Numerical Modeling of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Bed under Strip

Footings using Finite Element Analysis

Ahmed M. Gamal, Adel M. Belal, S. A. Elsoud,


Abstract—This article aims to study the effect of reinforcement R. Al-Sinaidi and A. H. Ali (2006) [8], A. Asakereh, S. M. Tafreshi,
inclusions (geogrids) on the sand dunes bearing capacity under strip and M. Ghazavi (2012) [9], Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., Deb, K (2007)
footings. In this research experimental physical model was carried [10], El Sawwaf, M.A (2007) [11], Boushehrian, Michalowski R. L.
out to study the effect of the first geogrid reinforcement depth (u/B), (2004) [12] Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N (2003) [13], Yetimoglu,
the spacing between the reinforcement (h/B) and its extension T.,Wu, J.T.H., Saglamer (1994) [14]
relative to the footing length (L/B) on the mobilized bearing capacity. Many experimental, numerical, and analytical studies have been
This paper presents the numerical modeling using the commercial performed to investigate the behavior of reinforced soil foundation
finite element package (PLAXIS version 8.2) to simulate the (RSF) for different soil types. However, the behavior of reinforced
laboratory physical model, studying the same parameters previously soil under the foundation has not been established yet.
handled in the experimental work (u/B, L/B & h/B) for the purpose
of validation. 2. FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
In this study the soil, the geogrid, the interface element and the
boundary condition are discussed with a set of finite element results Full modeling of soil, reinforcing elements, footing and loading are
and the validation. Then the validated FEM used for studying real performed using commercial FEM package PLAXIS Version 8.2.
material and dimensions of strip foundation.
Based on the Experimental and numerical investigation results, a 2.1 Material modeling
significant increase in the bearing capacity of footings due to an 2.1.1 Soil constitutive law
appropriate location of the inclusions in sand. The optimum The well-known Mohr-coulomb model has been considered as a first
embedment depth of the first reinforcement layer (u/B) equal to 0.25. order approximation of real soil behavior. This elasto-plastic model
The optimum spacing between each successive reinforcement layer requires the parameters shown in Table 1.
(h/B) equal to 0.75 B. The optimum Length of the reinforcement
layer (L/B) equal to 7.5 B. The optimum number of reinforcement is Unit weight 17.78 kN/m3
equal to 4 layers.
The study showed a directly proportional relation between the Young’s modulus [Eref] 25000 kN/m2
number of reinforcement layer and the Bearing Capacity Ratio BCR, Poisson ratio [v(nu)] 0.35
and an inversely proportional relation between the footing width and
Cohesion [Cref] 15 kN/m2
the BCR.
Friction angle [ɸ] 30°
Keywords— Reinforced soil, geogrid, Sand Dunes, Bearing Dilatancy angle [Ψ] 0°
Capacity. Table 1: Soil parameters

1. INTRODUCTION 2.1.2 Geogrid modeling

Geogrids are elastic flexible elements with a normal stiffness and no
bending stiffness. These objects are generally used to model soil
Soil improvement techniques such soil reinforcing systems are used
reinforcements. The geogrid was modeled using elasto-plastic
to increase the bearing capacity of the soil and to reduce the
constitutive model with the parameters shown in Table 2.
structures settlement. Geosynthetics have been increasingly used as
reinforcing construction materials in civil engineering projects such
as roads, retaining walls, landfills, etc. Now, many types of products EA 500 kN/m
(geogrid, geotextile, geocell, geomembrane, etc.) are available in the Np 45 kN/m
engineering process. Each product is designed to solve a particular
Table 2: Geogrid parameters
range of civil engineering problems. The most important purpose of
using Geosynthetic reinforcement is to support load either static or
Where: EA: Axial/Normal Stiffness
dynamic and increase the soil bearing capacity
Np: Ultimate tensile strength of the geogrid
Many researches have been carried out to understand the beneficial
effects of using reinforcement in soil, such as A.M El-Shesheny
2.1.3 Strip footing modeling
(2015) [1], A. Zidan (2012) [2], G. Madhavi Latha, Amit Somwanshi
Six strip footings (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) with different
(2009) [3], Radhey Sharma (2009) [4], Saeed Alamshahi (2009) [5],
dimensions are used as shown in Table3.
Sao-Jeng Chao (2009) [6], S. Marandi, M. Bagheripour (2008) [7], A.
Model Footings (m)
A 0.075
Ahmed M. Gamal, Graduate student (eng.gamal88@gmail.com), B 0.1
Adel M. Belal , Prof. and Chair, (adel.belal@aast.edu),
S. A. Elsoud, Assoc. Prof. (saelsoud@gmail.com).
C 0.12
Full Scale Footings (m)
Construction and Building Engineering Department, D 1
College of Engineering and technology H 3
Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport,
Cairo- Egypt L 5
Table 3: Strip footings model and real full scale dimensions
1
The steel strip footings (A), (B) & (C) are modeled as a plate with 2.1.6 Mesh Generation and initial conditions
steel parameters shown in Table 4. Once the model geometry is defined and the material properties are
assigned to all clusters and structural objects, the geometry inputs has
Plate Properties to be divided into finite elements in order to perform finite element
ϒ Steel 78.4 kN/m3 calculations. A refined mesh was adopted to minimize the effect of
Modulus of Elasticity E 2E+08 kN/m2 mesh dependency on the finite element modeling of cases involving
Thickness (cm) 1 1 1 changes in the number, length, and the location of geogrid layers.
Figure 2 shows the mesh generation of the FEM.
Width (cm) 7.5 10 12.5
The sand layer in this study was dry, so there was no need to enter
EA – Axial Stiffness (kN/m) 150000 200000 250000 ground water condition. The analysis does, however, require the
EI – Bending Stiffness generation of initial effective stresses by means of K0 = (1-sinɸ)
1.25 1.6667 2.0833
(kN.m2/m) procedure. Figure 3 shows the initial conditions for the FEM.
Own Weight (kN/m/m) 0.0588 0.0784 0.098
Table 4: Steel plate footing parameters used in the FEM

The concrete strip footings (D), (H), (L) are modeled as a RC element
with an interface elements with parameters shown in Table 5.

Material Model Linear Elastic

Unit weight 23.563 kN/m3
Young’s modulus [Eref] 2.482E+07 kN/m2
Poisson ratio [v(nu)] 0.25
Table5: Concrete footing parameters used in the FEM

2.1.4 Interface elements

The roughness of the interaction modeled by choosing a suitable
value for the strength reduction factor in the interface (Rinner). This
Factor relates the interface strength to the soil strength (friction angle Figure 2: Mesh generation for the FEM.
and cohesion). An interface element between the soil and the geogrid
had the typical value of Rinner =0.85 is used. This factor relates the
interface strength to the soil strength. The value of the Rinner was
chosen based on previous experience with the interaction between
soils and geogrids which develop bearing and friction stresses. [M.A
Sayed 2012]. The interface element between the soil and the steel
plate was chosen rigid (Rinner =1) and between the concrete footing
and the soil was chosen with the typical value of Rinner =0.6.

2.1.5 Boundary conditions

The modeled boundary conditions are assumed such that the vertical
boundaries are free vertically and constrained horizontally while the
bottom horizontal boundary is fully fixed as shown in Figure 1.
Vertical load Plate element

Geogrid
Interface
element
Figure 3: Total Stress generated in FEM

2.2 Finite Element Modeling Matrix

Figures 4 and 5 show the FEM matrix for the single and multi-
reinforcement case which is the same matrix for the experimental
study. In the Multi-layered case the FEM is created on footing (B)
with h/B=0.75. Figure 6 shows the geogrid layout in the FEM, where
(N) is the Number of reinforcement layers, (L) is the geogrid length,
(u) the depth of the first layer measured from the bottom face of the
footing, (h) the vertical spacing between consecutive layers of the
reinforcement, and the footing width (B).
Fig 1: Finite element model showing the load and boundary
conditions

2
 Single Reinforced Soil bed
Stress (kN/m2)
Footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
-1
Effect of u/B Effect of L/B -2

Settelment (mm)
-3
u/b=0.25 u/B=0.5 L/B= 2.5 L/B= 5 -4
L/B= 7.5 L/B=7.5 u/B= 0.25 u/B= 0.25 -5
-6
u/B=0.75 L/B= 7.5 L/B= 12 -7
L/B=7.5 u/B= 0.25 u/B= 0.25 -8
Experimental Model FEM-Plaxis
Figure 4: FEM Matrix (Single Layer Reinforced soil bed) Figure 7: Unreinforced soil bed FEM vs. Experimental
model results for footing (B)

Multi-Reinforced soil bed Stress (kN/m2)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
Footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) -1

Settelment (mm)
-2
-3
-4
N=2 N=3 N=4 -5
-6
-7
u/B=0.25 u/B=0.25 u/B=0.25 -8
-9
h1/B=0.75 h1/B=0.75 h1/B=0.75 -10
L/B=7.5 h2/B=0.75 h2/B=0.75 -11
-12
L/B=7.5 h3/B=0.75 Experimental model FEM-Plaxis
L/B=7.5 Figure 8: Footing (B) FEM vs. Experimental
Model results with N=1, u/B=0.25 & L/B=7.5
Figure 5: Experimental model Matrix (Multi-Reinforced soil bed)
Stress (kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
-1
-2
-3
Settelment (mm)

-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
Experimental Model FEM-Plaxis
Figure 6: Geogrid Layout Figure 9: Footing (B) FEM vs. Experimental
model results with N=1, L/B=5 & u/B=0.25
2.3 FEM results Validation
The results are presented on the relation between the stresses under
the footing in (KN/m2) versus its associated settlement in (mm).
Plaxis Calculations identifies the stress at failure with (X) sign and
reports that the soil body collapsed.
Figures from 7 to 12 illustrate the comparison between the FEM and
the experimental results for Unreinforced soil bed for footing (B) &
N=1, L/B=7.5 and u/B=0.25 & N=1, u/B=0.25 and L/B= 5 & N=1,
L/B=5 & u/B=0.25 & N=2, u/B=0.25, h1/B=0.75, & L/B=7.5 &
N=3, u/B=0.25, h1/B= h2/B= 0.75, & L/B=7.5 & N=3, u/B=0.25,
h1/B= h2/B= h3/B=0.75 & L/B=7.5

3
 Stress (kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
-2
-4
Settelment (mm)

-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
Experimental Model FEM-Plaxis
Figure 10: Footing (B) FEM vs. Experimental model
results with N=2, u/B=0.25, h1/B=0.75, & L/B=7.5

Stress (kN/m2) Figure 13: Deformed mesh

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
-2
-4
Settelment (mm)

-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
Experimental Model FEM-Plaxis
Figure 11: Footing (B) FEM vs. Experimental model results
with N=3, u/B=0.25, h1/B= h2/B= 0.75, & L/B=7.5

Stress (kN/m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 Figure 14: Effective Vertical Stresses (Sig’-yy)
-2
-4
Settelment (mm)

-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Experimental Model FEM-Plaxis
Figure 12: Footing (B) FEM vs. Experimental model results
with N=3, u/B=0.25, h1/B= h2/B= h3/B=0.75 & L/B=7.5

It can be noticed from the comparison of the FEM and the

experimental model results in the unreinforced, single reinforced and
multi-reinforced soil bed that there is a medium agreement between
the FEM and the experimental model results. Therefore the FEM is
validated and ready for parametric study.
Figure 15: Vertical Displacements (Uy)
2.4 PLAXIS outputs
Other than stress (kN/m2) and Settlement (mm) curves, there are
other outputs like the deformation mesh, Cartesian effective stresses,
plastic points, horizontal and vertical displacements, Cartesian
strains, Geogrid displacement and the tension in Geogrid. Figures 13
to 17 show the outputs for N=1, u/B=0.25 & L/B=7.5 with footing
(B) at the ultimate stress value.

4
 Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)
2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.25 0 0.5 0.75
Depth of the 1st geogrid to the footing width (u/B)
Footing A Footing B Footing C
Footing D Footing H Footing L
Figure 18: BCR vs. u/B for footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L).

Figure 16: Geogrid displacement (Ulot) It can be concluded that the effect of using u/B = 0.25 is the optimum
for footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L).

3.2 Effect of reinforcing layers width (L/B):

The width of the first reinforcing layer has been changed in terms of
L/B=2.5, 5, 7.5 & 12 for u/B=0.25 for footing (B), (D), (H) & (L) to
get the optimum width. Figure 19 illustrates the BCR of the soil
versus variable values of L/B for footings (B), (D), (H) & (L).

Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5
Geogrid length to the footing width (L/B)
Figure 17: Geogrid axial forces
Footing B Footing D
3. RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSION Figure 19: BCR vs. L/B for footing (B), (D), (H) & (L)
It is shown that from the finite element models, the effect of using
Result analysis and comparison will be carried out and presented L/B = 7.5 and 12 is almost the same therefore effect of using L/B=7.5
through the bearing capacity ratio (BCR). The improvement in the is the optimum for footing (B), (D), (H) & (L).
bearing capacity is represented using a non-dimensional factor, called
bearing capacity ratio BCR. This factor is defined as the ratio of the 3.3 Effect of the spacing between the 1st & 2nd Geogrid (h1/B)
footing ultimate pressure with reinforced bed (q reinforced) to the From Figure 20, it is noticed that the values of (BCR) for using two
footing ultimate pressure with the unreinforced bed (q un reinforcing layers with u/B=0.25, L/B=7.5 & h1/B=0.75 are 2.5, 2.12,
unreinforced). 1.85, 1.32, 1.20 & 1.14. For footings (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L)
respectively, therefore 14%-150% improvement. That means as the
3.1 Effect of first reinforcing layer depth (u/B): width of the footing decrease the improvement of the BCR increase.
The depth of the first reinforcing layer has been changed in terms of
u/B=0.25, 0.5 & 0.75 for L/B=7.5 for footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) 3.4 Effect of the spacing between the 2nd & 3rd Geogrid (h2/B)
and (L) to get the optimum depth. Figure 18 illustrates the Bearing From Figure 21 It is noticed that the values of (BCR) for using three
capacity ratio of the soil versus variable values of u/B for different reinforcing layers with u/B=0.25, L/B=7.5 & h1/B=0.75, h2/B=0.75
footings. It is noticed that the values of (BCR) for u/B=0.25, and are 2.5, 2.27, 2.14, 1.36, 1.3 & 1.25 for footings (A), (B), (C), (D),
L/B=7.5 are 1.67, 1.67, 1.63, 1.18, 1.10 & 1.07 respectively, (H) & (L) respectively, therefore 25%-150% improvement. That
therefore 7%-70% improvement. That means as the width of the means as the width of the footing decrease the improvement of the
footing increase the improvement of the BCR decrease. BCR increase

3.5 Effect of the spacing between the 3rd & 4th Geogrid (h3/B)
From Figure 22 it is noticed that the values of (BCR) for using four
reinforcing layers with u/B=0.25, L/B=7.5 & h1/B=0.75, h2/B=0.75
& h3/B=0.75 are 2.5, 2.27, 2.14, 1.36, 1.3 & 1.25 for footings (A),
(B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) respectively, therefore 25%- 150%
improvement. That means as the width of the footing decrease the
improvement of the BCR increase.
5
 Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) 2.60

18.31

20

18.89
20.3

18.8
20.9
22

17.8
2.40

16.42

16.5
16.4

16.2
20

15.6
2.20
2.00 18
16

Settlment (mm)
1.80
14
1.60 12
1.40 Footing A
10
1.20 8 Footing B
1.00 6
0.80 4 Footing C
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 2
Spacing between the 1st & 2nd geogrid to the 0
footing width (h1/B) 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Spacing between the 3rd & 4th geogrid to the
Footing A Footing B Footing B footing width (h3/B)
Figure 20: Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) vs. Spacing between Figure 23: Settlement (mm) vs. Spacing between the 3rd & 4th
the 1st & 2nd Geogrid to the footing width (h1/B) for footing (A), Geogrid to the footing width (h3/B) for footing (A), (B) & (C)
(B), (C), (D), (H) & (L)

1510
1550

1490

1590
1800
It can be concluded from the experimental and finite element models 1600
that the effect of using h1/B = 0.75 is the optimum for footing (A), 1400

Settlement (mm)
(B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) 1200

630.01
615.01

610.56

589.56
1000
Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

2.6 Footing D
2.4 800
2.2 600 Footing H

140.6

134.3

142
140
2.0 400 Footing L
1.8 200
1.6 0
1.4
1.2 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
1.0 Spacing between the 3rd & 4th geogrid to the
0.8 footing width (h3/B)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Figure 24: Settlement (mm) vs. Spacing between the 3rd & 4th
Spacing between the 2nd & 3rd geogrid to the Geogrid to the footing width (h3/B) for footing (D), (H) & (L).
footing width (h2/B)
Footing A Footing B Footing C It can be concluded that h3/B=0.75 is the least settlement, therefore it
Footing D Footing H Footing L is the optimum.
Figure 21: Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) vs. Spacing
between the 2nd & 3rd Geogrid to the footing width (h2/B) for 3.6 Optimum No. of Reinforcement layers
footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) Figure 25 & Figure 26 illustrates BCR and Settlement (mm) VS the
no. of geogrids for footing (A), (B) & (C). It can be noticed that the
It can be concluded from the experimental and finite element models BCR value increases with the increase of geogrids layer up to N=3.
that the effect of using h2/B = 0.75 with h1=0.75 is the optimum for Figure 39 shows that the BCR value for N=3, 4, & 5 is the same for
footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) footing (A), (B) & (C), but the settlement (mm) for N=4 is less than
the settlement for N=3, and for N=4 and 5 the is no significant
Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

2.60 change in settlement (mm) which can be concluded from Figure 27,
2.40 therefore the optimum number of geogrids reinforcement is four for
2.20
2.00 footing (A), (B) & (C).
1.80
1.60
1.40
2.4

2.5

2.5

2.5
Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

2.6
2.3

2.3

2.3

1.20
2.1

2.1

2.1
2.1

1.00 2.4
2.2
1.9

0.80
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.6

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.8

Spacing between the 3rd & 4th geogrid to the 1.6
footing width (h3/B) 1.4 Footing A
Footing A Footing B Footing C 1.2 Footing B
Footing D Footing H Footing L 1.0
0.8 Footing C
Figure 22: Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) vs. Spacing between 0.6
the 3rd & 4th Geogrid to the footing width (h3/B) for footing (A), 0.4
(B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) 0.2
0.0
2 3 4 5 1
It can be noticed that h3/B=0.25, 0.5, 0.75 & 1 having the same BCR No. of Geogrids (N)
for footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L). Figure 23 and 24 illustrates Figure 25: No. of Georgics (N) VS Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) for
the settlement (mm) for footings (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) in footing (A), (B) & (C)
order to conclude the optimum value for h3/B

6
 4. CONCLUSIONS

20.8
Based on the Experimental and numerical investigation results, the

18.8
22

18.3

18.0
17.7
following conclusions may be drawn.

17.0

16.7

16.6
20

16.2
16.2

15.6

15.5
18 1. The results of numerical modeling have shown that the
13.2 provision of a reinforcement layer at an appropriate
Settlement (mm)

16
location in the body of sand dunes has resulted in a
10.6

14
12 Footing A significant increase in the bearing capacity of footings.
10 2. The optimum embedment depth (u/B) of the first
6.8

Footing B reinforcement layer which resulted in the maximum

8
6 Footing C ultimate bearing capacity of the geogrid-reinforced soil bed
4 was about 0.25 times the width of the footing
2 3. The optimum spacing (h/B) between each successive
0 reinforcement layer which resulted in the maximum
1 3 2 4 5 ultimate bearing capacity of the geogrid-reinforced soil bed
No. of Geogrids was about 0.75 times the width of the footing.
Figure 26: No. of Georgics VS Settlement (mm) 4. The optimum Length (L/B) of the reinforcement layer
for footing (A), (B) & (C) which resulted in the maximum ultimate bearing capacity
of the geogrid-reinforced soil bed was about 7.5 times the
Figure 27 & Figure 28 illustrates BCR and Settlement (mm) VS the width of the footing.
no. of geogrids for footing (D), (H) & (L). It can be noticed that the 5. The results of model tests and numerical analyses have
BCR value increases with the increase of geogrids layer up to N=3, shown that the optimum number of reinforcement is 4
but the settlement (mm) for N=4 is less than the settlement for N=3, layers
6. A medium agreement between the experimental and
and for N=4 and 5 the is no significant change in settlement (mm)
which can be concluded from Figure 29, therefore the optimum numerical results on general trend of behavior and the
number of Geogrid reinforcement is four for footing (D), (H) & (L) critical values of the geogrid parameters is observed. The
study showed a directly proportional relation between the
number of reinforcement layer and the BCR, and an
2.6 inversely proportional relation between the footing width
Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

2.4 and the BCR.

2.2
2.0
1.8 REFERENCES
1.36

1.36

1.36
1.32

1.30

1.30

1.30

A.M El-Shesheny “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced

1.25

1.25

1.25

[1].
1.20

1.6
1.18

1.14
1.10
1.07

1.4 Footing D Soil under Dynamic loads”, Feb 2015.

1.2 Footing H [2]. A. Zidan, "Numerical study of behavior of circular footing on
1.0 geogrid-reinforced sand under static and dynamic Loading,"
0.8 Footing L
0.6 Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 499-
0.4 510, 2012.
0.2 [3]. G. Madhavi Latha, Amit Somwanshi “Effect of reinforcement
0.0 form on the bearing capacity of square footings on sand”,
1 2 3 4 5 Geotextiles and Geomembranes vol. 27, pp. 409–422, 2009
No. of Geogrids (N) [4]. Radhey Sharma, Qiming Chen, Murad Abu-Farsak, Sungmin
Figure 27: No. of Georgics (N) VS Bearing Yoon “Analytical modeling of geogrid reinforced soil
Capacity Ratio (BCR) for footing (D), (H) & (L) foundation”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes vol. 27, pp. 63–
72, 2009
[5]. Saeed Alamshahi, Nader Hataf “Bearing capacity of strip
1530

1800
1470

1450

1440

footings on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-

1600 anchor”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes vol. 27, pp. 217–
1250

1400 226, 2009

Settlement (mm)

1200 [6]. Sao-Jeng Chao “Improving Bearing Capacity of Shallow

1000 Foundations on Weak Soils Utilizing Geosynthetic
625.0
620.2

Footing D
610.2

589.6

583.0

Reinforcing Technique”, GeoHunan International Conference

800 Footing H (2009) 40-46
600 [7]. S. Marandi, M. Bagheripour, R. Rahgozar, and A. Ghirian,
Footing L
142.6

139.4
136.6

135.3
125.2

400 "Numerical Investigation Into The Behavior of Circular Pad

200 Shallow Foundations Supported By Geogrid Reinforced
Sand," American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 5, p. 355,
0
2008.
1 2 3 4 5
[8]. A. R. Al-Sinaidi and A. H. Ali, "Improvement in bearing
No. of Geogrids (N)
capacity of soil by geogrid-an experimental approach,"
Figure 28: No. of Georgics VS Settlement (mm) IAEG2006, United Kingdom, 2006.
for footing (D), (H) & (L) [9]. A. Asakereh, S. M. Tafreshi, and M. Ghazavi, "Strip footing
behavior on reinforced sand with void subjected to repeated
From footing (A), (B), (C), (D), (H) & (L) it can be concluded that loading," International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 10,
the optimum number of Geogrid layers to be used is four pp. 139-152, 2012

7
[10]. Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., Deb, K., “Circular footings resting
on geotextile-reinforced sand bed”. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes vol 25 (6), pp.377–384, 2007
[11]. El Sawwaf, M.A., “Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-
reinforced sand over a soft clay slope”. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, vol 25 (1) , pp. 50–60, 2007
[12]. Michalowski R. L. “Limit loads on reinforced foundation
soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE (2004) 381-390.
[13]. Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N., “Experimental and numerical
investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and
ring footings on reinforced sand”. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, vol 23 (2 ), pp.144–173, 2003
[14]. Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H., Saglamer, A., Bearing capacity of
rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 120, 1994, 2083–2099.