BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

BANGALORE

SECOND PROGRESS REPORT

(From July-2022 to December-2022)

On

Ph.D Research Work Entitled

“A STUDY ON GEOSYNTHETIC–REINFORCED SOIL FOUNDATION

UNDER DIFFERENT LOAD CONDITIONS”

By
BASAVARAJU M
Research Scholar
(Reg No: 21PCW36011)

Under the Guidance of

Dr. S. GANGADHARA
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
UVCE, Bangalore University,
Jnanabharati campus
Bengaluru-560056
From Date: 23-01-2022
Basavaraju M
Research Scholar
Department of Civil Engineering
UVCE, Jnanabharathi Campus
Bangalore University
Bangalore-560056

To
The Registrar (Evaluation)
Pariksha Bhavan,
Jnanabharathi Campus,
Bangalore University
Bangalore-560056

THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL

Respected Sir,

Sub: Submission of Third progress report of Ph.D by research from July 2022 to December
2022-Reg.

Ref. No. Ex. l1/Ph.D/Regn/Engg-Civil Engg./ENT/BM/2021.

With reference to the above subject, I am here with submitting my Third progress report on “A Study on
Geosynthetic–Reinforced Soil Foundation under Different Load Conditions” of my Ph.D research work in
Civil Engineering, with Geotechnical Engineering as specialization. I hope you will find my progress
report in order. Kindly Oblige.

Thanking You

Yours faithfully,

(Basavaraju M)
Reg No: 21PCW36011

Guide: Chairman:

(Dr. S. Gangadhara) (Dr. A S Ravi Kumar)

Professor, Professor and Chairman,
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
UVCE, Bangalore University, UVCE, Bangalore University,
Jnanabharati campus Jnanabharati campus
Bengaluru-560056 Bengaluru-560056

Encl: Third progress report

 BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

Ph.D. Progress Report in Synoptic Form

Progress Report Number: 3

Period of the six month Progress Third Progress Report

Report:
(If it is a Fractional Report (July-2022 to December-2022)
also specify the period)

Name of the Scholar BASAVARAJU M

20-07-2021
Reg. No.-21PCW36011
Date of Registration and No Ref. No. :
Ex.l1/Ph.D/Regn/Engg-Civil Engg./ENT/BM/2021

Name of the Guide Dr. S. GANGADHARA

“A Study on Geosynthetic–Reinforced Soil

Title of the Thesis
Foundation Under Different Load Conditions”

Average no. of hours spent on research

4 hrs per Week
work per week during the period

Total no. of interactions with your

5
research guide during the period

1. Abstract of Research Progress

1.1 No. of Journal articles read 6

1.2 No. of books/reports referred 1

1.3 Libraries visited -

Research Gate
Springer
1.4 Data bases accessed
Elsevier
Google Scholar
1.5 Persons met for research purpose -

1.6 Institutions visited for research purpose -

 Project relevant Software (PFC3D
1.7 Any other efforts
based on DEM) Learning
2. Conferences/ Seminars/Workshops/Publications

Attended 2 No. of Online Webinars

2.1 No. of Conferences / Seminars
( by Meccaferri) related to the soil
attended
reinforcement
2.2 No. of Workshops/Training Programmes
-
attended (research related)
2.3 No. of Papers presented at
-
State/National/International level
2.4 No. of papers published in
-
National/International Journals
2.5 Other publications (Books, Articles,
-
Conference proceedings etc)

Good experience in Experimental work of

1 Self-Evaluation of your performance Static Load Test and Physical properties of
Sand.
2 Any other information the candidate
will like to submit

Signature of the Research Scholar ………………….. Date…………

Assessment of Excellent Good Satisfactory Not Satisfactory

the candidates
progress by the
Research
Supervisor

Signature of the Supervisor………………………… Date……………..

Signature of the Chairperson…………………………… Date……………..

 A STUDY ON GEOSYNTHETIC–REINFORCED SOILFOUNDATION UNDER
DIFFERENT LOAD CONDITIONS

1. INTRODUCTION:

During this period (from July 2022 to December 2022) laboratory experiments were conducted. In this
present report physical properties of backfill material (i.e., natural river sand ) and to evaluate the
beneficial effect of providing reinforcement in sand bed, experiments were conducted on square
footing resting on sand bed under static/monotonic load.

The static load tests were performed on both Reinforced (Biaxial Geogrid were used in present study)
and Unreinforced conditions. The studied parameters are relative density of sand, type of geogrid
based on tensile strength, reinforcement distribution parameters viz., spacing between the
reinforcement layers(S/B), number of reinforcement layers (N). However, the depth of first layer of
geogrid from footing bottom is kept constant i.e., U=0.3B.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
 Budania et al., (2017):- Conducted experimental study of rectangular footing resting over geogrid
reinforced sand. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of the geo-grid
reinforcement on the bearing capacity of sand. The model tests have been conducted using rectangular
footing at u/B=0.25 & 0.55. The average relative density kept up throughout all the tests is 65%. The
sand is reinforced by multiple layers (1, 2, 3, & 4) of geo-grid. The ultimate bearing capacity of sand
with rectangular footing was computed by load-settlement curve. By this load-settlement curve, an
appreciable increase in bearing capacity of sand was observed as the depth to the first layer of
reinforcement increased. The optimum depth of placement of the first layer was 0.5B.

 Durga Prasad et al., (2016):-Conducted the experimental study on Load-Settlement Response of

Square Footing on Geogrid reinforced Layered Granular Beds. Experimental studies were carried out
to obtain the load-settlement response of a model square footing resting on unreinforced and
reinforced granular beds. The response was obtained for two cases: (a) geogrid-reinforced sand layer,
and (b) geogrid-reinforced layered system consisting of aggregate layer overlying a sand layer. The
parameters considered in the experimental study include the thickness of the aggregate layer, the depth
of geogrid reinforcement placed in sand layer and in aggregate layer, width of the reinforcement, and
relative density of bed. Plate vibrator was used to compact uniform sand beds to relative densities
equal to 50 % and 70 % inside large-size test chamber of dimensions equal to 1m x 1m x 1m (in
length, in width, and in depth). Load was applied on square footing using a 100 kN capacity actuator

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 1 of 21

 in displacement-controlled mode, and the improvement in the load carrying capacity of the footing
resting on reinforced sand layer and layered system was quantified in terms of load improvement
factors. In addition, the optimum embedment depth and width of reinforcements was proposed for
various cases considered in the study. The optimum depth of reinforcement for the case of aggregate
layer overlying sand layer decreased to 0.30 times the width of the footing from 0.45 times the width
of the footing for sand only case.
 Ronad et al (2014):- Performed the study on an experimental study of square footing resting on
geo-grid reinforced sand. A series of laboratory model test has been carried out to investigate the
bearing capacity of the square footing resting on reinforced sand bed. The geogrid as a
reinforcement material has been used. In the present study an attempt has been made to study the
bearing capacity of square footing on sand reinforced bed. The effect of different parameter like the
depth of the upper most layer of reinforcement from the base of the model footing (u), for different
densities of the sand (γ = 1.55, 1.65, and 1.75 gm/cc) the test has been carried out. Three numbers of
layers, has been fixed. The test results showed that the beneficial use of geo-grid reinforcement in
terms of increasing in the bearing capacity and minimizing the settlement, at an optimum depth of
reinforcement, however for the higher density of the soil gives maximum bearing capacity.
Therefore, for effective utilization of geo-grid reinforcement, the optimum depth should be (u=
0.33B) which is found to be good agreement with the past researchers, and the foundation soil
should be in higher density.
 Shin et al., (2009):- Performed the study on, dynamic Behaviour of Geogrid-Reinforced Sand.
Laboratory model tests for the settlement of a surface square foundation supported by medium dense
sand and subjected to cyclic loading of low frequency (1cps), and transient loading have been
presented. These tests were conducted with and without geogrid reinforcement in the soil. Only one
type of soil and one type of geogrid were used for all tests. The maximum permanent settlements
due to the cyclic and transient loads in reinforced and unreinforced soils have been compared. Based
on the present test results, it appears that geogrid reinforcement can act as a settlement retardant for
dynamic loading conditions on the foundations.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 2 of 21

 Fig. 2.1: Square surface foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.

 Tran et al, (2015):- Investigated on three-dimensional analysis of geogrid-reinforced soil using a

finite-discrete element framework: An efficient framework that takes advantage of both the finite-
and discrete-element approaches to investigate soil-geogrid interactions is described in the study. The
method uses finite elements to model the structural components and discrete particles to model the
surrounding soil to reflect the discontinuous nature of the granular material. The coupled framework
is used in this study to investigate two geotechnical engineering problems, namely, strip footing over
geogrid-reinforced sand and geogrid-reinforced fill over a strong formation containing void. The
numerical model is first validated using experimental data and then used to provide new insights into
the nature of the three-dimensional interaction between the soil and the geogrid layer.
The numerical modelling of the geogrid-reinforced strip footing provided very good agreement with
the experimental results. Increasing the number of geogrid layers resulted in an increase in the
ultimate bearing capacity of the supporting soil. The geogrid deformations and tensile stresses for
N=1 were larger than those for N =2. When two layers of geogrid were used, the upper layer was
found to experience larger deformations and tensile stresses compared with the lower layer. At the
ultimate load, punching shear failure occurred above the geogrid followed by a general shear failure
below the geogrid. The use of geogrid reinforcement also resulted in an increase in the vertical
stresses in the supported soil.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 3 of 21

 3. MATERIALS:
3.1 Sand:
In the present study locally available natural river Sand has been used as filling material for the
laboratory experiment. Fig.3.1 presents the grain size distribution of the sand used in the experimental
analysis and properties of the sand used is presented is shown in the Table 3.1. According to Indian
Standard Soil Classification System (ISSCS) the sand is classified as poorly graded sand (SP).

Fig 3.1: Grain size distribution curve for sand

Table 3.1: Physical properties of Sand

Sl. No Properties Test Results
1. Specific gravity, G 2.65
2. Grain Size Distribution:
Sand Size (%) 100
3. Diameter of Particle:
D10 0.4
D30 0.5
D60 0.8
4. Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 2.0
5. Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 0.78
6. Max . Dry Density, γdmax (kN/m3) 16.8
7. Min . Dry Density, γdmin (kN/m3) 14.7
8. Max. Voids Ratio, emax 0.873
9. Min. Voids Ratio, emin 0.58

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 4 of 21

 3.2 Geogrid:
Geogrid: -Geogrids are mesh like or grid like geosynthetics, they are planer polymeric material
consisting of regular open network of connected tensile elements (ribs).
Biaxial Geogrid: -Manufactured by stretching the punched sheet of polypropylene in two orthogonal
directions, has high tensile strength and modulus in two perpendicular directions. In the present study,
polypropylene biaxial geogrids are used as reinforcement material. Table 3.2 presents the properties of
biaxial geogrid.
Table 3.2: Properties Biaxial Geogrid
TEST
PROPERTIES VALUES UNIT
METHOD
Geogrid Type TS-20 TS-40
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Structure Biaxial Oriented
Polymer Polypropylene
38 38 MD (mm)
Aperture Size
38 38 CD (mm)
2.41 4.31 MD (mm)
Rib Thickness
2.29 3.28 CD (mm)
Roll Width 3.95 3.95 m
Roll Length 25 25 m
Estimated Roll Weight 26.5 52 kg
TENSILE PROPERTIES
20 40 MD (kN/m)
Ultimate Strength
20 40 CD (kN/m)
8.96 15.12 MD (kN/m)
Tension @ 2 % Strain
7.59 15.10 CD (kN/m)
ASTM D 6637
14.19 29.89 MD (kN/m)
Tension @ 5 % Strain
14.1 29.61 CD (kN/m)
Elongation @ Design 11.67 9.15 MD (%)
Load 8.89 9.81 CD (%)
Carbon Black Content 2 2 % ASTM D 1603
Junction Efficiency 95 96 % ASTM D- 7737
TS 20 - Tensile Strength of 20kN/m TS 40 - Tensile Strength of 40kN/m

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 5 of 21

 4. METHODOLOGY:

4.1 Experimental Setup

The experimental set up consists of,

1. Mild steel footing of size:

Square: 100 mm side

Thickness: 10 mm

2. Mild steel test tank:

Diameter: 500mm

Height: 390mm

Test tank diameter to model footing size ratio of 5 is maintained in the present investigation, The
strain developed in the fly ash bed due to be external loading diminishes to a minimum value at 3 to 4
times the width of footing (Shin et. al 2002, and Sitharam et. al 2003). Guided by this and by the
procedures adopted by other researches a ratio of five is maintained which takes care of the
confinement effect. The footing used is a rigid footing with a thickness of 10 mm. The same test tank
and footing are used for monotonic and repeated load tests.

4.2 Testing Method

(a) Monotonic/Static load tests

Monotonic load experiments were conducted in a loading frame of capacity 50kN .The tank was
placed on a supporting plate of diameter 250mm that moves vertically at the rate of 1.06mm/min. A
cross beam was provided above the supporting plate for fixing the proving ring. Loads were applied
by means of a mechanical screw jack through a calibrated proving ring of 10kN capacity with a least
count of 0.0114kN. In between proving ring and model plate another small rectangular plate having
arrangements to rest dial gauges was concentrically placed. Settlements were measured using three
dial gauges. The sensitivity of dial gauges used was 0.01mm. Plate 1 shows the photographical view
of the experimental set up of static loading.

4.3. Experimental Program:

The experimental program of the performance of footing resting on unreinforced and reinforced sand
beds subjected to static load is shown in below table:

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 6 of 21

 Table 4.1: Experimental program
Relative
Density of
Description Type of Footing Grid Type U/B S/B N
Sand
(%)
Unreinforced - - - -
Square
20kN/m 0.3, 0.4 & 35 & 50
Reinforced (100mm × 100mm) 0.3 2,3,4
40kN/m 0.5
Where,
B- Width of footing
U-Depth of first layer of geogrid from footing bottom
S- Spacing between Geogrid
N- Number of reinforcement layer
RD- Relative Density of Sand

Fig 4.1: Loading Frame for static loading

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 7 of 21

 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

To evaluate the beneficial effect of providing reinforcement in sand bed, the experiments were
conducted by square footing resting on sand bed under static/monotonic load.
The reinforcement distribution parameters [i.e., spacing between the reinforcement (S/B) and number
of reinforcement layers(N)], the type of geogrid (20kN/m & 40kN/m) and relative density sand (35%
& 50%) are varied in the experiments. The depth of first layer of geogrid from footing bottom is kept
constant i.e., U=0.3B.

5.1 PERFORMANCE OF SQUARE FOOTING RESTING ON REINFORCED AND

UNREINFORCED SAND BED IN TERMS OF BEARING CAPACITY:

In order to determine the performance of footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed
under static loading condition, the tests were conducted by varying the relative density of sand of
35% and 50% for both reinforced and unreinforced condition. In order to determine the effect of
reinforcement provided in the sand bed the number of reinforcement layers varied from 2 to 4 layers,
spacing between the reinforcement layers varied from 0.3B to 0.5B. Where the depth of first layer of
geogrid from footing bottom is kept constant i.e., U=0.3B (considered from the literature).

RD=35 %, TS=20 kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.3

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
5 Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20
25 N=3

30
N=4
35
40
45

Fig 5.1: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%,TS=20kN/m, S=0.3B for N=2,3 & 4

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 8 of 21

 RD=35 %,TS=20 kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.4
Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000
0
5
Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45

Fig 5.2: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%,TS=20kN/m, S=0.4B for N=2,3 & 4

RD=35 %, TS=20 kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.5

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
5
10 Unreinforced
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45
Fig 5.3: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%,TS=20kN/m, S=0.5B for N=2,3 & 4.

The above figures nos. (5.1 to 5.3) are shows the Bearing capacity (kN/m2) v/s settlement (mm) for
relative density 35% and tensile strength of 20kN/m,
 Spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B, 0.4B & 0.5B are indicates that, as the spacing
between the geogrid layers increases the bearing capacity of reinforcement decreases. For
S=0.3B test results showing higher bearing capacity compared with 0.4B and 0.5B (i.e.,
bearing capacity for spacing between the geogrid layers (S) is 0.3B > 0.4B > 0.5B).hence
the optimum spacing of reinforcement found to be 0.3B
 As the number of reinforcement layers (N) increases, the bearing capacity also increases.
However, for S=0.4B the bearing capacity shows higher value for N=3 than N=4. This
indicates N=3 is the optimum numbers of reinforcement layers in this condition.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 9 of 21

  The above figures also shows that inclusion of geogrid layers (reinforced condition) will
helps in achieving higher bearing capacity.

RD=35 %, TS= 40 kN/m, U/B=0.3, S/B=0.3

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
5
Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45

Fig 5.4: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%, TS=40kN/m, S=0.3B for N=2, 3 & 4.

RD=35 %,TS= 40kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.4

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
5
Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45

Fig 5.5: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%, TS=40kN/m, S=0.4B for N=2,3 & 4.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 10 of 21

 RD=35 %,TS= 40kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.5
Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
5
Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45

Fig 5.6: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=35%, TS=40kN/m, S=0.5B for N=2,3 & 4.

The above figures nos. (5.4 to 5.6) are shows the Bearing capacity (kN/m 2) v/s settlement
(mm) for relative density 35% and tensile strength of 40kN/m,
 Spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B, 0.4B & 0.5B are indicates that, as the spacing
between the geogrid layers (S/B) increases the bearing capacity of reinforcement decreases.
for S=0.3B is showing higher bearing capacity compared with 0.4B and 0.5B (i.e., bearing
capacity for spacing between the geogrid layers (S) is 0.3B > 0.4B > 0.5B).
 As the number of reinforcement layers (N) increases the bearing capacity also increases.
However, for S=0.5B the bearing capacity shows higher value for N=3 than N=4. This
indicates N=3 is showing optimum results.

RD=50%,TS= 40kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.3

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
5
Unreinforced
10
Settlement (mm)

15 N=2
20 N=3
25 N=4
30
35
40
45
Fig 5.7: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=50%, TS=40kN/m, S=0.3B for N=2,3 & 4.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 11 of 21

 RD=50%, TS= 40kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0..4
Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
5
10
Settlement (mm)
Unreinforced
15
20 N=3
25
30 N=4
35
40
45

Fig 5.8: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at
RD=50%, TS=40kN/m, S=0.4B for N=2,3 & 4.

RD=50%,TS= 40kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0..5

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
5
10 Unreinforced
Settlement (mm)

15
N=3
20
N=4
25
30
35
40
45

Fig 5.9: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at RD=50%,
TS=40kN/m, S=0.5B for N=3 & 4.

The above figures nos. (5.7 to 5.9) are shows the Bearing capacity (kN/m 2) v/s settlement
(mm) for relative density 50% and tensile strength of 40kN/m,
 Spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B, 0.4B & 0.5B are indicates that, as the spacing
between the geogrid layers increases the effectiveness of reinforcement decreases. for
S=0.3B is showing higher bearing capacity compared with 0.4B and 0.5B (i.e., bearing
capacity for spacing between the geogrid layers (S) is 0.3B > 0.4B > 0.5B)
 The bearing capacity for unreinforced sand bed and reinforced condition are illustrate that,
as the number of geogrid layer increases the bearing capacity also improved, it shows
drastic increase in the bearing capacity from 200kN/m2 to 4000kN/m2.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 12 of 21

 a) Effect of Tensile Strength of Geogrid:

To evaluate the effect of tensile strength of geogrid on the performance of footing tests are
conducted. Where two types of geogrids are used TS 20 and TS 40 which are having the same
aperture size but different tensile strength of 20kN/m and 40kN/m respectively. Following graph
shows the bearing capacity v/s settlement:

RD=35 %,TS= 40 kN/m, U/B= 0.3, S/B=0.3

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0

5 Unreinforced

10 N=2, TS=20kN/m
15
Settlement (mm)

N=3, TS=20kN/m
20
N=4,TS=20kN/m
25
N=2, TS=40kN/m
30
N=3, TS=40kN/m
35
N=4, TS=40kN/m
40

45

Fig 5.10: Performance of Square footing resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed at RD=35%,
TS=20kN/m & 40kN/m, for S=0.3B.

The Figure 5.10 shows the performance footing resting on reinforced sand bed with geogrid having
tensile strength of 20 kN/m & 40kN/m, at relative density of sand 35%, keeping spacing of
reinforcement layer as 0.3B, the number of reinforcement(geogrid) layer are varied. From the figure it
is observed that reinforced sand bed geogrid with the tensile strength of 40kN/m indicates higher
bearing capacity compared with the geogrid having tensile strength of 20kN/m with respect to for all
the number of reinforcement layers (N)

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 13 of 21

 b) Effect of Relative Density:

TS= 40 kN/m, U/B= 0.3,S/B=0.3, N=2

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 1000 2000 3000
0
5
10
Un R/F,RD=50%
Settlement (mm)

15
R/F,RD=50%
20
Un R/F, RD=35 %
25
30 R/F,RD=35%

35
40
45

Fig 5.12: Effect of Relative density for TS=40kN/m, N=2, S=0.3B

TS= 40 kN/m, U/B= 0.3,S/B=0.3, N=3

Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 2000 4000 6000
0
Un R/F,RD=50%
5
10
R/F,RD=50%
Settlement (mm)

15
20 Un R/F, RD=35 %
25
30 R/F,RD=35%
35
40
45
Fig 5.13: Effect of Relative density for TS=40kN/m, N=3, S=0.3B

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 14 of 21

 TS= 40 kN/m, U/B= 0.3,S/B=0.3, N=4
Bearing Capacity (kN/m2)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
5
10 Un R/F,RD=50%
Settlement (mm)

15 R/F,RD=50%
20 Un R/F, RD=35 %
25 R/F,RD=35%
30
35
40
45
Fig 5.14: Effect of Relative density for TS=40kN/m, N=4, S=0.3B

The above figures nos. (5.12 to 5.14) shows the Bearing capacity (kN/m2) v/s settlement (mm) for
tensile strength of 40kN/m and Spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B in both reinforced and
unreinforced condition, the number geogrid layers in sand bed N=2, 3 & 4 for relative density 35%
and 50% are indicates that:
 The relative density 50% shows the better results compared with relative density 35%
for both unreinforced and reinforced condition.
 As the number of reinforcement layer (N) increases for both relative density 35% and
50% the bearing capacity increases respectively in reinforced condition.
 In unreinforced condition, the bearing capacity at 50% relative density shows improved
results than the 35%
 Fig. 5.14 shows that, at S=0.3 and N=4 the bearing capacity for both relative density of
35% and 50% are shows almost nearer value.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 15 of 21

 5.2 PERFORMANCE OF SQUARE FOOTING RESTING ON REINFORCED AND
UNREINFORCED SAND BED IN TERMS OF BEARING CAPACITY RATIO (BCR):

Static load tests were conducted for footing resting on reinforced sand bed at relative density of 35%
and 50 % by varying spacing between the reinforcement from S/B ratio of 0.3 to 0.5 by varying the
number of reinforcement layers in layer (i.e. 2, 3 & 4). To bring out the effect of spacing between the
reinforcement and number of reinforcement layers in the sand bed on load carrying capacity the non-
dimensional factor called BCR is used.

Bearing Capacity Improvement Factor (If) or Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR)

If or BCR = qR/qo
Where, (Amit Somwanshi, 2009)
qR- Bearing pressure of the reinforced soil at a given settlement S
qo - Bearing pressure of unreinforced soil at the same settlement value S
Note: When this ratio is calculated at settlement beyond the ultimate capacity of unreinforced soil, the
ultimate bearing capacity of the footing (qult) is used instead of qo.

a) Effect of Relative Density of Sand

30.0

25.0

20.0
Bearing Capacity Ratio

RD=35%, N=3

15.0 RD=35%, N=4

10.0 RD=50%, N=3

5.0 RD=50%, N=4

0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
S/B
Fig 5.15: Effect of Relative density on BCR for TS=40kN/m,

The above fig 5.15 shows the bearing capacity ratio v/s Spacing between the geogrid layers (S/B) with
tensile strength of 40kN/m indicates that:
 For relative density 35% with Geogrid layer (N) of 4 shows higher bearing capacity ratio.
 For spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B bearing capacity is higher and as the spacing
between the geogrid layers increases results in decrease in the bearing capacity ratio.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 16 of 21

  Bearing capacity ratio for 35% relative density shows more effective compared with 50% of
relative density test results.

b) Effect of Spacing of Reinforcement:

RD=35%, TS=20kN/m,
16.00
14.00
Bearing Capacity Ratio

12.00
10.00
8.00 N=2
6.00 N=3
4.00 N=4
2.00
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
S/B

Fig 5.16: Effect of spacing of reinforcement for RD=35%, TS=20kN/m on BCR

RD=35%, TS=40kN/m,
30.00

25.00
Bearing Capacity Ratio

20.00

15.00 N=2

10.00 N=3
N=4
5.00

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
S/B

Fig 5.17: Effect of spacing of reinforcement for RD=35%, TS=40kN/m on BCR

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 17 of 21

 RD=50%, TS=40kN/m,
20.00
18.00

Bearing Capacity Ratio

16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00 N=3
6.00 N=4
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
S/B

Fig 5.18: Effect of spacing of reinforcement for RD=50%, TS=40kN/m on BCR

The above figures nos. (5.16 to 5.18) are shows the Bearing capacity ratio v/s spacing of
reinforcement for relative density 35% and 50% , tensile strength of 20kN/m and 40kN/m,
 As the spacing between the reinforcement layers (S/B) increases the bearing capacity ratio
decreases. It is noticed that, for S=0.3B bearing capacity ratio (BCR) shows optimum results.
 Although increase in the number of reinforcement layer (N) for S=0.3B shows higher bearing
capacity compared with 0.4B and 0.5B (i.e., bearing capacity for spacing between the
reinforcement (geogrid) layers (S) is 0.3B > 0.4B > 0.5B).
 For tensile strength of 40kN/m2 the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) shows higher than the tensile
strength of 20kN/m2 for the same relative density of 35%.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 18 of 21

 c) Effect of number of Reinforcement layers (N)

RD=35%, TS=20kN/m,
16.00
14.00
Bearing Capacity Ratio
12.00
10.00
8.00 S/B=0.3
6.00 S/B=0.4
4.00 S/B=0.5
2.00
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
N

Fig 5.19: Effect of number of Reinforcement layers (N) for RD=35%, TS=20kN/mon BCR

RD=35%, TS=40kN/m
30.00

25.00
Bearing Capacity Ratio

20.00

15.00 S/B=0.3

10.00 S/B=0.4
S/B=0.5
5.00

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
N

Fig 5.20: Effect of number of Reinforcement layers (N) for RD=35%, TS=40kN/m on BCR

The above figures. (5.19 & 5.20) shows Effect of number of reinforcement layer for 20kN/m and
TS=40kN/m with RD=35%, on BCR. The graphs show that:
 As the number of reinforcement layer increases, the bearing capacity ratio values also
increases with increase in spacing between the geogrid layers (S).
 It is noticed that, at number of reinforcement of 4 layers (N) for all the spacing between
the reinforcement layer (i.e., for S=0.3B,0.4B,& 0.5B) shows the higher bearing capacity
ratio compared to N=2 and 3, this shows the improvement in the bearing capacity of footing
resting on sand bed increases as the number of reinforcement layer increases.
 For tensile strength of 40kN/m2 the bearing capacity ratio shows higher than the tensile
strength of 20kN/m2 for the same relative density of 35%

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 19 of 21

 6. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
1. The results from static load test shows that, the inclusion of reinforcement layers will results
in the improvement in the bearing capacity of sand.
2. Spacing between the geogrid layers S=0.3B, 0.4B & 0.5B are indicates that, as the spacing
between the geogrid layers increases the effectiveness (bearing capacity) of reinforced
condition decreases. The spacing between the reinforcement layer S=0.3B shows higher
bearing capacity compared with 0.4B and 0.5B (i.e., bearing capacity for spacing between
the geogrid layers (S) is 0.3B > 0.4B > 0.5B), this indicates optimum spacing of
reinforcement layers is 0.3B.
3. As the number of reinforcement layers (N) increases the bearing capacity also increases.
However, for S=0.4B the bearing capacity shows higher value for N=3 than N=4. This
indicates N=3 is showing optimum results. As the number of reinforcement layer increase the
bearing capacity ratio values also increases.
4. The relative density of sand 50% shows the higher bearing capacity values compared to the
relative density 35% for both unreinforced and reinforced condition. But Bearing Capacity
Ratio values for 35% relative density is higher than the 50% relative density, this indicates
that the inclusion of reinforcement layers in the sand bed is more effective for sand with
lower relative density (35%) compared to higher relative density (50%).
5. For tensile strength of 40kN/m2 the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) shows higher than the
tensile strength of 20kN/m2 for the same relative density of 35%.
6. For reinforced sand bed with the tensile strength of 40kN/m indicates higher bearing capacity
compared with the geogrid having tensile strength of 20kN/m with respect to all the number of
reinforcement layers (N)

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 20 of 21

 REFERENCES

1. B. Durga Prasad C. Hariprasad B. Umashankar.(2016). “Load-Settlement Response of Square

Footing on Geogrid Reinforced Layered Granular Beds”. Int. J. of Geosynth and Ground Eng.
2. Chen, C., McDowell, G.R. and Thom, N.H. (2012), "Discrete element modelling of cyclic
loads of geogrid-reinforced ballast under confined and unconfined conditions", Geotext.
Geomembranes, 35, 76-86.
3. Chevalier (2012)“DEM Numerical Analysis of Load Transfers in Granular Soil Layer”
StudiaGeotechnica et Mechanica, Vol. XXX, No. 1–2, 2012, https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/237453696.
4. Cheng Chen. And Glenn McDowell,“Discrete element modelling of geogrids with square and
triangular apertures” Geomechanics and Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 5 (2018) 495-501.
5. E. C. Shin and B. M. Das. “Dynamic Behaviour of Geogrid-Reinforced Sand. KSCE
Journals of civil engineering” Vol. 3, No. 4 / December 1999.
6. Gao G, Meguid MA (2018) “Effect of particle shape on the response of geogrid-reinforced
systems: insights from 3D discrete element analysis”.Geotextiles and
Geomembranes.46(1):685–698.
7. Liu Y and Mark B. Jaksa (2015) “Discrete Element Modelling of Geocell-Reinforced Track
BallastUnder Static and Cyclic Loading”https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274421270.
8. Ngoc Trung Ngo, BuddhimaIndraratna, and CholachatRujikiatkamjorn (2017) “A study of the
geogrid–subballast interface via experimental evaluation and discrete element
modelling”Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017, Granular Matter (2017) 19:54, DOI
10.1007/s10035-017-0743-4.
9. Park (2020)“Evaluation of Bearing Capacity for Multi-Layered Clay Deposits with
Geosynthetic Reinforcement using Discrete Element Method” Marine Georesources and
Geotechnology, 28:363–374, 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1064-119X.
10. RavindraBudania, Dr. R. P. Arora, Dr. B. S. Singhvi and Hitesh Kumar Veerwal“Experimental
study of rectangular footing resting over geo-grid reinforcedsand”.International Journal of
Advance Engineering and Research Development. Volume 4, Issue 1, January -2017.
11. Tran VDH, Meguid MA, Chouinard LE (2015) “Three-dimensional analysis of geogrid-
reinforced soil using a finite-discrete element framework”. Int J Geomech 15(4):04014066.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE Page 21 of 21