Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity

behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced
sand slope
Chungsik Yoo*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chun-Chun Dong, Jan-
An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do 440-746, South Korea
Received 10 October 2000; received in revised form 2 February 2001; accepted 16 February 2001

Abstract

This paper presents the results of laboratory model tests on the bearing capacity behavior of a
strip footing on a geogrid-reinforced earth slope. A wide range of boundary conditions,
including unreinforced cases, was tested by varying parameters such as geogrid length, number
of geogrid layers, vertical spacing and depth to topmost layer of geogrid. The results were then
analyzed to establish both qualitative and quantitative relationships between the bearing
capacity and the geogrid parameters. A series of finite element analyses was additionally
performed on a prototype slope to ascertain the validity of the findings from the laboratory
model tests and to supplement the results of the model tests. The results indicate that the bearing
capacity of strip footings on sloping ground can be significantly increased by the inclusion of
layers of geogrid in the ground, and that the magnitude of bearing capacity increase depends
greatly on the geogrid distribution. On the basis of the results of the laboratory model tests and
the finite element analyses, critical values of the geogrid parameters for maximum reinforcing
effect are suggested. # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geogrid-reinforced slope; Strip footing; Bearing capacity; Laboratory model test; Finite
element analysis

1. Introduction

Over the years, the use of polymeric reinforcement such as geogrid has increased
drastically in geotechnical engineering. Among the possible applications, the use of

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-31-290-7518; Fax: +82-31-290-7549.

E-mail address: csyoo@yurim.skku.ac.kr (C. Yoo).

0266-1144/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 6 - 1 1 4 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - 7
280 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

foundation reinforcement to improve load bearing capacity has attracted a great deal
of attention, and there have been numerous studies on this subject, for example
Binquet and Lee (1975a,b), Akinmusuru and Akinbolade (1981), Fragaszy and
Lawton (1984), Das et al. (1994), etc. These investigations have demonstrated that
both the ultimate bearing capacity and the settlement characteristics of the
foundation can be improved by the inclusion of reinforcements in the ground.
There are many situations where footings are located on sloping fills (e.g., footings
for bridge abutments on sloping embankments). When a footing is constructed on
sloping ground, the bearing capacity of the footing may be significantly reduced,
depending on the location of the footing with respect to the slope. One of the
possible measures to improve the bearing capacity would be to reinforce the
foundation ground with layers of geogrid. In addition, the concept of a reinforced
steep slope has been implemented with great success for various applications such as
road widening and the repair of failed slopes. When a footing is constructed on a
reinforced slope, the bearing capacity of the footing would be significantly increased
by the presence of correctly placed reinforcements. To design a footing on a
reinforced slope requires a thorough understanding of both the bearing capacity
behavior of the footing and the mechanical behavior of the reinforced slope.
Most of the previous studies concerning the reinforced slope have aimed at
developing limit equilibrium-based design methods, for example Zhao (1996),
Lesniewska (1993), Mandal and Labhane (1992), Schmertmann et al. (1987),
Michalowsk (1997), Zornberg et al. (1998a,b), Sawicki and Lesniewska (1991),
Schneider and Holtz (1986), Leshchinsky and Boedeker (1990), etc. Surprisingly,
studies on the bearing capacity behavior of footings on a reinforced slope are limited.
Few studies on the bearing capacity behavior of strip footings on a reinforced slope
include works done by Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) and Huang et al. (1994).
Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989), in particular, reported the results of an
experimental study of strip footings located on a geogrid-reinforced sloping fill. It
should, however, be noted that their study was mainly concentrated on the influence
of depth of a single geogrid layer on the load-settlement behavior of a footing
located near the crest of a slope. Huang et al. (1994) conducted a series of laboratory
model tests on a reinforced slope loaded with a footing, focusing on the failure
mechanism of the reinforced slope. Note that phosphor bronze strips were used as
reinforcing members in their study, whose reinforcing mechanism is not the same as
that of geogrids.
Although numerical analyses such as the finite element or finite difference analysis
have become popular in design practice, a bearing capacity determination method is
an essential part of a routine design of footings on a reinforced slope. However, no
rational method for the determination of ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing
on a reinforced slope is available up to date, and therefore, much still remains to be
investigated. This study aimed at establishing both qualitative and quantitative
relationships between the bearing capacity and the geogrid parameters and forming a
database for future development of a rational design/analysis method. Attention was
also focused on the mechanical behavior of a reinforced slope loaded with a strip
footing such as the failure mechanism and the strain distributions in geogrid layers.
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 281

2. Reduced-scale laboratory model test

2.1. Test configuration

A series of laboratory model tests was conducted in a test box made of a steel
frame, having inside dimensions of 1.8
0.5 m in plan
1.2 m in height. The four
sidewalls of the test box were constructed using transparent Plexiglas plate for ease
of observing the failure mechanism during testing. Possible friction between the
inside walls of the test box and the artificially made ground was minimized by
attaching transparency films onto the inside walls. Note that new films were used for
each test to eliminate the possible effect of scratches. Furthermore, a rough base
condition of a 80 mm-wide model footing made of steel was achieved by attaching
sand paper at the bottom of the footing. The box was sufficiently rigid to maintain
plane strain conditions in the reinforced slope models.
All tests were conducted with an artificially made slope of 1(H):0.67(V). During
testing, the model footing was loaded using a hydraulic jack at a rate of 1.0 mm/min.
The applied footing load and the settlement were measured using a load cell and two
linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs), respectively. In addition, a set of
vibrating wire type strain gauges were attached onto the geogrid layers for a selected
condition in order to measure strains in the geogrid layers during the loading
process. A schematic view of the test configuration with the symbols used in this
study is illustrated in Fig. 1.

2.2. Model ground and reinforcement

The model ground was constructed using fine sand by a raining technique with a
specially designed hopper system as shown in Fig. 2. The effective size (D10),
uniformity coefficient (Cu), and coefficient of curvature (Cc) for the sand were 0.36,
1.61, and 1.1 mm, respectively. A 0.6 m-high level ground was first constructed on a
rigid foundation with the layers of geogrid placed at desired depths. The level ground
was then excavated to form a slope of 1(H):0.67(V) by using a vacuum system, which
consisted of a tube through which vacuum was applied to remove the sand beyond

Fig. 1. Schematic view of test configuration.

282 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 2. Typical set up for test box and data acquisition.

the slope face. To obtain consistent soil densities and placement conditions in the
reinforced soil models, carefully controlled construction procedures were followed
during model preparation. These procedures included sand raining through air at
controlled discharge rate and discharge height to give uniform backfill densities. The
consistency of the placement density during raining was evaluated using small cans
placed at different locations in the test box. The raining technique adopted in this study
provided a uniform backfill relative density of approximately 70% with a unit weight of
16 kN/m3. A series of direct shear tests was performed to evaluate the shear strength
properties of the model ground using specimens prepared by dry tamping. The
estimated internal friction angle at the relative density of 70% was approximately 428.
A number of evenly spaced markers were placed onto the front face of the model
ground during model preparation for the purpose of facilitating visualization of the
ground movements during testing. A digital video camera set up in front of the side
wall of the test box was used for monitoring of the ground movements. Ground
movement patterns for selected stages of loading were then determined by analyzing
video images of the moving markers taken by the digital video camera during testing.
Biaxial geogrids with a tensile strength of 55 kN/m at a maximum strain of 12.5%
were used as reinforcing material for the model tests. These geogrids are interwoven
structures made of high modulus polyester yarns, covered by an additional
protective layer of PVC. The nominal thickness and the aperture size are 1.0 mm
and 20
20 mm, respectively.
A variety of boundary conditions was tested by varying the geogrid parameters
such as length (L), number (N), depth to top layer (u), and vertical spacing (h) of the
geogrid layers as listed in Table 1. Each test was repeated at least twice to achieve
some degree of confidence on the test results with a limit of repeatability
approximately  10% in the ultimate bearing capacity.
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 283

Table 1
Conditions tested in laboratory model tests

b/B N L/B u/B h/B

1.5, 3.0 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 2.57.5 (b/B=1.5) 0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5 0.3, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0
4.08.0 (b/B=3.0)

2.3. Limitations

The physical model adopted in this study is reduced to a certain scale and
therefore, does not correspond to prototype footing-slope systems encountered in
the field. Furthermore, since prototype geogrids were used as reinforcements in the
laboratory models, other components of the footing-slope system, especially the soil,
may not play the same role as in the prototype. It should, therefore, be noted that
such a violation of similitude requirements might produce some influence on the
experimental results both in qualitative and quantitative ways.

3. Finite element analysis

3.1. Conditions analyzed

A series of two-dimensional finite element analyses on a prototype footing-slope

system was performed using the finite element program GEOFE2D (Yoo, 1998) with
the aim of validating the results of the reduced-scale laboratory tests and of
providing insights into the bearing capacity behavior of a prototype footing-slope
system. GEOFE2D is capable of handling a wide range of geotechnical problems
such as deep excavations, tunnels, and earth structures (i.e., retaining walls and
slopes), etc. The prototype footing-slope system was assumed to have geometry of 10
times the laboratory model (i.e., B=0.8 m, H=6 m). Note that the prototype-scale
reinforced slope was assumed to be constructed using the same materials used in the
laboratory tests.

3.2. Finite element modeling

The prototype slope of 1(H):0.67(V) was assumed to rest on a non-yielding

foundation and to extend laterally to a distance of 1.5 times the slope height (H)
from the toe of the slope. The soil was discretized using four-noded isoparametric
plane strain elements, while two-noded truss elements were used for the geogrids. As
seen in Fig. 3, a refined mesh, which consists of approximately 980 nodes and 944
elements, was adopted to minimize the effect of mesh dependency on the finite
element modeling of cases involving changes in the number, length, and the location
of geogrid layers. In the finite element modeling, the initial stress condition of the
slope was established first by applying the gravity force due to soil in steps with the
284 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh for b=B ¼ 1:5.

Table 2
Material properties used in finite element analysesa

Material c (kPa) f (deg) K Kur n Rf Kb m g (kN/m3) Es (kPa)

Fill 0 42 600 700 0.5 0.8 350 0.2 18

Foundation 20 2
109
a
Note: For fill and foundation n=0.3; Geogrid axial stifness J (kN/m)=1000, 2000, 5000; Es=elastic
modulus.

geogrid reinforcements in place. A prescribed footing load was then applied in

increments.
The non-linear behavior of the fill was modeled using the modified version of
hyperbolic stress–strain and bulk modulus model proposed by Duncan et al. (1980)
while the foundation and the geogrid were treated as a linear elastic material. In the
hyperbolic model, the stress increments (ds) are related to the strain increments (de)
based on the tangential Young’s modulus Et and/or unloading–reloading modulus
Eur, and bulk modulus B which are computed using the Mohr–Coulomb soil
strength parameters of cohesion c and internal friction angle f in conjunction with
the hyperbolic model parameters including stiffness modulus number for primary
loading K, stiffness modulus number for unloading–reloading Kur, bulk modulus
number Kb, stiffness modulus exponent n, bulk modulus exponent m, and failure
ratio Rf. Table 2 presents the hyperbolic model parameters used in the analyses.
Note that an internal friction angle of 378 was used for the fill material, and that the
hyperbolic parameters for the fill material were taken from a data base provided by
Duncan et al. (1980).

4. Mechanical behavior

4.1. Reinforcing mechanism

Correct identification of the location of potential failure surfaces is relevant for the
design of reinforced soil structures as it influences the required length of the
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 285

Fig. 4. Video images taken during testing: (a) initial setup; (b) end of test.

Fig. 5. Ground movement vector plots for model slope ðq5qult Þ: (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced.

reinforcements. The reinforcing mechanism of the geogrids was examined based on

the ground movement patterns using the video images taken during testing. Fig. 4
illustrates an example of video images taken before and at the end of a test,
respectively, where three layers of geogrid were used. By comparing the video images
at desired loading stages with the initial setup, ground movements patterns were then
obtained.
Figs. 5 and 6 present ground movement vector plots for the unreinforced and the
reinforced cases of b/B=1.5 (symbols defined in Fig. 1) at pre and post ultimate
conditions, respectively. Note that three geogrid layers of L/B=5.5 were placed at
u=B ¼ h=B ¼ 0:5 for the reinforced case. At the footing pressure (q) of q=100 kPa,
which is approximately 80% of the measured ultimate bearing capacity of 120 kPa
for the unreinforced case, a tendency of ground movement toward the slope face
with a well-defined shear zone is evident for the unreinforced case as shown in
Fig. 5(a). The reinforced case in Fig. 5(b), however, exhibits a predominantly
downward movement pattern with much smaller magnitude without any clearly
defined shear zone, due to the reinforcing effect of the geogrid layers. Such a
difference in the ground movement patterns becomes more evident in the vector plots
286 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 6. Ground movement vector plots for model slope ðq > qult Þ: (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced.

Fig. 7. Displacement vector plots for prototype slope ðq > qult Þ: (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced.

for post ultimate conditions, as illustrated in Fig. 6. As seen in Fig. 6(a), the observed
failure pattern for the unreinforced case is much shallower when compared with that
for the reinforced case shown in Fig. 6(b), which exhibits a wider and deeper failure
zone. A larger failure zone for the reinforced case, which in turn means a longer
failure surface, would render a greater bearing capacity, as observed. Such a trend is
due in part to the fact that the reinforced zone acts as a composite gravity structure
with enhanced shear strength, and thus spreads the major part of the footing load
deeper into the unreinforced zone.
Failure patterns for the prototype slope are presented in Fig. 7 using the
displacement vector plots obtained from the finite element analyses. Also shown in
this figure are the critical failure surfaces obtained from limit equilibrium analysis
(LEA) based on Bishop’s method (Bishop, 1955). Note that the geogrid layout for
the reinforced case is the same as that of the laboratory model slope in Fig. 5, and
that a tensile strength of 55 kN/m for the geogrid was assumed in the limit
equilibrium analysis. As illustrated, the displacement vector plot for the reinforced
case suggests a wider and deeper failure zone than for the unreinforced case, thus
supporting the results of the model tests. Such a trend is well reflected in the results
of the limit equilibrium analyses shown in this figure, demonstrating a wider and
deeper failure zone for the reinforced case. The experimental and the finite element
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 287

analyses results provide sound evidence of a wider and deeper failure zone for the
reinforced case, suggesting that neglecting the effect of geogrid reinforcements on the
location of the critical failure surface is apparently an unconservative assumption
when estimating the required anchorage length, especially for the reinforcements at
large depths.

4.2. Strains in geogrid layer

Fig. 8(a) shows typical examples of strain distributions in the geogrid layers at pre
(q=100 kPa) and post ultimate conditions for the model slope of b=B ¼ 1:5, N=3,
L/B=5.5. Also shown in this figure is the failure surface traced using the ground
movement pattern presented earlier in Fig. 6. As seen in this figure, larger strains
tend to develop at the points where the failure surface and the geogrid layers
intersect, as one might expect. Also revealed is that the strain level is quite high in the
anchorage zone, which in turn highlights the importance of providing adequate
anchorage length to ensure maximum reinforcing effect. Fig. 8(b) presents the strain
distribution for the prototype slope with the same reinforcement layout as in the
model slope. Note that the strain data were taken at the footing pressure of q=300

Fig. 8. Strain distribution of geogrid layers for b=B ¼ 1:5, N=3, L=B ¼ 5:5: (a) model slope; (b)
prototype slope.
288 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 9. Evolution of maximum geogrid strain for b=B ¼ 1:5, N=3, L=B ¼ 5:5: (a) model slope;
(b) prototype slope.

kPa which is well beyond the ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced prototype
slope of qult=240 kPa obtained from the finite element analysis. As seen, the general
pattern of the strain distribution appears to be in good agreement with that of the
model slope but with much larger strain level. The strain distributions both from the
model test and the finite element analysis clearly demonstrate the deep footing effect
provided by the geogrid reinforcements as larger strains tend to develop at the
bottom layer. Furthermore, it is of interest to note that the results of the model test
as well as the finite element analysis reveal that the strain level of the geogrids within
the zone between the slope face and the slope line drawn from the footing edge is
negligibly small. The effect of extent of geogrids beyond the slope line on the footing
performance is discussed further in a later section.
Fig. 9 illustrates the evolution of maximum strain for each geogrid layer at points
under the footing as the footing load is increased, for both the model and the
prototype slopes. For the model slope in Fig. 9(a), in the early part of loading,
larger strains are developed in the topmost geogrid layer. As the footing load
increases, however, the strain increase rate for the topmost layer decreases while that
for the bottom layer shows an accelerating trend. Upon reaching the ultimate
condition, the maximum strain of the bottom layer exceeds that of the topmost
layer. Of particular interest to note is that the strain level of the middle layer is
much lower than those of the top and bottom layers throughout the entire loading
process. Although the results of the finite element analysis for the prototype slope
shown in Fig. 9(b) do not provide exactly the same trend, the trend of larger strain
level at the bottom layer agrees well with that of the model slope. This trend is,
again, due to a combined effect of a load sharing mechanism between the soil and the
reinforcement layers as well as the deep footing effect that transfers a part of footing
load deeper into the reinforced zone. A similar trend was reported by Huang et al.
(1994).
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 289

5. Bearing capacity behavior

The ultimate bearing capacity values for the model and the prototype slopes were
determined using the footing pressure–settlement (q–d) relationships. The bearing
capacity behavior was then investigated using the normalized ultimate bearing
capacity ratio (UBCR=qr/qur), where qr and qur are the ultimate bearing capacity
values for the reinforced and the unreinforced cases, respectively. Note that when
determining the ultimate bearing capacities using the q–d curves from the finite
element analyses, a footing pressure producing a footing settlement of 10% of the
footing width (i.e., 0.1B) at the footing center was taken as the ultimate bearing
capacity. Such a criterion was adopted, since the q–d curves from the finite element
analyses did not exhibit a definite failure point.

5.1. Effect of geogrid layout

Fig. 10 illustrates the manner in which the footing pressure–settlement relation-

ship is influenced by the geogrid parameters for the model slope. Note that the
measured ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced slope with b=B ¼ 1:5 is only
60% of that of the level ground, which in turn suggests that the footing performance
is significantly influenced by the presence of the slope. The curves shown in this
figure clearly demonstrate a change in slope with varying geogrid length (L), number
of geogrid layers (N), depth to top layer (u) and vertical spacing (h) of the geogrid,
and consequently a change in the ultimate bearing capacity. Among the influencing
factors mentioned, the number and the length of the geogrid layers appear to be the
primary influencing factors, showing a wide range of variations in q–d curves with
these factors. The effects of u=B and h=B, on the other hand, appear to be not as
pronounced within the conditions investigated. Examples of the manner in which the
q–d relationships vary with L=B and d=B for the prototype slope are presented in
Fig. 11 using the results of the finite element analyses. Although the variations of the
q–d relationships with L=B and d=B appear to be not as drastic, the general trends
agree fairly well with those of the model slope shown in Fig. 10.
Considering the observed failure mechanism, a logical reinforcing strategy would
be to place the geogrid reinforcements so as to intersect the potential failure surface.
Fig. 12 illustrates the effect of reinforcing layout on the q–d relationship using the
results of the model tests. Three different reinforcing layouts having different cover
ranges were considered. For Cases A and C, the geogrids were placed from the slope
face and extended to a length of 5.0B and 4.0B, respectively, whereas geogrid layers
of uniform length of 1.0B were placed directly below the footing base for Case B. As
expected, Case A exhibits a greatest load bearing capacity. Of particular interest is
that Cases B and C yield almost identical q–d curves despite the fact that much
shorter geogrids were used for Case B. This trend may be expected since for Case C,
the geogrid layers are not efficiently arranged so as to intersect the potential failure
surface as in Case B. Implications of the findings are that sufficient anchorage
lengths beyond the potential failure surface must be provided to maximize the
reinforcing effect through full mobilization of pullout capacity of the reinforcements,
290 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 10. Variations of q–d relationship with geogrid parameters for model slope: (a) L=B; (b) N; (c) u/B;
(d) h/B.

and that significant benefit of reinforcements on the footing performance can be

derived with short geogrid layers placed directly under the footing. Similar results
have been reported by Huang et al. (1994) who conducted an experimental study on
the behavior of sand slopes reinforced with phosphor bronze strips under a footing
load.
From a design standpoint, a question may arise as to the need for extending the
geogrid layers into the slope face, provided an adequate anchorage length for each
geogrid layer. As illustrated in Fig. 8, no appreciable strains are developed in the
zone beyond the slope line drawn from the footing edge, suggesting that the
contribution of the geogrid layers embedded in that zone to the reinforcing effect
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 291

Fig. 11. Variations of q–d relationship with geogrid parameters for prototype slope: (a) L=B; (b) d/B.

Fig. 12. Effect of geogrid layout on q–d relationship for model slope.

may not be as significant. Such a trend is supported by the results of a series of finite
element analyses on the prototype slope shown in Fig. 13. Note that Fig. 13
illustrates the manner in which the footing pressure–settlement relationship is
influenced by the extent of geogrid layers into the slope face, a=B, for a slope
reinforced with three layers of geogrid. In this series of analyses, three different cases
with different geogrid embedment lengths a=B were considered. As seen, the q–d
curves collapse onto a single curve regardless of a=B as long as a=B > 0. It can
therefore be inferred from the results of the model tests and the finite element
analyses that for an optimum design in terms of ultimate bearing capacity, the
292 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Fig. 13. Effect of a/B on q–d relationship for prototype slope.

geogrid reinforcements can be truncated at the slope line with a proper embedment
length provided beyond the potential critical failure surface.

5.2. Variation of UBCR for model slope

As illustrated, the geogrid layout must be properly selected in order to optimize a

foundation design from an economic standpoint. Das et al. (1994) has reported that
for a level ground, there exist critical values of the geogrid parameters for which
maximum reinforcing effect in terms of ultimate bearing capacity can be established.
The results of the model tests were examined to determine the critical values of the
geogrid parameters.
Fig. 14 illustrates the variations of UBCR with L=B and d=B. Note that d is the
extent of reinforced zone below the footing base and can be related with the number
of geogrid layers N through u and h as d ¼ u þ ðN  1Þh. As can be seen in Fig. 14(a)
for the case of N=3, the ultimate bearing capacity ratio UBCR increases with
increasing L=B until L=B reaches its critical value of approximately ðL=BÞcr ¼ 5:5
and 7.0 for b=B ¼ 1:5 and 3.0, respectively, and becomes almost constant thereafter.
Note that the critical values of ðL=BÞcr ¼ 5:5 and 7.0 for b=B ¼ 1:5 and 3.0,
respectively, give an anchorage length of the topmost layer beyond the potential
failure surface of the unreinforced slope approximately 3.0B. This implies that a
maximum reinforcing effect can be established when extending each geogrid layer
approximately 3.0B beyond the potential failure surface of the unreinforced slope.
The variation of UBCR with d=B is similar to that for L=B as seen in Fig. 14(b),
showing a critical value (d/B)cr of 2.5 for both b=B ¼ 1:5 and 3.0. Similar results were
obtained by Das et al. (1994), reporting (d/B)cr=2.0 for level grounds of both sand
and clay.
The effects of u=B and h=B on the ultimate bearing capacity were demonstrated in
Fig. 15. Note that these results were obtained for the case of b=B ¼ 1:5 while keeping
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 293

Fig. 14. Effects of L/B and d/B on UBCR for model slope: (a) L/B; (b) d/B.

Fig. 15. Effects of u/B and h/B on UBCR for model slope: (a) u/B; (b) h/B.

L=B at its critical value of ðL=BÞcr ¼ 5:5. Fig. 15(a) shows the variation of UBCR
with u=B for the cases of N=1, 2, and 3 with h=B ¼ 0:75. Also included in this figure
are the results for the case with b=B ¼ 3:0 and N=1 as well as those reported by
Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) for the case of N=1. Note that a flatter slope of
1(H):0.5(V) constructed by a compaction technique was used by Selvadurai and
Gnanendran (1989) as opposed to the slope of 1(H):0.67(V) constructed by a raining
technique used in this study.
As shown in Fig. 15(a), it is evident that for a given N, there is an optimum value
of u=B for which maximum benefit of the geogrid reinforcements is derived. Note
that each curve follows the shape of a compaction curve, and that the variation of
294 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

these curves with N resembles that of the compaction curve with compaction energy.
For a single geogrid layer (i.e., N=1), UBCR increases with u=B up to
approximately a maximum value of 1.0B and decreases thereafter, indicating
ðu=BÞcr ¼ 1:0. The ðu=BÞcr value, however, tends to decrease with increasing the
number of geogrid layers showing ðu=BÞcr ¼ 0:8 and 0.5, for N=2 and 3,
respectively. A similar trend was observed for level sand ground by Das et al.
(1994), reporting ðu=BÞcr of approximately 0.3 for N=6. Such a trend can be
explained as follows. When the top geogrid layer is placed too close to the footing,
the reinforcing effect of the geogrid cannot be fully mobilized due to the lack of
confinement. For an opposite case, on the other hand, the unreinforced zone directly
below the footing becomes thicker and as a result, a shear failure of the unreinforced
zone is likely, thus decreasing the load-bearing capacity. The location of the topmost
layer u=B should be selected with great care, especially for a single reinforcement, as
it significantly influences the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing on sloping
ground.
Further inspection of Fig. 15(a) reveals that the manner in which UBCR varies
with u=B reported by Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) is similar to that obtained
from the present investigation, showing a critical value of ðu=BÞcr ¼ 0:7. Note
however that for a given u=B, UBCR from Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) is
much smaller than that from this study, especially at large depths of u=B. Although
possible reasons for such discrepancies are not immediately clear, the differences in
the slope geometry and the ground condition may be responsible. With more
aggressive slope geometry (i.e., when the effect of slope is greater), the degree of
which the geogrid enhances the ultimate bearing capacity would be greater, thus
resulting in a larger UBCR as observed in Fig. 15(a). Another trend of particular
importance to note in this figure is that for a given condition, the ultimate bearing
capacity ratio UBCR for b=B ¼ 1:5 is somewhat greater than b=B ¼ 3:0, implying
that the degree of ultimate bearing capacity increase is greater for b=B ¼ 1:5 than for
b=B ¼ 3:0. On the basis of the results presented in this figure, more beneficial effect
of reinforcements can be expected when the effect of slope on the footing
performance is greater.
The effect of h=B on UBCR for b=B ¼ 1:5 is illustrated in Fig. 15(b) for the cases
reinforced with two and three layers of geogrid. Note that the depth to topmost layer
and the length of geogrid layers were fixed at u=B ¼ 0:3 and L=B ¼ 5:5 while varying
h=B. As noticed, the trend is similar to that for u=B. The critical value of h=B,
however, appears to be nearly constant regardless of the number of geogrid layers N,
showing approximately ðh=BÞcr ¼ 0:7.

5.3. Variation of UBCR for prototype slope

As illustrated, the manner in which the q–d relationship is influenced by the

geogrid parameters for the prototype slope correlated fairly well with that for the
model slope. To supplement the model tests results and to further investigate
the effect of the axial stiffness J of geogrid reinforcement that was not considered in
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 295

the laboratory model tests, an additional parametric study was carried out using the
finite element model.
Figs. 16 and 17 present the variations of UBCR with the geogrid parameters for
the prototype slope using the results of the finite element analyses. As illustrated,
although the ultimate bearing capacity ratio UBCR for a given geogrid parameter
appears to be much smaller than that for the model slope, the general trends of the
manner in which UBCR varies with the geogrid parameters are in good agreement
with those from the model tests. Again, the UBCR values for b=B ¼ 1:5 are
consistently greater than those for b=B ¼ 3:0 as observed in the results for the model

Fig. 16. Effects of L/B and d/B on UBCR for prototype slope: (a) L/B; (b) d/B.

Fig. 17. Effects of u/B and h/B on UBCR for prototype slope: (a) u/B; (b) h/B.
296 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Table 3
Critical values of geogrid parameters

(L/B)cr (d/B)cr (u/B)cr(N=1) (h/B)cr

b/B=1.5 b/B=3.0

Model slope 5.0 7.0 2.5 1.0 0.7

Prototype slope 4.5 6.0 2.0 1.2 0.6

slope. In addition, as summarized in Table 3, the critical values of the geogrid

parameters for the prototype slope agree fairly well with those for the model slope.
Such a close agreement in the critical values of the geogrid parameters between the
model slope and the prototype slope is sufficiently encouraging to warrant the
extension of the results of the present investigation to prototype situations at least
within the conditions analyzed.
The effect of the geogrid stiffness J on UBCR can also be directly observed in
Figs. 16 and 17. As one can expect, UBCR increases with increasing the geogrid
stiffness J for a given reinforcement layout. The degree of increase, however, appears
to be somewhat related to the manner in which the geogrid reinforcements are
arranged. For example, for a given geogrid parameter, the difference in UBCR with
varying J becomes maximum when the geogrid parameter attains its critical value.
This trend suggests that the maximum benefit of geogrid stiffness can only be derived
when the geogrid reinforcements are arranged with their critical values. Further-
more, it is of worth noting that the geogrid stiffness J appears to have essentially no
influence on the critical values of the geogrid parameters, implying that the critical
values of the geogrid parameters can be generalized for a given slope geometry and
ground condition.

6. Conclusions

The bearing capacity behavior of a strip footing on a reinforced soil slope was
investigated using laboratory model tests as well as finite element analyses. A wide
range of boundary conditions was considered by varying the geogrid parameters.
Based on the results of the present investigation, both qualitative and quantitative
relationships are established between the bearing capacity of a surface strip footing
on the reinforced soil slope and the geogrid layout. Within the framework of the
present investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. For the reinforced slope loaded with a footing, the failure zone tends to become
wider and deeper than that for the unreinforced slope. Neglecting such a trend
may lead to an unconservative estimation of the required anchorage length of
geogrid reinforcements, especially for those at large depths.
2. The bearing capacity of a footing situated on the crest of sloping ground can be
significantly increased by the inclusion of the layers of geogrid as in the level
 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298 297

ground. The degree of bearing capacity increase depends not only on the geogrid
layout but also on the location of the footing with respect to the slope face.
3. Significant benefit of geogrid reinforcements in terms of footing performance can
be derived by the inclusion of short geogrid layers directly below the footing. For
an optimum foundation design, the geogrid layers can be terminated at the slope
line drawn parallel to the slope face from the footing edge near the slope face,
provided an adequate anchorage length for each geogrid layer.
4. For a single geogrid reinforcement, the depth of the geogrid layer should be
selected with great care as it significantly influences the bearing capacity of the
footing. More beneficial effect of the geogrid reinforcement can be derived when
placed at a depth equivalent to the footing width below the footing base than at
shallower depths.
5. There exit critical values of the geogrid parameters for which maximum
reinforcing effect can be established. These values appear to be independent of
the footing location with respect to the slope face, except (L/B)cr, and the geogrid
axial stiffness.
6. The effect of geogrid reinforcements on the footing performance is more
effectively mobilized under more aggressive slope environments. Full benefit of
the geogrid stiffness can be achieved when the geogrid layers are arranged so as to
maximize the reinforcing effect.
7. A close agreement between the experimental and the numerical results on the
critical values of the geogrid parameters is sufficiently encouraging to warrant
their extension to practical situations at least within the conditions investigated.
Nevertheless, further study is required to ascertain the validity of the findings in
this study using either full-scale model tests or at least larger physical model tests.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Faculty Research Fund from Sungkyunkwan

University in 1995 and by SAFE (SAFEty and Structural Integrity Research Center)
at Sungkyunkwan University. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Akinmusuru, J.O., Akinbolade, J.A., 1981. Stability of loaded footings on reinforced soil. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 107, 819–827.
Binquet, J., Lee, K.L., 1975a. Bearing capacity tests on reinforced earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 101, 1241–1255.
Binquet, J., Lee, K.L., 1975b. Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 101, 1257–1276.
Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of the slip circle in stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 5 (1), 7–17.
Das, B.M., Khing, K.H., Shin, E.C., Puri, V.K., Yen, S.C., 1994. Comparison of bearing capacity of strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand and clay. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Morgantown, WA, USA, pp. 1331–1336.
298 C. Yoo / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 279–298

Duncan, J.M., Bryne, P., Wong, K.S., Marbry, P., 1980. Stregnth, stress–strain and bulk modulus
parameters for finite element analyses of stresses and movements in soil masses. Geotechnical
Engineering Research Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of California, Berkeley.
Fragaszy, R.J., Lawton, E., 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 110, 1501–1507.
Huang, C., Tatsuoka, F., Sato, Y., 1994. Failure mechanisms of reinforced sand slopes loaded with a
footing. Soils and Foundations 24 (2), 27–40.
Leshchinsky, D., Boedeker, R.H., 1990. Geosynthetic reinforced soil structure. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 115 (10), 1459–1477.
Lesniewska, D., 1993. RES}a numerical program for reinforced-soil slopes based on the rigid-plastic
theoretical model. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12 (5), 435–439.
Mandal, J.N., Labhane, L., 1992. A procedure for the design and analysis of geosynthetic reinforced soil
slopes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 10 (4), 291–319.
Michalowsk, R.L., 1997. Stability of uniformly reinforced slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (6), 546–556.
Sawicki, A., Lesniewska, D., 1991. Stability of fabric reinforced cohesive soil slopes. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 10, 125–146.
Schmertmann, G.R., Chourery-Curtis, V.E., Johnson, R.D., Bonaparte, R., 1987. Design charts for
geogrid-reinforced soil slopes. Proceedings Geosynthetics ‘87, Vol. 1, Industrial Fabrics Association
Int., St. Paul, Minn., USA, pp. 108–120.
Schneider, H.R., Holtz, R.D., 1986. Design of slopes reinforced with geotextiles and geogrids. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 3 (1), 29–51.
Selvadurai, A.P.S., Gnanendran, C.T., 1989. An experimental study of a footing located on a sloped fill:
influence of a soil reinforcement layer. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (3), 467–473.
Yoo, C.S., 1998. Development of a prediction method for ground movements due to excavation in urban
area. Report KOSEF 961-1201-002-2, Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.
Zhao, A., 1996. Limit analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes. Geosynthetics International 3 (6),
721–740.
Zornberg, J.G., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., 1998a. Performance of geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (8), 670–683.
Zornberg, J.G., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., 1998b. Limit equilibrium as basis for design of geosynthetic
reinforced slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (8), 684–698.