 1, pp 203–206Google Scholar
  4. Chen F (1988) Foundations on expansive soils. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Cokca E (2001) Use of class C fly ash for the stabilization of an expansive soil. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 127(7):568–573Google Scholar
  6. Desai I, Oza B (1997) Influence of anhydrous Calcium Chloride on shear strength of expansive soils. In: Proceedings of 1st international symposium on expansive soils, HBTI, Kanpur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  7. Dey A, Minda R Gurung K (1996) A case study on under-reamed piles. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference and exhibition on piling and deep foundations, BombayGoogle Scholar
  8. Dinesh M (1991) Pile foundations. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. Hari Krishna P (2006) A study on the use of granular anchor piles to control heave of footings resting on expansive soil. PhD thesis, Kakatiya University WarangalGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoyos L, Puppala A, Chainuwat P (2004) Dynamic properties of chemically stabilized sulphate rich clay. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 130(2):153–162Google Scholar
  11. Hunter D (1988) Lime-induced heave in sulfate - bearing clay soils. J Geotech Eng 114(2):150–167Google Scholar
  12. Katti R (1979) Search for solutions for problems in black cotton soils. Indian Geotech J 9(1):1–80MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Kranthikumar A, Sawant V, Kumar P, Shukla S (2016a) Numerical and experimental investigations of granular anchor piles in loose sandy soil subjected to uplift loading. Int J Geomech 17(2):1–10Google Scholar
  14. Kranthikumar A, Sawant V, Shukla S (2016b) Numerical modeling of granular anchor pile system in loose sandy soil subjected to uplift loading. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 15(2):1–7Google Scholar
  15. Kumar V (1996) Fly ash utilization: a mission mode approach: ash ponds and ash disposal systems. Narosa Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson D, Miller J (1992) Expansive soils: problems and practice in foundation and pavement engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Petry M, Little N (1992) Update on Sulfate-induced heave in treated clays: problematic Sulfate levels. Transportation Research Record. 1362, National Research Council, Washington D.C, pp 51–55Google Scholar
  18. Phanikumar B (1997) A study of swelling characteristics of and granular pile anchor foundation system in expansive soils. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Phanikumar B (2000) Use of fly ash in treating problematic expansive soils. In: Proceeding of workshop on environmental geotechnology, Indian Geotechnical Society, Hyderabad, pp 36–39Google Scholar
  20. PhaniKumar B (2016) Influence of geogrid reinforcement on pullout response of granular pile-anchors (GPAs) in expansive soils. Indian Geotech J 46(4):437–444Google Scholar
  21. Phanikumar B, Reddayya S (2001) Swelling characteristics of fly ash-treated expansive soils. In: Proceeding of international symposium on suction, swelling, permeability, and structure of clays, IS Shizuoka, Japan, pp 121–123Google Scholar
  22. Phanikumar B, Sharma R (2004) Effect of fly ash on engineering properties of expansive soils. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 130(7):764–767Google Scholar
  23. Phanikumar B, Prasada G, Srirama A (1994) Use of anchored granular column in minimising swell in expansive clays. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, Warangal, India, pp 61–65Google Scholar
  24. Poulos H, Davis E (1980) Pile foundation analysis and design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Rao A (1984) A study of swelling characteristics and behavior of expansive soils. PhD thesis, Kakatiya University, Warangal IndiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Rao B (1986) What techniques other than under-reamed piles have proven to be effective in minimising foundation problems in black cotton soils? - Response paper to the question. In: Indian geotechnical conference, New Delhi, vol 2, pp 145–149Google Scholar
  27. Rollings M, Rollings R (1996) Geotechnical materials in construction. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Rollings R, Burkes J, Rollings M (1999) Sulphate attack on cement-stabilized sand. Aus J Geodesy Photogram Surv 125(5):364–372Google Scholar
  29. Sankar N (1989) Use of lime-soil piles for in-situ stabilization of black cotton soils. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, vol 1, pp 149–153Google Scholar
  30. Satyanarayana B (1966) Swelling pressure and related mechanical properties of black cotton soils. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore IndiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Setty K, Ravi Shankar A, Manohar C (1966) Behavior of under-reamed piles in Shedi soil. In: Proceedings of Indian geotechnical conference, Madras, India, vol 1, pp 286–289Google Scholar
  32. Sharma D, Jain M, Prakash C (1978) Handbook on under reamed and bored compaction pile foundations. Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee IndiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharma R, Phanikumar B, Nagendra G (2004) Compressive load response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids. Can Geotech J 41(1):187–192Google Scholar
  34. Subba Rao K (1999) Swell-shrink behavior of expansive soils – geotechnical challenges. Indian Geotech J 30(1):1–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NITHamirpurIndia

Personalised recommendations