Vol. 28 No. 3 (2025) Cover Image
Vol. 28 No. 3 (2025)

Published: September 30, 2025

Pages: 481-492

Articles

The Seismic Response of a Shallow Foundation Supported on Geogrid-Reinforced Sand Soil

Ruqayah Al-khafaji 1 Qassun S. Mohammed Shafiqu 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Jadriya, Bagdad, Iraq
2 Dept. of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Al-Nahrain University, Bagdad, Iraq
History
  • Received: November 21, 2024
  • Revised: February 18, 2025
  • Accepted: March 23, 2025
  • Available Online: September 29, 2025
DOI

https://doi.org/10.29194/NJES.28030481

Abstract

Shallow foundation suffers from considerable settlement, displacement and tilting under earthquakes. This is particularly due to the shaking associated with earthquakes that lead to the generation of horizontal seismic load transferred through the soil to the foundation. Also, liquefaction could take place during the earthquake in the saturated loose sand. To alleviate the detrimental effect of earthquakes, ground improvement is required. This study examines the response of the shallow square foundation rested on loose sand soil reinforced with geogrid reinforcement when subjected to 2023 Turkey earthquake by using a shaking table system. Different number of geogrid layers are installed; (one, two, three and four), also various geogrid configurations were examined which are (straight, trapezoidal and reverse trapezoidal). The acceleration response, settlement, horizontal displacement, rotation and pore water pressure developed in the sand soil and the shallow foundation during 2023 Turkey earthquake has been examined. The settlement and the horizontal displacement, foundation rotation, acceleration and pore water pressure were measured using rope displacement transducers, tilt sensors, accelerometers and pore water transducers respectively.  The results showed that the acceleration amplifies when passing through loose sand. The results also indicated that the shallow foundation experienced noticeable settlement, horizontal displacement and rotation when subjected to the seismic loads. On the other hand, the installation of geogrid proved to be effective in controlling the problems associated with earthquakes. The optimum geogrid reinforcement is occurred when three layers of geogrid placed in reverse trapezoidal configuration (3RT) since it gave the best reduction in the acceleration amplification and the highest decrease in the foundation settlement, displacement and tilting which is about (60-66) %. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of geogrid minimizes when the sand soil becomes saturated. In addition, liquefaction occurs during earthquakes especially at the shallower depths because of the decrease in the shear strength of saturated soil.  

Keywords

References

  1. V. K. Puri and S. Prakash, "Shallow foundations for seismic loads: Design considerations," in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Case Histories Geotech. Eng., Chicago, IL, May 3, 2013. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/7icchge/session14/6
  2. J.-Q. Wang, et al., "Influence of reinforcement-arrangements on dynamic response of geogrid-reinforced foundation under repeated loading," Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 274, p. 122093, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122093
  3. M. Ziegler, "Application of geogrid reinforced constructions: History, recent and future developments," Procedia Eng., vol. 172, pp. 42-51, 2017. DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.008
  4. Z. Zhang, et al., "Influence of number of geosynthetic layers on the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported earth platforms on soft soil: Numerical study," in Proc. Int. Conf. Transp. Infrastruct. Mater., Qingdao, China, 2017. DOI:10.12783/dtmse/ictim2017/10045
  5. A. Morsy, et al., "A new generation of soil-geosynthetic interaction experimentation," Geotext. Geomembr., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 459-476, 2019. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.04.002
  6. A. M. Morsy and J. G. Zornberg, "Soil-reinforcement interaction: Stress regime evolution in geosynthetic-reinforced soils," Geotext. Geomembr., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 323-342, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.004
  7. R. J. Bathurst and F. M. Naftchali, "Geosynthetic reinforcement stiffness for analytical and numerical modelling of reinforced soil structures," Geotext. Geomembr., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 921-940, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.01.003
  8. A. C. Pires and E. M. Palmeira, "The influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the mechanical behaviour of soil-pipe systems," Geotext. Geomembr., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1117-1128, 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.07.005
  9. B. K. Maheshwari, H. Singh, and S. Saran, "Effects of reinforcement on liquefaction resistance of Solani sand," J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., vol. 138, no. 7, pp. 831-840, 2012. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000646
  10. J. Dhanya, A. Boominathan, and S. Banerjee, "Response of low-rise building with geotechnical seismic isolation system," Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 136, p. 106187, 2020. DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106187
  11. R. Xu and B. Fatahi, "Influence of geotextile arrangement on seismic performance of mid-rise buildings subjected to MCE shaking," Geotext. Geomembr., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 511-528, 2018. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.03.007
  12. H. Bahadori, et al., "Shaking table tests on shallow foundations over geocomposite and geogrid-reinforced liquefiable soils," Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 128, p. 105896, 2020. DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105896
  13. N. Srilatha, G. M. Latha, and C. Puttappa, "Seismic response of soil slopes in shaking table tests: Effect of type and quantity of reinforcement," Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng., vol. 2, p. 1-13, 2016. DOI:10.1007/s40891-016-0074-2
  14. H. J. Park, et al., "Investigation of the dynamic behaviour of a storage tank with different foundation types focusing on the soil‐foundation‐structure interactions using centrifuge model tests," Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., vol. 46, no. 14, pp. 2301-2316, 2017. DOI:10.1002/eqe.2905