Geomechanics and Geoengineering

An International Journal

ISSN: 1748-6025 (Print) 1748-6033 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgeo20

Experimental study of behaviour of circular

footing on geogrid-reinforced sand

Danny Useche-Infante, Gonzalo Aiassa Martinez, Pedro Arrúa & Marcelo

Eberhardt

To cite this article: Danny Useche-Infante, Gonzalo Aiassa Martinez, Pedro Arrúa & Marcelo
Eberhardt (2019): Experimental study of behaviour of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced sand,
Geomechanics and Geoengineering, DOI: 10.1080/17486025.2019.1683621

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1683621

Published online: 06 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgeo20
GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1683621

Experimental study of behaviour of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced sand

Danny Useche-Infante , Gonzalo Aiassa Martinez, Pedro Arrúa and Marcelo Eberhardt
Facultad Regional Córdoba, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Córdoba, Argentina

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Load tests were carried out with a circular foundation of diameter, B = 100 mm, supported on Received 30 June 2019
geogrid-sand reinforced contained in a circular-steel tank with diameter of 600 mm and depth of Accepted 18 October 2019
450 mm, to determine the increase produced in the bearing capacity by including geogrid layers in KEYWORDS
the sand. Two types of geogrid, uniaxial and biaxial, were used as reinforcement material. Besides, Bearing capacity; circular
a parametric study was carried out to verify the effect of several factors on the behaviour of footings; geogrid-reinforced
reinforced soil. The parameters considered in the study include the depth of the first geogrid layer, sand; model tests; regression
vertical separation between layers of geogrid, diameter of the geogrid, number of reinforcement model
layers, deep of the foundation, geogrid type, and relative density of the sand. Moreover, the effect
of folding the edges of the geogrid layer was studied. Finally, regression models will be developed
from the laboratory model test to perform an initial calculation of the bearing capacity of the
reinforced sand. Results showed that the parameters studied have a significant influence on the
performance of the footing in terms of bearing capacity. The proposed regression models pre-
sented an adequate approximation to the experimental results.

Introduction layers of geosynthetic. Basudhar et al. (2007) conducted

an experimental and numerical investigation of circular
For the last decades, the use of geosynthetics for ground
footings with different sizes; they found that when the
improvement to support shallow foundations has received
number of reinforcement layers is increased, the settle-
considerable attention. Few studies on bearing capacity
ment value gradually decreased. Phanikumar et al. (2009)
behaviour of shallow foundations on a reinforced sand
studied the effects of the effective size of soil particle (D10)
bed have been reported in the literature (Binquet and Lee
and the number of geogrid layers on the behaviour of
1975, Fragaszy and Lawton 1985; Guido et al. 1986; Adams
foundation. Chakraborty and Kumar (2014) investigated
and Collin 1997, Das et al. 1998, Sitharam and Sireesh
the optimum diameter and critical positions of the rein-
2004, 2006, Patra et al. 2005, Chung and Cascante 2007,
forcement layers to achieve maximum bearing capacity.
Latha and Somwanshi 2009, El-Sawwaf and Nazir 2010,
The researchers used the limit analysis, finite elements
Abu-Farsakh et al. 2013, Srinivasan and Ghosh 2013, Yadu
and linear optimisation to study the ultimate bearing
and Tripathi 2013, Cicek and Guler 2015, Kazi et al. 2015,
capacity of a circular footing, supported on soil reinforced
Durga-Prasad et al. 2016, Tavangar and Shooshpasha
with circular reinforcement sheets.
2016, Shahin et al. 2018). Many of these investigations
were carried out to study the effect of different parameters Empirical estimation methods are often used in
on the bearing capacity of reinforced soil. Although in the geotechnical engineering applications. Generally,
reported works the behaviour of shallow foundations of models consist of functions that relate dependent
different forms is analysed, it is important to deepen the and independent variables. Some researchers have
study of circular footings, which are predominantly used in presented regression models to calculate the bearing
axisymmetric structures. capacity of shallow foundations supported on geosyn-
thetic-reinforced sands (Chen 2007, Gu 2011, Latha
In the case of circular foundations resting on rein-
et al. 2013). Bera et al. (2005) performed a regression
forced sand, Sitharam and Sireesh (2004) presented
analysis for foundations supported by fly ash rein-
laboratory results with different footing depths. The
forced with geotextiles. According to the works con-
authors reported an increase in ultimate bearing capacity
sulted, the multiple regression models presented
with increasing footing depth. Moreover, they obtained
acceptable approximations to the values of bearing
an improvement in the bearing capacity and a decrease in
capacity measured in laboratory.
settlements when reinforcing the sand with multiple

CONTACT Danny Useche-Infante [email protected]

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

The aim of present experimental investigation is to method was used to determine the particle size distribu-
evaluate the effect of different parameters of the sand- tion of the sand and the results are shown in Figure 1.
geogrid configuration, on the behaviour of a circular Standard triaxial compression tests on this sand at relative
footing supported on reinforced sand. The parameters densities of 30%, 60% and 90% revealed internal friction
considered in the model tests are: top layer spacing (u), angles of 34.3º, 40.5º and 45.4º, respectively.
diameter of reinforcement (D), vertical spacing between
reinforcement (h), number of layers (N), embedment
depth of footing (Df), type of the reinforcement and the Geosynthetic specimens
effects of wraparound ends of the geogrid (see Figure 3). Two types of geosynthetics were used in the experimen-
Finally, with the results obtained from test, two regres- tal programme: uniaxial and biaxial geogrid. Figure 2
sion models are proposed for prediction of the bearing shows the geogrid used as reinforcement in this study.
capacity of a circular foundation supported on sand The uniaxial geogrid is made of polyvinyl alcohol
reinforced with geogrid. The expressions obtained (PVA). The biaxial geogrid is fabricated of polypropy-
were compared with different analytical and multiple lene (PP) yarns. In Table 1, the mechanical strength
regression models reported in the technical literature. parameters of the two types of geosynthetics used in
the tests are shown.

Materials used in the experiments

Testing methodology
Sand
Test set-up
The samples were conformed with locally available river
dry sand. The relevant properties of the sand are average The model tests were conducted in a circular-steel tank
particle diameter (D50) of 1.56 mm; coefficient of unifor- of 600 mm internal diameter, 8 mm wall thickness and
mity (Cu) of 3.70; coefficient of curvature (Cc) of 1.11. The 450 mm height. In order to maintain the axisymmetric
sand is classified as poorly graded sand according to the condition and minimising the out of plane displace-
Unified Soil Classification System. The maximum and ment, the tank was built sufficiently rigid. The inner
minimum dry unit weights of the sand are obtained as surface of the tank was made smooth by painting with
17.19 and 14.27 kN/m3, respectively. The dry sieving an oil paint to reduce the boundary effects. A rigid

Figure 1. Grain size distribution for the sand.

 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. Geosynthetics used in the tests (Dimensions in mm), (a) uniaxial geogrid, (b) biaxial geogrid.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of geogrid (provided from the suppliers' technical brochures).
Property Reinforcement
Type of geosynthetic material Uniaxial geogrid Biaxial geogrid
Type of polymer Polyvinyl (PVA) Polypropylene (PP)
Nominal mass per unit area (g/m2) 240 200
Modulus to def. 5% LDa 630 ≥ 360
(kN/m) CDb - ≥ 360
Modulus to def. 2% (kN/m) LDa 700 ≥ 400
CDb - ≥ 400
Mesh opening (mm) LDa 20 40
CDb 30 40
Thickness (mm) LDa 1.0 1.5
CDb 1.0 1.0
a
Longitudinal direction.
b
Cross machine direction.

rough circular-steel footing with diameter, B, of 100 mm to Chummar (1972), the soil failure surface extends
and thickness of 15 mm, is placed over a geogrid- around of 2B on each side from the edge of the footing
reinforced sand. A hydraulic jack with 50-ton capacity and its depth is about 1.1B from the base of the founda-
welded against a reaction frame was used to apply the tion. Therefore, in the tests carried out, it is guaranteed
load to the footing. The diameter of the foundation and that the fault surface develops freely. Besides, the B/D50
size of the tank were chosen in such a way that the edge ratio was 64.1, accordingly, the size of the soil particles
effect was minimum. The diameter of the tank was has no significant influence on the results (see Kusakabe
6B and the height of the soil stratum 4.5B. According (1995)).
4 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the test set-up, (a) Series I to VI, (b) Series VII.

The tank was fixed and supported by two steel beams, density of 30%, the sand was placed by dry pluviation
and connected to four steel columns which were placed in method, at a constant height of fall to achieve uniformity
the floor of the lab firmly by anchor bolts. The rate of the of sand index properties. The density was obtained by
vertical movement of the foundation was kept to calibrating the height of fall and the size of the hole of the
a constant value of 1 mm/min for the entire test. The spreader. The calculated fall height was 0.8 m, which
amount of load applied was measured by using a load remained constant during the deposition. At the required
cell. The displacements were measured by a digital dial. depth according to the geometric configuration, the sand
Data were recorded by means of a data logger that was raining was stopped to place the geosynthetic sheet. The
connected to the computer for processing. A schematic density of the sample was controlled with small alumi-
diagram of the test set-up is shown in Figure 3 and the test nium cans of known volumes placed in different parts of
apparatus is shown in Figure 4. the tank. Differences in densities below 2% were mea-
sured at different locations in the test tank. For relative
densities of 60% and 90%, the soil layers were prepared
Sample preparation with dynamic compaction using a 150 mm in diameter
vibratory poker to achieve the desired relative density.
The test tank was filled with sand in five layers, four layers Proper care was given to achieve the same dry unit weight
of 100 mm thick and a top layer of 50 mm thick; main- in all the five lifts, in order to have a homogenous sand
taining a total thickness of the sand bed of 450 mm. In bed. For the preparation of reinforced sand sample, geo-
order to study the influence of relative density of founda- grid is placed at desired depth from bottom of footing
tion soil on the performance of geogrid-reinforced foun- after levelling the surface to make it horizontal. Model
dation beds (series I), the model tests were performed at footing was then placed so that the centre of the plate
relative densities of 30%, 60%, and 90%. In the other coincides with the centre of the loading jack to avoid
series of tests, the sand beds were maintained at fixed eccentric loading. (In this paragraph the following is
relative density of 60%. For samples with a relative added: At the required depth according to the geometric
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 5

Figure 4. Model footing load test arrangement in the laboratory.

configuration, the sand raining was stopped to place the to find the sand-geogrid configuration that provides the
geosynthetic sheet. The density of the sample was con- greatest increase in the bearing capacity. In each series
trolled with small aluminium cans of known volumes a parameter was studied while the other variables were
placed in different parts of the tank. Differences in den- kept constant. Table 2 summarises the test programme
sities below 2% were measured at different locations in and test variables.
the test tank.) Under series I, samples were prepared with different
relative densities. In this series of tests, the effect of sand
density on the improvement obtained in reinforced soils
Experimental testing programme was determined.
Seven series of tests were performed to analyse the effect Test series II were conducted by varying the depth of
produced in the footing when geogrid layers are the top geogrid layer (u). The objective of these tests is
included in the sand. Tests were carried out in order to determine the depth of the geogrid layer with which
6 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of model tests and results.

Series (Var.) Geogrid type Dr (%) u/B D/B h/B N Df/B qua (kPa) BCRu qsb (kPa) BCRs (s/B= 0.03) qsc (kPa) BCRs (s/B= 0.10)
I (Dr) Without 30 - - - - 0 19.5 - 7.8 - 18.0 -
Uniaxial 30 0.25 3 - 1 0 22.0 1.13 10.8 1.28 21.6 1.20
Biaxial 30 0.25 3 - 1 0 32.8 1.49 18.6 1.72 32.1 1.49
Without 60 - - - - 0 60.5 - 36.0 - 60.2 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 88.6 1.46 53.8 1.49 87.9 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 159.9 1.81 102.4 1.90 156.7 1.78
Without 90 - - - - 0 174.9 - 86.4 - 163.5 -
Uniaxial 90 0.25 3 - 1 0 300.1 1.71 154.1 1.78 279.8 1.71
Biaxial 90 0.25 3 - 1 0 595.8 1.99 327.8 2.13 550.0 1.97
II (u/B) Uniaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 88.6 1.46 53.8 1.49 87.9 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 109.2 1.81 68.8 1.90 107.1 1.78
Uniaxial 60 0.50 3 - 1 0 77.7 1.28 47.3 1.31 72.8 1.21
Biaxial 60 0.50 3 - 1 0 82.7 1.37 52.3 1.45 80.4 1.34
Uniaxial 60 0.75 3 - 1 0 60.3 1.00 37.0 1.03 60.1 1.00
Biaxial 60 0.75 3 - 1 0 63.9 1.10 40.3 1.11 60.5 1.01
Uniaxial 60 1.00 3 - 1 0 62.3 1.03 36.5 1.01 60.1 1.00
Biaxial 60 1.00 3 - 1 0 62.3 1.02 36.5 1.09 61.9 1.02
III (D/B) Uniaxial 60 0.25 1 - 1 0 61.9 1.01 33.5 0.93 60.1 1.00
Biaxial 60 0.25 1 - 1 0 74.8 1.24 34.0 0.94 66.2 1.10
Uniaxial 60 0.25 2 - 1 0 68.1 1.13 39.5 1.09 68.0 1.18
Biaxial 60 0.25 2 - 1 0 86.7 1.43 43.0 1.19 82.4 1.37
Uniaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 88.6 1.46 53.8 1.49 87.9 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 3 - 1 0 109.2 1.81 68.8 1.90 107.1 1.78
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 89.9 1.49 56.5 1.56 88.0 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 111.3 1.84 70.5 1.95 111.3 1.85
Uniaxial 60 0.25 5 - 1 0 98.4 1.63 55.0 1.53 91.9 1.53
Biaxial 60 0.25 5 - 1 0 111.3 1.84 68.0 1.88 111.0 1.85
IV (h/B) Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 2 0 107.9 1.78 67.3 1.87 106.0 1.76
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 2 0 144.6 2.39 83.8 2.32 140.9 2.34
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.50 2 0 97.1 1.61 57.3 1.69 91.4 1.52
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.50 2 0 111.7 1.85 74.8 2.08 111.5 2.11
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.75 2 0 90.9 1.50 59.0 1.64 88.4 1.47
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.75 2 0 114.3 1.89 70.8 1.96 113.2 1.88
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 1.00 2 0 89.0 1.47 55.0 1.53 88.4 1.47
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 1.00 2 0 111.5 1.84 68.0 1.88 111.5 1.85
V (N) Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 88.6 1.46 53.8 1.49 87.9 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 109.2 1.81 68.8 1.90 107.1 1.78
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 2 0 107.9 1.78 67.3 1.87 106.0 1.76
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 2 0 144.6 2.39 83.8 2.32 140.9 2.34
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 3 0 153.1 2.53 94.3 2.62 152.8 2.53
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 3 0 198.0 3.28 108.8 3.01 195.8 3.24
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 4 0 161.3 2.67 96.4 2.68 158.8 2.63
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 4 0 209.7 3.47 113.4 3.15 208.4 3.46
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 5 0 171.3 2.83 97.7 2.71 171.1 2.83
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 0.25 5 0 211.6 3.50 116.8 3.24 209.8 3.49
VI (Df/B) Without 60 - - - - 0 60.5 - 36.0 - 60.2 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 88.6 1.46 53.8 1.49 87.9 1.46
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 109.2 1.81 68.8 1.90 107.1 1.78
Without 60 - - - - 0.25 101.9 - 66.7 - 100.4 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.25 145.5 1.43 99.5 1.49 143.2 1.42
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.25 177.0 1.74 122.1 1.83 174.7 1.74
Without 60 - - - - 0.50 173.8 - 80.2 - 165.1 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.50 236.4 1.36 116.6 1.46 232.0 1.41
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.50 274.7 1.58 143.8 1.79 274.4 1.66
Without 60 - - - - 0.75 200.6 - 90.0 - 195.1 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.75 271.8 1.35 125.7 1.40 271.5 1.39
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 0.75 316.5 1.58 157.2 1.75 316.2 1.62
Without 60 - - - - 1.00 296.3 - 147.5 - 276.7 -
Uniaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 1.00 383.3 1.29 203.4 1.38 382.5 1.38
Biaxial 60 0.25 4 - 1 1.00 438.8 1.48 244.7 1.66 438.2 1.58
VII* (l/B) Uniaxial (l/B= 0.3) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 106.4 1.76 63.3 1.75 104.8 1.74
Biaxial (l/B= 0.3) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 111.0 1.84 72.5 2.01 110.0 1.83
Uniaxial (l/B= 0.6) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 107.4 1.78 66.0 1.83 107.2 1.78
Biaxial (l/B= 0.6) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 118.9 1.97 74.5 2.07 118.2 1.96
Uniaxial (l/B= 1.0) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 110.3 1.78 65.6 1.82 110.1 1.83
Biaxial (l/B= 1.0) 60 0.25 4 - 1 0 119.6 1.98 74.0 2.06 116.8 1.94
*Geogrid reinforcement with wraparound ends.
a
Ultimate bearing capacity.
b
Bearing capacity for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03.
c
Bearing capacity for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.10.
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 7

the maximum improvement in footing response is Results and discussion of experimental

obtained. programme
Tests in series III were carried out by varying the dia-
Stress-settlement response and bearing capacity
meter of reinforcement layers (D). In this test, series was
ratio (BCR)
obtained the optimum diameter of geogrid layers with the
depth of the top geogrid layer obtained from series II. The improvement produced in the soil by the inclusion of
Tests in series IV were carried out with two layers of geogrid layers was calculated with the bearing capacity
reinforcement, with different vertical spacing of geogrid ratio (BCR). The BCR was defined for Adams and Collin
layers (h), for geosynthetic layers arranged in depth top (1997) as the ratio of the bearing capacity of reinforced
layer and optimum diameter of geogrid obtained from and unreinforced soil. The BCR can be expressed as:
series II and III. The purpose of this series of tests is to qðRÞ
evaluate the effect of the vertical distance between geo- BCR ¼ (1)
qðUÞ
grid layers on the behaviour of the footing.
Test series V were performed to study the effect of the where q(R) and q(U) are bearing capacity values for rein-
number of reinforcement layers (N) on the footing forced and unreinforced soil foundations, respectively.
behaviour. The reinforcing layers were placed with In this paper, the benefits of using geogrid-reinforced
values of u, D and h obtained from series II, III and sand are then evaluated in terms of BCRs at a specific
IV, respectively. Tests were conducted to find out the settlement (for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10)
optimum number of the geogrid layers that give the and at the ultimate bearing capacity (BCRu).
maximum improvement in the bearing capacity. Typical variations of stress with settlement curves of the
Tests in series VI were carried out with different model footing of unreinforced and reinforced sand are
embedments of a footing (Df) with the layer of geogrid shown in Figures 5–11. An increase in load-settlement
placed at a depth and with the optimum diameter behaviour was obtained for the reinforced samples com-
obtained from series II and III. In this test series, the pared to the unreinforced samples. The test results showed
effect of footing depth on the improvement produced two different types of load-settlement behaviour. In the first
with the inclusion of a geogrid layer is evaluated. type of load–settlement curve, the ultimate bearing capacity
Tests in series VII were carried out with a single layer cannot be clearly identified (see Figure 5). For this type of
of geogrid reinforcement with wraparound ends, opti- curves, the ultimate bearing capacity was estimated using
mum depth top layer (series I) and optimum diameter the double tangent method, according to which, the ulti-
of geogrid (series II). The objective of this series of tests is mate bearing capacity corresponds to the tangent intersec-
to study the effect of the use reinforcement with its wrap- tion between the initial part of the curve (stiff behaviour)
around ends placed within a sand bed. In these tests, the and the final part of the curve (softer behaviour). In
optimal length of overlap (l) was found. This series has Figure 6, the behaviour of the second type of load–settle-
a practical value because in areas where space is limited it ment curve is described, for these curves the ultimate
is impossible to increase the diameter of the geosynthetic; bearing capacity can be clearly identified. For unreinforced
therefore, a possible solution to improve the bearing sands, these two types of behaviour are attributed to the
capacity is to bend the edges of the geosynthetic. density of the sample. The first type of behaviour occurs in

Figure 5. Variation of bearing pressure with footing settlement for different relative densities test, series I (N = 1, u/B = 0.25, D/B = 3, Df/B = 0),
(a) Uniaxial geogrid and (b) Biaxial geogrid.
8 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Figure 6. Variation of bearing pressure with settlement for different depths of the top geogrid layer, series II (Dr = 60%, N = 1, D/B = 3,
Df/B = 0), (a) Uniaxial geogrid and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

Figure 7. Variation of bearing pressure with settlement for different diameters of geogrid layer, series III (Dr= 60%, N= 1, u/B = 0.25, Df/B = 0),
(a) Uniaxial geogrid and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

Figure 8. Bearing pressure vs. Footing settlement for different spacings of geogrid layers, series IV (Dr = 60%, N = 2, u/B = 0.25, D/B =
4, Df/B = 0), (a) Uniaxial geogrid and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

dense sands and the second type of behaviour occurs in Effect of relative density variation
medium-dense sands (Vesic 1973). When three or more
Bearing pressure versus settlement responses for different
layers of geosynthetic are used, it can be seen that the
values of relative density are shown in Figure 5. The pres-
typical behaviour for dense sands is altered by the develop-
sure – settlement responses, presented a visible improve-
ment of the tensile force in the geogrid layers.
ment in the bearing capacity of the soil as the relative
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 9

Figure 9. Bearing pressure vs. Footing settlement for different numbers of reinforcement layers, series V (Dr= 60%, u/B = 0.25, D/B = 4,
h/B = 0.25, Df/B = 0), (a) Uniaxial and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

Figure 10. Bearing pressure vs. Footing settlement for different embedments of a footing, series VI (Dr = 60%, N = 1, u/B = 0.25, D/B = 4), (a)
Uniaxial geogrid and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

Figure 11. Bearing pressure vs. Footing settlement for geogrid reinforcement with wraparound ends, series VII (Dr = 60%, N = 1, u/B = 0.25,
D/B = 4), (a) Uniaxial and (b) Biaxial geogrid.

density increases. Variation of the bearing capacity ratio It could be observed that as the relative density increases
(BCR) with relative density of soil Dr, is shown in Figure 12. the bearing capacity ratio also increases, which is in good
10 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Figure 12. Variations of BCR with different relative densities, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03
and 0.10.

agreement with the finding by Durga-Prasad et al. (2016). that develops in it has less effect on the stress influence
The BCR presented values between 1.13 and 2.13 for the zone. In the results of the series II, a greater increase in
series I, as can be seen in Table 2, this shows a significant the bearing capacity was obtained when u = 0.25B,
enhancement in the bearing capacity of the soil for the however, to find the optimum value of the depth of
different densities considered. The inclusion of the geosyn- the first layer, it is necessary to carry out tests with u <
thetic generates a stiffening effect in the soil, which pro- 0.25B.
duces a greater improvement in the reinforced samples. (In
this paragraph the citation of the document by Fragaszy
and Lawton (1985) was changed to that of Durga-Prasad Effect of the diameter of reinforcement
et al. (2016). There was an error in the reference. The work
In order to determine the size of the reinforcement that
reported by Durga-Prasad et al. (2016) presents the
produces the optimal anchorage between the geogrid and
improvement in load-carrying capacity of footing on rein-
the soil, in the series III was studied the effect of the
forced sand was higher for dense sand beds and the experi-
diameter of the geogrid on the footing behaviour. The
mental conditions are similar to those presented in this
stress–settlement curves for different values of geogrid
paper.)
diameter ratio (D/B) are shown in Figure 7. This figure
shows that the bearing capacity of the soil begins to grow
for values of D/B ≥ 3, with the bearing capacity values
Effect of reinforcement’s top spacing
being higher for the samples with D/B = 4. For D/B = 5
Figure 6 shows that the bearing capacity of the soil the increase in bearing capacity does not change signifi-
decreases as the depth of the geogrid layer increases, to cantly in relation to that achieved with D/B = 3 and 4.
a value from which there is no increase in the soil This behaviour illustrates that a sufficient diameter must
carrying capacity (for u/B > 0.75). This can occur be provided to the geogrid to fully develop the pull-out
because when the depth of the geogrid layer is increased capacity in the reinforcement. Figure 14 shows the varia-
too much, the failure occurs between the base of the tions of BCR with the geogrid diameter ratio. The BCR
foundation and the reinforcement layer (Chen 2007); increases with increasing geogrid diameter, the highest
therefore, the tensile force in the geosynthetic is not values of increase in the bearing capacity are reached for
developed. The variation of BCR with u/B is shown in the samples with D/B ≥ 3. For values of D/B > 5, the size
Figure 13. The results indicate that the BCR values at the of the geogrid layer is not cost-effective. Therefore, the
ultimate loads and for s/B = 0.03 and 0.10 generally best performance of reinforced soil occurs when D/B is in
decreased as top layer spacing increased. Abu-Farsakh the range between 3 and 5. This is consistent with the
et al. (2013) reported the same observation. This beha- recommended size of geogrid reported by El-Sawwaf
viour occurs because there is a direct relationship y Nazir (2010), Chakraborty and Kumar (2014) and
between the location of the geogrid compared to the Tavangar and Shooshpasha (2016), who found optimal
size of the stress influence zone. The average vertical values between 3 and 5B. Similar to results obtained in the
stress increase below the centre of a circularly loaded series II, the relation between reinforcement diameter
area has greater influence at depths close to the base of and size of the stress influence zone becomes visible.
the foundation (see Saikia (2012)). Therefore, when the The length of this zone of influence for depths close to
depth of geosynthetic location is increased, the tension the base of the foundation is around 4B (see Chummar
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 11

Figure 13. Variations of BCR with u/B ratio, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

Figure 14. Variations of BCR with D/B ratio, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

(1972)). For this reason, the samples in which the dia- of the geogrids in relation to the size of the stress
meter of the geogrid crossed the stress influence zone had influence zone.
a higher increase in capacity.

Effect of number of reinforcement layers

Effect of vertical distance between reinforcement
The effect of geogrid number in stress-settlement beha-
layers
viour of reinforced sand is illustrated in Figure 9. The
Two geogrid layers were used with vertical distance ratio test indicated that the inclusion of various geogrid layers
values of h/B = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0. The results of the resulted in an increase in the bearing capacity of the
tests showed a decrease in the bearing capacity as the footing. Previous studies conducted by other research-
separation between geogrid layers was increased (view ers showed that the bearing capacity of the soil increases
Figure 8). The variation of BCR with normalised layer as the number of geosynthetic layers within the sample
spacing h/B is presented in Figure 15. It can be seen that increases (Binquet and Lee 1975, Fragaszy and Lawton
the vertical spacing between reinforcement layers at 1985, Guido et al. 1986, Adams and Collin 1997, Das
which a greater increase in bearing capacity occurs, is et al. 1998, Patra et al. 2005, Basudhar et al. 2007, Chung
in the range between 0.25 y 0.40B. Similar results were and Cascante 2007, El-Sawwaf and Nazir 2010, Abu-
reported by Patra et al. (2005), Chakraborty and Kumar Farsakh et al. 2013, Yadu and Tripathi 2013, Tavangar
(2014) and Tavangar and Shooshpasha (2016) for rein- and Shooshpasha 2016). Figure 16 presents the variation
forced sand. For values of h/B > 0.75, there is no increase of bearing capacity ratio (BCR) with number of reinfor-
in bearing capacity of the soil by including a second cing layers (N). It is seen that the bearing capacity ratio
layer of geogrid. The results obtained are consistent with increased as the number of reinforcement layers
those of the series II for the location of the top layer u/B, increased. Nevertheless, for N between 1 and 3, there
as the same effect is shown here regarding the location was a sustained increase in the BCR by increasing the
12 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Figure 15. Variations of BCR with h/B ratio, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

Figure 16. Variations of BCR with N, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

number of geogrid layers, for N > 3 the growth rate in Effect of the wraparound of the geogrid
the BCR was much lower. Therefore, when three layers reinforcement ends
of geogrid were used, the optimum increase in bearing
The behaviour of circular foundations resting on sand
capacity was obtained.
beds reinforced with a single layer of the geogrid with
wraparound ends was studied. This technique can be
used when there is not enough space to place the geo-
Effect of footing depth
synthetic layer with the optimum size. The variable
The effect of footing depth ratio (Df/B) of single layer of taken into account in this series is the folded length, l/
geogrid reinforcement was studied by applying an over- B. Samples were prepared with l/B = 0, 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0
load of Df/B = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0. Figure 10 indicates (see Figure 3 and Table 2). In Figure 11, it is observed
that the bearing capacity of the unreinforced and rein- that the wraparound ends cause an increase in the
forced soil is increased when the depth of foundation is bearing capacity of the reinforced soil. Figure 18 shows
increased. Similar results were obtained by Sitharam and the variation of the BCR against l/B. The results of the
Sireesh (2004), Gu (2011) and Kazi et al. (2016). On the tests indicated that the geogrid with wraparound ends
other hand, Figure 17 shows the variations of BCR with the (with l/B = 0.3), produces an increase in the BCR that
footing depth ratio. The figure shows that as the footing depends on the type of reinforcement, in this case the
depth increases, the BCR decreases gradually. The decrease improvement was 10% and 5% for the samples with
in the BCR is due to the fact that a greater increase in the uniaxial and biaxial geogrid, respectively. For l/B > 0.6,
bearing capacity of the soil was obtained in the unrein- the enhancement is insignificant. The improvement
forced samples compared to the reinforced samples when obtained is attributed to the confinement effect pro-
the footing depth was increased. The trend presented by duced when the edges of the geogrid are folded
BCR vs. Df/B is similar to that found by Gu (2011). (Shukla 2012, Kazi et al. 2015).
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 13

Figure 17. Variations of BCR with Df/B, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

Figure 18. Variations of BCR with l/B, (a) for ultimate bearing capacity and (b) for settlement ratio, s/B, of 0.03 and 0.10.

Effect of the type of geosynthetic material relation to the main footing can have an effect on the
increase of the bearing capacity. Investigations carried
Two different types of geogrid with different tensile mod-
out with strips and rectangular footings show important
uli were used in the model footing tests, uniaxial and
increases in the bearing capacity contributed by uniaxial
biaxial geogrid (see Table 2). According to the results
geogrid (Patra et al. 2005, El-Sawwaf and Nazir 2010).
obtained in the tests, the improvement in the bearing
capacity of the soil depended on the type of geogrid
used. As seen in Figure 5 to 18; the sand reinforced by
Regression models
the biaxial geogrid, which has a higher modulus and
resists greater tensile stresses in the transverse ribs than Basic model
the uniaxial geogrid, reached higher values of bearing
The following basic regression model was selected to
capacity than sand reinforced by the uniaxial geogrid.
perform the data analysis:
This difference can be attributed to the resistance pro-
vided by the transverse fibres and the interaction between y ¼ 1 x1 þ 2 x2 þ ::: þ p xp (2)
the soil particles and the geosynthetic fibres, which is
presented differently in the two types of geogrid. The where y represents the estimated value for y’, x1, x2, . . ., xp
interaction between soil and the two types of geogrid are independent variables and ξ1, ξ2, . . ., ξp are unknown
used in this research has been studied by the authors in parameters and p is the number of independent variables.
previous investigations (Useche-Infante et al. 2016). The ξi coefficients are selected in such a way that the sum
Besides, a study conducted by Liu et al. (2009) showed of squared residuals Σ(y – y’)2 is again minimised.
the contribution of geogrid transverse bars to the shear To evaluate the degree of adjustment of the regres-
strength at soil–geogrid interface. The direction of geo- sion line to the data, the coefficient of determination R2
grid placement (especially of the uniaxial geogrid) in was used, which is defined as:
14 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

sum of squares due to regression 0 i

R2 ¼ (3) tcal ¼ (7)
sum of squares about the mean w0 i

The value of R2 will never decrease by adding some where wi0 is the positive square root of C-1iiEs2, where
explanatory variables; an alternative to evaluate the C-1ii is the ith diagonal element of the matrix (x´x)−1.
model in these cases is to make an adjustment to the The decision rule for the ‘t’ test is:
coefficient R2. The adjusted coefficient of determination
(R2adj) is calculated as follows: ● Reject hypothesis if tcal > t(1 – α/2, n – p) o, tcal < – t
  (1 – α/2, n – p).
2

2
 n 1 ● Accept hypothesis if – t(1 – α/2, n – p) ≤ tcal ≤ t(1 –
R adj ¼ 1 1 R (4)
n p α/2, n – p).

where n and p are the number of independent variables where t(1 – α/2, n – p) is a value chosen from the
and the number of observations, respectively. t table for the appropriate level of significance, α.
The efficiency of the model was measured with the
standard error. This value is an unbiased estimate of the
variance. The prediction obtained with the model will Linear and non-linear model
be better when the value of Es is smaller. Es2 is given by:
The results of the load tests showed that the soil type,
ðy y0 Þ2
P
2 the geosynthetic type and the geometric parameters of
Es ¼ (5)
ðn pÞ soil-geogrid system influence the stress-settlement
behaviour of the foundation. The following parameters
were included in the regression models: relative density
Significance of regression coefficients (Dr), settlement of the footing ratio (s/B), depth of the
first layer ratio (u/B), vertical separation between layers
In order to determine that if the assumed equation is
ratio (h/B), diameter of the reinforcement ratio (D/B),
statistically significant or not, F and t statistics were
number of layers (N) and tensile modulus of reinforce-
calculated. The significance of the regression coefficient
ment (J). The linear regression model used to investigate
as a whole can be assessed by the F test, while the
the effects of all variables is expressed as follows:
significance of the partial regression coefficient can be
determined by t test.
   
Dr s u D
With the F test, the variance contributed by the BCR ¼ 1 þ 2 þ 3 þ 4 þ 5
 100 B  B  B
regression and the error variance are compared. This h J
test allows evaluating the suitability of the model. The þ 6 þ 7 ðN Þ þ 8
B 100kN=m
null hypothesis is that the partial regression coefficients, (8)
ξ1, ξ2, . . ., ξp are equal to zero. From the definition of R2;
F can be expressed as: After performing the procedure described in the previous
sections and obtaining the values of the coefficients, the
½R2 =ðp 1ފ following linear regression equation was obtained:
Fcal ¼ (6)
½ð1 R2 Þ=ðn pފ  
Dr s u
BCR ¼ 1:76 þ 0:862 0:454 0:833
The decision rule for the ‘F’ test is: 100 B B
   
D h
þ :::::: þ 0:191 0:539 þ
● Reject hypothesis if Fcal > F(1 – α, p – 1, n – p). B B
● Accept hypothesis if Fcal ≤ F(1 – α, p – 1, n – p). 
J

0:409ðN Þ þ 0:609
100kN=m
where F(1 – α, p – 1, n – p) is a value chosen from the
(9)
F table for the appropriate level of significance, α. If
the null hypothesis in the case of the F test is rejected, Likewise, the analysis of variance and the F statistic are
the contribution of individual variables to explain the presented in Table 3, while the t statistic is presented in
variation of dependent variable is carried out with the Table 4. The values of R2 and R2adj for the linear model
t test. If the results of t statistics show that any regression were 0.848 and 0.839, respectively.
coefficient is not statistically significant, a new equation Based on Figure 12–17, the following non-linear
must be proposed without the insignificant coefficients. regression model was chosen as the one that best repre-
The statistic t is calculated as follows: sents the behaviour of the data:
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 15

Table 3. Analysis of variance and F statistic (linear model). Table 5. Analysis of variance and F statistic (non-linear model).
Sum of squares Mean square F Pr>F Sum of squares Mean square F Pr>F
Regression 50.3524 7.1932 101.80 <0.0001 Regression 14.9501 2.1357 111.30 <0.0001
Error 9.0448 0.0707 Error 2.4562 0.0192
Total 59.3972 Total 17.4063

Table 6. t statistic (non-linear model).

Dr 2  s 3 ðBuÞ D 5 ðBhÞ Variable Parameter Standard error T Pr>|t|
   
BCR ¼ 1 4 6 Intercept Ln(ξ1) = −1.0398 0.2348 −4.43 <0.0001
100 B B Ln(Dr)/100 ξ2 = 0.20889 0.06152 3.40 0.001
8 (10)
 Ln(s/B) ξ3 = −0.02961 0.02606 −1.14 0.0258
7 J u/B Ln(ξ4) = −0.64266 0.06084 <0.0001
ðN Þ −10.56
100kN=m Ln(D/B) ξ5 = 0.34899 0.03773 9.25 <0.0001
h/B Ln(ξ6) = −0.39920 0.05014 −7.96 <0.0001
After finding the value of the different coefficients, Ln(N) ξ7 = 0.44102 0.02854 15.45 <0.0001
Ln(J/100) ξ8 = 1.0561 0.1779 5.94 <0.0001
Equation (10) can be written as follows:
 0:21    0:35
Dr s 0:03 ð u
Þ D
BCR ¼ 0:35 0:53 B
than 0.8, reason why the estimation obtained with the
100 B B
 1:06 (11) models is quite reasonable. The variation of the data was
ð h
Þ 0:44 J presented in a similar way in the two regression models.
0:67 ðN Þ
B
100kN=m In the analysis, it was possible to establish that the
As can be seen in Tables 4–6, the maximum values of α variables taken into account in the model have a direct
were 0.0513 and 0.0258 for linear and non-linear mod- influence on the value of the BCR. With the regression
els, respectively, which are very close to the established models developed in this section (Equations (9) and
significance level of 0.05, for the remaining variables, α (11)), it is possible to perform a preliminary calculation
is less than 0.05. Therefore, it is reasonable not to reject of the bearing capacity of circular shallow foundations
the null hypothesis for all independent variables. This supported on sand reinforced with geogrids.
suggests that all independent variables are linearly
related to the dependent variable. Comparison of regression models with analytical
methodologies and other regression equations
reported
Evaluation of the models
The comparison was made with the methodologies
In order to verify the regression models presented in developed by Huang and Menq (1997), Wayne et al.
Equations (9) and (11), the results of the regression (1998), Kumar and Saran (2003) and Sharma et al.
models were compared with 23 experimental results (2009). Likewise, the models were compared with the
that were not included in the model and correspond to regression equations reported by Latha et al. (2013). The
ultimate bearing capacity values. Table 7 shows the chosen analytical methodologies were developed for
results of the verification with the absolute error square footings; therefore, it was necessary to estimate
obtained. a square area equivalent to the circular area obtained
As can be seen in Table 7, the maximum absolute with a diameter of 100 mm, in order to obtain an
error obtained was 10% for the two models presented. equivalent foundation width. This method has been
Therefore, the values estimated by the equations are commonly used to calculate the bearing capacity of
satisfactorily approximated to the values measured circular and square foundations with equivalent area
experimentally. Likewise, the values of R2 were higher (see Skempton (1951)). The equivalent width of the
square foundation was calculated as follows:
Table 4. t statistic (linear model). pffiffiffi
D π
Variable Parameter Standard error t Pr>|t| Bequ ¼ (12)
Intercept ξ1 = −1.7564 0.3867 −4.54 <0.0001 2
Dr/100 ξ2 = 0.8625 0.2215 3.89 <0.0001
s/B ξ3 = −0.4536 0.8941 −0.51 0.0513
where Bequ is the equivalent width and B is the diameter of
u/B ξ4 = −0.8333 0.1157 −7.20 <0.0001 the circular footing (100 mm). The equivalent width in this
D/B ξ5 = 0.19104 0.02905 6.58 <0.0001 case was Bequ = 88.6 mm.
h/B ξ6 = −0.53895 0.09089 −5.93 <0.0001
N ξ7 = 0.40937 0.02272 18.02 <0.0001 The results of these comparisons can be seen in
J/100 ξ8 = 0.6092 0.1013 6.01 <0.0001 Figure 19, where the graphs of BCR vs. N for uniaxial
16 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Table 7. Verification of regression models.

Linear model Nonlinear model
Dr/100 s/B u/B D/B h/B N J/100 BCR measured BCR Error BCR Error
0.3 0.085 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.15 1.13 1.15 1.96 1.24 9.54
0.6 0.080 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.15 1.46 1.41 3.22 1.43 1.76
0.9 0.089 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.15 1.71 1.67 2.49 1.56 8.96
0.3 0.082 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.60 1.49 1.43 4.19 1.43 4.19
0.6 0.078 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.60 1.81 1.69 6.74 1.65 8.63
0.9 0.081 0.25 3.0 0 1 3.60 1.99 1.95 2.25 1.80 9.62
0.6 0.085 0.50 3.0 0 1 3.15 1.28 1.20 6.06 1.22 4.56
0.6 0.081 0.75 3.0 0 1 3.15 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.04 4.38
0.6 0.088 0.75 3.0 0 1 3.60 1.10 1.27 10.17 1.20 9.05
0.6 0.088 0.25 4.0 0 1 3.15 1.49 1.60 7.59 1.59 6.38
0.6 0.081 0.25 5.0 0 1 3.15 1.63 1.79 10.09 1.71 5.19
0.6 0.078 0.25 1.0 0 1 3.60 1.24 1.31 5.32 1.13 9.21
0.6 0.082 0.25 4.0 0 1 3.60 1.84 1.88 2.02 1.83 0.75
0.6 0.084 0.25 5.0 0 1 3.60 1.84 2.07 10.5 1.97 7.23
0.6 0.081 0.25 4.0 1.00 2 3.15 1.47 1.47 0.24 1.44 1.95
0.6 0.078 0.25 4.0 0.25 2 3.60 2.39 2.15 9.91 2.24 6.08
0.6 0.083 0.25 4.0 0.50 2 3.60 1.85 2.02 8.98 2.03 9.57
0.6 0.084 0.25 4.0 0.75 2 3.60 1.89 1.88 0.48 1.83 3.00
0.6 0.080 0.25 4.0 1.00 2 3.60 1.84 1.75 5.00 1.66 9.72
0.6 0.079 0.25 4.0 0.25 3 3.15 2.53 2.29 9.58 2.33 7.98
0.6 0.081 0.25 4.0 0.25 5 3.15 2.83 3.10 9.71 2.91 2.92
0.6 0.086 0.25 4.0 0.25 4 3.60 3.07 2.97 3.34 3.04 1.10
0.6 0.082 0.25 4.0 0.25 5 3.60 3.13 3.38 7.94 3.35 7.17

Figure 19. BCR versus N for linear and non-linear models and different analytical methodologies, (a) Uniaxial geogrid, (b) Biaxial
geogrid.

and biaxial geogrid are presented. The values measured The additional bearing capacity provided by the lat-
in the laboratory and the values estimated with the eral forces produced by the equivalent depth can be
linear and non-linear models presented a more adjusted evaluated by the effect known as ‘wideslab’, according
behaviour to the models of Kumar and Saran (2003), to which, the foundation with equivalent depth has
Sharma et al. (2009) and Latha et al. (2013). Some a resistant base equal to the original foundation. The
differences between the results measured in the labora- ‘deep footing’ effect is explicit or implicit in the methods
tory and the linear and non-linear regression models are of Huang and Menq (1997) and Wayne et al. (1998).
evident with the methodologies of Huang and Menq According to the behaviour shown by the BCR with the
(1997) and Wayne et al. (1998). Latha et al. (2013) different parameters investigated, the laboratory results
obtained similar results and attributed the difference and the regression equations are in the range of values
presented with the models to the effect called ‘deep estimated by the different analytical and empirical
footing’, according to which, the behaviour of the rein- methodologies. Therefore, the two regression models
forced soil is very similar to the behaviour of the unrein- developed (Equations (9) and (11)) present an accepta-
forced soil with a depth of foundation equal to the depth ble approximation and allow estimating the bearing
of the reinforced zone. capacity of the reinforced soil.
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 17

Conclusions The wraparound ends increase the bearing capacity

of reinforced soil in 10% and 5% for uniaxial and biaxial
The bearing capacity behaviour of a circular footing
geogrid, respectively. The results showed that the opti-
resting on geogrid-reinforced sand was investigated
mal length of overlap, l, is 0.6 times the diameter of the
using laboratory model tests. A wide range of geometric
circular footing.
conditions of geogrid-sand system was considered.
Geogrid properties have important effects on the
With the results obtained, qualitative and quantitative
behaviour of reinforced sand foundations; the best
relationships were established between the bearing
pressure–settlement response was presented in sam-
capacity and the placement parameters of the geogrid
ples reinforced with biaxial geogrid in comparison
layers within the sand. Besides, two models of multiple
with uniaxial geogrid. It is worth to note that the
regressions were developed: linear and non-linear mod-
effect on the bearing capacity produced by the open-
els, to calculate the bearing capacity of circular footings
ing widths of the geogrid in relation to the footing
resting on geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Unlike other
diameter were not studied in this work. Therefore, the
regression models reported in the literature, the equa-
results presented in this paper are limited to the test
tions presented in this study included the relative den-
set-up used in this investigation. (In this paragraph
sity of the soil as an independent variable. Based on this
the following is added: It is worth to note that the
investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:
effect on the bearing capacity produced by the open-
The geogrid-reinforced sand beds resulted in
ing widths of the geogrid in relation to the footing
improved load–settlement behaviour. The improve-
diameter were not studied in this work. Therefore, the
ment achieved depends on the relative density, the
results presented in this paper are limited to the test
load tests showed that the bearing capacity increases
set-up used in this investigation.)
when the relative density of soil is increased.
The coefficient of determination (R2) showed that
The improvement obtained in the bearing capacity of no interaction between the variables is significant
the soil is dependent on the location of the top reinforce- and that relative density, settlement of the footing,
ment layer. The BCR values showed that the geogrid is depth of the first layer, vertical separation between
more effective when the depth of the geogrid is in the layers, diameter of the reinforcement, number of
range between 0.25 and 0.40 times the diameter of the layers and tensile modulus of reinforcement are the
circular footing. However, tests with u/B < 0.25 should be statistically significant variables for the BCR at the
performed to verify the optimum depth of the first layer. 85% and 87% confidence level for linear and non-
Optimum diameter of geogrid layer is in the range linear model, respectively.
between 3 and 5 times the diameter of the circular Based on the results obtained and the comparison
footing. These values are only valid for u/B = 0.25. For with the analytical methodologies, the two regression
different values of u/B, the results may be different equations proposed can be used to make estimates of the
because the length of the stress influence zone decreases bearing capacity of the reinforced soil with acceptable
with depth. approximations. The models can be useful for making
For N = 2, the best results were obtained when a preliminary design of the circular foundation sup-
the second geogrid layer was placed at a vertical distance ported in the sand-geogrid system.
of h = 0.25B measured from the first layer. It is necessary to The regression models obtained in this study are valid
verify the behaviour of the reinforced soil when h < 0.25B. for circular footings resting on geogrid-reinforced sand,
Increasing the number of geogrid layers (N) increases with the following conditions for the parameters: 30% ≤
the bearing capacity ratio notably. The optimum value Dr ≤ 90%, 0.03 ≤ s/B ≤ 0.10, 0.25 ≤ u/B ≤ 1.0, 1.0 ≤ D/B ≤
of BCR is reached with three layers of geogrid. In the 5.0, 0.25 ≤ h/B ≤ 1.0 and 1 ≤ N ≤ 5. In addition, the scale
samples with four and five layers of geogrid, no signifi- effect must be considered to extrapolate the results to real
cant additional improvement in the foundation soil was foundations.
obtained. The range of optimal values of N is valid only
for u/B = 0.25 and h/B = 0.25.
The increase in footing embedment depth improves Acknowledgments
the bearing capacity of the unreinforced and reinforced
soil. However, the improvement was greater in the The authors would like to thank the National Scientific and
unreinforced soil as compared to the reinforced soil, Technical Research Council (CONICET), the National
Technological University (UTN), the Regional Faculty of
which produces a decrease in the BCR when the footing Córdoba (Argentina) and CORIPA S.A. for the geogrid sam-
embedment depth is increased. ples provided.
18 D. USECHE-INFANTE ET AL.

Disclosure statement reinforced layered granular beds. International Journal of

Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 2 (36), 1–10.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. doi:10.1007/s40891-016-0070-6.
El-Sawwaf, M. and Nazir, A.K., 2010. Behavior of repeatedly
loaded rectangular footings resting on reinforced sand.
ORCID Alexandria Engineering Journal, 49 (4), 349–356.
doi:10.1016/j.aej.2010.07.002.
Danny Useche-Infante http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3813- Fragaszy, R.J. and Lawton, E., 1985. Bearing capacity of rein-
7307 forced sand subgrades. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division ASCE, 110 (10), 1500–1507.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:10(1500).
References Gu, J., 2011. Computational modeling of geogrid reinforced soil founda-
tion and geogrid reinforced base in flexible pavement. Ph.D.
Abu-Farsakh, M., Chen, Q., and Sharma, R., 2013. An experi-
Dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA.
mental evaluation of the behaviour of footings on
Guido, V.A., Chang, D.K., and Sweeny, M.A., 1986. Comparison
geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Soils and Foundations, 53
of geogrid and geotextile reinforced slabs. Canadian
(2), 335–348. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2013.01.001.
Geotechnical Journal, 20, 435–440. doi:10.1139/t86-073
Abu-Farsakh, M., et al., 2012. Finite element parametric study
Huang, C.C. and Menq, F.Y., 1997. Deep-footing and
on the performance of strip footings on reinforced crushed
wide-slab effects in reinforced sandy ground. Journal of
limestone over embankment soil. Electronic Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE, 123 (1),
Geotechnical Engineering, 17, 723–742.
30–36. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(30).
Adams, M. and Collin, J., 1997. Large model spread footing
Kazi, M., Shukla, S.K., and Habibi, D., 2015. An improved
load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations.
method to increase the load-bearing capacity of strip footing
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
resting on geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Indian Geotechnical
ASCE, 123 (1), 66–72. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)
Journal, 45 (1), 98–109. doi:10.1007/s40098-014-0111-9.
123:1(66).
Kazi, M., Shukla, S.K., and Habibi, D., 2016. Behaviour of
Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., and Deb, K., 2007. Circular footings
an embedded footing on geotextile-reinforced sand.
resting on geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Geotextiles and
Ground Improvement, 169 (2), 120–133. doi:10.1680/
Geomembranes, 25 (6), 377–384. doi:10.1016/j.
grim.14.00022.
geotexmem.2006.09.003.
Bera, A.K., Ghosh, A., and Ghosh, A., 2005. Regression model Kumar, A. and Saran, S., 2003. Bearing capacity of rectan-
for bearing capacity of a square footing on reinforced pond gular footing on reinforced soil. Geotechnical and
ash. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23 (3), 261–285. Geological Engineering, 21 (3), 201–224. doi:10.1023/
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.09.002. A:1024927810216.
Binquet, J. and Lee, K.L., 1975. Bearing capacity tests on Kusakabe, O., 1995. Chapter 6: foundations. In: R.N. Taylor,
reinforced earth slabs. Journal of the Geotechnical ed. Geotechnical centrifuge technology. London: Blackie
Engineering Division ASCE, 101 (12), 1241–1255. Academic & Professional, 118–167.
Chakraborty, M. and Kumar, J., 2014. Bearing capacity of Latha, M. and Somwanshi, A., 2009. Effect of reinforcement
circular foundations reinforced with geogrid sheets. Soils form on the bearing capacity of square footings on sand.
and Foundations, 54 (4), 820–832. doi:10.1016/j. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (6), 409–422.
sandf.2014.06.013. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.005.
Chen, Q., 2007. An experimental study on characteristics and Latha, M., Somwanshi, A., and Reddy, K.H., 2013.
behavior of reinforced soil foundation. Ph.D. Dissertation. A multiple regression equation for prediction of bearing
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA. doi:10.1094/ capacity of geosynthetic reinforced sand beds. Indian
PDIS-91-4-0467B Geotechnical Journal, 43 (4), 331–343. doi:10.1007/
Chummar, A.V., 1972. Bearing capacity theory from experi- s40098-013-0053-7.
mental results. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Liu, C.N., Ho, Y.H., and Huang, J.W., 2009. Large scale direct
Division, 98, 1311–1324. shear tests of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces. Geotextiles
Chung, W. and Cascante, G., 2007. Experimental and numer- and Geomembranes, 27, 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.
ical study of soil-reinforcement effects on the low-strain geotexmem.2008.03.002
stiffness and bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., and Atalar, C., 2005. Bearing capacity
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25, 265–281. of embedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.
doi:10.1007/s10706-006-9109-0 Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23, 454–462. doi:10.1016/j.
Cicek, E. and Guler, E., 2015. Bearing capacity of strip footing geotexmem.2005.02.001
on reinforced layered granular soils. Journal of Civil Phanikumar, B.R., Prasad, R., and Singh, A., 2009. Compressive
Engineering and Management, 21 (5), 605–614. load response of geogrid-reinforced fine, medium and coarse
doi:10.3846/13923730.2014.890651. sands. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (3), 183–186.
Das, B.M., Maji, A., and Shin, E.C., 1998. Foundation on doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.003.
geogrid-reinforced sand-effect of transient loading. Saikia, A., 2012. Vertical stress averaging over a layer depth
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 16 (3), 151–160. down the axis of symmetry of uniformly loaded circular
doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(98)00004-1. regime: an analytical cum graphical solution. International
Durga-Prasad, B., Hariprasad, C., and Umashankar, B., 2016. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 6 (3), 359–363.
Load-settlement response of square footing on geogrid doi:10.3328/IJGE.2012.06.03.359-363.
 GEOMECHANICS AND GEOENGINEERING 19

Shahin, H.M., et al., 2018. Effective use of geosynthetics to Tavangar, Y. and Shooshpasha, I., 2016. Experimental and
increase bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Canadian numerical study of bearing capacity and effect of specimen
Geotechnical Journal, 54 (12). doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0505. size on uniform sand with medium density, reinforced with
Sharma, R., et al., 2009. Analytical modeling of geogrid rein- nonwoven geotextile. Arabian Journal for Science and
forced soil foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, Engineering, 41 (10), 4127–4137. doi:10.1007/s13369-016-
63–72. 2101-y.
Shukla, S.K., 2012. Handbook of geosynthetic engineering. Useche-Infante, D.J., et al., 2016. Shear strength behavior of
London: ICE. different geosynthetic reinforced soil structure from direct
Sitharam, T.G. and Sireesh, S., 2004. Model studies of shear test. International Journal of Geosynthetics and
embedded circular footing on geogrid-reinforced sand Ground Engineering, 2 (17), 1–16. doi:10.1007/s40891-
beds. Ground Improvement, 8 (2), 69–75. doi:10.1680/ 016-0058-2.
grim.2004.8.2.69. Vesic, A.S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow
Sitharam, T.G. and Sireesh, S., 2006. Effects of base geogrid on foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
geocell-reinforced foundation beds. Geomechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99 (SM1), 45–73.
Geoengineering: an International Journal, 1 (3), 207–216. Wayne, M.H., Han, J., and Akins, K., 1998. The design of
doi:10.1080/17486020600900596. geosynthetic reinforced foundations. Proceedings of ASCEs
Skempton, A.W., 1951. The bearing capacity of clay. 1998 annual convention & exposition ASCE GSP, 76, 1–18.
Proceedings, Building Research Congress, 1, 180–189. Yadu, L. and Tripathi, R.K., 2013. Effect of the length of
Srinivasan, V. and Ghosh, P., 2013. Experimental investiga- geogrid layers in the bearing capacity ratio of geogrid
tion on interaction problem of two nearby circular footings reinforced granular fill-soft subgrade soil system. 2nd
on layered cohesionless soil. Geomechanics and Conference of Transportation Research Group of India
Geoengineering: An International Journal, 8 (2), 97–106. (2nd CTRG), 104, 225–234.