Horizontal Pullout Resistance of Concrete Anchor Blocks in Sand Backfill

Md. Golam Mostofa

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil Engineering BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY (BUET) DHAKA, BANGLADESH

JUNE, 2013

Horizontal Pullout Resistance of Concrete Anchor Blocks in Sand Backfill

by

Md. Golam Mostofa

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET),

Dhaka in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Civil Engineering BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY (BUET)

June, 2013

i

THESIS APPROVAL

The thesis titled “Horizontal Pullout Resistance of Concrete Anchor Blocks in Sand Backfill” Submitted by Md. Golam Mostofa, Roll No: 100604215P, Session: October 2006 has been accepted as satisfactory in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical) on June 05, 2013.

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

1. Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khan Professor Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka

Chairman

2. Dr. Md. Mujibur Rahman Professor & Head Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka

Member(Ex-officio)

3 Dr. Md. Kabirul Islam Professor Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka

Member

4. Dr. Mohammad Shariful Islam Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka

Member

5. Dr. Md. Mokhlesur Rahman Professor Department of Civil Engineering , DUET, Gazipur

Member (External)

ii

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that this thesis report or any part of it has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma.

Md. Golam Mostofa

iii

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my parents

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl No. Contents Page No.

i Certification Page of Thesis Approval i

ii Declaration Page ii

iii Dedication iii

iv Table of Contents iv

v List of Tables viii

vi List of Figures x

vii List of Abbreviations of Technical Symbols and Terminologies

xiv

viii Acknowledgement xviii

ix Abstract xix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 GENERAL 1

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 2

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 4

1.4 LAYOUT OF THE THESIS 4

v

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 GENERAL 5

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH RETENTION SYSTEM

5

2.3 INTERNALLY STABILIZED RETAINING SYSTEMS

6

2.3.1 Reinforced Soil Wall 6

2.3.1.1 Soil properties for reinforced soil wall 7

2.3.1.2 Component and materials used in the reinforced soil wall structure

8

2.3.1.3 Mechanism involved in an anchored earth

wall

16

2.3.1.4 Failure of a reinforced earth retaining wall 18

2.4 ANALYSIS OF EXTERNALLY STABILISED RETAINING STRUCTURES

20

2.4.1 Analysis of RC Cantilever Wall 20

2.4.1.1 Check for sliding 21

2.4.1.2 Check for overturning 22

2.4.1.3 Check for bearing capacity 22

2.5 ANALYSIS OF INTERNALLY STABILIZED WALL

25

2.5.1 Design Considerations for a Metal Strip Reinforced Wall

25

2.5.1.1 Safety against rupture of reinforcement

26

2.5.1.2 Safety against pullout failure 27

2.5.2 Design Considerations for Geogrid Reinforced Wall

28

2.5.2.1 Mechanism of pullout resistance of Geogrids

28

vi

2.6.2.2 Calculation of internal stability

29

2.5.3 Design Considerations for Geotextile Reinforced Wall

30

2.5.3.1 Check for rupture of reinforcement

31

2.5.3.2 Check against pullout failure

32

2.5.4 Design Consideration of Anchored Earth Wall 33

2.5.4.1 Design approach for anchored earth wall 34

2.5.4.1.1 Check for rupture of reinforcement

35

2.5.4.1.2 Check against pullout failure

35

2.5.4.2 Anchor block size 37

2.6 PULLOUT TESTS PERFORMED BY PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS

37

CHAPTER

THREE LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND PULLOUT TEST SETUP

43

3.1 GENERAL 43

3.2 COLLECTION AND SELECTION OF SAND SAMPLES

44

3.3 TESTS PERFORMED ON SAND 45

3.4 TESTS PERFORMED ON CONCRETE 45

3.5 TESTS PERFORMED ON GI WIRE 45

3.6 PULLOUT TEST OF ANCHOR BLOCK 46

3.6.1 Experimental Setup 46

3.6.2 Calibration of the Sand Spreader/ Screener 47

3.6.3 Sand Bed Formation 47

3.6.4 Pullout Test Procedure 48

vii

CHAPTER FOUR

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58

4.1 GENERAL 58

4.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 58

4.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 58

4.4 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITY 60

4.5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST 61

4.6 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST OF CONCRETE

64

4.7 TENSILE STRENGTH TEST OF GI WIRE 64

4.8 CALIBRATION OF THE SAND SPREADER/ SCREENER

65

4.9 PULLOUT TEST RESULTS 67

CHAPTER

FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83

5.1 GENERAL 83

5.2 CONCLUSIONS ON TEST RESULTS 83

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 84

REFERENCES 85

APPENDIX (Data Sheet of Test Results ) 87-126

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title Page

Table 3.1 Tests Performed on Sand in the Research

Work

45

Table 3.2 Tests Performed on Concrete 45

Table 4.1 Specific Gravity of the Soils as per ASTM

D854-98.

58

Table 4.2 Grain Size Properties of the Soils as per

ASTM D422-63

59

Table 4.3 Maximum and Minimum Density of Sand as Per ASTM D4253, D4254- 00(2006)

60

Table 4.4 Shear strength properties from direct shear test as per ASTM D3080-98

61

Table 4.5 Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens as per ASTM C39

64

Table 4.6 Tensile strength of GI wire as per 65

Table 4.7 Maximum density and height of fall

65

Table 4.8 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block

68-79

Table 4.8.13 Summary of pullout resistance, PR 79

Table 4.9 Calculation of ‘X’ and Coefficient, C (FM=0.73)

80

ix

Table 4.10 Calculation of ‘X’ and Coefficient, C (FM= 1.5)

80

Table 4.11 Calculation of ‘X’ and Coefficient, C (FM= 2.5)

81

Table 4.12 Coefficient, C with FM and Angle (β0) with

horizontal

81

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No

Title Page

Fig. 2.1 Classification of earth retention systems (After O’Rourke and Jones, 1990)

6

Fig. 2.2 Typical reinforced soil wall (After Bowles, 1997) 7 Fig.2. 3 Reinforcement with anchor plate in Reinforcement Soil Wall

(After Jones, 1996)

10

Fig. 2.4 Different types of reinforcement used in reinforced soil wall (After Jones, 1996)

11

Fig. 2.5 Development of adhesion on a reinforcing strip (After Jones, 1996)

12

Fig. 2.6 Position of Reinforcement (After Jones, 1996)

13

Fig. 2.7 Facing block with reinforcement in vertical wall (After Jones, 1996)

15

Fig. 2.8 Drainage system in vertical wall (After Bowles, 1997) 16 Fig. 2.9 Footing pad supporting different types of vertical wall

(After Jones, 1996) 16

Fig. 2.10 Soil Reinforcement action of a vertical wall

(After Hausmann, 1990) 17

Fig. 2.11 Internal failure modes of Reinforced Earth Wall

(After Jones, 1996) 18

Fig. 2.12 External failure modes of Reinforced Earth Wall

(After Jones, 1996)

19

Fig. 2.13 Initial dimensions and forces for the design of a R.C cantilever wall (After Khan, 2004)

20

Fig. 2.14 Maximum and minimum Pressure in the base of a wall

(After Khan, 2004)

23

Fig. 2.15a Shear failure (After Das, 1990) 25

xi

Fig. 2.15b Deep shear failure in foundation (After Das, 1990) 25 Fig. 2.16 Geometry and forces of for the design of M.S. wall

(After khan, 2004) 26

Fig. 2.17 Mechanism of pullout resistance in Geogrid

(After Koerner, 1977)

29

Fig. 2.18 Geometry and forces of for the design of GT walls

(After khan, 2004) 31

Fig. 2.19 Anchored earth wall showing anchor and filling materials

(After Bowles, 1997)

33

Fig. 2.20

Geometry and forces for the design of AEW (After khan, 2004)

34

Fig. 2.21 Rankine’s failure surface (After NAVFAC , 1982) 36 Fig. 2.22 Location of Anchor blocks to carry the lateral load.

(After Hausman, 1997) 37

Fig. 2.23 A general view of pullout box

( size 1.2m x 0.90m x 0.90m) (After Islam, 2008)

40

Fig. 2.24 Elevation view of pullout box ( size 1.90m x 0.91 m x 1.10m) (After Koerner, 1998)

40

Fig. 2.25 Plan view of pullout box (size 1.90m x 0.91 m x 1.10m)

(After Koerner, 1998)

41

Fig. 2.26 Elevation view of pullout box (size 1. 0m x 1.0 m x 1. 0m)

(After Palmeria, 1997) 41

Fig. 2.27 Elevation view of pullout box (size 1.2m long)

(After Islam, 2008) 42

xii

Fig. 3.1 Steps involved for carrying out the research work 44 Fig. 3.2 General view of measuring slump from slump cone test

49

Fig. 3.3 General view of cylinder after casting of concrete

50

Fig. 3.4 General view of preparation of concrete anchor block 50 Fig. 3.5 General view of density pot for determination of density at

different height of falling of sand 51

Fig. 3.6 Schematic diagram of pullout test 51 Fig. 3.7 Schematic diagram showing anchor block placed at different

position 52

Fig. 3.8 Schematic diagram of sand spreader/ sand screener (Plan) 53 Fig. 3.9 Schematic diagrams of sand spreader/ sand screener (Elevation) 53 Fig. 3.10 Air drying of sand sample 54 Fig. 3.11 A general view of experimental setup for pullout test 54 Fig. 3.12 Spreading sand on sand screener

55

Fig. 3.13 General view showing anchor block with pulling wire 55 Fig. 3.14 General view showing flexible foam for lateral displacement 56 Fig. 3.15 Measuring vertical displacement by a steel tape 56 Fig. 3.16 General view of pullout test showing slotted circular weight disk 57 Fig. 3.17 Top view of sand surface after pullout test showing displacement

of sand 57

Fig. 4.1a Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =0.73

59

Fig. 4.1b Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =1.5

59

Fig. 4.1c Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =2.5

60

xiii

Fig. 4.2a Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of varying normal stress, FM =0.73

61

Fig. 4.2b Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of varying normal stress, FM =1.5

62

Fig. 4.2c Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of varying normal stress, FM =2.5

62

Fig. 4.3a Normal stress versus shear stress, FM =0.73

63

Fig. 4.3b Normal stress versus shear stress, FM = 1.5

63

Fig. 4.3c Normal stress versus shear stress, FM =2.5

64

Fig. 4.4a Calibration of sand spreader, FM =0.73

66

Fig. 4.4b Calibration of sand spreader, FM =1.5

66

Fig. 4.4c Calibration of sand spreader, FM = 2.5

67

Fig. 4.5-4c Calibration of sand spreader, FM = 2.5

67

Fig. 4.5- 4.16 Pullout resistance(PR) vs displacement of concrete anchor block

68-79

Fig. 4.17 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus FM 81

Fig. 4.18 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus angle of concrete anchor block, ( β ) with the horizontal

82

Fig. 4.19 Coefficient, ( C ) versus FM

82

Fig. 4.20 Coefficient, (C) versus angle of concrete anchor block, ( β ) with the horizontal

82

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF TECHNICAL SYMBOLS AND

TERMINOLOGIES

A total shear area

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

b strip width

c,C clay cohesion

CRE Constant rate of extension

Ca adhesion between soil and geosynthetics

Cc coefficient of curvature

Ci coefficient of interaction, interface efficiency

Cu coefficient of uniformity

DIN German Standard Committee for Geotextiles

DW double wrap

D60 60% of materials finer than these particles

D30 30% of materials finer than these particles

D10 10% of materials finer than these particles

EOS equivalent opening size

e void ratio

emax

maximum void ratio

emin minimum void ratio

FDR final dial reading

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

F* friction-bearing interaction factor

xv

FOS, FS factor of safety

Fb passive bearing resistance

Fs-s soil to soil direct shear frictional soil

Fs-g soil to geosynthetic direct shear frictional force

Ft total direct shear resistance force

f* coefficient of pullout friction

GoB Government of Bangladesh

Gs specific gravity of soil

gm gram

H horizontal

ICB

International Commodity Body

IDR initial dial reading

IJO International Jute Organization

IJSG International Jute Study Group

ISO International Organization for Standards

JDPC Jute Diversification Promotion Centre

JGT Jute geotextile

JPVD Jute Prefabricated Vertical Drain

Kg Kilogram

KN Kilo Newton

K0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest

L Length

LR Longitudinal

xvi

LVDT linear vertical displacement transducer

M Meter

MD machine direction

MS mild steel

MD driving moment

MR resisting moment

N number of layers of geotextile

n Porosity

PVD prefabricated vertical drain

RFID reduction factor for installation damage

RFCR reduction factor for creep

RFCD reduction factor for chemical degradation

RFBD reduction factor biological degradation

Sv vertical spacing of reinforcement element

t time, thickness

T Temperature

TR transverse ribs

Tall allowable tensile strength

Ti allowable tensile strength, Tall of geotextile reinforcement at ith

layer

Tult ultimate pullout load, ultimate tensile strength of geotextile reinforcement

V Vertical

v the Poisson’s ratio

xvii

Yi moment arm for geotextile reinforcement at ith layer

yd Yard

z average depth from top surface

α,α shape factor of filling, scale correction factor

αds ration of reinforcement shear area to total shear area γ soil unit weight

γ’ submerge density of soil

γmax maximum density of soil

γmin minimum density of soil

δ, δa, δap interface friction angle

δsg interface friction angle between soil and geosynthetic

θ angle formed by the normal to the failure plane and the

reinforcement

ρd dry density of soil

σn applied normal stress, surcharge pressure, vertical overburden pressure

τ pullout resistance

τ/σ shear stress

φ, φds, φs friction angle of soil from direct shear test

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I want to express my deep gratitude to The most Gracious and Omnipotent Allah for enabling me to perform this research work. Secondly, I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) for his continuous guidance, inspiration, valuable comments and encouragement throughout the period of this study. I would like to express my thanks to the members of the examination board Professor Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Professor Dr. Md. Mujibur Rahman, Professor Dr. Kabirul Islam & Dr. Mohammad Shariful Islam, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka and Professor Dr. Md. Mokhlesur Rahman, Department of Civil Engineering, DUET, Gazipur. Acknowledgements are due to the Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation (BHBFC), who allowed me to take part in the M.Sc Engineering Program at BUET. I wish to extend special thanks to all staff and officers providing all sorts of necessary support throughout my full research period. Engr. Md. Mizanur Rahman Talukder, Deputy General Manager and Engr. A.B.M. Mohiuddin, Assistant General Manager of Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation whose selfless interest and cooperation made this study inspirable, and possible. I am grateful to technical staff of all the geotechnical and concrete laboratory of BUET, especially to Mr. Habibur Rahman & Mr. Salim Hossain for their continual assistance in laboratory works. I must also express my eternal gratitude to my parents and parents in law for their constant encouragement and motivation to pursue the research work during the period. My eternal gratitude to my wife Engr. Mst. Tahmina Akter, who supported me throughout this work sacrificing her ideal times and company with me. Lastly, my gratitude to my children Tasnim & Tahmid for sacrificing their company with me. I sincerely hope that I will prove worthy of their dedication.

xix

ABSTRACT Anchored earth wall is one of the popular types of internally stabilized wall systems intended to retain soils vertically. Such walls are typically characterized by unreinforced incremental concrete facing panels tied back by horizontally laid tendons within and beyond potential Rankine or Coulomb failure plane. While one end of these tendons is connected to facing elements, the other end is connected to a cube-shaped concrete anchor block placed well within the passive zone. These anchor blocks withstand the mobilized active earth pressures via passive resistance. Some design manuals, e.g. NAVFAC (1982) suggests that the anchor blocks should be placed beyond a plane that makes an angle equal to angle of friction of the reinforced fill from the toe of the wall with horizontal. The manual also suggests that locating the anchor blocks in any other position between Rankine’s potential failure plane and this phi-plane will allow mobilization of a partial resistance. Ali, Bujang and Lee (2008) and Chonkar (2001) suggested that passive resistance of cube-shaped concrete anchor blocks is actually four times the Rankine’s passive resistance. However, they did not refer to any particular location of anchor blocks in the passive zone that would mobilise such passive resistance of the blocks. Jones (1996) and BS8006 (1995) have also suggested similar passive resistance for triangle shaped steel anchors. In order to investigate the effect of position of anchor blocks on their capacity of mobilizing passive resistance, a series of tests were carried out in a large tank made of Perspex and steel framing system. The test tank (1.2m x 0.90m x 0.90m) was filled with sand of three different fineness modulus (0.73, 1.5 and 2.5) at their individual maximum densities. 150mm x 150mm x 75mm anchor blocks were placed at mid-height of the sand backfill just on the border of 600, 450, 300 and 200 planes; 600 plane being the closest and 200 plane being the farthest from the potential Rankine failure plane. A soft yielding boundary was ensured at the front wall of the test tank in order to ensure mobilization of full active earth pressure on the wall. The concrete anchor block was then pulled by 3x1.8mm diameter steel wire over a frictionless pulley using incremental loading. The pullout resistance of an anchor block was determined as the force required for excessive displacement of the block. The tests were repeated three times for each of the twelve scenarios, i.e. tests were carried out at least 36 times for covering the scenarios of all the four locations of anchor blocks and three different types of sand backfill materials. From the tests, it was found that for soils having higher friction angle the passive resistance of anchor block was also higher for any particular location of the block in the passive zone. However, the enhancement of this resistance over Rankine’s passive resistance, denoted by C in this study, was not found to be equal to 4, as suggested by different researchers and code, for any of the twelve scenarios undertaken in this work. The C factor was found to be equal to 1 for all three types of soils when the anchor block was placed on the border of 600 plane, i.e. almost on the border of potential Rankine failure plane. When the block was placed on the border of 450 plane, the C factor was more and ranged from 1.66 to 2.21 in accordance with decreasing fineness modulus of the sand backfill used. The C factors for the block placed at 300 plane and 200 plane were almost identical and ranged from 2.39 to 3.48 again in accordance with decreasing fineness modulus of the sand backfill used. These results suggest that location of anchor block beyond 300 plane may not be effective and placing the anchor blocks on the border of 450 plane may be considered as a good compromise for catering many practical space constraints.

1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL Due to development of a range of materials, different types of soil retention

systems have evolved over the last four decades. These systems may be

classified into two groups; externally stabilised walls and internally stabilised

walls. The examples of first category include gravity walls, reinforced concrete

cantilever walls and reinforced concrete counterfort walls etc. These walls are

essentially characterised by the concept that the lateral earth pressures due to

self weight of the retained fill and accompanied surcharge loads are carried by

the structural wall.

The examples of internally stabilised wall systems include metal strip walls,

geotextile reinforced walls and anchored earth walls etc. These walls comprise

of horizontally laid reinforcements which carry most or all of the lateral earth

pressure via soil-reinforcement interaction or via passive resistance from the

anchor block. If the reinforcements are spaced closely enough, the stiffness of

the soil-reinforcement system may be so high that practically insignificant

amount of lateral thrust will have to be carried by the wall facing elements. This

reduces the volume of concrete and steel reinforcement in the wall significantly,

Khan and Sikder (2004). An additional feature of the internally stabilised walls

is their relatively fast speed of construction. This is firstly because of less

volume of concrete and steel fabrication work is required for construction and

secondly because the placing of wall panels, laying of reinforcements and

compaction of reinforced fill are carried out simultaneously. Khan and Sikder

(2004) pointed out that all these internally stabilised wall systems are almost

equally more economical compared to the externally stabilised wall systems.

However, since materials that are more familiar in the construction industry are

involved with the anchored earth wall system, this may be adopted as a better

2

alternative to commonly employed externally stabilised retaining wall systems

in Bangladesh.

The external stability analysis, which is applicable for both externally stabilised

and internally stabilised walls, includes check against sliding at the base,

overturning about the toe, bearing failure of the foundation soil and overall

stability failure. The internal stability analysis, which is applicable for internally

stabilised walls only, considers check against rupture and pullout of the

reinforcements as well. Procedures for the design of different types of externally

stabilised walls and internally stabilsied walls have been presented in detail by

Khan and Sikder (2004).

The external stability analyses and internal stability analyses methods for

anchored earth walls are similar to those of metal strip walls and geotextile

reinforced walls. However, in anchored earth walls, since steel rebars used for

reinforcement have insignificant surface area, the resistance against pullout is

mobilised solely by the anchor blocks located at the end of reinforcements and

seated deep in the passive zone. The Factor of Safety against pullout of

reinforcements via pullout of these anchor blocks may be given by Jones (1996)

and BS8006 (1995). So, it is necessary to know the position that how far from

face of retaining structure the anchor block be placed

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The anchored earth walls may be characterized by horizontally laid

reinforcements which carry all of the lateral earth pressure via passive

resistance from the anchor block placed in the passive zone. For full passive

resistance to mobilize, it is suggested that the anchor blocks should be placed

outside the surface making an angle equal to angle of friction of backfill soil, φ

with the horizontal, NAVFAC (1982). It has also been stated in NAVFAC

(1982) that locating the anchor blocks between φ line and Rankine’s failure

surface will generate partial passive resistance.

3

A review of design method for anchored earth walls presented by Chonkar

(2001) shows that the anchor blocks may be placed beyond the potential failure

plane. It is, however, not clearly specified about how far from the potential

failure plan should the anchor blocks be placed.

Recently, in Malaysia, an anchored reinforced earth called Nehemiah wall was

chosen and the instrumentation and monitoring works were carried at two

sections of the wall where at one of them polystyrene foam was inserted at the

back face of the wall panel to allow for lateral deformation to take place, Ali,

Bujang and Lee (2008). In this wall, the anchor blocks were placed out side of

450 line.

In Bangladesh, two anchored earth walls have been implemented; one in

Kalyanpur, Dhaka and the other in BCIC industrial area, Narayanganj for

establishing a substation for Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA) under the

guidance of BRTC (2002 and 2003) where anchor blocks have been placed just

outside the 45° surface with the horizontal due to space constraint behind the

wall facing. After one year of construction of the Kalyanpur wall, the movement

of the soil boundary was reported to be insignificant by Akter (2006). No

unsatisfactory performance of BCIC wall has been reported by the DESA

authority after two years of construction. It is worthwhile mentioning that in

both the walls since the concrete anchor blocks were placed just outside the 45°

surface instead of φ surface with the horizontal. However, an arbitrarily chosen

higher factor of safety was used.

It is the purpose of this research work to carry out a parametric study on pullout

resistance of the concrete anchor blocks located at different positions within the

passive zone behind the wall facing. Based on the outcome of this study, factor

of safety for different locations of anchor blocks may be suggested.

4

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of this study are:

i) To investigate the resistance of concrete anchor block for a constant height

of sand filling by carrying out large scale pullout test in the laboratory by

placing the anchor blocks at different locations within the sand backfill.

ii) To investigate the resistance of concrete anchor block for a constant height

of sand filling by carrying out large scale pullout test in the laboratory by

using different type of sand of varying fineness modulus.

1.4 LAYOUT OF THE THESIS To investigate horizontal pullout resistance of concrete anchor blocks at different locations within the sand backfill, the research work is arranged into five chapters and one appendix. Chapter one contains introduction, background and objective of the study. In chapter two, general reviews of different types of earth retaining system are described briefly. A short description of anchored earth wall is also included. In chapter three, a brief description of laboratory investigation and pullout test setup has been presented. The tests were mainly conducted in using large pullout box for pullout test. There were three types of sand sample used in this test. This part is mainly concentrated on pullout test. The description of apparatus and experimental technique for this research has been discussed here. Chapter four deals with the test results and discussions. Here the laboratory test procedures and results of all test performed are presented with graph and charts. At the end of the test results all test performed are presented, which are analyzed to determine the coefficient ( C ) with respect to angle of position of anchor block with horizontal line. Chapter five includes the conclusion and recommendations on the basis of present study and recommendation for future work are presented. As in much research, the present work provides some answer and raises additional question. It is hope that the answers obtained in the present work will be useful to progress in understanding the variation of coefficient value for different type of sand used as a backfill material.

5

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 GENERAL Retaining wall is constructed in a place for the purpose of supporting a vertical or

nearly vertical earth bank. This type of structures is used to retain backfill of road,

bridge abutment, and reclaimed landfill. Due to development of a range of materials,

different types of soil retention systems have evolved over the last decades. This

chapter describes the available literature of such structures giving emphasis on

reinforced earth wall system.

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF EARTH RETENTION SYSTEMS Soil retention systems may be broadly divided into two categories; internally

stabilized and externally stabilized. An externally stabilized system uses an external

structural wall, against which stabilizing forces are mobilized. On the other hand an

internally stabilized system involves reinforcements installed within and extending

beyond the potential failure mass. Within this system, shear transfer to mobilize the

tensile capacity of closely spaced reinforcing elements remove the need of a

structural wall and soil is considered as primary structural entity. A facing unit is

used on an internally stabilized system, but its role is only to prevent local

unraveling and deterioration rather than to provide primary structural support. A

classification scheme for earth retention systems is shown in Fig. 2.1 (O’Rourke and

Jones, 1990).

The type of wall chosen for any project depends on the soil and construction

conditions, economy and function. Gravity wall are most frequently used up to a

limited height of 4m-5m (Cernica, 1994). RC cantilever and counterfort type

retaining walls can be implemented for a larger height, however it becomes very

expensive for a height more than 8.0 m (Das, 1992, and Cernica, 1994).

6

Fig. 2.1 Classification of earth retention systems (After O’Rourke and Jones, 1990)

2.3 INTERNALLY STABILIZED RETAINING SYSTEMS There are many kinds of externally and internally stabilized soil retaining system. The main focus of this research work is on externally stabilized wall system. Some internally stabilized soil retaining systems are described below. 2.3.1 Reinforced Soil Wall Reinforced soils are fundamentally different from conventional earth retaining

system in that they utilize a different mechanism of support. This internally

stabilized system are done by reinforcing soils with predominantly horizontally

layered elements. Metallic strips and rods, geotextile strips, sheets and grids or

polymeric grids, etc are installed during in situ construction. This type of element

EXTERNALLY STABILIZED SYSTEM

INTERNALLY STABILIZED SYSTEM

In-situ walls • Timber • Precast concrete • Sheet piles • Soldier piles • Cast in situ • Slurry wall • Secant pile • Tangent pile • Bored in place (Piles not continuous) • Soil cement

Gravity walls • Masonry • Concrete • Cantilever • Counterfort • Gabion • Crib • Cellular Cofferdam

Reinforced soil Walls • Metallic • Polymeric

Organic reinforcing strips or sheets or grids

• Anchored earth

In-situ Reinforcement • Soil nailing • Reticulated

micro piles • Soil dowelling

Braced • Cross-lot • Rakers

Tie-back • Augered • Belled • Pressure injected

Hybrid systems • Soil nailing • Reticulated

Micro piles Soil dowelling

7

must satisfy the following requirement. A reinforcement soil wall is shown in

Fig.2.2.

i) Has adequate tensile strength

ii) Corrosive resistant

iii) Suitable for friction or bond development

2.3.1.1 Soil properties for reinforced soil wall Granular soil is generally required as backfill materials. It permits easy drainage and

thus results in reduced lateral pressure. Also it develops better strip bond than

cohesive soils.

The key aspect of this type of internally stabilized system is its incremental form of

construction. In effect, the soil mass is partitioned so that each partition receives

support from locally inserted reinforcing element. This process is the opposite that

of a conventional backfilled wall where pressures are integrated to produce an

overall force resisted by the structure.

Fig 2.2 Typical reinforced soil wall (After Bowles, 1997)

8

2.3.1.2 Component and materials used in the reinforced soil wall structure Horizontal layer of compacted soil (sand) and reinforcement are the typical

ingredients employed in the construction of reinforced soil structures. Although not

necessary, a facing is provided in order to prevent localized surface erosion along

the exposed sides of the reinforced soil mass and also to prevent progressive failure

in this type of structure. In reinforced soil wall, the strength of the structure is

mainly attributed to the reinforcement by which adds tensile strength to the soil mass

and by increasing soil strength as a result of confinement (Jewel, 1980). This

eventually enables the construction of stable soil structure.

In the reinforced soil walls various type of facing such as full height panel, sectional

panels, segmental concrete facing “wrap around” facing and other facing such as

timber, brick or gabions are used.

Reinforced soil retaining wall comprises a no. of components which are included

below:-

i) Reinforced fill, ii) Retained fill, iii) Subsoil or situ soil behind the reinforced fill iv) Anchor v) Reinforcing tendons, vi) Facing unit, vii) Drainage system and finally viii) Footing pad

2.3.1.2.1 Reinforced fill

Shear properties of soil can be improved as theoretically any soil could be used to

form reinforced soil structure. For practical purposes, only a limited range of soils is

likely to be used, particularly in vertical faced reinforced soil structures. The choice

of which soil or filling material to use depends upon the technical requirement of the

structure and also upon the basic economics associated with the scheme. For a

vertical faced reinforced soil structure a better quality of filling is likely to be

9

specified in contrast to embankment structure where the whole object of the

reinforcing concept may be to improve existing marginal safety.

The soil used in long-term conventional structures is usually a well graded cohesion

less fill (granular backfill) or alternatively a good cohesive frictional fill, although

purely cohesive soils have been used with success. The advantage of cohesion less

fills is that they are stable, free draining and non-corrosive to reinforcing elements.

Main disadvantage is that it would have to be imported outside and therefore costly.

Whereas cohesive materials are available anywhere in Bangladesh.

Cohesion less soil (frictional fill, granular backfill, granular backfill) is defined as

good quality, well graded non corrosive material usually possessing a good angle of

internal friction. Example of which are crushed rock, river sand or gravel. In U.K

frictional fill is defined (Department of Transport, 1978, BE-3/78) as a material in

which no more than 10% passes a 63 µm BS sieve. Reinforced fill or backfill soil

used for earth work should be frictional or cohesive frictional material and cohesive

fill should not be used in vertical face wall and abutments (BS-8006). But these are

not suitable due to short-term stability and durability of vertical face reinforced soil

construction work.

Cohesive frictional fill (C.F.F) can be defined as material with more than 10%

passing a 63 µm BS sieve (BE-3/78).

Cohesive fills can be used as reinforced fill and may be economical to use. The use

of cohesive soils fall in two separate categories.

a) When cohesive soils fill a vertically faced reinforced soil construction.

b) When reinforcement is provided to improve mechanical properties of soil,

as in the case of a reinforced embankment constructed of marginal material

on top of weak subsoil.

10

2.3.1.2.2 Retained fill No specific guidelines are found in literature on retained soil. In the present study,

stiffness and strength properties of retained soil are considered.

2.3.1.2.3 Subsoil

Subsoil condition is very important for reinforced soil wall. Normally stiffness and

strength properties of retained soil are considered in this study retained soil is so soft

that it cannot sustain any surcharge. To overcome this situation, geotextiles are used

so that settlement of the upper filling soil can be minimized. The geotextile is used

as a mat on the top of pile to transfer the load of filling materials to the lower

stratum.

2.3.1.2.4 Anchors

Flexible linear elements having one or more pronounced protrusions or distortions,

which acts as abutments or anchors in the fill soil. They may be formed from steel,

rope, plastics (textile) or combinations of materials such as webbing and tyres, or

steel and concrete shown in Fig 2.3

Fig 2.3 Reinforcement with anchor plate in Reinforcement Soil Wall

(After Jones, 1996) 2.3.1.2.5 Reinforcing tendons It covers steel, fiberglass, polymer synthetics in the form of sheet, stirrup or grids,

choice of material and the form in which it is used generally dictates the load

transfer mechanism from the soil to the reinforcement. The principal requirements of

reinforcing material are strength and stability (low tendency to creep), durability,

11

case of handling, a high coefficient of friction and or adherence with the soil,

together with low cost and ready availability. Different types of reinforcement are

shown in Fig 2.4

Fig 2.4 Different types of reinforcement used in reinforced soil wall (After jones 1996)

Durability

The reinforcement used must be durable and maintain its integrity over the life

of the structure. Design life of anchored earth structures varies from 20 to 120

years. With the longest life structures, the use of sacrificial thickness on metallic

components is necessary.

Form In order to improve performance, the reinforcement must adhere to the soil or be

shaped that deformation of the soil produces strain in the reinforcement.

Reinforcement can take many forms depending largely on the material

employed. Common forms are sheet, bars, strips, grids and anchors. The forms

shown rely on friction to develop bonds between the soil and reinforcement; the

grid and anchor provide a positive bond by developing an abutment or soil

reinforcement interlock. Considering the case of a strip length I, width B, and the

frictional resistance available from the strip can be developed shown in Fig. 2.5

12

Value of bond between soil and reinforcement is, dTad=T’1-T’2

(Where T’1 and T’2 are shown in Fig. 2.5)

Normal stress on the strip per element of structure =σ’v

Normal force acting on the strip = σ’vdlB

Therefore, tensile force generated in the reinforcement, assuming the coefficient of friction between soil and reinforcement is µ, is expressed as dTad = 2*σ’v*B *dl *µ

Fig 2.5 Development of adhesion on a reinforcing strip (After Jones 1996) Therefore, for no slippage, ‘ µ> (dTad) /( 2*σ’v*B *d) (2 as friction developed in both sides) 2.1

Stress distribution along reinforcement In case of grid reinforcement, width of the reinforcement is not restricted by the

actual material section of the reinforcement but by the dimensions of the transverse

elements and the shear strength of the soil. The mechanism of action of a grid in

providing resistance to slippage (pullout) is not fully understood. Among the

mechanisms proposed are passive resistance (Chang et al; 1977) theory and the

bearing capacity theory (Bishop and Anderson).

Surface properties

For sheets, bars and strips, equation 2.1 indicates that the coefficient of friction

between the reinforcement and soil is a critical property. The higher the friction the

more efficient the reinforcement. Thus an ideally rough bar, strip or sheet is

significantly better than a reinforcement with a smooth surface.

13

Dimensions

The dimensions of the reinforcement must be compatible with the soil conditions

and geometry. The form, strength, stiffness and spacing all will influence the

dimensions chosen.

Stiffness of reinforcing tendon is very important for anchored earth wall. Bending

stiffness has not been shown to have any significant effect on the performance of

anchored earth except in case of reinforcement used as tension membrane over super

soft soil (Jones and Zakaria, 1994).

Longitudinal stiffness has a marked effect on the performance of the wall. The effect

of placing reinforcement in soil in the direction of tensile reinforcement is to restrict

deformation and a force-generated proportional to resultant strain is developed in the

reinforcement. An equilibrium condition is reached which dependent upon the

longitudinal stiffness of the reinforcement and load displacement characteristics of

the soil.

The strain stress characteristics of reinforcement are usually linear (i,e. steel strip

reinforcement); this is not the case with soil. In this case, soil softens once full shear

strength has been mobilized.

Reinforcement distributions

i) Location In order to establish the logical area for the reinforcement, potential failure

mechanisms and planes have to be established together with the associated strain

fields. For optimum effect, reinforcement is positioned within the critical strain

fields in locations of greatest tensile strains. Locations of reinforcement is shown

in Fig. 2.6

Fig 2.6 Position of Reinforcement (After Jones, 1996)

14

ii) Orientations The general theory of behavior of reinforcements in soil presented earlier

emphasizes the importance of reinforcement being placed along the principal

tensile directions developed in the soil alone, under the same stress

condition. In most anchored earth structures reinforcement is placed

horizontally; in vertically faced structures this often results in the

reinforcement being oriented in a near optimum plane although some

research work suggests that optimum plane occurs with reinforcement angled

downwards at 10”-15” from the horizontal (Smith and Birgission, 1979).

iii) Spacing In laboratory tests, Smith (1977) and Jewel (1980a and 1980b) have

established that increasing strength of an anchored earth structure is not

always directly proportional to the number of reinforcing elements in the

system (all other things being constant). The spacing between separate

reinforcing elements affect performance of individual reinforcing members.

2.3.1.2.6 Facing unit In reinforced earth retaining walls, facing units are generally provided to prevent

localized surface erosion and progressive failure. Various kinds of facing have been

developed over the years to suit the structure and the site condition. Of these, most

common are concrete panels, which may be incremental, full height and segmental

and wrap around facing, where the facing is provided by wrapping reinforcement

around the outside of the compacted soil layer.

Facing may be selected to use relatively rigid or flexible and light weight, the latter

is commonly employed to resist low pressure only (Jones, 1993), (Tatsuaka, 1993).

They share a relatively low cost per unit area of exposed surface. Different types of

facing blocks with reinforcement are shown in Fig 2.7.

15

Fig 2.7 Facing block with reinforcement in vertical wall (After Jones, 1996) 2.3.1.2.7 Drainage system Proper drainage system must be incorporated in anchored soil to prevent the

development of excess pore water pressure and unbalanced hydrostatic pressure at

back of facing. Typical drainage systems for retaining walls are shown in Fig 2.8

2.3.1.2.8 Footing pad

Small footing pad under the facing panels is necessary to avoid localized bearing

failure of subsoil. Footing pad also increase the stability of the reinforced soil

structure, which may be made of R.C.C or C.C. Footing pads with different types of

facing units are shown in Fig 2.9

16

Fig 2.8 Drainage system in vertical wall (After Bowles, 1997)

Fig 2.9 Footing pad supporting different types of vertical wall (After Jones, 1996) 2.3.1.3 Mechanism involved in an anchored earth wall

Fig 2.10 shows schematically a number of ways in which reinforcement could retain

an unstable soil mass. To illustrate a general case, the reinforcement strip, mesh, or

sheet is assumed to be attached to an anchor in the stable part of the soil mass;

17

furthermore, structural face elements assist soil retention at otherwise free surface of

the unstable zone.

Movement of the sliding soil mass is resisted by the following phenomena;

Friction and adhesion developed on the surface of that part of the reinforcement,

which lies within the stable zone.

Passive resistance generated by the anchor. This represents symbolically the action

of a real block anchor, corrosion in a mesh, or ribs on reinforcing strip.

Bending and passive resistance occurring where the reinforcement crosses the

boundary between the stable and unstable soil mass.

Fig 2.10 Soil Reinforcement action of a vertical wall (After Hausmann, 1990)

Besides being limited by amount of friction and adhesion or passive resistance

which is developed, the maximum forced which can be transmitted through the

reinforcement is governed by the reinforcement’s own strength. These limiting

conditions correspond to basic causes of internal failure of reinforced soil; rupture of

the reinforcement slippage between the soil and the reinforcement (also interpreted

as failure by pullout), and bearing-type (plastic) failure in the soil.

The driving force of the unstable soil mass which is due to self weight of soil and

surcharge on the structure is transferred to the reinforcement in the following way;

18

Friction and adhesion on the reinforcement and the soil mass.

Earth pressure which induce lateral thrust on the boundary face elements lead to

development of tensile force in reinforcing tendon.

2.3.1.4 Failure of a reinforced earth retaining wall Two types of failure modes are found in a reinforced earth wall. One is an internal failure mode and another is an external type failure mode. 2.3.1.4.1 Internal failure mode

If the major failure plane considered lies outside the reinforced earth mass, failure is termed external and is analyzed following conventional soil engineering practice. Internal failure can occur by rupture of the reinforcement; slippage between the reinforcement and the surrounding soil; rupture, excessive deformation, or buckling of face element; or failure of connection. Different types of internal failure modes are shown in Fig 2.11

Fig 2.11 Internal failure modes of Reinforced Earth Wall (After Jones, 1996) 2.3.1.4.2 External failure modes Deep seated failure, bearing failure, sliding failure, overturning failure are the external failure modes of a reinforced earth wall. Different types of external failure modes are shown in Fig 2.12.

19

Fig 2.12 External failure modes of Reinforced Earth Wall (After Jones 1996)

Vertically faced earth reinforced structures are designed in accordance with the principles of failure modes. For convenience the analysis is performed in the following way.

i) External Stabilities ii) Internal stabilities

External stabilities

This covers the basic stability of the reinforced earth structure as a unit, including sliding, tilt/bearing failure, and slip- within the surrounding subsoil or slips passing through the reinforced earth structure. The external stability check is same as that of the RC cantilever wall system.

Internal stabilities This covers all areas relating to internal behavior mechanics, studies of stress within the structure, arrangement of the reinforcement, durability of the reinforcement and backfill properties. In design terms, internal analysis is associated essentially with adhesion and tension failure mechanics.

20

2.4 ANALYSIS OF EXTERNALLY STABILISED RETAINING STRUCTURES

2.4.1 Analysis of RC Cantilever Wall R.C cantilever wall is the most widely used retaining wall. There are two phases involved in the proper design of a R.C cantilever retaining wall. In the first step, magnitude and location of active earth pressure that will act on the wall are calculated, and finally stability is checked for the whole structure. External stability to checks are required for a RC cantilever wall. The following steps are done to check the stability of a retaining wall.

a) Check for sliding horizontally b) Check for overturning c) Check for bearing capacity d) Check for settlement e) Check for overall stability

Fig 2.13 Initial dimensions and forces for the design of a R.C cantilever wall (After Khan, 2004)

The dimensions shown in the Fig 2.13 are only initial values for stability check. If

these dimensions do not satisfy the factor of safety against all stability checks, the

section are revised. In this design case, hydrostatic pressure was not considered for

21

calculating forces. This would be ensured by considering both the backfill and

retained fill as cohesionless soils and by providing sufficient weep holes.

Here,

γ1, γ2 , γ3, γc = Unit weight of backfill, retained fill, foundation soil and concrete.

φ1, φ 2, φ 3 = Angle of internal friction of backfill, retained fill, foundation soil

C3= Cohesion of foundation soil

D = Depth of embedment of foundation (depends on soil type and loading)

H = Height of the wall from EGL to the foundation level

W = Weight of surcharge on backfill

W = Weight of surcharge on retained fill

Ka= Rankine’s coefficient or active earth pressure

= (1-sin φ)/ (1+sin φ)

Pa1 = Active force due to the retained fill = 0.5 ka

Pa2 = Active force due to the surcharge on retained fill, W

y1 = Vertical distance from base of the wall to the force Pa

y2 = Vertical distance from base of the wall to the force Pa

W1 = Total weight of concrete (stem and base)

W2 = Weight of backfill and surcharge on the backfill

X1 = Horizontal distance from toe to the e.g of W

X2 =Horizontal distance from toe to the e.g of W2

B = Width of base of the retaining wall

2.4.1.1 Check for sliding Factor of safety against horizontal movement that is sliding is found by dividing

sliding resisting force to forces causes sliding at the base. Sliding resisting force is

the product of total downward force on the base of the wall and coefficient of

friction (µ) between the base of the retaining wall and the underlying soil. Sliding

force is typically the horizontal component of lateral earth pressure exerted against

the wall by backfill material.

22

Factor of safety against sliding may be expressed by the equation

F.S (sliding) = (ΣFr)/(ΣFd) ; ≥ 1.5 2.1

Where, FS(sliding) = Factor of safety against sliding at the base

(ΣFr) = Summation of resisting forces against sliding

(ΣFd) = Summation of forces causes sliding at the base

This gives,

F.S (sliding)= {(W1+W2)tanø3+B*C3’}/(Pa1+Pa2); 2.2

Here, φ3 = 2/3 φ3, C3’ =1/2C3 to 2/3 C3

2.4.1.2 Check for overturning Overturning of the wall may occur about the toe that is point A due to the lateral

earth pressures Pa and Pa shown in the Fig 2.13. The factor of safety against such

overturning can be expressed as

F.S(OT)=(ΣMr)/(ΣMo); ≥ 1.5 2.3

Where F.S = Factor of safety against overturning

(ΣMr) = Summation of resisting forces about point A

(ΣMo) = Summation of overturning moment about point A

The Overturning moments about point A can be expressed as

(ΣMo) = (Pa1*y1+Pa2*y2)= (Pa1*y1*H3)+( Pa2*y1*H2)

Similarly Resisting Moments about point A is

(ΣMr) = (W1*X1+ W2*X2)

F.S (OT)=(W1*X1+W2*X2)/(Pa1*y1+Pa2*y2);≥1.5 2.4

2.4.1.3 Check for bearing capacity The vertical pressure that is transmitted to the soil by the base slab of the retaining

wall should be checked against the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil. The nature

of variation of the vertical pressure transmitted by the base slab into soil is shown in

Fig. 2.14. It is noticeable that due to the lateral earth pressure, bearing pressure will

23

be maximum at the end of toe and minimum at the end of heel. The factor of safety

against bearing capacity it then defined as:

F.S (bearing capacity) = qu/qmax. ) ≥ 3 2.5

Where, F.C (bearing) = Factor of safety against bearing capacity failure

qu = Ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soil

qmax. = Maximum pressure at the base of the wall

The sum of the vertical forces acting on the base slab is equal to (ΣW1+W2)

Here Ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soils is

qu = C3Nc+γ3DNq+0.5B γ3Ny

The maximum pressure at the base of the wall at toe will be

= Σ(W1+W2)/B)*(1+6e/B)

Fig 2.14 Maximum and minimum Pressure in the base of a wall (After Khan, 2004) Similarly the minimum pressure at the base of the wall at heel will be

= (ΣW1+W2)/B)*(1+6e/B)

Thus the equation 2.6 can be expressed as

F.S (bearing capacity)

= (C3Nc+γ3DNq+0.5B γ3Ny )/{ (ΣW1+W2)/B)*(1+6e/B)} 2.6

24

Where, Nc, Nq and Ny= Bearing capacity factors

e= Eccentricity of the resultant force at the base

The net moment of these forces about the point A in Fig 2.14 is equal to

Mnet = (ΣMr-ΣMo) 2.7

Let the line of action of the resultant, R, intersect the base slab at A, a shown in Fig

2.28 The distance AE can now be determined as

AE= X = Mnet/(ΣW1+W2) 2.8

Hence the eccentricity of the resultant, R, can be expressed as

e= B/2-AE

e= B/2-(ΣMr-ΣMo)/ (ΣW1+W2)); <= B/6, So, That no tension occurs

When e becomes greater than B/6, qmin becomes negative. This indicates that there

will be some tensile stress at the end of the heel section. This stress is not desirable

because tensile stress of soil is very small. For e> B/6 then the design should be re

proportioned and calculation should be rechecked.

Once the bearing capacity of the soil has been calculated than the factor of safety

against bearing capacity failure can be determined.

In addition to these three types of failure mode of retaining walls, other two types of

failure may also occur; one is shallow shear failure and the other one is deep shear

failure.

1) Shallow shear failure in soil below the base of a retaining wall takes places along

a cylindrical surface abc passing through the heel. This type of failure occurs for the

excessive induced shear stress along the cylindrical surface in soil. This type of

failure is shown in Fig 2.15 (a).

2) Deep shear failure can occur along a cylindrical surface abc shown in Fig 2.15(b)

as the result of existence of a weak layer of soil underneath the wall at a depth of

about 1.5 times of the height of wall.

25

Fig. 2.15a. Shear failure Fig. 2.15b. Deep shear failure in foundation (After Das 1990) (After Das 1990) 2.5 ANALYSIS OF INTERNALLY STABILIZED WALL Following types of externally stabilized walls are normally used around the world, these are

1) Metal strip Wall 2) Geogrid Wall 3) Anchored Earth Wall 4) Geotextiles Wall

2.5.1 Design Considerations for a Metal Strip Reinforced Wall

First step for designing a Metal Strip retaining structure is to determine magnitude

and location of active earth pressure that acts on the wall. The metal strip that is used

in the MS walls is inextensible in nature and its stress-strain behavior is not sensitive

to time and temperature.

Here reinforcing strips are dimensioned for the horizontal pressure Ph, face panels

are also designed to withstand pressure Ph. In addition to the external stability

checks as described for RC cantilever wall in the earlier section, the design of MS

wall require checks against rupture of reinforcement under operating loads and

check against bond length of reinforcement into the passive zone so that they do not

pullout under external loading. The minimum depth of embedment D for such walls

must be 0.1H, BS 8066(1995) and AASHTOO (1997).

26

Fig.2.16 Geometry and forces of for the design of M.S. wall (After khan 2004)

2.5.1.1 Safety against rupture of reinforcement Each strip is assumed to have to resist the resultant of the earth pressure acting over

an area equivalent to the product of the average vertical and horizontal spacing of

the strips, designated as Sh and Sv shown in fig.2.16

The factor of safety against reinforcement rupture may be expressed by

FS(R) = Td/Ti = (2.5 to 3)

where,

FS(R) = Factor of Safety against reinforcement rupture

Td = Allowable design strength of rebar

= w t fy

Here, w = Width of metal reinforcement

t = Thickness of metal strip reinforcement

27

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

= Kar((γ1hi + WSi )*Sv*Sh

Kar = (1 - sinφ)/(1 + sinφ)

hi = Depth of ith layer of reinforcement from EGL

= Rankine’s passive earth pressure coefficient.

= (1 + sinφ)/(1 – sinφ)

Td = Allowable design strength of reinforcement

= As * fy

As =X- sectional area of circular rebar (sacrificial thickness given in)

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

2.5.1.2 Safety against pullout failure

The Factor of Safety against pullout of the reinforcements from the passive zone due

to external loading may be estimated by the following:

FS(p) = Tr / Ti ; (2.5 to 3.0 for metal strip and 1.5 for geotextile)

where, FS(p) = Factor of safety against pullout

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

(described earlier )

Tr = Pullout resisting force mobilized by the length lpi of reinforcement in

the passive zone.

= 2*lpi * w * σvi * tan φµ

lpi = Length of reinforcement in the passive zone ; > 1.0m

[AASHTO (1997), Koerner (1997)]

σvi = Total vertical pressure at ith layer of reinforcement

φµ = Soil – reinforcement friction angle

= 2/3 φ1 (usually).

It may be noted that once the length of embedment, lp is determined at any level of

reinforcement, the total length of reinforcement, lr can be estimated as lr = la + lp ;

la being the length of reinforcement in the active zone as shown in Fig. 2.17 Koerner

(1997) and AASHTO (1997) specify that the minimum length of reinforcement

should be 0.6H to 0.7H.

28

2.5.2 Design Considerations for a Geogrid Reinforced Wall The horizontal force which may be exerted by a soil mass lying on top of a

horizontal geogrid may fail by sliding outward. This is prevented if adequate

outward friction is developed at the interface (any adhesion which may exist is

usually ignored in the analysis). The relevant friction angle lies between the extreme

values of φ (internal friction angle) of soil (completely rough behavior) and the

minimum skin friction angle δ mobilized between the soil and the polymer surface.

For a solid smooth surface, friction angle would be minimum. For a grid with

openings of size equivalent to the grain size of the soil, rough friction characteristics

are likely. For a grid with large openings appropriate friction δs for sliding is

expected. By using the concept of an area ratio Ar,

Where, Ar = Pan area of grid material/Total area

We could then stipulate

Tanδs = Ar tanδ + (1-Ar) tanφ

2.5.2.1 Mechanism of pullout resistance of Geogrids Grids are relatively large openings; commercial products seem to have openings in

the range of 1 cm or more in width. The anchorage strength or pullout resistance is a

result of three separate mechanisms. One is the shear strength along the top and

bottom of the longitudinal ribs of geo grid. The second is the shear strength

contribution along the top and bottom of the transverse ribs. The third mechanism is

the passive resistance against the front of the transverse ribs.

29

Fig.2.17 Mechanism of pullout resistance in Geogrid (After Koerner 1977)

In this mechanism soil goes into a passive state and resists pullout by means of

bearing capacity . This type of mechanism is shown in the above fig.2.17

2.5.2.2 Calculation of internal stability Total horizontal pressure that are exerted by soil mass and surcharge loads are

σh = σh+σhq

Here σh due to soil pressure

σhq due to surcharge pressure

= γzkar+ qkar

Kar = tan2 (45-φr/2)

Calculation of vertical spacing-

Tdes = Svσs/Cr ( Cr = Coverage ratio)

Or, Sv = TdesCr/ σh

From this, Sv is found as.

Cr is known

σh = Already calculated

Tdes = Tallow/FS

30

Tallow = Ultimate strength/partial factors

= Tult/(PFid*PFcr*PFed*PFbd)

Here,

PFid = partial factor for installation damage (1.1 to 1.5)

PFcr = partial factor for creep (2.0 to 2.5)

PFed = partial factor for chemical degradation (1.0 to 1.3)

PFbd = partial factor for biological degradation (1.0 to 1.2)

i) Calculation of Total Length: Total length will be embedment length plus

non-acting Rankine length

ii) Calculation of embedment length: Le

= Sv* σh*FS pullout = 2x Le*Ci* σvtanø*Cr

From above equation Le can be found by

Le= (Sv*σh*FS pullout) / (2*Ci*σv tanφ *Cr)

iii) Calculation of non-acting Rankine length : Lr

Lr = (H-z) tan(45-φ/2)

iv) Total length of geogrid is

L = Le+ Lr

2.5.3 Design Considerations for a Geotextile Reinforced Wall

First step for designing a Metal Strip retaining structure is to determine magnitude

and location of active earth pressure that will active on the wall. In the GT walls,

geotextiles are used as reinforcements. The stress strain stress-strain behavior is

highly time and temperature dependent.

Here reinforcing strips are dimensioned for the horizontal pressure Ph, face panels

are also designed to withstand pressure Ph. In addition to the external stability

checks as described for RC cantilever wall in the earlier section, the design of GT

wall require checks against rupture of reinforcement under operating loads and

check against bond length of reinforcement into the passive zone so that they do not

pullout under external loading. The minimum depth of embedment D for such walls

must be 0.1H, BS 8066(1995) and AASHTOO (1997).

31

Fig.2.18 Geometry and forces of for the design of GT walls (After khan, 2004)

2.5.3.1 Check for rupture of reinforcement Each strip is assumed to have to resist the resultant of the earth pressure acting over

an area equivalent to the product of the average vertical and horizontal spacing of

the strips, designated as Sh and Sv shown in fig.2.18

The factor of safety against reinforcement rupture may be expressed by

FS(R) = Factor of safety against reinforcement rupture

=Td/Ti = (1.3 to 1.5)

Td = Allowable design strength of reinforcement (geotextile)

=Tallow/FS

= Tult/(PFid*PFcr*PFed*PFbd)

32

Here,

PFid = partial factor for installation damage (1.1 to 1.5)

PFcr = partial factor for creep (2.0 to 2.5)

PFed = partial factor for chemical degradation (1.0 to 1.3)

PFbd = partial factor for biological degradation (1.0 to 1.2)

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

= Kar((γ1hi + WS1 )*Sv*Sh

Kar = (1 - sinφ)/(1 + sinφ)

hi = Depth of ith layer of reinforcement from EGL

Kpr = Rankine’s passive earth pressure coefficient. = (1 + sinφ)/(1 – sinφ)

Sv = Vertical spacing of reinforcement = hf (usually)

Sh= Horizntal spacing of reinforcement = Wf (usually)

Hf = height of facing block

Wf = width of facing block

2.5.3.2 Check against pullout failure

The Factor of Safety against pullout of the reinforcements from the passive zone due

to external loading may be estimated by the following:

FS(p) = Tr / Ti ; (1.5 for geotextile)

where, FS(p) = Factor of safety against pullout

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

Tr = Pullout resisting force mobilized by the length lpi of reinforcement in

the passive zone.

= 2*lpi * w * σvi * tan φµ

lpi = Length of reinforcement in the passive zone ; > 1.0m

[AASHTO (1997), Koerner (1997)]

σvi = Total vertical pressure at ith layer of reinforcement

φµ = Soil – reinforcement friction angle

= 2/3 φ1 (usually).

33

It may be noted that once the length of embedment, lp is determined at any level of

reinforcement, the total length of reinforcement, lr can be estimated as lr = la + lp ;

la being the length of reinforcement in the active zone as shown in Fig. 2.31 Koerner

(1997) and AASHTO (1997) specify that the minimum length of reinforcement

should be 0.6H to 0.7H.

2.5.4 Design Considerations for an Anchored Earth Wall

Anchored sheet pile walls or anchored bulkhead are a type of retaining wall found in

waterfront construction, which is used to form wharves or piers for loading and

unloading ships or barges. The construction of such walls is accomplished by first

driving the sheet piling into the soil to a designated depth and then attaching a tie

rod support near or at the upper end of the pile and anchoring it to concrete blocks

(deadmen). Anchorage for sheet piling may be obtained from reinforcement or sheet

metal. The concrete blocks (usually square and of necessary length) which is casted

in place or precast are embedded in the soil to some depth. Instead of using a

concrete blocks of some length, a row of sheet piling that is similar to the supported

wall but of shorter length may be driven. Usually one level of tie suffices for heights

of around 10m. More than one anchor may be necessary for higher walls in order to

reduce the tie force or to decrease the bending moment or deflection of the sheet

piles. An anchored earth wall is shown in Fig. 2.19

Fig. 2.19 Anchored earth wall showing anchor and filling materials

(After Bowles, 1997)

34

2.5.4.1 Design approach of anchored earth wall Design approach of an anchored earth wall is similar to that of a metal strip or

geotextile walls. Here external stability analysis and internal stability analysis are

also similar to those of metal strip or geotextile walls. However in AE walls, the

resistance against pullout is mobilized solely by the anchor blocks located at the end

of reinforcement and seated in the deeper passive zone. The analysis method and

guidelines suggested by Jones (1996), BS 8006 (1995) and NAVFAC (1982) may be

adopted for the design of a AEWs. The minimum depth of embedment for such

walls must be 0.IH, BS 8006 (1995)

Fig.2.20 Geometry and forces for the design of AEW (After khan, 2004)

35

2.5.4.1.1 Check for rupture of reinforcement Each tie rod is assumed to resist the resultant of the earth pressure acting over an

area equivalent to the area of facing block, which is connected by it. Generally the

spacing of tie rod in vertical and horizontal direction is designated as Sv and Sh

shown in Fig 2.20. where,

FS(R) = Factor of Safety against reinforcement rupture

Td = Allowable design strength of rebar

Where, F.S (R) = Factor of safety against reinforcement rupture = Td/Ti

Td = Allowable design strength of reinforcement = As * fy

As =X- sectional area of circular rebar (sacrificial thickness given in

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL

2.5.4.1.2 Check against pullout failure

The Factor of Safety against pullout of reinforcements via pullout of anchor blocks

may be given by:

FS(p) = Tr / Ti ; >2.5 to 3.0

where, FS(p) = Factor of safety against pullout

Ti = Maximum tensile force in a reinforcement at hi depth from EGL (described earlier)

Tr = Pullout resisting force mobilized by passive pressure on anchor block.

= 4* Kp * σv * wb* hb 2.9

Kp = Rankine’s passive earth pressure coefficient.

= (1 + sinφ)/(1 – sinφ)

σv = (γ1hi + WSi)

wb = Width of the anchor block.

hb = Height of the anchor block.

It may be noted that the resistance offered by the rebar is usually insignificant and

hence ignored in estimating the Factor of Safety against pullout. The length of

reinforcement at any level is determined by the location of the anchor block in the

passive zone. For full passive resistance to mobilize, it is suggested that the anchor

36

blocks be placed outside the surface making an angle φ with the horizontal,

NAVFAC (1982).

Fig.2.21 Rankine’s failure surface (After NAVFAC, 1982)

In a review of design method for anchored earth walls, Chonkar (2001) shows that

the anchor blocks may be placed beyond the potential failure plane. It is, however,

not clearly specified about how far from the potential failure plan should the anchor

blocks be placed.

An anchored reinforced earth called Nehemiah wall in Malaysia was chosen for

instrumentation and monitoring works, Ali, Bujang and Lee (2008). In this wall, the

anchor blocks were placed outside of 450 line.

Let us say maximum resisting force on concrete face is C times of product of

Rankine’s passive earth pressure coefficient, effective earth pressure and resisting

surface area of anchor block. Hence equation-2.9 might be written as –

Tr = C× Kp × σv × wb× hb 2.10

The distance of anchor block from face of the retaining wall is expressed in terms of

angle β, where the angle of failure surface with horizontal may be defined as β.

37

2.5.4.2 Anchor block size

After selection of size and length of tie bar it is necessary to select a particular size

of block which will face the designed pressure through tie rod and placed in the soil

out sides of the active zone. For a block of size hb and wb passive pressure in the

block is

Pp = 4* Kp *(γ’ *hi + Ws) * hb *wb 2.11

Again tensile force in tie rod is Ti is calculated earlier, we will be resisted by this

block.

For a given factor of safety F.S., Pp is

Pp = F.S. * Ti

From the Pp value thickness of block can be chosen. Anchor block with position is

shown in figure. 2.22

Fig.2.22 Location of Anchor blocks to carry the lateral load. (After Hausman, 1997) 2.6 PULLOUT TEST PERFORMED BY PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS Koerner (1988) suggested the following considerations that are important for a soil pullout test box setup:

i. The test box must be deep enough to permit soil deformation above and below the reinforcement as it pulls out of the soil mass. This requires 300mm of soil above and below the reinforcement.

38

ii. The test box must be long enough to allow for the applied stress on the reinforcement to dissipate fully. A box at least 1.0m long is necessary.

iii. This large test box functioning at a high normal stress , requires a strongly braced and supported system

iv. Reinforcement being quite strong will require a high strength withdrawal system for the actual pullout to occur

Mak and Ganendran (2001) studied progressive failure that occurred along the

interface of soil-geosynthetics with internal measuring devices such as mounting

strain gauges and tell-tales on the embedded reinforcement; and sometimes by

comparing pullout test result from different apparatuses. A series of parametric

studies were performed to examine the influence of factors such as pullout box

length, front boundary, characteristic of soil reinforcement system on progressive

interface failure. Pullout box length 1.0m to 3.0m, width 0.5m, depth 0.60m has

been analysed. The front boundary includes length of the exit sleeve used. The

influence of soil models has also been included. This study indicates all three factors

have a significant impact on the as measured pullout response.

Pamuk et al. (2001) studied the long term interaction and pullout behavior of

geogrid embedded in clay subjected to sustained and repeated loads. Pullout box of

length 0.6m, width 0.2m, depth 0.3m has been used in this study.

Pullout box designed and constructed based on size and configuration have been

recommended by several researchers (Ingold,1983; Rowe et al., 1985, Palmeria,

1987; Juran, 1988; Wilson-Fahmy et al., 1994; Mallik et al., 1995; Ochiai et al.,

2001; Aiban & Ali, 2001; Teixeira et al., 2001; Frrag and Morvant, 2004;

Abdelrahman et al., 2007). These pullout tests were originally carried out for the

purpose of clarifying the pullout mechanism of the reinforced soil. The method of

preparing the sample, soil utilized, reinforcement material, testing procedure and the

size of the pullout test apparatus were among the factors studied.

39

Islam, (2008) studied on laboratory assessment of soil-jute geotextile interaction

behavior. In this study, pullout test has been conducted in a glass tank of size

1.20mX0.90mX0.90m .

To investigate horizontal pullout resistance of concrete anchor blocks at different

locations within the sand backfill, in this research work, procedure on pullout test

and pullout box has been used and described by Islam (2008).

A number of frames were connected to each other by providing necessary bolting

and /or welding. The 900mm deep box has an inside dimension of 1200mm x

900mm.

The longer two sides and shorter front sides were bounded by 6 mm thick

transparent fiber glass sheets where 3 mm thick MS sheets were used on the shorter

back sides on the bottom of box. The sleeve plates were 50 mm in width, they were

used to minimize the lateral stress transfer to the rigid front wall of the pullout box.

The sleeves were located at 400 mm height above the base of the box. The glass

sheet were supported on flat sides of mild steel angle frame and screwed with the

frame in order to prevent any damage of glass sheet walls during loading. Silicon

rubber was pasted between the edges to have a leak proof box. An elevated brick

platform of height 1250 mm from floor level were provided at the bottom of the box

to rest over it. The platform facilitates the free vertical displacement of pulling rod

during holding of loading weight disk on it. A smooth friction less steel roller was

mounted on pullout box frame in the shorter front sides. The roller allows a

frictionless movement of reinforcing GI wire over it while applying the pulling

force. A general view of pullout box is shown in Figure 2.23

Many researchers have discussed about pullout box, which are shown in following

schematic diagram. Figure 2.23 to 2.27 showing the different size and types of

pullout apparatus were used by the researchers for conducting laboratory pullout

test.

40

Fig.2.23 A general view of pullout box (Size 1.2m x 0.90m x 0.90m) (After Islam, 2008)

Fig.2.24 Elevation view of pullout box (Size 1.90m x 0.91 m x 1.10m)

(After Koerner, 1998)

1.90m

0.45m

0.55m

1.10m

0.10m

Hydraulic Jak

Length(variable)

41

Fig.2.25 Plan view of pullout box (Size 1.90m x 0.91 m x 1.10m) (After Koerner, 1998)

Fig.2.26 Elevation view of pullout box (Size 1. 0m x 1.0 m x 1. 0m)

42

Fig.2.27 Elevation view of pullout box (Size 1.2m long) (After Islam, 2008)

43

CHAPTER THREE LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND PULLUT TEST SETUP 3.1 GENERAL The present research is carried out to investigate the horizontal pullout resistance of concrete anchor block in sand backfill. These pullout tests were conducted in a pullout box at different position of anchor blocks. All the pullouts were conducted at a constant height of sand fill. The physical properties of the sand used were determined using ASTM test methods. The maximum and minimum density of the sand sample were determined by conventional ASTM method. Direct shear test were conducted on air dry sand sample to determine the angle of internal friction. After determining the physical and strength properties, the sand spreader was calibrated for its height. All work were carried out in this research are presented through a flow chart as shown in Figure 3.1. In total, thirty six pullout tests were performed. All the tests were performed in a constant height of sand back fill without surcharge load. Anchor block were placed over the 400mm deep sand fill measured from the bottom of pullout box. In preparation of the sand fill in the pullout box, initially base sand was formed into the box using the sand spreader. Following steps has been followed in this research works:

Design and Construction of Pullout Box [Fabrication of pullout box with steel frame (Size: 1.2m x 0.9m x 0.9m)]

Sample collection: (i) Sand (ii) Brick chips (iii) Plain bar (M.S.)/GI wire (iv) Cement

Laboratory test on: (i) Index properties of Sand ( Grain size, Maxm

and minm

density , Specific gravity ) (ii) Direct shear test of sand (iii) Tensile strength test of steel re-bar/ GI wire (iv) Compressive strength test (cylinder test) of Concrete

Preparation of mortar and, to make concrete anchor blocks. Size: Length 150mm, height 150mm and thickness 75mm.

Step- 1

Step- 3

Step- 2

Step- 4

44

Fig 3.1 Steps involved carrying out in the research work 3.2 COLLECTION AND SELECTION OF SAND SAMPLES The sand samples which are used for dredged fill and in construction work were collected and selected for the pullout test from stack yard of Pagla, Narayangonj, Bangladesh.

(i) Calibration of sand Spreader/Sand Screener for the determination of relation of height of falling

(ii) Place the concrete anchor block in the pullout box over the sand bed.

Filling the pullout box with sand above concrete anchor block of a particular height (400mm) maintaining specific height of falling

Step- 5

Step- 6

Step- 7 Apply the pulling force on concrete anchor block by reinforcing wire through pulling rod, load disk are placed on pulling rod.

Step- 8 Record the pullout force versus displacement reading until the pullout slip of concrete block occurred. Repeat the filling of pullout box, place the anchor block and test carried at different position of concrete block.

Step- 9 Plot the graph of applied pullout force vs displacement and Coefficient ( C ) vs angle(β).

Step-10 Determination of coefficient ( C ) of pullout resisting force from graph

45

3.3 TESTS PERFORMED ON SAND

The grain size and density properties, specific gravity, direct shear test etc. were

carried out in the laboratory to determine the index and shear strength

properties. All the properties are tested and followed by ASTM standard

method. These are shown in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Test Performed on Sand in the Research Work ASTM Test Name ASTM

Designation Properties to be Determined

Grain size Distribution (Sieve Analysis)

D 422-63 Physical Properties

Specific gravity of Soil D 854-98 Physical Properties Direct Shear Test D 3080-98 Shear Strength Properties Maximum and Minimum Density Test

D 4253, D4254 00(2006)

Physical Properties

3.4 TESTS PERFORMED ON CONCRETE

Compressive strength of concrete are tested and followed by ASTM standard

method. These are shown in Table 3.2

Table 3.2Test Performed on Concrete in the Research Work ASTM Test Name ASTM

Designation Properties to be Determined

Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens

C39

Compressive strength of concrete to be determined

3.5 TESTS PERFORMED ON GI WIRE

Universal tensile testing machine were used for determining tensile strength of

GI wire.

46

3.6 PULLOUT TEST OF ANCHOR BLOCK 3.6.1 Experimental Setup The experimental setup consists mainly of a model pullout box made with fiber

glass sheet, a sand screener used as a sand spreader, brick columns to make

platform to place the box on it, a pulling rod to hold the loading disk, a

frictionless smooth roller/pulley mounted on the box front in order to smooth

rolling of reinforcing GI wire during apply of pulling force on it.Figure.3.6

shows schematic diagram of pullout test box.

A number of frames were connected to each other by providing necessary

bolting and /or welding. The 900mm deep box has an inside dimension of

1200mm x 900mm.

The longer two sides and shorter front sides were bounded by 6 mm thick

transparent fiber glass sheets where 3 mm thick MS sheets were used on the

shorter back sides on the bottom of box. The sleeve plates 50 mm in width were

used to minimize the lateral stress transfer to the rigid front wall of the pullout

box. The sleeves were located at 400 mm height above the base of the box. The

glass sheet were supported on flat sides of mild steel angle frame and screwed

with the frame in order to prevent any damage of glass sheet walls during

loading. Silicon rubber was pasted between the edges to have a leak proof box.

An elevated brick platform of height 1250 mm from floor level was provided at

the bottom of the box to rest over it. The platform facilitates the free vertical

displacement of pulling rod during holding of loading weight disk on it. A

smooth friction less steel roller was mounted on pullout box frame in the shorter

front sides. The roller allows a frictionless movement of reinforcing GI wire

over it while applying the pulling force

47

A pull rod made of 16 mm dia mild steel bar bend at top as a hook in order to

attach the mild steel clamp gripping the GI wire as shown in Figure 3.11. It

shows how the bottom of the pulling rod was plugged with a steel plate to resist

the pullout force applied by a slotted loading weight disk.

3.6.2 Calibration of the Sand Spreader/ Screener Calibration of the sand spreader/ screener used in the study was conducted. The

density of sand deposited by sand spreader/ screener depends on the width of

gap through which the sand falls. i.e. the height of fall ( Abedin, 1986). In the

present investigation the gap width of the sand spreader/screener were

maintained fixed throughout the sand deposition procedure. As such, the density

could be considered to be a function of height of fall only. Figure 3.5 shows

general view of density pot for determination of density at different height of

falling.

In order to calibrate the sand spreader/ screener for density against height of

fall, eight cylindrical density pots of 77mm diameter and 50.8mm height were

placed in the bed of pullout box. After deposition the pots were then removed

from box and weighted after leveling the surface using a straight edge.

3.6.3 Sand Bed Formation The pullout box brought to such a position under the sand spreader that it

covered the whole box area. During operation, the swaying of the sand

spreader/screener was prevented by top level and mid level bracing bolted with

the vertical threaded stand of the spreader. The initial height of the screener was

adjusted by using the nuts of threaded stand of the spreader. After approximate

50mm of deposition the sand spreading were stopped and the screener was

raised to keep a constant height of fall and the sand was spread again. The

operations of pouring, spreading and raising were continued until the depth of

deposition is slightly higher than the required layer thickness.

48

The excess sand beyond the desired layer thickness was pushed to the edge of

the box and eventually removed with the help of a flat bottom shovel. During

leveling operation a sprit level was used to check the top level of the layer. The

required depth was obtained by adjusting the control of nuts of the sand leveling

apparatus.

For the entire testing program, the sand bed was formed up to a desired depth.

The reinforcing anchored block was then laid on the top of the level of sand bed

before the addition of more soil. Required depth of sand was sprayed from the

spreader over reinforcing layer. The excess sand beyond the desired layer

thickness was removed by using a leveling apparatus.

3.6.4 Pullout Test Procedure Pullout tests were conducted to investigate the horizontal pullout resistance of

concrete anchor block in sand backfill in the laboratory. The sand used in the

investigation was air dry sand collected from the stack yard of Pagla,

Narayangonj, Bangladesh. A concrete block was used (size: 150x150x75mm)

and 3x1.8mmφ, Gauge# 14 GI wire used as reinforcing materials.

The sand was poured from the sand spreader which was discussed in earlier

articles. The pullout box was filled up to level of the sleeve. The anchored

blocks were placed horizontally in between the sleeve and measurements of the

length were taken carefully. Flexible foams were used at the face of pullout box

before pouring sand into it. After positioning and pouring the box with sand, the

pullouts were taken over frictionless pulley.

A series of slotted circular weight disks of 10 kg/disks as shown in Figure 3.11

were mounted on the pull rod to apply a pullout force through the frictionless

pulley. Weights were placed vertically on the pan of the pull rod to pull the

anchored block. Vertical displacements were measured by placing a steel

49

measuring scale between the pan of pull rod and floor level. Weights were then

increased gradually to record the exact shearing pullout force, which was the

cause of the anchored block slip or failure against sand particles.

This process was continued for different pullout forces to obtain the

corresponding shearing forces at different position of anchor. Fig. 3.7 shows

that anchored block placed at different position in pullout box. Graphs for

applied shearing force/ pullout force versus resisting pullout force, and

Coefficient (C) versus angle were plotted to obtain the relation C with the angle

of position of anchor to be placed.

Fig. 3.2 General view of measuring slump from slump cone test

50

Fig. 3.3 General view of cylinder after casting of concrete

Fig. 3.4 General view of preparation of concrete anchor block

51

Fig. 3.5 General view of density pot for determination of density at different height of falling of sand

52

Fig. 3.6 Schematic diagram of pullout test setup

Fig. 3.7 Schematic diagram showing anchor block placed at different position

53

Fig. 3.8 Schematic diagram of sand spreader/ sand screener (Plan)

Fig. 3.9 Schematic diagrams of sand spreader/ sand screener (Elevation)

54

Fig. 3.10 Air drying of sand sample

Fig. 3.11 General view of experimental setup for pullout test

55

Fig. 3.12 Spreading of sand on sand screener

Fig. 3.13 General view showing anchor block with pulling wire

56

Fig. 3.14 General view showing flexible foam for lateral displacement

Fig. 3.15 Measuring vertical displacement by a steel tape

57

Fig. 3.16 General view of pullout test showing slotted circular weight disk

Fig. 3.17 Top view of sand surface after pullout test showing displacement of Sand

58

CHAPTER FOUR TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 GENERAL This chapter presents the results of pullout tests performed on anchor blocks

placed at different position in sand backfill in the large size pullout box. The

sand used is dry sand.

The laboratory test results of mechanical, physical and shear strength properties

of sand and pullout test of anchor blocks are presented in this chapter with

discussion.

4.2 SPECIFIC GRAVITY Specific Gravity of different soil samples are found within the range of 2.62 ~

2.70 according to the method as described in the ASTM D 854-98.

Table 4.1 Specific Gravity of the Soils as per ASTM D854-98

Sample No. Sample type Specific Gravity Fineness modulus (FM)

S1 Sand 2.70 0.73

S2 Sand 2.68 1.50

S3 Sand 2.62 2.50

4.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Effective grain size D10 are found within 0.075 mm ~ 0.190 mm. Fineness

modulus (FM) is ranges from 0.73 to 2.50. Fine contents (material passing

through ASTM # 200 sieve) of sand are 1% ~ 9%. According to unified soil

classification system the sand tested fall into group SP (poorly graded sands)

clean sand.

Range of Uniformity Coefficient, Cu and Coefficient of curvature, Cc are found

within 2.12 ~ 4.65 and 0.86 ~ 1.31 respectively.

Grain size distribution curve of sand is shown in Fig.4.1a, 4.1b and 4.1c

59

Table 4.2 Grain Size Properties of the Soils as per ASTM D422-63 Sample No.

Specific Gravity

% of sand

Fines or % of silt and clay

Effective grain size, Dia D10 (mm)

Fineness modulus (FM)

Uniformity Coefficient ( Cu)

Coefficient of curvature (Cc)

S1 2.70 91 9 0.075 0.73 2.67 1.31

S2 2.68 98 2 0.170 1.50 2.12 0.86

S3 2.62 99 1 0.180 2.50 4.65 1.00

Fig. 4.1a Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =0.73

Fig. 4.1b Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =1.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.010.101.0010.00

Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Grain size, mm

Sample,1Sample,2Sample,3

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.010.101.0010.00

Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Grain size, mm

Sample,1Sample,2Sample,3

60

Fig. 4.1c Grain size distribution curve for sand FM =2.5

4.4 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DENSITY A number of trials were made and maximum void ratio of these trials was

recorded as emax and the corresponding density as γmin.

Minimum dry density of soil at loosest condition was found 12 ~ 14 kN/m3 for

corresponding void ratio of 1.13 ~ 0.73 and for densest condition values were

16 ~ 18 kN/m3 and 0.66 ~ 0.42 respectively.

Table 4.3 Maximum and Minimum Density of Sand as per ASTM D4253, D4254- 00(2006) Sample No.

Loosest Condition Densest Condition

γd min ( KN/m3

) emax γd max ( kN/m3

) emin

S1 12.43 1.13 15.98 0.66

S2 13.33 0.97 16.74 0.57

S3 14.79 0.73 18.10 0.42

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.010.101.0010.00

Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Grain size, mm

Sample,1Sample,2Sample,3

61

4.5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of varying normal stress

are shown in Fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.3 shows the normal stress versus shear stress for

sand from which the internal friction angle can be obtained by measuring the

slope. According to ASTM D3080-98 direct shear test method shear strength

parameters Φ are found 37.20, 43.90 and 44.80 for the sand FM ( fineness

modulus) of 0.73,1.5 and 2.50 respectively.

Table 4.4 Shear strength properties from direct shear test as per ASTM D3080-98

Sample No. Specific Gravity

Fineness modulus

(FM) Peak angle of internal

friction (φ 0 p) S1 2.70 0.73 37.20

S2 2.68 1.50 43.90

S3 2.62 2.50 44.80

Fig. 4.2a Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of

varying normal stress, FM =0.73

0

0.4

0.8

0.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.4

τ/σ

Shear Displacement(mm)

σn =30.96 KN/m2

σn =61.93 KN/m2

σn =92.90 KN/m2

62

Fig. 4.2b Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of

varying normal stress, FM =1.5

Fig. 4.2c Shear stresses against shear displacement for dry sand of varying normal stress, FM =2.5

Shear Stress (kN/m2)

0

0.5

1

0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.4

τ/σ

Shear Displacement(mm)

σn =30.96 KN/m2

σn =61.93 KN/m2

σn =92.90 KN/m2

0

0.5

1

0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.3

τ/σ

Shear Displacement(mm)

σn =30.96 KN/m2

σn =61.93 KN/m2

σn =92.90 KN/m2

63

Fig. 4.3a Normal stress versus shear stress, FM =0.73

Fig. 4.3b Normal stress versus shear stress, FM =1.5

φ =37.20

Shea

r Stre

ss (k

N/m

2 ) Sh

ear S

tress

(kN

/m2 )

φ =43.90

y = 0.758xR² = 0.999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Normal Stress (kN/m2)

y = 0.961xR² = 0.999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Normal Stress (kN/m2)

64

Fig. 4.3c Normal stress versus shear stress, FM =2.5 4.6 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST OF CONCRETE ASTM D3080-98 described concrete making method. A steel cylinder (6 inch

diameter and 12 inch height) was used to perform this test. It is observed 1 inch

slump of this concrete. The seven days strength of concrete was 1900 psi and 28

days crushing strength of concrete was 2462 psi.

Table 4.5 Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens as per ASTM C39 Sl No. 7 days Crushing Strength 28 days Crushing Strength

psi MPa psi MPa 1 1900 13.13 2462 16.98

4.7 TENSILE STRENGTH TEST OF GI WIRE The tensile force carrying capacity of GI wire was observed by universal tensile

strength testing machine. GI wire (Gauge#14) was used to perform pullout test.

The tensile force capacity of gauge#14 GI wire observed from strength test in

each phase was 0.89KN.

φ =44.80

Shea

r Stre

ss (k

N/m

2 ) y = 0.995xR² = 0.999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Normal Stress (kN/m2)

65

Table 4.6 Tensile strength of GI wire

Sl No. Wire No (Gauge).

Cross sectional size (dia)

Tensile force capacity Stress lb kN MPa

G1 12 2.50 mm 400 lb 1.78 362 G2 14 1.80 mm 200 lb 0.89 350 G3 16 1.50 mm 120 lb 0.53 302

4.8 CALIBRATION OF THE SAND SPREADER/ SCREENER The density of sand deposited by sand spreader/ screener depends on the width

of gap through which the sand falls. In order to calibrate the sand spreader/

screener for density against height of fall, eight cylindrical density pots of

77mm diameter and 50.8mm height were placed in the bed of pullout box. The

volume of each pot was calculated. The calibration was performed using

different heights ranging from 700mm to 1050mm. The variation of density

against height of fall are shown in figure.4.4 From the calibration of sand

spreader maximum density are obtained for 850 to 900 mm height of fall of dry

sand.

Table: 4.7 Maximum density and height of fall

Sample No.

FM of sand

Height of fall at maximum density

Relative density

Maximum density at height of fall

(mm) (Dr) % kN/m3

S1 0.73 850 70 14.74 S2 1.5 900 72 15.62 S3 2.5 850 85 17.51

66

Fig. 4.4 (a) Calibration of sand spreader, FM =0.73

Fig. 4.4b Calibration of sand spreader, FM =1.5

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

14.00 14.20 14.40 14.60 14.80 15.00

Hei

ght o

f fal

l (m

m)

Density of sand (kN/m3)

Maximum Density =14.74 kN/m3

Relative density, Dr = 70 %at Height of fall = 850 mm

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

14.70 14.90 15.10 15.30 15.50 15.70

Hei

ght o

f fal

l (m

m)

Density of sand (kN/m3)

Maximum Density =15.62 kN/m3

Relative density, Dr = 72 %at Height of fall = 900 mm

67

Fig. 4.4c Calibration of sand spreader, FM =2.5

4.9 PULLOUT TEST RESULTS Pullout tests were conducted to investigate the horizontal pullout resistance of

concrete anchor block in sand backfill in the laboratory.

This process was continued for different pullout forces to obtain the corresponding shearing forces at different position of anchor block were placed. Figure 4.5 to 4.16 shows pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement at different angle (β) and different fineness modulus (FM). Figure 4.17 shows Pullout resistance, (PR) versus FM, Figure 4.18 shows Pullout resistance, (PR) versus angle of concrete anchor block, Figure 4.19 shows Coefficient ( C ) versus fineness modulus (FM) and Figure 4.20 shows the Coefficient, (C) versus Angle of Concrete Anchor Block, ( β ) with the horizontal to obtain the relation C with the angle of position of anchor block to be placed.

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

14.70 14.90 15.10 15.30 15.50 15.70

Hei

ght

of

fall

(mm

)

Density of sand (kN/m3)

Maximum Density =15.62 kN/m3

Relative density, Dr = 72 %at Height of fall = 900 mm

68

Table 4.8.1 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =200 , FM =0.73) Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 5 0.3001 7 0.3001 6 0.3001 0.3001 6 0.3982 8 0.3982 7 0.3982 0.3982 7 0.4962 10 0.4962 9 0.4962 0.4962

10 0.5943 11 0.5943 11 0.5943 0.5943 11 0.6924 12 0.6924 12 0.6924 0.6924 13 0.7904 14 0.7904 15 0.7904 0.7904 15 0.8885 16 0.8885 15 0.8885 0.8885 16 0.9866 17 0.9866 17 0.9866 0.9866 19 1.0847 19 1.0847 20 1.0847 1.0847 24 1.1827 25 1.1827 25 1.1827 1.1827 27 1.2808 29 1.2808 29 1.2808 1.2808 32 1.3789 35 1.3789 31 1.3789 1.3789 37 1.4769 37 1.4769 39 1.4769 1.4769 45 1.5750 43 1.5750 45 1.5750 1.5750 55 1.6731 53 1.6731 47 1.6731 1.6731 65 1.7711 63 1.7711 60 1.7711 1.7711

85 1.8692 80 1.9673 85 1.9182 1.9182

147 1.9673 140 2.0654 145 1.9673 2.0000

Fig. 4.5 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=200 and FM=0.73)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Pullo

ut re

sista

nce ,

kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =1.92kN

69

Table 4.8.2 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =300 , FM =0.73)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1039542 0 0.1039542 0.1040 2 0.2020 2 0.2020242 2 0.2020242 0.2020 2 0.3001 3 0.3000942 2 0.3000942 0.3001 10 0.3982 12 0.3981642 8 0.3981642 0.3982 12 0.4962 12 0.4962342 12 0.4962342 0.4962 15 0.5943 15 0.5943042 14 0.5943042 0.5943 20 0.6924 18 0.6923742 18 0.6923742 0.6924 22 0.7904 20 0.7904442 20 0.7904442 0.7904 24 0.8885 25 0.8885142 22 0.8885142 0.8885 26 0.9866 28 0.9865842 25 0.9865842 0.9866 30 1.0847 30 1.0846542 28 1.0846542 1.0847 34 1.1827 32 1.1827242 32 1.1827242 1.1827 37 1.2808 35 1.2807942 35 1.2807942 1.2808 40 1.3789 40 1.3788642 37 1.3788642 1.3789 45 1.4769 45 1.4769342 44 1.4769342 1.4769 52 1.5721 55 1.5750042 53 1.5750042 1.5750 60 1.6701 60 1.6730742 62 1.6730742 1.6731 70 1.7682 68 1.7711442 68 1.7711442 1.7711 80 1.8663 82 1.8692142 85 1.9182492 1.9182

180 1.9643 182 1.9672842 188 1.9672842 2.0000

Fig. 4.6 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=300 and FM=0.73)

PR' = WbW

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pullo

ut re

sist

ance

, kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

β

Average,PR =1.88kN

70

Table 4.8.3 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block

(at β =450 , FM =0.73) Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.10 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.20 4 0.3001 2 0.3001 6 0.3001 0.30 6 0.3982 5 0.3982 7 0.3982 0.40 9 0.4962 10 0.4962 9 0.4962 0.50 11 0.5943 11 0.5943 11 0.5943 0.59 15 0.6924 14 0.6924 12 0.6924 0.69 20 0.7904 18 0.7904 15 0.7904 0.79 25 0.8885 22 0.8885 15 0.8885 0.89 32 0.9866 30 0.9866 17 0.9866 0.99 41 1.0847 40 1.0847 20 1.0847 1.08 52 1.1827 52 1.1827 25 1.2318 1.22 240 1.2808 242 1.3298 29 1.2808 1.30

Fig. 4.7 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=450 and FM=0.73)

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Pullo

ut re

sist

ance

, kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =1.22kN

71

Table 4.8.4 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block

(at β =600 , FM =0.73)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.10 3 0.2020 4 0.2020 5 0.2020 0.20 4 0.3001 5 0.3001 8 0.3001 0.30 10 0.3982 10 0.3982 12 0.3982 0.40 18 0.4962 15 0.4962 14 0.4962 0.50 22 0.5453 20 0.5943 19 0.5453 0.59 67 0.5943 70 0.6924 68 0.5943 0.69 147 0.6924 145 0.7904 150 0.6924 0.79

Fig. 4.8 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=600 and FM=0.73)

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Pullo

ut re

sista

nce ,

kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =0.56kN

72

Table 4.8.5 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block

(at β =200 , FM =1.5) Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 0 0.3001 2 0.3001 4 0.3001 0.3001 1 0.3982 10 0.3982 5 0.3982 0.3982 2 0.4962 11 0.4962 10 0.4962 0.4962 4 0.5943 13 0.5943 12 0.5943 0.5943 5 0.6924 15 0.6924 15 0.6924 0.6924 7 0.7904 17 0.7904 17 0.7904 0.7904 9 0.8885 18 0.8885 18 0.8885 0.8885 10 0.9866 20 0.9866 23 0.9866 0.9866 14 1.0847 21 1.0847 25 1.0847 1.0847 15 1.1827 22 1.1827 28 1.1827 1.1827 16 1.2808 25 1.2808 30 1.2808 1.2808 17 1.3789 28 1.3789 35 1.3789 1.3789 20 1.4769 31 1.4769 37 1.4769 1.4769 21 1.5750 34 1.5750 38 1.5750 1.5750 25 1.6731 38 1.6731 40 1.6731 1.6731 29 1.7711 42 1.7711 44 1.7711 1.7711 35 1.8692 46 1.8692 50 1.8692 1.8692 40 1.9673 52 1.9673 55 1.9673 1.9673 45 2.0624 55 2.0654 57 2.0654 2.0644

105 2.1605 100 2.1634 98 2.1634 2.1624 185 2.2586 175 2.2615 185 2.2615 2.2605

Fig. 4.9 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=200 and FM=1.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pullo

ut re

sistan

ce , k

N

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR=2.06 kN

73

Table 4.8.6 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =300 , FM =1.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 4 0.3001 4 0.3001 4 0.3001 0.3001 5 0.3982 5 0.3982 5 0.3982 0.3982 10 0.4962 10 0.4962 10 0.4962 0.4962 12 0.5943 12 0.5943 12 0.5943 0.5943 15 0.6924 15 0.6924 15 0.6924 0.6924 17 0.7904 17 0.7904 17 0.7904 0.7904 18 0.8885 18 0.8885 18 0.8885 0.8885 23 0.9866 23 0.9866 23 0.9866 0.9866 25 1.0847 25 1.0847 25 1.0847 1.0847 28 1.1827 28 1.1827 28 1.1827 1.1827 35 1.2808 35 1.2808 35 1.2808 1.2808 40 1.3789 40 1.3789 40 1.3789 1.3789 45 1.4769 45 1.4769 45 1.4769 1.4769 50 1.5750 50 1.5750 50 1.5750 1.5750 55 1.6731 55 1.6731 55 1.6731 1.6731 68 1.7711 68 1.7711 68 1.7711 1.7711 85 1.8692 85 1.8692 85 1.8692 1.8692

100 1.9673 100 1.9673 100 1.9673 1.9673 175 2.0624 180 2.0654 175 2.0654 2.0644

Fig. 4.10 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=300 and FM=1.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pullo

ut re

sist

ance

, kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average PR=1.97kN

74

Table 4.8.7 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =450 , FM =1.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 2 0.2020 0 0.2020 2 0.2020 0.2020 3 0.3001 3 0.3001 2 0.3001 0.3001 6 0.3982 5 0.3982 5 0.3982 0.3982 10 0.4962 7 0.4962 6 0.4962 0.4962 11 0.5943 11 0.5943 10 0.5943 0.5943 12 0.6924 12 0.6924 12 0.6924 0.6924 13 0.7904 14 0.7904 13 0.7904 0.7904 13 0.8885 19 0.8885 15 0.8885 0.8885 16 0.9866 20 0.9866 16 0.9866 0.9866 20 1.0847 22 1.0847 19 1.0847 1.0847 28 1.1827 28 1.1827 30 1.1827 1.1827 35 1.2808 39 1.2808 37 1.2808 1.2808 45 1.4279 50 1.4279 48 1.3789 1.4116

125 1.4769 128 1.4769 124 1.4769 1.4769 205 1.5750 202 1.5750 200 1.5750 1.5750

Fig. 4.11 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=450 and FM=1.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Pullo

ut re

sist

ance

, kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR=1.41 kN

75

Table 4.8.8 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =600 , FM =1.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 2 0.3001 3 0.3001 5 0.3001 0.3001 7 0.3982 6 0.3982 9 0.3982 0.3982 10 0.4962 9 0.4962 10 0.4962 0.4962 15 0.5943 15 0.5943 17 0.5943 0.5943 17 0.6924 19 0.6924 20 0.6924 0.6924 35 0.7904 34 0.7904 30 0.7904 0.7904

102 0.8885 100 0.8885 104 0.8885 0.8885 195 0.9866 190 0.9866 200 0.9866 0.9866

Fig. 4.12 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=600 and FM=1.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225

Pullo

ut re

sist

ance

, kN

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =0.79 kN

76

Table 4.8.9 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =200 , FM =2.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 1 0.3001 1 0.3001 1 0.3001 0.3001 2 0.3982 3 0.3982 2 0.3982 0.3982 6 0.4962 5 0.4962 5 0.4962 0.4962 10 0.5943 7 0.5943 10 0.5943 0.5943 11 0.6924 11 0.6924 11 0.6924 0.6924 13 0.7904 13 0.7904 12 0.7904 0.7904 15 0.8885 15 0.8885 15 0.8885 0.8885 16 0.9866 16 0.9866 17 0.9866 0.9866 17 1.0847 17 1.0847 20 1.0847 1.0847 19 1.1827 20 1.1827 23 1.1827 1.1827 23 1.2808 22 1.2808 25 1.2808 1.2808 24 1.3789 24 1.3789 27 1.3789 1.3789 25 1.4769 25 1.4769 28 1.4769 1.4769 26 1.5750 26 1.5750 29 1.5750 1.5750 27 1.6731 27 1.6731 30 1.6731 1.6731 28 1.7711 28 1.7711 31 1.7711 1.7711 30 1.8692 30 1.8692 32 1.8692 1.8692 33 1.9673 33 1.9673 33 1.9673 1.9673 36 2.0654 35 2.0654 37 2.0654 2.0654 40 2.1634 41 2.3105 40 2.3596 2.2778

105 2.2615 100 2.3596 95 2.4576 2.3596

Fig. 4.13 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=200 and FM=2.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

0 25 50 75 100 125

Pullo

ut R

esis

tanc

e , k

N

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =2.28kN

77

Table 4.8.10 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =300 , FM =2.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 3 0.2020 1 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 8 0.3001 2 0.3001 3 0.3001 0.3001 10 0.3982 8 0.3982 11 0.3982 0.3982 13 0.4962 13 0.4962 13 0.4962 0.4962 14 0.5943 16 0.5943 14 0.5943 0.5943 16 0.6924 17 0.6924 18 0.6924 0.6924 18 0.7904 18 0.7904 20 0.7904 0.7904 22 0.8885 21 0.8885 22 0.8885 0.8885 24 0.9866 23 0.9866 24 0.9866 0.9866 25 1.0847 25 1.0847 26 1.0847 1.0847 27 1.1827 28 1.1827 27 1.1827 1.1827 30 1.2808 30 1.2808 29 1.2808 1.2808 33 1.3789 34 1.3789 34 1.3789 1.3789 38 1.4769 39 1.4769 38 1.4769 1.4769 40 1.5721 40 1.5750 41 1.5750 1.5740 42 1.6701 43 1.6731 42 1.6731 1.6721 44 1.7682 44 1.7711 44 1.7711 1.7702 46 1.8663 48 1.8692 48 1.8692 1.8682 50 1.9643 50 1.9673 52 1.9673 1.9663 53 2.0624 52 2.0654 53 2.0654 2.0644 58 2.1605 56 2.3105 58 2.2615 2.2442

168 2.2586 173 2.3596 178 2.3596 2.3259

Fig. 4.14 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=300 and FM=2.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pullo

ut R

esis

tanc

e , k

N

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =2.24kN

78

Table 4.8.11 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =450 , FM =2.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.10395 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.20202 5 0.3001 5 0.3001 2 0.3001 0.30009 7 0.3982 7 0.3982 4 0.3982 0.39816 10 0.4962 10 0.4962 5 0.4962 0.49623 11 0.5943 12 0.5943 10 0.5943 0.59430 13 0.6924 13 0.6924 12 0.6924 0.69237 15 0.7904 15 0.7904 16 0.7904 0.79044 18 0.8885 18 0.8885 19 0.8885 0.88851 20 0.9866 20 0.9866 22 0.9866 0.98658 22 1.0847 22 1.0847 25 1.0847 1.08465 25 1.1827 25 1.1827 26 1.1827 1.18272 32 1.2808 32 1.2808 30 1.2808 1.28079 40 1.3789 38 1.3789 36 1.3789 1.37886 45 1.5260 42 1.5750 38 1.5750 1.55866

205 1.5750 200 1.6731 210 1.6731 1.64038

Fig. 4.15 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=450 and FM=2.50)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Pullo

ut R

esis

tanc

e , k

N

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =1.56kN

79

Table 4.8.12 Pullout resistance and displacement of concrete anchor block (at β =600 , FM =2.5)

Displacement (mm), δ and Pullout Resistance (kN), PR

TEST-1 TEST-2 TEST-3 Average

PR δ PR δ PR δ PR

0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0 0.1040 0.1040 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0 0.2020 0.2020 1 0.3001 1 0.3001 1 0.3001 0.3001 2 0.3982 2 0.3982 2 0.3982 0.3982 4 0.4962 4 0.4962 3 0.4962 0.4962 5 0.5943 5 0.5943 4 0.5943 0.5943 6 0.6924 6 0.6924 5 0.6924 0.6924 7 0.7904 8 0.7904 8 0.7904 0.7904 10 0.9375 12 0.9866 12 0.9375 0.9539

130 0.9866 140 1.1827 135 1.0847 1.0847

Fig. 4.16 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus displacement (at β=600 and FM=2.50)

Table 4.8.13 Summary of pullout resistance, PR

FM φ0 Average Pullout Resistance(kN), PR

from test at angle, β0

β=200 β=300 β=450 β=600

0.73 37.2 1.92 1.88 1.22 0.56

1.5 43.9 2.06 1.97 1.41 0.79

2.5 44.9 2.28 2.24 1.56 0.95

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Pullo

ut R

esis

tanc

e , k

N

Displacement, mm

Test No.1

Test No.2

Test No.3

Average,PR =0.95kN

80

Calculation of Coefficient, C : Here, Pullout resisting force, PR from laboratory test

PR = 4Kp(γv x H+Ws) WbWh Or, PR = C*Kp(γv x H+Ws) WbWh Hence, PR = C*X, Where, X= Kp(γv x H+Ws) WbWh So, Coefficient, C =PR/X, Where, PR is Pullout resisting force from laboratory test.

Table 4.9.1 Calculation of ‘X’ (FM=0.73)

φ0 Kp γv H Ws Wb Wh ‘X’

kN/m3 m kN/m2 m m kN37.2 4.051 14.74 0.40 0.00 0.152 0.152 0.55

Table 4.9.2 Calculation of Coefficient, C from laboratory tests (FM=0.73)

Angle, β0 X

Pullout Resistance, PR from test (kN)

Coefficient, ( C )

= PR/ X

20 0.55 1.92 3.48 30 0.55 1.88 3.41 45 0.55 1.22 2.21 60 0.55 0.56 1.01

Table 4.10.1 Calculation of ‘X’ ( FM=1.5)

φ0 Kp γv H Ws Wb Wh ‘X’

kN/m3 m kN/m2 m m kN43.9 5.513 15.62 0.40 0.00 0.152 0.152 0.80

Table 4.10.2 Calculation of Coefficient, C from laboratory tests (FM= 1.5)

Angle, β0 X

Pullout Resistance, PR from test (kN)

Coefficient, ( C )

= PR/ X

20 0.80 2.06 2.59

30 0.80 1.97 2.47

45 0.80 1.41 1.77

60 0.80 0.79 0.99

81

Table 4.11.1 Calculation of ‘X’ (FM=2.5)

φ0 Kp γv H Ws Wb Wh ‘X’ kN/m3 m KN/m2 m m kN

44.8 5.788 17.51 0.40 0.00 0.152 0.152 0.94

Table 4.11.2 Calculation of Coefficient, C from laboratory tests (FM= 2.5)

Angle, β0 X

Pullout Resistance, PR from test (kN)

Coefficient, ( C )

= PR/ X

20 0.94 2.28 2.43 30 0.94 2.24 2.39 45 0.94 1.56 1.67 60 0.94 0.95 1.01

Table 4.12 Coefficient, C with FM and Angle (β0) with horizontal

Angle β0 Coefficient, C FM=0.73 FM=1.5 FM=2.5

20 3.48 2.59 2.43

30 3.41 2.47 2.39 45 2.21 1.77 1.66

60 1.01 0.99 1.01

Fig. 4.17 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus FM

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

Pullo

ut R

esis

tanc

e (k

N) ,

P R

FM

β=20

β=30

β=45

β=60

0

0

0

0

82

Fig. 4.18 Pullout resistance, (PR) versus angle of concrete anchor block, ( β ) with the horizontal

Fig. 4.19 Coefficient, ( C ) versus FM

Fig. 4.20 Coefficient, (C) versus angle of concrete anchor block, ( β ) with the horizontal

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Pullo

ut R

esist

ance

(kN

),PR

Angle of concrete angle block , (β0) with horizontal

FM=0.73

FM=1.5

FM=2.5

0.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.753.003.253.503.75

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Coef

ficie

nt, C

FM

β = 20β = 30β = 45β = 60

0

0

0

0

0.000.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.753.003.253.503.75

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Coe

ffic

ient

, C

Angle of concrete anchor block, (β0) with horizontal

FM=0.73

FM=1.5

FM=2.5

83

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL The laboratory assessment for determination of horizontal pullout resistance of

concrete anchor blocks in sand backfill as well as to find out the correlation

between coefficient (C) and angle (β) with the horizontal is main concern of this

study. The present research is mainly concentrated on pullout test carried out in

laboratory in large pullout tank. Three types of sand were selected for pullout

test. Total thirty six numbers of pullout tests were performed by placing the

anchor block at different four locations in same line of position in the pullout

box. The test method has been discussed elaborately in Chapter three. The test

results with discussions were presented in chapter four.

5.2 CONCLUSIONS ON TEST RESULTS From laboratory tests, it has been seen that maximum resisting force of concrete

anchor block is not always four times the Rankine’s passive earth pressure

coefficient, effective earth pressure and resisting surface area of anchor block. It

may vary with soil property and distance of anchor block from wall.

The coefficient, C varies with FM and angle β. C-value decreases with increase

of β when FM is constant. Again C is higher for low FM soil at fixed β. C

increases significantly when FM is below 1.5. C decreases rapidly for β greater

than 30°. For β greater than 60°, C is almost same for all gradation of soil and

for β below 30°, any further decrement causes insignificant increment of C.

Hence, fine sand of fineness modulus around 1.0 for backfill soil and β ranging

from 60°~30° may be recommended for AEW design. If space in passive zone

is available then β close to 30° is more preferable. However, economic

condition and availability of space in passive zone behind wall facing should be

kept in mind while designing AEW.

84

C- Value for FM 0.73 and 20° β is 3.50. For finer gradation of soil and a

considerable increase in distance of anchor block from wall is necessary for

higher C-Value such as 4; which may be impractical and uneconomic. C-Value,

which is assumed 4 in equation-2.9, thus seems high and may be discouraged.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

1. More pullout tests need to be conducted on varieties of soil types and different size of anchor blocks in order to study the horizontal pullout resistance of concrete anchor blocks in sand backfill.

2. It is necessary to know the effect of pullout resistance for soil types in different moisture content.

3. Pullout test for higher surcharge loading condition needs to be investigated.

A hydraulic jack can be used for applying pullout forces in case of higher surcharge pressure.

4. Pullout tests on concrete anchor blocks can be performed in submerged condition following both drained and undrained condition.

85

REFERENCES Abedin, M. Z., “ Eccentrically loaded strip footing on a sand layer overlay, a rigid stratum”, Ph. D. thesis, University of Strathclyde, U. K.,1986. Adanur, S., Gowayed, Y., Elton, D., Goswami, B., Wang, Y., and Ghosh, T., “Design and characterization of geotextile for high performance applications”, National Textile Center Annual Report, September,1994. Akter, M. B., “Design, construction, economic and performance aspects of anchored earth retaining walls – a case study” , M Eng thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, 2006. ASTM D 422-63, “Standard test method for determining grain size distribution of soil”. ASTM D 854-98, “Standard test method for determining specific gravity of soil”. ASTM D3080-98, “Standard test method for direct shear test of soil”. ASTM D 6706-01,“Standard test method for measuring geosynthetic pullout resistance in soil”., 2007. Bureau of Research Testing and Consultation, BUET, “Design and construction supervision of an anchored retaining wall at the ACME building premise”, 2002. Bureau of Research Testing and Consultation, BUET, “Design and construction supervision of an anchored retaining wall for establishing a sub-station of Dhaka electric supply authority at Narayanganj ”, 2003. Ching, F. D., Faia., R., S., & Winkel, P. , Building Codes Illustrated: A Guide to understanding the 2006 international building code (Building Codes Illustrated) (2 ed.). New York, NY: Wiley., 2006 Chonkar, R.R., “Review of design of reinforced earth retaining walls for flyovers” , The Indian Concrete Journal, December 2001. Faisal, Hj Ali., Bujang, B.K. Huat and Lee Chee Ha, “Field behavior of a high anchored reinforced earth wall”, American Journal of Environmental Sciences Vol- 4 (4) ISSN 1553-345X, pp 297-302, 2008. Khan, A. J. and Sikder, M., “Design basis and economic aspects of different types of retaining walls”, Journal of Civil Engineering, The Institution of Engineers, Bangladesh., Vol-CE 32, No. 1, pp 17-34, 2004. Koerner, R.M.,“ Designing with geosynthetics”, Fourth edition, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey., 1997.

86

Koerner, R.M., “ Designing with geosynthetics”, Fourth edition, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey., 1998. Islam, S.S., “ Laboratory assessment of soil-jute geotextile interaction behavior”, M Eng thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, 2008. NAVFAC, “Foundations and earth structures”, Department of the Navy, Naval Faculties Engineering Command, DM 7.2, 1982.

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

87

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Sieve Analysis

Date: 29/05/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms)= 100 Sample No: 1 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.7

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 525.300 525.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 491.900 491.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 16 1.180 426.000 426.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 99.9 30 0.600 402.200 402.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 99.4 50 0.300 375.200 382.5 7.3 7.3 7.9 92.1

100 0.149 354.8 411.1 56.3 56.3 64.2 35.8 200 0.074 350.7 377.4 26.7 26.7 90.9 9.1

PAN 364.2 373.3 9.1 9.1 100.00 72.80

From above data: F.M.= 0.73 Sand = 91 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 9

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.075 0.14 0.18 0.2

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.31 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.31 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

88

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 29/05/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms) = 150 Sample No: 2 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.7

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve

Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 525.3 525.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 491.9 491.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

16 1.180 426.0 426.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 99.9 30 0.600 402.2 402.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 99.7 50 0.300 375.2 397.5 22.3 14.9 15.2 84.8 100 0.149 354.8 418.8 64.0 42.7 57.9 42.1 200 0.074 350.7 400.1 49.4 32.9 90.8 9.2 PAN 364.2 378.0 13.8 9.2 100.0 0.0

Total = 150.00 73.47

From above data: F.M.= 0.73 Fine sand

= 91 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Fines or % of silt and

clay = 9

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.075 0.13 0.17 0.2

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.13 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.13 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

89

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 29/05/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms) = 200 Sample No: 3 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.7

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve

Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 525.3 525.30 0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 491.9 491.90 0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0

16 1.180 426.0 426.10 0.10 0.05 0.1 100.0 30 0.600 402.2 402.80 0.60 0.30 0.4 99.7 50 0.300 375.2 390.60 15.40 7.70 8.1 92.0 100 0.149 354.8 468.00 113.20 56.60 64.7 35.4 200 0.074 350.7 405.60 54.90 27.45 92.1 7.9PAN 364.2 380.00 15.80 7.90

Total = 200.00 73.10

From above data: F.M.= 0.73 Fine sand = 92 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 8

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.075 0.14 0.18 0.2

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.31 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.67 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.31 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

90

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 21/04/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms)= 50 Sample No: 1 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.68

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 517.800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 492.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

16 1.180 425.700 426.4 0.7 1.4 1.4 98.6 30 0.600 402.200 403.6 1.4 2.8 4.2 95.8 50 0.300 375.200 399.6 24.4 48.8 53.0 47.0 100 0.149 354.8 375.1 20.3 40.6 93.6 6.4 200 0.074 347.8 349.5 1.7 3.4 97.0 3.0 PAN 361.1 362.6 1.5 3.0

50.00 152.20

From above data: F.M.= 1.5 Sand = 98.5 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 1.5

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.37

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.84 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.18

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.18 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.84 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

91

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 21/04/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms)= 100 Sample No: 2 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.68

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve

Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 517.8 517.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 492.0 492.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

16 1.180 425.7 426.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 99.2 30 0.600 402.2 404.6 2.4 2.4 3.2 96.8 50 0.300 375.2 424.6 49.4 49.4 52.6 47.4 100 0.149 354.8 395.3 40.5 40.5 93.1 6.9 200 0.074 347.8 352.7 4.9 4.9 98.0 2.0 PAN 361.1 363.2 2.1 2.1 100.1 -0.1

Total = 100.10 149.70

From above data: F.M.= 1.5 Fine sand

= 98 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Fines or % of silt and

clay = 2

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.17 0.22 0.31 0.36

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.79 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.12

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.12 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.79 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

92

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 21/04/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms) = 150 Sample No: 3 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.68

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve

Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 517.8 517.80 0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0 8 2.360 492.0 492.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0

16 1.180 425.7 426.80 1.10 0.73 0.7 99.3 30 0.600 402.2 406.70 4.50 3.00 3.7 96.3 50 0.300 375.2 449.15 73.95 49.30 53.0 47.0 100 0.149 354.8 415.55 60.75 40.50 93.5 6.5 200 0.074 347.8 355.15 7.35 4.90 98.4 1.6PAN 361.1 364.25 3.15 2.10

Total = 150.80 151.03

From above data: F.M.= 1.5 Fine sand = 98 As per Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 2

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.36

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.86 Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.12

Cu =D60 / D10 = 2.12 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.86 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

93

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 7/7/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms)= 100 Sample No: 1 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.62

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 764.3 764.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 99.8 8 2.360 491.8 496.1 4.3 4.3 4.5 95.5 16 1.180 426.2 442.6 16.4 16.4 20.9 79.1 30 0.600 403.1 432.7 29.6 29.6 50.5 49.5 50 0.300 375.2 401.6 26.4 26.4 76.9 23.1

100 0.149 354.9 375.1 20.2 20.2 97.1 2.9 200 0.074 349.5 351.1 1.6 1.6 98.7 1.3 PAN 364.1 365.4 1.3 1.3

100.0 250.10

From above data: F.M.= 2.50 Sand = 98.7 As per Unified Soil Classification Sytem (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 1.3

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.17 0.36 0.60 0.76

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.00 Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.47

Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.47 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.00 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

94

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 7/7/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms)= 150 Sample No: 2 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.62

Sieve no.

Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve

Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained

(gm) % retained 4 4.760 764.3 764.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 99.8 8 2.360 491.8 498.2 6.4 4.3 4.5 95.516 1.180 426.2 450.5 24.3 16.2 20.7 79.3 30 0.600 403.1 447.5 44.4 29.6 50.3 49.7 50 0.300 375.2 414.9 39.7 26.5 76.7 23.3

100 0.149 354.9 386.7 31.8 21.2 97.9 2.1 200 0.074 349.5 352.1 2.6 1.7 99.7 0.3 PAN 364.1 364.6 0.5 0.3 100.0 0.0

Total = 150.0 250.27

From above data: F.M.= 2.5Fine sand = 99.7 As per Unified Soil Classification Sytem (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 0.3

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.17 0.37 0.6 0.79

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.02 Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.65

Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.65 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 1.02 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

95

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratorySieve Analysis

Date: 7/7/2012 Soil Sample: Sand Wt of sample (gms) = 200 Sample No: 3 Sp.Gr of soil = 2.62

Sieve no. Opening Size

Wt. Of Sieve Wt. Of Sieve+ Wt. Of Soil %retained Cumulative % Finer

(mm) (gm) Soil(gm) retained (gm) % retained4 4.760 764.3 764.50 0.20 0.10 0.1 99.9 8 2.360 491.8 500.30 8.50 4.25 4.4 95.7 16 1.180 426.2 459.20 33.00 16.50 20.9 79.2 30 0.600 403.1 462.30 59.20 29.60 50.5 49.6 50 0.300 375.2 428.50 53.30 26.65 77.1 22.9

100 0.149 354.9 395.70 40.80 20.40 97.5 2.5 200 0.074 349.5 352.70 3.20 1.60 99.1 0.9 PAN 364.1 365.90 1.80 0.90

Total = 200.00 250.35

From above data: F.M.= 2.5Fine sand = 99.1 As per Unified Soil Classification Sytem (USCS)

Fines or % of silt and clay = 0.9

D10 = D30 = D50 = D60 =

Other Features/ Parameter: 0.18 0.36 0.60 0.78

Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.92 Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.33

Cu =D60 / D10 = 4.33 ≤ 6 Cc =(D30)2 /D60 x D10 = 0.92 ie, 1≤ in between ≤ 3

Comments: Poorly Graded Sand

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

96

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryName of Test: Maximum & Minimum Density Test

Soil Sample: Sand Date: 29/05/2012 Diameter of mold = 152.4 mm

Height of mold = 152.4 mm

Volume of mold = 2780 cc

LOOSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3)1 7170 3660 3510 2780 1.26

12.43 2 7200 3660 3540 2780 1.27 3 7180 3660 3520 2780 1.27

DENSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3) 1 7200 3660 3540 2174 1.63

15.98 2 7210 3660 3550 2174 1.63 3 7200 3660 3540 2174 1.63

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

97

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryName of Test: Maximum & Minimum Density Test

Soil Sample: Sand Date: 25/04/2012

Diameter of mold = 150 mm

Height of mold = 150 mm

Volume of mold = 2651 cc

LOOSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3) 1 7270 3670 3600 2642 1.36

13.33 2 7260 3670 3590 2648 1.36 3 7265 3670 3595 2647 1.36

DENSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3) 1 7420 3670 3750 2208 1.70

16.74 2 7450 3660 3790 2210 1.71 3 7440 3670 3770 2208 1.71

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

98

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryName of Test: Maximum & Minimum Density Test

Soil Sample: Sand Date: 7/7/2012

Diameter of mold = 152.4 mm

Height of mold = 152.4 mm

Volume of mold = 2780 cc

LOOSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3) 1 7850 3660 4190 2780 1.51

14.79 2 7860 3660 4200 2780 1.51 3 7850 3660 4190 2780 1.51

DENSEST STATE

Reading Wt. of mold +

soil Wt. of mold

Wt. of soil

Volume of mold Density

Average density

No. (in gm) (in gm) (in gm) (cc) (gm/cc) (kN/m3) 1 7860 3660 4200 2274 1.85

18.10 2 7850 3660 4190 2275 1.84 3 7860 3660 4200 2274 1.85

APDa

C

CC

C

CCC

C

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Cylinder Castin

Cylinder CrushConcrete Age :

Cylinder No

HC

No. 1 2 3

Cylinder CastinCylinder CrushConcrete Age :

Cylinder No

HC

No. 1 2 3

f Test Resul

Banglade

Com

ng Date:

hing Date:

Height of Cylinder

mm

305 305 305

ng Date: hing Date:

Height of Cylinder

mm

305 305 305

lts

esh UniversityDepartm

Cmpressive stren

21/04/2012

28/04/2012 7 days

Area of Cylinder

mm2

1874718869 18626

21/04/2012 19/05/2012 28 days

Area of Cylinder

mm2

18747 18869 18747

99

y of Engineerment of Civil E

Concrete Laborngth test of co

Observed

Load

KN

200230 220

Observed

Load

Ton

33 30 31

ring & TechnoEngineering

ratory ncrete (Cylind

Crushing Load

KN

229260 249

Crushing Load

Ton

34 31 32

ology, Dhaka

der Test)

Crushin

g strength s

f'c , N/mm2 12.24 13.75 13.39

Crushin

g strength s

f'c , N/mm2 17.92 16.19 16.84

a

Averag

e strength

f'c ( Mpa)

13.13

Average

strength f'c

(Mpa)

16.98

APDa

NI

I

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample

Normal Stress(Initial Wt of ca

soil = Initial Wt of ca

soil =

Wt of soil used

IDFD

Reading Elap

timNo. (Sec1 2 13 34 45 66 77 98 19 1

10 1

f Test Resul

Bangladesh

e: San

(σn) 30.9an +

365an +

238

d = 127

DR 405DR= 396

psed me

Sheadisp

cond) Dial(d0 0

15 1330 2845 4460 6275 7990 9605 11420 13837 150

lts

h University ofDepartmen

Geotechnical

Data Sheet

d

96 kN/m2

5 gm

8 gm

7 gm

5 6

ar p.

Shear disp.

ivn) (mm) 0.00

0.33 0.71 1.12 1.57 2.01 2.44

4 2.90 8 3.51 0 3.81

100

f Engineering &nt of Civil Engi

Engineering L

for Direct ShDate:

Proving RinCalibrat

Specimen H(mm)

Specimen D:

Area of spe(mm2)

Sample volucc :

Density (kNVoid RatiPorosity (

Specific grRelative den

%)

Normal Dial

Dial(divn) 396 394 395 399 404 408 412 416 418 421

& Technologyineering

Laboratory

hear Test 5/6

ng No. : 17tion Factor : y Height : 2

Dia(mm) 6

ecimen ): 31ume in

8N/m3) 1io (e) 0(n %) 0avity :

nsity (Dr

Normal disp.

ProR

(mm) Dia0.00 -0.05 -0.03 0.08 0.20 0.30 0.41 0.51 0.56 0.64

, Dhaka

6/2012

7910 = 0.20636+0.3

26.7

63.5

66.93

4.56 4.73

0.80 0.44 2.7

70

oving Ring

Sheaforce

al(divn) (N) 0 0.92

20 27.8835 48.1045 61.5851 69.6754 73.7156 76.4155 75.0652 71.0150 68.32

30239x

ar e

Shear stress

(kN/m2) 2 0.29 8 8.80 0 15.19 8 19.44 7 22.00 1 23.28 1 24.13 6 23.70 1 22.42 2 21.57

τ/σ 0.01 0.28 0.49 0.63 0.71 0.75 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.70

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn)nitial Wt of can + s

= nitial Wt of can + s

=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

eading Elapse

time

No. (Secon

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 1059 12010 13511 150

f Test Resul

B

Sand

) 61.93 soil

365.5 soil

238.3

= 127.2

R 420

R= 406

ed e

Shear displaceme

nd) Dial(divn

0

10

22

38

54

70 88

5 104 0 122 5 142 0 150

lts

Bangladesh Unive

Dep

Geotec

Data

kN/m2

gm

gm

gm

ent Shear

displaceme

n) (mm)

0.00

0.25

0.56

0.97

1.37

1.78 2.24 2.64 3.10 3.61 3.81

101

ersity of Engineeri

partment of Civil E

chnical Engineerin

a Sheet for DirectDate:

Pro

Specim

Spec

Area o

Samp

DeVP

SpeRelati

ent Normal D

Dial(divn

406

403

403

404

407

410 415 418 421 423 430

ng & Technology,

Engineering

ng Laboratory

t Shear Test

oving Ring No. :

Calibration Fa

men Height (mm) :

cimen Dia(mm) :

f specimen (mm2)

ple volume in cc :

ensity (kN/m3) Void Ratio (e) Porosity (n%) ecific gravity : ive density (Dr %)

ial Normal

displacem

n) (mm)

0.00

-0.08

-0.08

-0.05

0.03

0.100.230.300.380.430.61

, Dhaka

5/6/201

17910

actor : y = 0.2063

: 26.69

63.5

: 3166.93

84.53

14.76 0.79 0.44 2.7 71

l ment

Proving Ring

Dial(divn)

0

40

68

90

101

107 110 110 108 102 97

12

0

6+0.30239x

Shear force

) (N)

0.92

54.84

92.58

122.24

137.07

145.15 149.20 149.20 146.50 138.41 131.67

Shear stress

τ/σ(KN/m2)

0.29 0.00

17.32 0.28

29.23 0.47

38.60 0.62

43.28 0.70

45.83 0.7447.11 0.7647.11 0.7646.26 0.7543.71 0.7141.58 0.67

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn)nitial Wt of can + s

= nitial Wt of can + s

=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

Reading Elaps

time

No. (Secon

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 1059 12510 14511 165

f Test Resul

Sand

) 92.9 soil

365 soil

238.1

= 126.9

R 337

R= 323

sed e

Sheardisplacem

nd) Dial(div

0

7

20

34

49

66 83

5 101 5 120 5 132 5 153

lts

Bangladesh Unive

Dep

Geote

Data

kN/m

gm

gm

9 gm

r ment

Shedisplace

vn) (mm

0.0

0.1

0.5

0.8

1.2

1.62.12.53.03.33.8

102

ersity of Engineeri

partment of Civil E

chnical Engineerin

a Sheet for DirectDate

P

m2

m Spe

m Sp

m Are

Sa

Re

ear ement

NormDial

m) Dial(div

00 323

8 321

51 320

86 324

24 326

68 3311 335

57 33705 341

5 34589 350

ing & Technology

Engineering

ng Laboratory

t Shear Test e:

Proving Ring No.

Calibration F

ecimen Height (mm

pecimen Dia(mm)

a of specimen (mm

ample volume in cc

Density (kN/m3)Void Ratio (e) Prosity (n %)

Specific gravity :lative density (Dr %

mal l

Normdisplacem

vn) (mm)

0.00

-0.05

-0.08

0.03

0.08

0.200.300.360.460.560.69

, Dhaka

5/6/201

: 17910

Factor : y = 0.206

m) : 26.7

) : 63.5

m2): 3166.9

c : 84.56

14.720.77 0.43 2.65

%) 70

al ment

ProvinRing

) Dial(div

0 0

5 60

8 103

132

148

0 158 0 164 6 164 6 160 6 157 9 152

12

0

636+0.30239x

93

6

2

ng g

Shear force

vn) (N)

0.92

81.80

139.76

178.85

200.42

213.90 221.99 221.99 216.60 212.55 205.81

Shear stress

τ/σ (KN/m2)

0.29 0.00

25.83 0.28

44.13 0.48

56.47 0.61

63.29 0.68

67.54 0.73 70.10 0.75 70.10 0.75 68.39 0.74 67.12 0.72 64.99 0.70

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn

nitial Wt of can + s=

nitial Wt of can + s=

Wt of soil used =

ID

FDR

Reading Elap

tim

No. (Seco

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 757 908 109 1210 13

f Test Resul

Bangladesh

Sand

n) 30.96 soil

382.1 soil

262.8

= 119.3

DR 247

R= 242

psed me

Shear disp.

ond) Dial(divn)

0 0

5 14

0 29

5 44

0 58

5 72 0 96 05 112 20 130 35 150

lts

h University of Eng

Department of

Geotechnical Eng

Data Sheet for D

Pr

kN/m2

gm S

gm Sp

gm A

Sam

D

SRe

Shear disp.

NoD

) (mm) Dia

0.00 2

0.36 2

0.74 2

1.12 2

1.47 2

1.83 22.44 22.84 23.30 23.81 2

103

gineering & Techn

Civil Engineering

gineering Laborato

Direct Shear TesDate:

roving Ring No. :

Calibration F

Specimen Height (mm) :

pecimen Dia(mm) Area of specimen

(mm2):

mple volume in cc

Density (kN/m3) Void Ratio (e) Prosity (n %)

Specific gravity : elative density (Dr

%)

ormal Dial

Normadisp.

al(divn) (mm)

242 0.00

240 -0.05

241 -0.03

245 0.08

249 0.18

254 0.30258 0.41262 0.51267 0.64269 0.69

nology, Dhaka

g

ory

st 5/5/2012

17910

Factor : y = 0.2063

23.7

: 63.5

3166.93

: 75.06

15.59 0.64 39

2.65 r

71

al Proving Ring

Dial(divn)

0

31

51

61

67

70 70 67 63 58

36+0.30239x

Shear force

Shestre

(N) (kN/m

0.92 0.2

42.71 13.4

69.67 22.0

83.15 26.2

91.23 28.8

95.28 30.095.28 30.091.23 28.885.84 27.79.10 24.9

ear ess

τ/σ m2)

29 0.01

49 0.44

00 0.71

25 0.85

81 0.93

09 0.97 09 0.97 81 0.93 11 0.88 98 0.81

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn)nitial Wt of can + s

= nitial Wt of can + s

=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

eading Elapse

time

No. (Secon

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 1059 12010 13511 15012 165

f Test Resul

B

Sand

) 61.93 soil

381.1 soil

255.7

= 125.4

R 280

R= 266

ed e

Shear displaceme

nd) Dial(divn

0

11

25

40

56

73 90

5 90 0 107 5 125 0 145 5 170

lts

Bangladesh Unive

Dep

Geotec

Data

kN/m2

gm

gm

gm

ent Shear

displaceme

n) (mm)

0.00

0.28

0.64

1.02

1.42

1.85 2.29 2.29 2.72 3.18 3.68 4.32

104

ersity of Engineeri

partment of Civil E

chnical Engineerin

a Sheet for DirectDate:

Pro

Specimen

Specime

Area of sp

Sample v

DensitVoidPros

SpecifRelative d

ent Normal

Dial

Dial(divn)

266

264

264

266

268

271 275 278 284 285 287 287

ing & Technology,

Engineering

ng Laboratory

t Shear Test

oving Ring No. :

Calibration Facto

Height (mm) :

en Dia(mm) :

pecimen (mm2):

volume in cc :

ty (kN/m3) d Ratio (e) sity (n%) fic gravity : density (Dr %)

Normal displacement

(mm)

0.00

-0.05

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.13 0.23 0.30 0.46 0.48 0.53 0.53

, Dhaka

25/4/20

17910

or : y = 0.20636+0

24.8

63.5

3166.93

78.54

15.66 0.67 40

2.65 73

Proving Ring

Dial(divn)

0

60

99

120

131

138 139 138 136 130 123 116

012

0

0.30239x

Shear force

Shestre

(N) (kN/m

0.92 0.2

81.80 25.8

134.37 42.4

162.68 51.3

177.50 56.0

186.94 59.0188.29 59.4186.94 59.0184.24 58.1176.16 55.6166.72 52.6157.28 49.6

ear ess

τ/σ m2)

29 0.00

83 0.42

43 0.69

37 0.83

05 0.91

03 0.95 45 0.96 03 0.95 18 0.94 62 0.90 64 0.85 66 0.80

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn)nitial Wt of can + s

= nitial Wt of can + s

=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

Reading Elaps

time

No. (Secon

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 1059 12510 14511 16512 185

f Test Resul

Sand

) 92.9 soil

381 soil

258.9

= 122.1

R 310

R= 293

sed e

Shear displaceme

nd) Dial(divn

0

9

20

33

46

62 78

5 95 5 112 5 132 5 152 5 172

lts

Bangladesh Univ

Dep

Geote

Dat

kN/m2

gm

gm

gm

ent Shear

displaceme

n) (mm)

0.00

0.23

0.51

0.84

1.17

1.57 1.98 2.41 2.84 3.35 3.86 4.37

105

versity of Engineer

partment of Civil E

echnical Engineeri

a Sheet for DirecDate:

Pr

Specime

Specim

Area of

Sample

DenVoPr

SpecRelativ

ent Normal

Dial

Dial(divn)

293

290

290

291

293

297 302 306 312 318 318 320

ring & Technology

Engineering

ing Laboratory

t Shear Test

roving Ring No. :

Calibration Fac

en Height (mm) :

men Dia(mm) :

specimen (mm2):

e volume in cc :

nsity (kN/m3) oid Ratio (e) rosity (n %) cific gravity : e density (Dr %)

Normal displacement

(mm)

0.00

-0.08

-0.08

-0.05

0.00

0.10 0.23 0.33 0.48 0.64 0.64 0.69

y, Dhaka

2

1791

ctor : y = 0.20636

24.3

63.5

3166.93

76.96

15.56 0.64 39

2.65 70

t Proving

Ring

Dial(divn)

0

90

135

170

187

201 209 209 209 198 185 176

25/4/2012

10

6+0.30239x

Shear force

Ss

(N) (k

0.92

122.24 3

182.90 5

230.08 7

252.99 7

271.86 8282.65 8282.65 8282.65 8267.82 8250.29 7238.16 7

Shear stress

τ/σ kN/m2)

0.29 0.00

38.60 0.42

57.75 0.62

72.65 0.78

79.89 0.86

85.84 0.92 89.25 0.96 89.25 0.96 89.25 0.96 84.57 0.91 79.03 0.85 75.20 0.81

APDa

Ini

Ini

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn

itial Wt of can + so

itial Wt of can + so

Wt of soil used =

ID

FDR

Reading Elap

tim

No. (Seco

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 757 908 109 1210 13

f Test Resul

Banglades

Sand

n) 30.96

oil = 387.5

oil = 268.8

= 118.7

DR 248

R= 241

psed me

Shear disp.

ond) Dial(divn)

0 0

5 13

0 28

5 43

0 57

5 71 0 93

05 110 20 128 35 153

lts

h University of En

Department of

Geotechnical En

Data Sheet forD

P

kN/m2

gm

gm Sp

gm A

Sa

Rel

Shear disp.

N

) (mm) Dia

0.00

0.33

0.71

1.09

1.45

1.80 2.36 2.79 3.25 3.89

106

ngineering & Tech

f Civil Engineering

ngineering Laborat

r Direct Shear TeDate:

Proving Ring No. :

Calibration

Specimen Height (mm) :

pecimen Dia(mm) Area of specimen

(mm2):

ample volume in cc

Density (kN/m3)Void Ratio (e) Prosity (n %)

Specific gravity :lative density (Dr %

Normal Dial

Normadisp.

al(divn) (mm)

241 0.00

240 -0.03

241 0.00

245 0.10

249 0.20

254 0.33258 0.43262 0.53267 0.66269 0.71

hnology, Dhaka

g

tory

est 7/7/2012

: 17910

Factor : y = 0.206

21.1

: 63.5

3166.93

c : 66.82

17.42 0.64 39

2.62 %) 83

al

Proving Ring

) Dial(divn)

0

3 32

52

61

66

69 71 71 68 62

636+0.30239x

Shear force

Shstre

(N) (kN/

0.92 0.2

44.06 13.

71.01 22.

83.15 26.

89.89 28.

93.93 29.96.63 30.96.63 30.92.58 29.84.49 26.

ear ess

τ/σ /m2)

29 0.01

.91 0.45

.42 0.72

.25 0.85

.38 0.92

.66 0.96

.51 0.99

.51 0.99

.23 0.94

.68 0.86

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn

nitial Wt of can + s=

nitial Wt of can + s=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

eading Elapse

time

No. (Second

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 105 9 120 10 135 11 150 12 165

f Test Resul

Sand

n) 61.93 soil

387.4 soil

270.1

= 117.3

R 281

R= 265

ed Shear displacement

d) Dial(divn)

0

10

24

39

55

72 89 90 105 126 143 170

lts

Bangladesh Un

D

Geo

D

kN/m2

gm

gm

gm

t Shear

displacement

(mm)

0.00

0.25

0.61

0.99

1.40

1.83 2.26 2.29 2.67 3.20 3.63 4.32

107

niversity of Engine

Department of Civ

otechnical Enginee

ata Sheet for DirDate:

Pr

C

Specimen H

Specimen

Area of spec

Sample vo

DensityVoid RProsit

SpecificRelative de

Normal Dial

Dial(divn)

265

264

264

266

268

271 275 278 284 285 287 287

eering & Technolo

il Engineering

ering Laboratory

ect Shear Test

roving Ring No. :

Calibration Factor

Height (mm) :

n Dia(mm) :

cimen (mm2):

olume in cc :

y (kN/m3) Ratio (e) ty (n%) c gravity : ensity (Dr %)

Normal displacement

(mm)

0.00

-0.03

-0.03

0.03

0.08

0.15 0.25 0.33 0.48 0.51 0.56 0.56

ogy, Dhaka

7/

1

r : y = 0.20636+0.

20.8

63.5

3166.93

65.87

17.46 0.67 40

2.62 84

Proving Ring S

Dial(divn)

0

60

99

121

132

140 144 144 144 139 134 126

/7/2012

17910

.30239x

Shear force Shstr

(N) (kN

0.92 0.

81.80 25

134.37 42

164.02 51

178.85 56

189.64 59195.03 61195.03 61195.03 61188.29 59181.55 57170.76 53

hear ress

τ/σ N/m2)

29 0.00

.83 0.42

2.43 0.69

.79 0.84

6.47 0.91

9.88 0.97 .58 0.99 .58 0.99 .58 0.99

9.45 0.96 7.33 0.93

.92 0.87

APDa

In

In

R

PPENDIX ata Sheet of

Soil Sample:

Normal Stress(σn)nitial Wt of can + s

= nitial Wt of can + s

=

Wt of soil used =

IDR

FDR

Reading Elaps

time

No. (Secon

1 0

2 15

3 30

4 45

5 60

6 75 7 90 8 1059 12510 14511 16512 185

f Test Resul

Sand

) 92.9 soil

383.2 soil

268.6

= 114.6

R 309

R= 292

sed e

Shear displaceme

nd) Dial(divn

0

10

21

33

46

62 79

5 96 5 111 5 131 5 151 5 170

lts

Bangladesh Univ

Dep

Geote

Dat

kN/m2

gm

gm

gm

ent Shear

displaceme

n) (mm)

0.00

0.25

0.53

0.84

1.17

1.57 2.01 2.44 2.82 3.33 3.84 4.32

108

versity of Engineer

partment of Civil E

echnical Engineeri

a Sheet for DirecDate:

Pro

Specimen

Specime

Area of sp

Sample v

DensitVoid Poros

SpecifRelative d

ent Normal

Dial

Dial(divn)

292

290

290

291

293

297 302 306 312 318 318 320

ring & Technology

Engineering

ing Laboratory

ct Shear Test

oving Ring No. :

Calibration Fac

Height (mm) :

en Dia(mm) :

ecimen (mm2):

volume in cc :

ty (kN/m3) Ratio (e)

sity (n %) fic gravity : density (Dr %)

Normal displacement

(mm)

0.00

-0.05

-0.05

-0.03

0.03

0.13 0.25 0.36 0.51 0.66 0.66 0.71

y, Dhaka

7/7/20

1791

ctor : y = 0.20636+

20.3

63.5

3166.93

64.29

17.48 0.64 39

2.62 84

Proving Ring

Dial(divn)

0

92

144

178

195

209 217 217 212 198 185 176

012

10

+0.30239x

Shear force

(N) (k

0.92

124.93

195.03

240.86

263.77

282.65 293.43 293.43 286.69 267.82 250.29 238.16

Shear stress

τ/σ kN/m2)

0.29 0.00

39.45 0.42

61.58 0.66

76.05 0.82

83.29 0.90

89.25 0.96 92.65 1.00 92.65 1.00 90.53 0.97 84.57 0.91 79.03 0.85 75.20 0.81

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

109

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM=0.73) Date: 3/6/2012

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-1

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand

(in gm)

Volume of container

(cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 383.56 348.76 236.55 14.46 2 750 33.9 385.3 351.40 236.55 14.57 3 800 33.9 387.2 353.30 236.55 14.65 4 850 33.8 389.3 355.50 236.55 14.74 5 900 33.9 387.9 354.00 236.55 14.68 6 950 33.0 383.61 350.61 236.55 14.54 7 1000 32.6 378.6 346.00 236.55 14.34 8 1050 33.3 368.75 335.45 236.55 13.91

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-2

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand

(in gm)

Volume of container

(cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 384 349.20 236.55 14.48 2 750 33.9 385 351.10 236.55 14.56 3 800 33.9 387.4 353.50 236.55 14.66 4 850 33.8 388.8 355.00 236.55 14.72 5 900 33.9 388 354.10 236.55 14.68 6 950 33.0 383.9 350.90 236.55 14.55 7 1000 32.6 378.4 345.80 236.55 14.34 8 1050 33.3 371 337.70 236.55 14.00

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

110

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM=0.73)

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-3

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt of sand (in gm)

Volume of container

(cc) Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 383.0 348.20 236.55 14.44 2 750 33.9 383.6 349.70 236.55 14.50 3 800 33.9 387.6 353.70 236.55 14.66 4 850 33.8 389.8 356.00 236.55 14.76 5 900 33.9 389.0 355.10 236.55 14.72 6 950 33.0 382.8 349.80 236.55 14.50 7 1000 32.6 379.5 346.90 236.55 14.38 8 1050 33.3 379.1 345.80 236.55 14.34

Reading Height of fall Density (kN/m3) Average Density

No. (in mm) Density

Pot-1Density Pot-2

Density Pot-3 kN/m3

1 700 14.46 14.48 14.44 14.46 2 750 14.57 14.56 14.50 14.54 3 800 14.65 14.66 14.66 14.66 4 850 14.74 14.72 14.76 14.74 5 900 14.68 14.68 14.72 14.69 6 950 14.54 14.55 14.50 14.53 7 1000 14.34 14.34 14.38 14.35 8 1050 13.91 14.00 14.34 14.08

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

111

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM =1.5) Date: 9/5/2012

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-1

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand

(in gm)

Volume of container

(cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 382.5 347.70 236.55 14.42 2 750 33.9 383.1 349.20 236.55 14.48 3 800 33.9 387.8 353.90 236.55 14.67 4 850 33.8 387.9 354.10 236.55 14.68 5 900 33.9 414.3 380.40 236.55 15.77 6 950 33.0 384.5 351.50 236.55 14.57 7 1000 32.6 383.7 351.10 236.55 14.56 8 1050 33.3 381.1 347.80 236.55 14.42

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-2

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand

(in gm)

Volume of container

(cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 397 362.20 236.55 15.02 2 750 33.9 404.8 370.90 236.55 15.38 3 800 33.9 405.1 371.20 236.55 15.39 4 850 33.8 406.3 372.50 236.55 15.44 5 900 33.9 407 373.10 236.55 15.47 6 950 33.0 398.2 365.20 236.55 15.14 7 1000 32.6 392.5 359.90 236.55 14.92 8 1050 33.3 390.1 356.80 236.55 14.79

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

112

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM =1.5)

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of

container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-3

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand

(in gm)

Volume of container

(cc) Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 401.5 366.70 236.55 15.20 2 750 33.9 401 367.10 236.55 15.22 3 800 33.9 404.7 370.80 236.55 15.37 4 850 33.8 408.5 374.70 236.55 15.53 5 900 33.9 410.4 376.50 236.55 15.61 6 950 33.0 402.9 369.90 236.55 15.34 7 1000 32.6 400.7 368.10 236.55 15.26 8 1050 33.3 400.6 367.30 236.55 15.23

Reading Height of fall Density (KN/m3) Average Density

No. (in mm) Density Pot-1

Density Pot-2

Density Pot-3 kN/m3

1 700 14.42 15.02 15.20 14.88 2 750 14.48 15.38 15.22 15.02 3 800 14.67 15.39 15.37 15.14 4 850 14.68 15.44 15.53 15.22 5 900 15.77 15.47 15.61 15.62 6 950 14.57 15.14 15.34 15.02 7 1000 14.56 14.92 15.26 14.91 8 1050 14.42 14.79 15.23 14.81

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

113

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM = 2.5) Date: 3/6/2012

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-1

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand (in gm)

Volume of container (cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 449.6 414.80 236.55 17.20 2 750 33.9 448.7 414.80 236.55 17.20

3 800 33.9 449.2 415.30 236.55 17.22 4 850 33.8 452.6 418.80 236.55 17.36 5 900 33.9 451.9 418.00 236.55 17.33 6 950 33.0 451.1 418.10 236.55 17.33 7 1000 32.6 448.3 415.70 236.55 17.23 8 1050 33.3 448.1 414.80 236.55 17.20

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-2

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand (in gm)

Volume of container (cc)

Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 451.2 416.40 236.55 17.26 2 750 33.9 450.5 416.60 236.55 17.27 3 800 33.9 454.4 420.50 236.55 17.43 4 850 33.8 457.8 424.00 236.55 17.58 5 900 33.9 457.2 423.30 236.55 17.55 6 950 33.0 450.8 417.80 236.55 17.32 7 1000 32.6 450.1 417.50 236.55 17.31 8 1050 33.3 450.1 416.80 236.55 17.28

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

114

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Name of Test: Calibration of sand spreader ( sand, FM = 2.5) Date: 3/6/2012

Reading

Height of fall

Weight of container

Weight of container+

Sand

Density pot-3

No. (in mm) (in gm) (in gm) Wt.of sand (in gm)

Volume of container

(cc) Density (kN/m3)

1 700 34.8 451.1 416.30 236.55 17.26 2 750 33.9 450.4 416.50 236.55 17.27 3 800 33.9 454.3 420.40 236.55 17.43 4 850 33.8 457.7 423.90 236.55 17.57 5 900 33.9 457.3 423.40 236.55 17.55 6 950 33.0 450.8 417.80 236.55 17.32 7 1000 32.6 450.1 417.50 236.55 17.31 8 1050 33.3 450.0 416.70 236.55 17.28

Reading Height of fall Density (KN/m3) Average Density

No. (in mm) Density

Pot-1 Density Pot-2

Density Pot-3 kN/m3

1 700 17.20 17.26 17.26 17.24 2 750 17.20 17.27 17.27 17.25 3 800 17.22 17.43 17.43 17.36 4 850 17.36 17.58 17.57 17.51 5 900 17.33 17.55 17.55 17.48 6 950 17.33 17.32 17.32 17.33 7 1000 17.23 17.31 17.31 17.28 8 1050 17.20 17.28 17.28 17.25

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

115

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka

Department of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory

Pullout Test ( sand, FM = 0.73)

Concrete anchor block placed at 200 line position Date: 03/06/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 365 mm

Distance of bottom of pan of

pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 365.00 0.00 0.1040 2 365.00 0.00 0.2020 3 359.00 6.00 0.3001 4 358.00 7.00 0.3982 5 356.33 8.67 0.4962 6 354.33 10.67 0.5943 7 353.33 11.67 0.6924 8 351.00 14.00 0.7904 9 349.67 15.33 0.8885

10 348.33 16.67 0.9866 11 345.67 19.33 1.0847 12 340.33 24.67 1.182713 336.67 28.33 1.280814 332.33 32.67 1.3789 15 327.33 37.67 1.4769 16 320.67 44.33 1.5750 17 313.33 51.67 1.6731 18 302.33 62.67 1.7711 19 281.67 83.33 1.9182 20 221.00 144.00 2.0000

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

116

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM = 0.73)

Concrete anchor block placed at 300 line position Date: 07/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 530 mm

Sl No. Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 530.00 0.00 0.1040 2 528.00 2.00 0.2020 3 527.67 2.33 0.3001 4 520.00 10.00 0.3982 5 518.00 12.00 0.4962 6 515.33 14.67 0.5943 7 511.33 18.67 0.6924 8 509.33 20.67 0.7904 9 506.33 23.67 0.8885

10 503.67 26.33 0.9866 11 500.67 29.33 1.0847 12 497.33 32.67 1.1827 13 494.33 35.67 1.280814 491.00 39.00 1.378915 485.33 44.67 1.4769 16 476.67 53.33 1.5740 17 469.33 60.67 1.6721 18 461.33 68.67 1.7702 19 447.67 82.33 1.8846 20 346.67 183.33 1.9663

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

117

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM = 0.73)

Concrete anchor block placed at 450 line position Date:

04/06/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 250 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN)

Remarks

1 250 0.00 0.1040 2 250 0.00 0.2020 3 248 2.67 0.3001 4 244 5.67 0.3982 5 245 8.00 0.4962 6 240 10.67 0.5943 7 234 15.00 0.6924 8 231 19.00 0.7904 9 227 23.33 0.8885

10 219 31.00 0.9866 11 210 40.33 1.0847 12 196 52.67 1.215413 10 240.67 1.2971

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

118

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM = 0.73)

Concrete anchor block placed at 600 line position Date: 16/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mmDepth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mmWeight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 KgDistance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 440 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN)

Remarks

1 440 0.00 0.1040 2 435 4.00 0.2020 3 432 5.67 0.3001 4 428 10.67 0.3982 5 426 15.67 0.4962 6 421 20.33 0.5616 7 372 68.33 0.6270 8 290 147.33 0.7251

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

119

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test (sand, FM =1.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 200 line position Date: 26/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mmDepth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 900 mmWeight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 KgDistance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 385 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan of

pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN)

Remarks

1 385.00 0.00 0.1040 2 385.00 0.00 0.2020 3 383.00 2.00 0.3001 4 379.67 5.33 0.3982 5 377.33 7.67 0.4962 6 375.33 9.67 0.5943 7 373.33 11.67 0.6924 8 371.33 13.67 0.7904 9 370.00 15.00 0.8885 10 367.33 17.67 0.9866 11 365.00 20.00 1.0847 12 363.33 21.67 1.1827 13 361.33 23.67 1.280814 358.33 26.67 1.378915 355.67 29.33 1.4769 16 354.00 31.00 1.5750 17 350.67 34.33 1.6731 18 346.67 38.33 1.7711 19 341.33 43.67 1.8692 20 336.00 49.00 1.9673 21 332.67 52.33 2.0644 22 284.00 101.00 2.1624 23 203.33 181.67 2.2605

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

120

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test (sand, FM =1.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 300 line position Date: 07/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mmDepth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 900 mmWeight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 KgDistance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 455 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan of

pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor block

( mm)

Load (kN) Remark

s

1 455.00 0.00 0.1040 2 455.00 0.00 0.2020 3 451.00 4.00 0.3001 4 450.00 5.00 0.3982 5 445.00 10.00 0.4962 6 443.00 12.00 0.5943 7 440.00 15.00 0.6924 8 438.00 17.00 0.7904 9 437.00 18.00 0.8885

10 432.00 23.00 0.9866 11 430.00 25.00 1.0847 12 427.00 28.00 1.1827 13 420.00 35.00 1.280814 415.00 40.00 1.378915 410.00 45.00 1.4769 16 405.00 50.00 1.5750 17 400.00 55.00 1.6731 18 387.00 68.00 1.7711 19 370.00 85.00 1.8692 20 355.00 100.00 1.9673 21 278.33 176.67 2.0644

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

121

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka Department of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test( sand, FM = 1.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 450 line position Date: 08/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 900 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 230 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod

(mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 230.00 0.00 0.1040 2 228.67 1.33 0.2020 3 227.33 2.67 0.3001 4 224.67 5.33 0.3982 5 222.33 7.67 0.4962 6 219.00 10.67 0.5943 7 218.00 12.00 0.6924 8 216.67 13.33 0.7904 9 214.33 15.67 0.888510 212.67 17.33 0.986611 209.67 20.33 1.0847 12 201.33 28.67 1.1827 13 193.00 37.00 1.2808 14 182.33 47.67 1.4116 15 104.33 125.67 1.4769 16 27.67 202.33 1.5750

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

122

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM = 1.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 600 line position Date: 16/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 900 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 485 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 485.00 0.00 0.1040 2 485.00 0.00 0.2020 3 481.67 3.33 0.3001 4 477.67 7.33 0.3982 5 475.33 9.67 0.4962 6 469.33 15.67 0.5943 7 466.33 18.67 0.6924 8 452.00 33.00 0.7904 9 383.00 102.00 0.8885

10 290.00 195.00 0.9866

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

123

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test( sand, FM =2.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 200 line position Date: 03/06/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 355 mm

Sl No. Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 355.00 0.00 0.1040 2 355.00 0.00 0.2020 3 354.00 1.00 0.3001 4 352.67 2.33 0.3982 5 349.67 5.33 0.4962 6 346.00 9.00 0.5943 7 344.00 11.00 0.6924 8 342.33 12.67 0.7904 9 340.00 15.00 0.8885

10 338.67 16.33 0.9866 11 337.00 18.00 1.0847 12 334.33 20.67 1.1827 13 331.67 23.33 1.280814 330.00 25.00 1.378915 329.00 26.00 1.4769 16 328.00 27.00 1.5750 17 327.00 28.00 1.6731 18 326.00 29.00 1.7711 19 324.33 30.67 1.8692 20 322.00 33.00 1.9673 21 319.00 36.00 2.0654 22 314.67 40.33 2.2778 23 255.00 100.00 2.3596

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

124

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM =2.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 300 line position Date: 07/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 478 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN)

Remarks

1 478.00 0.00 0.1040 2 476.67 1.33 0.2020 3 473.67 4.33 0.3001 4 468.33 9.67 0.3982 5 465.00 13.00 0.4962 6 463.33 14.67 0.5943 7 461.00 17.00 0.6924 8 459.33 18.67 0.7904 9 456.33 21.67 0.8885

10 454.33 23.67 0.9866 11 452.67 25.33 1.0847 12 450.67 27.33 1.1827 13 448.33 29.67 1.2808 14 444.33 33.67 1.3789 15 439.67 38.33 1.476916 437.67 40.33 1.5740 17 435.67 42.33 1.6721 18 434.00 44.00 1.7702 19 430.67 47.33 1.8682 20 427.33 50.67 1.9663 21 425.33 52.67 2.0644 23 420.67 57.33 2.2442 24 305.00 173.00 2.3259

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

125

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM =2.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 450 line position Date: 04/06/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 520 mm

Sl No.

Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN)

Remarks

1 520.00 0.00 0.1040 2 520.00 0.00 0.2020 3 516.00 4.00 0.3001 4 514.00 6.00 0.3982 5 511.67 8.33 0.4962 6 508.67 11.00 0.5943 7 507.33 12.67 0.6924 8 504.67 15.33 0.7904 9 501.67 18.33 0.8885

10 499.33 20.67 0.9866 11 497.00 23.00 1.0847 12 494.67 25.33 1.1827 13 488.67 31.33 1.280814 482.00 38.00 1.378916 478.33 41.67 1.5587 17 315.00 205.00 1.6404

APPENDIX Data Sheet of Test Results

126

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, DhakaDepartment of Civil Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering LaboratoryPullout Test ( sand, FM =2.5)

Concrete anchor block placed at 600 line position Date: 16/05/2012 Length of G I Wire ( Face of tank to Concrete block) = 400 mm Height of surcharge load over anchor block = 0 mm Depth of sand below anchor block = 400 mm Sand filling carried out at a constant height = 800 mm Weight of pull out rod + hanger+ GI wire = 0.6 Kg Distance of bottom of pan of pull rod from floor level = 460 mm

Sl No. Distance of bottom of pan

of pull rod (mm)

Final displacement of concrete anchor

block( mm)

Load (kN) Remarks

1 460.00 0.00 0.1040 2 460.00 0.00 0.2020 3 459.00 1.00 0.3001 4 458.00 2.00 0.3982 5 456.33 3.67 0.4962 6 455.33 4.67 0.5943 7 454.33 5.67 0.6924 8 452.33 7.67 0.7904

9.5 448.67 11.33 0.9539 11 325.00 135.00 1.0847