National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology
Behaviour of Strip Footing on Sand Bed with Thin
Soft Lens
Jignesh N. Lad#1
#
P.G.Student (Structure) Structural Engineering Department,
B.V.M. Engg. College,
Gujarat Technological University, Vallabh Vidyanagar,
Gujarat, India
1 akvbvm@yahoo.com
ladjignesh@yahoo.com
Abstract - This paper aims at investigating the potential benefits of
using the reinforced soil foundation to improve the bearing
capacity and reduce the settlement of strip footing on sand bed
with thin soft lens.
It is found that the soft lens below strip footing influence not
only the bearing capacity but also the settlement of the footing. It
is found that when the soft lens is within a zone of 1.5 times width
of footing, the bearing capacity and settlement are affected. After
1.5B, the soft lens has no effect on the performance of strip
footing.
Keywords – Shallow foundation, Strip footing, Bearing capacity,
Settlement, Soil Reinforcement, Geosynthetics materials, Thin soft
lens.
I. INTRODUCTION
Several result of laboratory model tests are currently
available in the literature related to the improvement in the
bearing capacity of shallow foundation supported by sand or
layer soil reinforced with various materials.
Binquet and Lee (1975) gave theoretical analysis to find the
pressure intensity of shallow strip footing resting on reinforced
earth bed for given settlement. The reinforcement are assumed
to undergo two right angle bends at the failure surface and they
compared the analytical values with experimental result which
showed a fairly good agreement.
Huang and Tatsuoka (1990) conducted a systematic study
of bearing capacity of reinforced sand foundation. These
results indicated that the bearing capacity could be increased
even with short reinforcement of L equal to B width of footing.
The intensive shear zone along the lateral face of reinforced
zone occurred in the case with short reinforcement was spread
into larger area for the case with reinforcement longer than B.
They also reported that the reinforcement stiffness had
negligible effects on the bearing capacity of strip footing on
reinforced sand, unless the reinforcement failed by rupture.
Khing K. H., Das B. M., Puri V. K., Cook E. E., Yen S. C.
(1992) investigated the bearing capacity of strip foundation on
geogrid reinforced sand. The results show that the maximum
13-14 May 2011 B.V.M. Engineering College, V.V.Nagar,Gujarat,India
A. K. Verma*2
*
Professor & Head, Structural Engineering Department,
B.V.M. Engg. College,
Gujarat Technological University, Vallabh Vidyanagar,
Gujarat, India
2
benefit of geogrid reinforcement in increasing the bearing
capacity was obtained when the u/B ≤1. Also reinforcement
placed below the foundation at a depth of more than 2.25 times
the foundation width did not contribute to any increase in
bearing capacity.
Das B. M. and Khing K. H. (1994) study the effect of void
in foundation on layered soil with geogrid reinforcement. They
used stronger sand layer underlain by a near saturated
reinforcement at sand clay interface are presented.
Patra C. R., Das B. M., Atalas C. (2005) conducted a
laboratory model test on a strip foundation supported by
multilayered geogrid reinforced sand. They recommended that
test of this type be carried out for kartstic soils and week
cohesive soils to evaluate the improvement in bearing capacity,
which may be helpful in field condition.
Moghaddas S. N., Dawson A. R. (2009) study on strip
footing supported on the geocell and planar reinforced sand
bed with the same characteristics of geotextile. They reported a
increase in the load carrying capacity & reduction in
settlement,& decrease in the surface heave of footing bed more
than the planar reinforcement.
Rethaliya R. P. and Verma A. K.(2009) investigated the
foundation on soft clay can be improved y placing a layer of
compacted sand or gravel. The results shows that, while
placing of sand over the soft clay sub grade leads to an increase
in the load carrying capacity & also the reinforcement layer at
the sand clay interface has resulted in the additional increase in
bearing capacity and decrease in the settlement of the footing.
The optimum width of reinforcement for sand layer overlying
soft clay was found 5.0B for strip footing and 3.0B for
rectangular, square and circular footing.
All researches have carried out their experiment and
analytically work for uniform or layered foundation soil. At
many site, we come across foundation soil which contain soft
lens of clay. No research has been reported in this direction. It
is there for essential that the foundation soil containing soft
 National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology

lens should be investigated and general formulation based on (CI group) as per IS-1498-1970. The physical properties of the
elastic theory should be taken into consideration. clay are given in Table-2.

II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP [C] Reinforcement

Reinforcement used is geogrid. The properties of geogrid
are given in Table-3.
The model tests for strip footing were conducted in a steel
tank of size 100cm length×50cm width × 80cm depth. The tank
was braced with stiffeners on front side to avoiding the
IV. SOIL BED PREPARATION
yielding during loading. The front wall of the test tank was
fabricated from a 10mm thick Perspex glass sheet to facilitate The sand bed was prepared by sand-reining technique and
the viewing of the failure mechanism as shown in fig.1. at the appropriate depth; a soft lens of clayey soil of thickness 3
cm was placed. Over this, sand was poured further upto the
The strip footing was made by mild steel plate. The size of
desired height.
strip footing was 7.5cm×48cm having thickness of 2.5 cm. The
base of the model footing was made rough by cementing a thin
layer of sand. Also ends of model footing were made as smooth
as possible to reduce the friction during the test. V. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Plate load tests were carried out for sand bed with thin soft
lens with and without reinforcement layer as shown in Table-4

Table -1 Physical properties of sand

Description Value
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 3.5
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.875
Effective grain size, d10(mm) 0.20
D30 0.35
D60 0.70
Fig. 1 Test Tank for Model Testing Maximum void ratio, emax 0.71
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.46
A constant vertical load were applied in stages at the centre Moisture content (%) 0
of the model footing which placed on the prepared soil bed and
the centre of the tank, through a hydraulic jack. The jack is Specific gravity, G 2.59
operated manually. The load and the corresponding footing Relative Density, Rd 39.03%
settlement were measured by a proving ring and two dial
Friction Angle, Φ 36°
gauges places on each side of footing.

III. MATERIALS USED

Table-2 Physical properties of clay
[A] Sand
Locally available uniform river sand passing through
4.75mm I.S. Sieve and retained on 75µ Sieve was used for Description Value
preparing soil bed. The physical properties of sand were Liquid Limit (WL) 36.8%
determined according to IS code provision and presented in
Table-1. Plastic Limit (WP) 18.5%
Plasticity Index (IP) 18.3%
Shrinkage Limit (Ws) 18%
[B] Clay
Average Moisture Content During Model Test 35%
Locally available clay soil was used in the investigation.
The clay is classified as clay of intermediate compressibility

13-14 May 2011 B.V.M. Engineering College, V.V.Nagar,Gujarat,India

 National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology

Table 3 Physical properties of reinforcement ds/B No of Test No of u/B

Reinforce
(Geogrid) W/O With ment
Reinforce Reinforcem
ment ent

Geogrid netlon CE121 0.3 02 02 1 0.15,0.3

Thickness at node 2.75mm 0.5 02 02 1 0.25,0.5

Thickness of rib 2.2mm 0.7 02 02 1 0.35,0.7

Aperture size 7.5×7.5 mm 0.9 02 02 1 0.45,0.9

Tensile strength 7.68 N/mm 1.1 02 02 1 0.55,1.1

Yield strength 6.8 N/mm 1.3 02 02 1 0.65,1.3

1.5 02 02 1 0.75,1.5

Note: B=width of footing; u= depth of first reinforcement; N= no of

reinforcement; ds= depth of soft lens below the footing
Table-4 Number of tests for sand bed with thin soft lens

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table-5 Results

settlement
Sr no load w/o softlens ds=0.3B ds=0.5B ds=0.7B ds=1B ds=1.3B
kg mm mm Mm mm mm Mm
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 6.735 0.005 0.055 0.055 0.0375 0.0575 0.045
3 13.47 0.077 0.455 0.28 0.226 0.205 0.175
4 26.94 0.235 1.34 0.9125 0.712 0.68 0.625
5 40.41 0.5 2.72 1.85 1.3975 1.18 1.15
6 53.88 0.8 4.63 3.0325 2.388 1.912 1.885
7 67.35 1.07 7.005 4.6 3.415 2.775 2.615
8 80.82 1.42 10.495 7.46 5.578 3.82 3.58
9 94.29 1.662 13.57 9.735 7.95 5.755 4.675
10 121.23 2.572 19.59 15.795 12.641 11.94 8.05
11 148.17 3.265 23.515 20.805 17.945 17.001 14.645
12 175.11 5.12 26.345 25.352 23.042 22.65 23.08

[A] Effect of soft lens

At any settlement viz at 5mm the load for ds=0.3B, 0.5B,
0.7B, 1.0B and 1.3B are 50kgf, 70kgf, 75kgf, 90kgf, 95kgf
respectively. The corresponding load without soft lens is
200kgf. This shows that the position of the soft lens influences
the load carrying capacity of the strip footing. As depth of soft
lens increases, load carrying capacity of the footing also
increases. Therefore, it can be inferred that the soft lens has
significant effect on the load carrying capacity of a footing.

13-14 May 2011 B.V.M. Engineering College, V.V.Nagar,Gujarat,India

 National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology
Fig. 2 Settlement vs Load Relationships for Various ds/B Ratio
This can be further seen in terms of percentage decreases in
load carrying capacity of the footing. For ds= 0.3B, load=
50kgs, percentage decreases in load carrying capacity= 75%,
for ds= 0.5B, load= 70kgs, therefore percentage decreases in
load carrying capacity= 65%, for ds= 0.7B, load=75kgs,
therefore percentage decreases in load carrying capacity=
62.5%, for ds=1.0B, load= 90kgs, therefore percentage
decreases in load carrying capacity= 55%, for ds= 1.3B,
load=95kgs, therefore percentage decreases in load carrying
capacity=52.5% These figures are very high and for any site, it
lowers the load carrying capacity significantly.
Therefore, a remedial action must be applied to
enhance/increase the load carrying capacity of the footing. This
can be done by reinforcing the sandy bed above the soft lens. It
is found from experiment and literature that a geogrid layer at
the interface of the soft lens and sandy bed increase the load
carrying capacity. If the sand bed above the soft lens is further
reinforced with geogrid, the load carrying capacity further
increases.
Settlement at ultimate load carrying capacity is 3mm for
sandy bed. At this settlement the load carrying capacity for
0.3B, 0.5B, 0.7B, 1.0B, 1.3B are 40kgf , 55kgf, 65kgf, 70kgf,
75kgf which is considerably less than the uniform sand-bed.
[B]Effect of reinforcement
It is found from experiment that at settlement 3mm load for
soft lens 0.5B is 50 kgf and if reinforcement at the interface is
placed the load is 60kgf. So there is net increase in load by
13-14 May 2011 B.V.M. Engineering College, V.V.Nagar,Gujarat,India
10kgf and percentage increases in load carrying capacity is
20%.
Fig. 3 Settlement-loads for ds=0.5B, N=1,u=0.5B&0.25B
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, laboratory model tests results were carried at to
investigate the effect of soft lens position on load carrying
capacity of strip footing. Based on the result obtained, the
following conclusion can be extracted.
(1) The position of the soft lens influences the load carrying
capacity of the strip footing. Load carrying capacity of the
strip footing also increases with increase in a depth of soft
lens.
(2) For ds=0.3B and 0.5B at a particular load of 150kgf, 200
kg, the whole soft lens gets sheared and the load is
transferred to the sandy bed and the load-settlement trends
shows strain hardening.
(3) For the amount of settlement of 5mm, percentage
decreases in load carrying capacity of the footing for
ds=0.3B, 0.5B,0.7B, 1.0B, 1.3B are decreasing by 73%,
65%, 60%, 55%, 50% respectively corresponding to sandy
bed.
(4) The vertical compressive loads required to be applied for
settlement of 3mm for without soft lens (sandy bed), soft
 National Conference on Recent Trends in Engineering & Technology

lens at 0.3B, 0.5B, 0.7B, 1.0B, 1.3B were, respectively,

170kgf, 40kgf, 55kgf, 65kgf, 70kgf, 75kgf.
(5) If a reinforcement at the top of the soft lens are placed for
ds=0.5B, percentage increase in load carrying capacity is
20%.as show in fig. 3.

REFERENCES
1. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L., 1975a. “Bearing capacity
tests on reinforced earth slabs.” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No.GT12, pp.
1241-1255.
2. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L., 1975b. “Bearing capacity
analysis on reinforced earth slabs.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101,
No.GT12, pp. 1257-1276.
3. Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F., 1990. “Bearing capacity
reinforced horizontal sandy ground.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 9, pp. 51-82.
4. K. H. Khing~, B. M. Dasb*, V. K. Puff", E. E. Cook a &
S. C. Yen “The Bearing-Capacity of a Strip Foundation on
Geogrid-Reinforced Sand”, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 12 (1993) 351-361.
5. B. M. Das & K. H. Khing” Foundation on Layered Soil
with Geogrid Reinforcement Effect of a Void” Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 13 (1994) 545-553 .
6. C.R. Patra, B.M. Das, C. AtalaR, “Bearing capacity
ofembedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2005) 454–462
7. S.N. Moghaddas Tafreshi, A.R. Dawson,”
Comparison of bearing capacity of a strip footing on sand
with geocell and with planar forms of geotextile
reinforcement” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010)
72–84
8. R.P. Rethaliya & A. K. Verma,”strip footing on sand
overlying soft clay with geotextile interface” india
geotechnical journal,39(3),july2009,271-287.

13-14 May 2011 B.V.M. Engineering College, V.V.Nagar,Gujarat,India