International Conference on Civil Engineering

Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development

18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Backward Calculation for Bearing Capacity Estimation of

Geogrid Reinforced Foundation by Finite Element Method
Nima Gorji1,* , Mohammad. M. Toufigh2, Mohammad. H. Khosravi3

1. Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University of Pardis, gorjie.nima@yahoo.com

2. Department of Civil Engineering, Bahonar University of Kerman, mmtoufigh@mail.uk.ac.ir
3. Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, khosravi.m.aa@m.titech.ac.jp

Abstract
In this study a new numerical solution is developed to estimate the ultimate bearing
capacity of reinforced soil foundations (RSF) with geogrid reinforcement considering a
various soil types. The method is based on the classical bearing capacity theories of
shallow foundations such as Terzaghi or Meyerhof theories, however is applicable to
reinforced shallow foundations. In this finite element method, a model of unreinforced
soil foundation was analyzed; using classical bearing capacity theories, under the ultimate
load and the amount of footing settlement was calculated. Then, models of reinforced
foundations were allowed to settle to this certain amount and the bearing capacity of
reinforced soil foundations was back calculated. A ratio BCR was defined as the bearing
capacity of a reinforced soil foundation to an unreinforced soil foundation. The number of
reinforcement layers (N), the top layer spacing (u), and the vertical spacing of
reinforcement (h) were investigated as three important parameters on BCR. It was
concluded that applying reinforcement can considerably increase the bearing capacity of
soil foundations up to a BCR of 2.598, for a settlement ratio of 9%. The results of the
developed finite element method were compared to preexisting experimental data from
laboratory model tests on reinforced soil. Good agreement between the prediction of this
method and experimental data confirms the reliability of the new developed method.

Key words: Back calculation, Bearing capacity, reinforced foundation, Finite element method.

1. Introduction
Insufficient bearing capacity and excessive foundation settlement are the most prevalent
problems that geotechnical engineers are confronted with them. Construction of shallow
foundations on the top of an existing soil layer with a low bearing capacity can results in an
abundant settlement of the foundation and even failure of the structure. A well known
economical solution technique is reinforced soil foundation (RSF) in which the weak soil is
replaced with stronger material in combination with geosynthetics. The role of artificial
materials such as metal strips and geosynthetics in increasing the bearing capacity of soil
foundations has been obviously known by geotechnical engineers for more than three
decades.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

The behavior of RSF considering various soil types has been investigated experimentally,
numerically and analytically many researches so far. The bearing capacity of a sandy soil
reinforced with metal strips has been studied initially by Binquet and Lee (1975a). Since then,
several experimental studies are accomplished on the bearing capacity of reinforced soil
foundations (Binquet and Lee, 1975a;Fra-gaszy and Lawton, 1984; Huang and Tatsuoka,
1990; Khing et al., 1993,1994; Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Shin and Das, 2000; Yoo, 2001; Dash
et al., 2003; Michalowski, 2004; Sitharam and Sireesh, 2004; Patra et al., 2005, 2006;
Basudhar, et al., 2007; El Sawwaf, 2007; Chen et al., 2007; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2008a;
Somwanshi and Latha, 2009; M.H.A Mohamad, 2010). Many researchers endeavored to
estimate the benefits of using RSFs through bearing capacity ratio (BCR), which is defined as
a ratio of the bearing capacity of a reinforced to an unreinforced soil foundation. However
some analytical solutions have been proposed already to evaluate the ultimate bearing
capacity of footings (Binquet and Lee, 1975a,b; Michalowski, 2004; Wayne et al., 1998;
Kumar and Saran, 2003), the problem is not widely investigated numerically and analytically
compared with the high number of experimental researches.

In this study a new numerical solution is developed to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity
of RSF with geogrid reinforcement covering any type of soil. Ultimate bearing capacity of a
reinforced soil foundation is back calculated from the settlement of the foundation. While this
settlement is calculated from the bearing capacity of an unreinforced soil foundation based on
the classical theories of shallow foundations such as Terzaghie and Meyerhof theories. The
main objective of this study is to introduce a new method for back calculation of bearing
capacity of geogrid reinforced soil foundation. Furthermore, this study aims to evaluate the
performance of geogrid layers in improving the bearing capacity of the foundation through
parametric study. The number of reinforcement layers (N), the top layer spacing (u), and the
vertical spacing of reinforcement (h) were investigated as three important parameters on BCR.
These parameters are illustrated schematically in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Schematic view of a reinforced foundation

 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

2. Formulation of the problem

In finite element method, a continuum is divided into a number of elements where each
element consists of a number of nodes and each node has a degree of freedom. The node’s
degree of freedom corresponds to discrete values of unknowns in the boundary value problem
to be solved. In this study, the degrees of freedom correspond to displacement components. In
the deformation theory, the basic equations for the static deformation of a soil body are
formulated based on the assumption of small deformations which enables a formulation with
reference to the original undeformed geometry. The general formulation of the finite element
analysis is presented as fallow:

1-2- Basic equations of continuum deformation

The static equilibrium of a continuum can be formulated as follows

(1)

This equation relates the spatial derivatives of the six stress components, assembled in vector
, to the three components of the body forces, assembled in vector .Where is the
transpose of a differential operator. In addition to the equilibrium equation, the kinematic
relation can be formulated as follows

(2)

Where six strain components, assembled in vector , are defined as the spatial derivatives of
three displacement components, assembled in vector ,using the previously defined
differential operator .
Equations (1) and (2) can be linked through a constitutive relationship, representing the
material behavior. A material model is a set of mathematical equations that describes the
relationship between stress and strain and often is expressed in a form of relating infinitesimal
stress rates to infinitesimal strain rates. The mechanical behavior of soils may be modeled at
various degrees of accuracy. Hooke’s law of linear isotopic elasticity, for example, may be
assumed of as the simplest available stress-strain relationship, since it involves only two input
parameters, Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio (ν). This relationship may be indicated
in the following form
(3)

Where, is a material stiffness matrix, and are a stress and strain tensors respectively. A
displacement field inside any specific element can be obtained from the discrete nodal
values in vector , using interpolation functions assembled in matrix as shown in Eq. (4).

(4)

The interpolation functions in matrix are often shape functions. Substitution of Eq. (4) in
kinematic relation (Eq. (2)) gives

(5)
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Where is the strain interpolation matrix, which contains the spatial derivatives of the
interpolation functions. Now, with combination of Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) would result in a
partial differential equation in displacements However, according to Galerkin’s variation
principle, the equilibrium equation is formulated as follows

(6)

Where represents a kinematical admissible variation of displacements. Applying Green’s

theorem for partial integration and introduces a boundary integral leads to

(7)

Where represents the actual state of stress which is unknown, represents the previous
state of stress which is known and the boundary conditions are assembled in vector .
Equation (7) can be reformulated in discretized form and the discrete displacements are
placed outside the integral; therefore,

(8)

The first two terms on the right-hand side of the equation represent the current external force
vector, while the last term represents the internal reaction vector from the previous step. A
difference between the external force vector and the internal reaction vector should be
balanced by a stress increment . Because the relation between stress and strain increments
is usually non-linear, strain increments cannot be calculated in general directly; therefore, the
global iterative procedures are required to satisfy the equilibrium condition in Eq. (8) for all
material points.

2-2- Stiffness matrix

Substitution of the relationship between stress and strain increments ( ),into Eq. (8)
and definition of an iterative procedure for satisfying both equilibrium condition and
constitutive relation, leads to

(9)

Where is a stiffness matrix representing the material behavior in an approximated manner,

is an elastic material matrix according to Hooke’s law and is a strain interpolation
matrix. Within a certain tolerance, more accuracy of the stiffness matrix leads to less required
iterations for obtaining equilibrium.

Since geogrid and soil are two different types of material in a reinforced soil, it is required to
define two different types of elements. As shown in Fig. 2 Linear and triangular elements are
defined simulating geogrid and soil respectively, with specific stiffness matrices for each of
them.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

(a) 6-node triangular element used (b) 3-node linear element used for
for soil geogrid

Fig. 2 Two types of elements used for this numerical analysis

3-2- Geogrid elements

Geogrids as slender structures, have only normal stiffness with relatively high tensile
strengths. These materials have no bending stiffness and there compressive strengths are
negligible. In this study 3-node linear elements are used for modeling geogrids rather than 6-
node triangular elements used as soil medium.

4-2- Interface elements

Numerical modeling of two neighboring materials with different properties entails defining a
virtual interface material to make compatibility between those different properties. Interface
elements resemble geogrid elements and are modeled with 3-node linear elements. As
illustrated in Fig. 3, an interface element is connected to a soil element. However in this
figure the interface element is shown to have a finite thickness, in finite element formulation
the coordinates of each pair of nodes are identical leading to a zero thickness for interface
elements. The basic properties of an interface element are the associated material properties
set for soil that with considering experimental data are reduced.

Fig. 3 Compatibility between 3-node

and 6-node triangle element

As shown in Fig. 4, the continuum of the problem is divided into a finite number of 6-node
triangular elements for soil and 3-node linear elements for geogrid. Since geogrid is used to
increase the tensile strength of soil, its influence is considered along the x-axis. On the other
hand, to consider the lateral influence of geogrid, the stiffness matrix for displacement along
the y-axis can be defined. Similarly, Basudhar et al. (2007) calculated the stiffness matrices
along x and y axes applying 4-node rectangular elements of soil and 2-node linear elements of
geotextile. After computing the stiffness matrices for each element, they are assembled to
compute the general stiffness matrix for the whole continuum. The general stiffness matrix
was modified then, by applying restrictions, such as boundary conditions.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Fig. 4 The continuum of problem with defined elements

To calculate Eq. (9) an interpolation function was defined and Newton-Cotes numerical
integration method was applied. In this method the point was chosen at the position of the
node. The elements of stiffness matrix were composed of sub-matrices where i and j are
the local nodes. The process of calculating the elements of stiffness matrix can be formulated
as follows

(10)

Where is the weight factor for point k.

3. Reinforcement mechanism
There are certain mechanisms in reinforcing soil foundations which controls the failure of
the foundations. The proposed reinforcement mechanisms in the literature can be categorized
as follows.

1-3- Rigid boundary

If the depth for the first reinforcement layer (u) is greater than a specific value, the
reinforcement may act as a rigid boundary and the failure may occur above the reinforcement
(Fig. 5-a). This failure mechanism was first introduced by Binquet and Lee (1975b) and later
confirmed through experimental studies conducted by several researchers (Akinmusuru and
Akinbolade, 1981; Mandal and Sah, 1992; Khing et al., 1993; Omar et al., 1993b; Ghosh et
al., 2005).

2-3- Membrane effect

If the applied load from the structure be enough to move the footing and soil beneath the
footing downward, the reinforcement may be deformed and tensioned (Fig. 5-b). Under this
condition, due to its stiffness, the curved reinforcement will develops an upward force in
reaction to the applied load. A certain amount of settlement is required to mobilize tensioned
membrane effect. If the reinforcement membrane has not enough length and stiffness, it may
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

be pulled out and fail under this mechanism. Binquet and Lee (1975b) were perhaps the first
who considered this mechanism to develop a design method for a strip footing on reinforced
sand, with the simple assumption made for the shape of the reinforcement after deformation.

3-3- Confinement effect

Due to relative displacement between soil and reinforcement, the friction resistance can be
induced at the soil-reinforcement interface. Furthermore, the interlocking can be developed by
the interaction of soil and geogrid. Consequently, lateral deformation or potential tensile
strain of the reinforced soil is restrained and vertical deformation of soil is reduced (Fig. 5-c).
Huang and Tatsuoka (1990) substantiated this mechanism experimentally by using short
reinforcement with a length (L) equal to the footing width (B) in a reinforced sand model.
Latter Michalowski (2004) applied this reinforcing mechanism in the limit analysis of
reinforced soil foundation and derived the formula for calculating the ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings on reinforced soils.

(a) Rigid boundary (b) Membrane effect

(c) Confinement effect

Fig. 5. Reinforcement mechanisms

4. Backward calculation
In the proposed backward calculation program, the bearing capacity of an unreinforced
foundation was calculated using classical theories. The finite element model was created for
the foundation and the maximum footing settlement was calculated under the ultimate load.
Finally, the certain footing settlement was applied to a reinforced foundation, its bearing
capacity was backward calculated and the ratio of BCR was calculated. The process is
explained in details through the following subsections.

1-4- Calculating the bearing capacity of unreinforced foundation

First of all, the foundation soil with known resistance parameters, such as internal friction
angle and cohesion, should be chosen for the analysis. The next important parameters in
estimation of the bearing capacity of a foundation are the shape and dimensions of the
footing, the applied surcharge load on it and the way it rests on the foundation. The bearing
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

capacity of the defined foundation, then, was calculated using four different classical
equations of Terzaghi (1943), Mayerhof (1963), Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973).
The ultimate bearing capacity for a sandy foundation with zero embedment depth (Df = 0), is
calculated for a variation of soil properties and footing’s dimensions using the above
mentioned classical equations as summarized in table 1. From this table, it can be seen that for
determining the amount of q, the discrepancy between different equations is less for lower
values of soil’s internal friction. Therefore, the appropriate selection of the theory for
calculation of the bearing capacity of a foundation has a great importance on the accuracy of
the analysis.

2-4- Creation of the finite element model and calculating footing settlement
As mentioned above, the environment of the foundation model was meshed with some certain
restrictions considering boundary conditions. The necessary parameters such as Poisson’s
ratio and elastic modulus were specified, stiffness matrix was compounded and analysis
proceeded to calculation phase. Since the applied load on the footing was calculated just
before the foundation failure, there was no anxiety about discontinuity in element connections
and consequently error in calculations. Therefore, calculations could be led to the ultimate
displacement on nodes with a high level of certainty and maximum footing settlement could
be calculated. According to nodes numbering, the exact amount of displacement was
determined clearly and load-displacement diagram was drawn for the foundation. This made
it possible to compare the amount of foundation’s bearing capacity in a certain settlement for
two states of reinforced and unreinforced foundations.

3-4- Backward calculation of the bearing capacity of reinforced foundation

The specific finite element foundation model was recreated with the same properties as
explained before, except that reinforcement elements with various configurations were
defined as a supplementary part of the reinforced model.
The reinforcement configurations included changes in the number of rows of the
reinforcement elements, spacing of the reinforcement elements and embedded depth of the
first reinforcement layer. Change in each of these parameters led to a change in the bearing
capacity of the reinforced foundation. The obtained node displacement from the unreinforced
foundation, under the ultimate bearing capacity, was considered as an input for this step of
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

analysis and the pressure beneath the footing model was calculated. The result of this analysis
led to back calculating the bearing capacity of the reinforced foundation under a certain
amount of settlement. Since the amount of settlement used in back calculation was not more
than the maximum settlement obtained from the unreinforced model under ultimate loading,
discontinuity between mesh elements and resultant calculation errors were avoided.

4-4- BCR calculation

So far, the magnitudes of bearing capacities for unreinforced and reinforced foundation
models were calculated for foundation models under the same soil and footing properties. In
order to evaluate the influence of reinforcement on the improvement of the foundations, a
ratio BCR was defined as the ratio of the bearing capacity of the reinforced soil foundation to
the bearing capacity of the unreinforced soil foundation. Defining BCR made it possible to
compare the results of different analysis.

5. Result and discussion

Clay with the bulk unit weight of γ = 16 kN/m3, internal friction angle ofφ= 25° and
cohesion of c = 13 kPa was selected as the material of the model foundation. A footing was
placed on the soil foundation without embedded depth. The bearing capacity of this
foundation was calculated as qult = 416 kN/m2 using the classical bearing capacity theories.
The stiffness matrix was compounded and the finite element model was run under the
ultimate external load and the amounts of displacements were calculated at each node of the
model. The model was reproduced with reinforcement elements added to the former finite
element model. The reinforced model was run under a certain amount of settlement and
ultimate bearing capacity of the model was back calculated. The backward calculation
program was run with a variation of reinforcement parameters, for two values of settlement
ratios s/B=3%, s/B=9% and the results were validated through comparison with experimental
data as explained in the following subsections.

1-5- Influence of reinforcement top layer spacing

To investigate the influence of the top layer spacing (u) on the bearing capacity, a foundation
with one layer of reinforcement was modeled numerically using the propose analysis. The
variation of BCR as a function of the top layer spacing (u) is illustrated in Fig. 6 where the top
layer spacing (u) is normalized by the footing width (B). The results of the proposed
numerical analysis are compared with the experimental data According to this figure, the
bearing capacities of the reinforced foundation increased for both values of settlement ratios
as the normalized top layer spacing increased from 0.16 to 0.33. However, increasing the top
layer spacing beyond this value had a reverse influence on the BCR. Therefore, the value of
the normalized top layer spacing 0.33 (u=57 mm) can be considered as the optimum value
which led to the maximum bearing capacity of the reinforced foundation. This finding is
consistent with those reported by Sakit & Das (1987) and Shin et al. (1993).
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

Fig. 6 BCR versus normalized top layer spacing (u/B) for a foundation
with one layer of reinforcement

2-5- Influence of the number of reinforcement layers

After determining the optimum value for the top layer spacing, as explained in the previous
subsection, in this subsection the influence of the number of reinforcement layers on the
bearing capacity of soil is investigated. The variation of BCR as a function of the number of
reinforcement layers (N) and the total depth of reinforced soil (d) is illustrated in Fig. 7. The
results of the proposed numerical analysis are compared with the experimental data (Chen,
2007) where the total depth of reinforced soil (d) is normalized by the footing width (B). As
was expected, the bearing capacity of the reinforced foundation increased with increasing the
number of reinforcement layers.

Fig. 7 BCR versus N and d/B at different settlement ratios (s/B)

forgeogrid in clay soil

However, the significance of an additional reinforcement layer decreased as the number of

reinforcement layers increased and became negligible beyond a specific depth. This specific
depth was defined as effective depth (de) where placing reinforcement layers beyond this
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

depth has no effect on the bearing capacity of the foundation. According to Fig. 7, the total
number of N=4 reinforcement layers was obtained as the optimum number of layers and the
normalized effective depth was obtained about de/B=1.33. These results are in a good
agreement with experimental data of Chen, 2007.

3-5-Influence of the vertical spacing of the reinforcement layers

In this subsection the influence of the vertical spacing of the reinforcement layers (h) on the
bearing capacity of soil is investigated. The variation of BCR as a function of h is illustrated
in Fig. 8 where h is normalized by the footing width (B). According to this figure, it is
obvious that increasing the vertical spacing of reinforcement layers resulted in a decrease in
BCR, However no optimum vertical spacing was obtained. Similar results were reported by
Ingold & Miller (1982) on reinforced clay with geogrid. Guido et al. (1985) indicated that it is
difficult to fully understand the effect of vertical spacing on bearing capacity separately,
without considering other influencing parameters.

Fig. 8 BCR versus h/B at different settlement ratios (s/B) for three layers
geogrid in clay soil

6. Conclusion
Based on the results obtained from the backward calculation method for estimating the
bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation with multiple layers of geogrid, the following
conclusions can be made:
 A new backward calculation method is developed based on finite element method to
estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow reinforced soil foundations.

 Using valid values in analyzing reinforced finite element models results in a valid
analysis by avoiding appearance of discontinuities between mesh elements. Therefore,
the analysis in this proposed program is valid since calculation is based on reliable
classical theories.

 Because of the continual recording of results up to a failure in the numerical model,

there is no obligation in using the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation for back
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

calculation analysis; therefore, any certain amount of settlement with its

corresponding bearing amount can be chosen to back calculate the bearing capacity of
the reinforced model.

 The results of the developed finite element method show a good agreement with the
pre existing experimental data which confirm the reliability of this method.

 Determining the top reinforcement layer spacing is of a great importance, because the
top layer of reinforcement can play as a rigid boundary and leads to a failure between
the footing and this rigid boundary. Therefore, it is necessary to choose an appropriate
amount and avoid this type of failure. The optimum value for the top reinforcement
layer spacing is suggested to be about 0.33 times of the footing’s width which is
consistent with those suggested by Sakit & Das (1987) and Shin et al. (1993).

 An increase in the number of reinforcement layers leads to an increase in the bearing

capacity of the foundation; however, there is an optimum value for this number.

 Placing reinforcement layers deeper than so called “effective depth” has no effect on
increasing the bearing capacity of the foundation. This study suggested the effective
depth to be 1.33 times of the footing’s width.

References
[1] Abu-Farsakh, M., Chen, Q., Sharma, R., Zhang, X., 2008a. Large-scale model footing tests on
geogrid reinforced foundation and marginal embankment soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM
31 (5), 413-423.
[2] Akinmusuru, J.O., and Akinbolade, J., 1981. "Stability of loaded footing on reinforced soil."
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 107, No.6, pp. 819-827.
[3] Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., Deb, K., 2007. Circular footings resting on geotextile-reinforced sand
bed. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (6), 377-384.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] Chen, Q., Abu-Farsakh, M., Sharma, R., Zhang, X., 2007. Laboratory investigation of behavior of
foundations on geosynthetic-reinforced clayey soil. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 2004, 28-38.
[7] Chen, Q., 2007. An experimental study on characteristics and behavior of reinforced soil
foundation. PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA.
[8] Dash, S.K., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., 2003. Model studies on circular footing supported on
geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (4), 197-219.
[9] El Sawwaf, M.A., 2007. Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay
slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 50-60.
[10] Fragaszy, J.R., and Lawton, E., 1984. "Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades." Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No.10, pp. 1500-1507.
 International Conference on Civil Engineering
Architecture & Urban Sustainable Development
18 &19 December 2013, Tabriz , Iran

[11] Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., and Bera, A.K., 2005. "Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash
reinforced with jute-geotextile." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 144-173.
[12] Guido, V.A., Biesiadecki, G.L., and Sullivan, M.J., 1985. "Bearing capacity of a geotextile
reinforced foundation."Proceedings ofthe 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp.1777-1780.
[13] Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F., 1990. "Bearing capacity reinforced horizontal sandy ground."
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9, pp. 51-82.
[14] Ingold, T.S., and Miller, K.S., 1982. "Analytical and laboratory investigation of reinforced clay."
Proceeding's of the 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles, Vol. 3, pp. 587-592.
[15] Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.E., and Yen, S.C., 1993. "The bearing capacity of a
strip foundation on geogrid reinforced sand." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, pp. 351-361.
[16] Kumar, A., Saran, S., 2003. Closely spaced footings on geogrid reinforced sand. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129 (7), 660-664.
[17] Latha, G., Somwanshi, A., 2009. Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic reinforced
sand. Geotextile and Geomembranes, 27, 281-294.
[18] Mandal, J.N., and Sah, H.S., 1992. "Bearing capacity tests on geogrid-reinforced clay."
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 327-333.
[19] Michalowski, R.L., April 2004. "Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils", Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No.4, pp. 381-390.
[20] Mohamed, M., 2010. Two dimensional experimental study for the behavior of surface footings on
unreinforced and sand beds overling soft pockets. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, technical note,
2010, 1-8.
[21] Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., and Yen, S.C., 1993b. "Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.
435-440.
[22] Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., and Atalar, C., 2005. "Bearing capacity of embedded strip foundation on
geogrid-reinforced sand." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 23, pp. 454-462.
[23] Sitharam, T.G., Sireesh, S., 2004. Model studies of embedded circular footing on geogrid-
reinforced sand beds. Ground Improvement 8 (2), 69-75.
[24] Shin, E.C., Das, B.M., Lee, E.S., and Atalar, C., 2000. "Bearing capacity of strip foundation on
geogrid-reinforced sand." Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 20, pp. 169-180.
[25] Wayne, M.H., Han, J., and Akins, K., October 1998. "The design of geosynthetic reinforced
foundations." Proceedings of ASCE's 1998 Annual Convention & Exposition, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication, 76, pp.1-18.
[26] Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H., and Saglamer, A., 1994. "Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on
geogrid-reinforced sand."Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 120, No.12, pp. 2083-
2099.
[27] Yoo, C., 2001. Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behavior of strip footing on geogrid-
reinforced sand slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (5), 279-298.