Shell Folded Footings Using Different Angles and EPS Cavity Filling: Experimental Study

Gomaa
et al. International Journal of

International Journal of Geo-Engineering (2023) 14:10
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-023-00187-w Geo-Engineering
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access
Shell folded footings using different angles

and EPS cavity filling: experimental study
Ahmed E. Gomaa1, Ahmed M. M. Hasan1, Yasser M. Mater1 and Sherif S. AbdelSalam1*
*Correspondence:
sabdelsalam@nu.edu.eg Abstract
1
Civil and Infrastructure Shell folded footings have drawn the interest of researchers for decades as an alterna-
Engineering and Management, tive to typical flat isolated footings because folded footings can reduce the needed
School of Engineering amount of reinforced concrete in addition to enhancing the overall geotechnical
and Applied Science, Nile
University, Giza 12588, Egypt performance of the supporting soil medium. The main setback of utilizing such folded
footings is the relatively complex geometry of the bottom cavity, which requires
proper compaction of the soil used to fill that cavity. Current geosynthetic materials
such as geofoam or expanded polystyrene (EPS) proved efficiency in many geotechni-
cal applications, where EPS was adopted herein as a cavity-filling material for folded
footings. EPS and footing concrete properties were determined using the ultrasonic
test device, such as modulus of elasticity and damping coefficient. The main aim of this
study was to experimentally assess the behavior of folded footings with and without
EPS filling using seven fully instrumented footing models with folding angles ranging
from 0° to 45°. Reinforcement was placed in the footing models and limited along the
perimeter to act as a hidden ring beam. The models were load tested inside a sandbox
to measure internal stresses induced in the soil and the overall settlement. Results
showed a significant enhancement in the soil behavior after using EPS. Modification
factors were developed for the standard bearing capacity and settlement equations to
account for the folding angle and EPS filling effects.
Keywords: Shell folded footing, Experimental testing, Folding angles, EPS geofoam,
EPS under foundations, Ultrasonic test for EPS, Damping coefficient, Bearing capacity,
And settlement
Introduction and background
For decades, shell folded footings have gained a research focus to be used as an alterna-
tive for flat isolated footings. Research by [10, 14, 21] simulated folded footings using
numerical models to show the effect of changing the footing geometry on the internal
stresses induced in the soil. Numerical models were essential to assess changes in the
bearing capacity and settlement of folded footings due to the lack of verified closed-form
solutions [18]. However, experimental studies conducted on shell folded footings are rel-
atively limited although their importance towards validating numerical outcomes.
Early in 1970 [24] carried out an extensive experimental program to explore the bear-
ing capacity of shell foundations and compared the results to those of conventional flat
© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Gomaa et al. International Journal of Geo-Engineering (2023) 14:10 Page 2 of 23
footings. Their results showed that shell foundations had a higher bearing capacity. [6,
26] carried out experimental tests on different shell foundations and their rectangular
counterparts to evaluate the effect of footing configuration on the soil bearing capac-
ity. Their findings proved that the footing configuration and the soil-structure interface
shape have a significant effect on the bearing capacity. Recently [18] tested five quar-
ter-scaled prototypes for folded footings with minimum reinforcement in an attempt to
assess the possible reduction in the steel reinforcement. Their results showed that the
tensile stresses developed in the folded footings were about 40% lower compared to con-
ventional flat footings.
There are many shapes and types of shell folded footings. According to [23], shell
footings can be classified depending on their geometry as Folded, Conical, Pyramidal,
HYPAR, and Spherical footings. Several numerical models were developed for folded
footings. This includes outcomes by researchers such as [22, 23, 25], who modeled the
geotechnical behavior of shell footings on different soil types. Their research proved that
proper compaction of soil inside the bottom cavity of shell folded footings will result in a
higher load-carrying capacity compared with flat footings. They also found that placing
an edge or a ring beam along the perimeter of the shell footing can significantly enhance
their load-carrying capacity. Further, several researchers [27, 34, 37] demonstrated the
link between the degree of soil compaction on the performance of substructres in terms
of soil bearing capacity and settlement. However, the complex structure of shell folded
footings is considered a major setback in terms of construction and proper soil compac-
tion inside its bottom cavity [23]. Therefore, the geometrical structure of folded foot-
ings requires a specific methodology to ensure that the soil inside their cavity is very
well compacted, and this is not practical and costly. In this study, a practical solution
for that problem was presented by filling the bottom cavity of shell-folded footing using
geofoam.
In the past few years, there has been an increase in interest towards the use of
expanded polystyrene (EPS), or geofoam, in many geotechnical applications. EPS is uti-
lized in lightweight concrete [39], leveling and landscape [16], backfilling in geotechnical
applications [9, 42], lateral stress reduction on tunnels [3], in addition to base isolation
and thermal panel core filling [33]. The effectiveness of using EPS as a backfill mate-
rial to minimize vertical and lateral loads was studied experimentally and numerically by
researchers such as [12, 28, 33]. It was concluded that employing EPS has significantly
decreased stresses acting on buried structures. Other uses related to the inclusion of EPS
behind retaining walls was also investigated by [4, 8, 9]. Their results indicated that the
insertion of a thin EPS buffer can greatly decrease lateral stress on walls by up to 50%.
Focusing more on EPS uses in foundations [2] proved that weak clay soils beneath foot-
ings can be partially replaced by EPS blocks to reduce footing settlement by 46% under
static loads [19] used recycled EPS as a replacement for aggregate to produce a compos-
ite soil mix that has lightweight properties, to be used as a soil replacement material.
They also stated that various mixture ratios can be used to reach a specific unit weight
and compressive strength for the supporting soil. The influence of adding EPS blocks
under strip footings located in expansive soil was studied by [15], as a partial replace-
ment under the footing. Sand layers of varying thicknesses were placed over swelling
soil, then, an EPS block was inserted at the bottom of the sand layer. Results indicated
that increasing the density and thickness of the EPS section yields less soil swelling by
35% [20] studied the influence of adding EPS on the soil settlement of square footings
rested on clayey soil under static and dynamic loads. According to their results, the total
settlement exhibited a reduction of 70% when applying static loads.
Static and dynamic properties of the EPS must be accurately determined for use in
geotechnical applications, especially under foundations. Studies by [11, 30, 43] and oth-
ers, adopted sophisticated laboratory tests to determine water absorption, compressive
strength, flexural strength, and dynamic properties of EPS. Their results showed that EPS
with density ranging from 15 to 30 kg/m3 has water absorption of 3.5% and 2.9%, and
compressive strength of 40 and 72 kPa, respectively. It was also found that the stress–
strain behaviors of EPS are nonlinear with an initial modulus of elasticity equal to 1611
and 3263 kPa. Recently, [1, 35] managed to measure the static and dynamic properties
of EPS using the basic ultrasonic test, in an attempt to develop a cost-effective method
instead of running expensive laboratory tests on EPS. Using the ultrasonic device, they
provided a correlation between the EPS density and shear modulus, damping, and Ray-
leigh coefficients. It was indicated that the shear modulus of EPS with density 25 and
35 kg/m3 was around 1535 and 2741 kPa, where the damping coefficient ranged from 1%
to 2.3%, respectively.
Based on the reviewed literature, shell folded footings offer a better alternative to
flat footings in terms of increasing the soil bearing capacity and decreasing the tensile
stresses within the footing, provided that proper compaction of the soil filling the foot-
ing cavity is achieved. Most of the reviewed literature focused on changing the structural
shape of folded footings, with minor attention to the behavior of soil under the footing
cavity [22, 23, 25]. The compaction of soil filling the footing cavity proved to be difficult
and impractical. However, in many applications the inclusion of EPS geofoam with foun-
dation structures improved the soil behavior in terms of bearing capacity and settlement
[2, 15], which indicates that the inclusion of EPS under folded footings can enhance the
overall performance. This should be investigated in order to develop modifications in the
current bearing capacity and settlement equations to facilitate the design of folded foot-
ings with EPS inclusion in the footing cavity.
To that end, the goal of this research is to study the soil behavior by adding an EPS
filling inside the bottom cavity of shell folded footings. Initially, the experimental pro-
gram started by measuring the EPS properties based on the state-of-the-art ultrasonic
technique. After that, seven fully instrumented concrete footing models (or prototypes)
were poured for load testing, with folding angles equal to 15°, 30°, and 45°. The mod-
els were reinforced along the outer perimeter only to provide a hidden ring beam using
a minimum amount of steel. The bottom cavity of three models was filled by EPS and
compared to those filled by compacted soil. After load testing the folded footing models
using a large-scale sandbox and a 30 ton loading frame, results were analyzed to pro-
pose a modification factor for the classical bearing capacity and settlement equations to
account for the folding angle and EPS filling effects.
Experimental Program
Conventional Models without EPS Models with EPS
F0-N F15-N F15-E
F30-N F30-E
F45-N F45-E
Fig. 1 Types and codes of footing models used in the study
(a) Flat footing model

(b) 15 ° folded footing model
(c) 30° folded footing model

(d) 45° folded footing model
Fig. 2 Geometry and reinforcement of the footing models (a) flat footing, (b) folded 1 5o, (c) folded 30o, and
(d) folded 4 5o
Experimental program
Footing model design
The experimental program is comprised of seven models as shown in Fig. 1, where
F: denotes the folding angle, and N/E: denotes the existence of EPS with a density of
35 kg/m3 (N: normal without EPS, E: with EPS-35). The first footing denoted as “F0-
N” refers to a conventional flat footing without the use of EPS, while the other six
footings are cast shell folded footings with angles of 15°, 30°, and 45°. Figure 2 shows
the geometry and reinforcement of the flat as well as the folded footing models. The
flat footing model was reinforced with a 10 mm diameter bottom mesh, whereas the
folded footings were all reinforced with a hidden ring beam using 4 bars each with a
diameter of 10 mm along the outer perimeter and using minimum stirrups. No other
steel reinforcement mesh was used with the shell folded footings, only the hidden ring
beam. The properties of the utilized 10 mm diameter bars can be summarized accord-
ing to the manufacturer as follows: yield strength of 300 MPa, ultimate strength of
600 MPa, minimum tensile-to-yield ratio of 1.25, and minimum elongation before
fracture equal to 19%.
Figure 3a shows two identical 45° angle models, one of them contains EPS within its
cavity, and the other is a normal (empty) model that will be rested on compacted sand
during testing. To maintain the same dimensions for both footings, two EPS segments
with the same dimensions were cut using a hot wire. Then concrete was cast above the
EPS segments in two identical wooden formworks. After that, the normal footing model
(N footing) was acquired by removing the EPS within the cavity, and the same principle
was applied to all the other models having the same dimensions. Figure 3b shows the
seven concrete models for the footings.
Materials characterization using ultrasonic

All the footings were cast using one concrete mix to avoid variations in the mechani-
cal properties between them. The compressive strength of concrete was evaluated using
the average of three standard 150 × 150 × 150 mm cube specimens and was found to be
45.14 MPa. The average density of the mix was found to be 23 kN/m3. Figure 4 shows the
detailed results for the properties of the concrete mix.
Clean well-graded sand (shown in Fig. 5a) was used to fill the sandbox before each
experiment. The friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) were determined according to
ASTM D3080-04 and were found to be 31.7°, and 8.4 kPa (apparent cohesion), respec-
tively. The maximum dry density of sand was determined using the modified effort
(a) The bottom face of “F45-E” and “F45-N” footing models.
(b) Concrete footing models.

Fig. 3 Photos showing the flat and folded footing models (a) bottom cavity, and (b) overview on all models
Compressive strength
Density
Compressive strength (MPa)

50 30
40 24
Density (kN/m3)
30 18
20 12
10 6
0 0
1 2 3
Specimen number
Fig. 4 Reinforced concrete properties used for the footing models
19.8
Dry density of sand (kN/m3)

100%
Cummulative passing (%)
19.7
80%
R² = 0.9702
19.6
60%
19.5
40%
19.4
20% 19.3
0% 19.2
1 0.1 0.01 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%
Sieve opening (mm) Optimum moisture content
(a) Grading of sand particles (b) The dry density of sand
Fig. 5 Dry density of sand inside the sandbox (a) gradation, and (b) maximum dry density
laboratory compaction test according to ASTM D1557. Figure 5b shows the plot
between the water content and dry density of sand, as it was found equal to 19.7 kN/m3
at an optimum moisture content of 10.7%.
The damping properties of EPS-35 and concrete were measured to assess the ability of
the proposed footing system to dissipate elastic strain energy in case of dynamic load-
ing. A method used by [1, 5] was adopted and tested to measure the damping ratio “ ζ ”
based on the decay curve of an ultrasonic pulse transmitted through the material, which
is considered as a simplified and quick method. The rate of decay was defined by trans-
mitting a frequency of 500 and 24 kHz in EPS and concrete, respectively, to obtain the
shown charts in Fig. 6. Where Fig. 6a represents the decay curve for EPS, and Fig. 6b
represents the decay curve for concrete. The trend lines were plotted after removing the
reflected constructive interference waves for both materials.
The envelope of the decay curve “ C(t)" was fitted as an exponential function to resem-
ble Eq. (1) that is presented in [29] for under-damped vibrating systems. Where: “ ρ ” is
a constant that depends on the amplitude of the wave, “ ωn ” is the undamped natural
frequency for the material, and “ t ” is the time in seconds. Equation (2) represents the
parameter “ ρ ” and it can be used to correlate “ ζ ” and “ ωn ”, for a given damped frequency
“ ωD ”. Where: “ u(0) ” is defined as the displacement of the received wave at time t = 0,
Ultrasonic wave Ultrasonic wave

Expon. (Wave decay) Expon. (Wave decay)
80 40
C(t) = 63.14e-7207.24(t) C(t) = 19.77e-2203.93(t)
Amplitude, C(t) % 60 30
Amplitude, C(t) %
R² = 0.91 R² = 0.84
40 20
20 10
0 0
-20 -10
-40 -20
-60 -30
-80 -40
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 40 80 120 160 200
Time (0.5 µ sec) Time (0.5 µ sec)
(a) Wave decay curve for EPS. (b) Wave decay curve for concrete.
Fig. 6 Wave decay curves (a) for EPS, and (b) for concrete
which can be substituted by the highest amplitude that occurred at the beginning of the
ultrasonic wave. While “ u̇(0) ” is the wave velocity (taken equal to zero at the peak of the
wave). Equation (3) that is proposed by [29] can be used to determine a relation between
“ ωD ” and “ ωn ”. Therefore, the presented system of equations was solved using iterative
trial and error to get the value of “ ζ ”, “ ωn ”, and “ ωD”.
C(t) = ρe−ζ∗wn ∗t (1)

2
u̇(0) + ζ∗ωn ∗ u(0)
ρ= 2
[u(0)] + (2)
ωD

ωD = ωn 1 − ζ2 (3)
To represent the material damping properties in finite element software packages

such as Plaxis, the constitutive model depends on Rayleigh coefficients which repre-
sent two coefficients multiplied by the mass “m” and stiffness “k” of a system. These
coefficients are provided by [13], under the assumption of constant damping dur-
ing a seismic signal. Both coefficients ( αR and βR ) can be calculated according to
Eqs. (4), (5) for a given value of “ ζ ” and “ ωn ”. Then the material damping “ C ” can be
calculated according to Eq. (6).
αR = 2π∗ζ ∗ w n (4)
ζ
βR = (5)
2π∗w n
C = αR ∗ m + βR ∗ k (6)
Table 1 Damping properties for EPS and concrete

Property EPS-35 Concrete
ωn[rad/sec.] 282483.79 37,528.65

ωD[rad/sec.] 282390.35 37,463.93
ζ[ − ] 2.57% 5.87%
αR[ − ] 45,648.12 13,841.86
βR[ − ] 1.44 × 10−8 2.48 × 10−7
Fig. 7 Sandbox dimensions and instrumentation (mm)
According to the calculations, the damping properties for both EPS and concrete
are presented in Table 1. It can be observed that the angular natural frequency of
EPS is nearly 7.53% higher than the natural frequency of concrete. Moreover, the
damping coefficient of EPS is about 7.54% higher than the concrete`s damping coef-
ficient. The calculated Rayleigh coefficients for both materials are also given in
Table 1.
Folded footing test setup

A sandbox with inner dimensions of 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.0 m (length × width × depth), was
used to simulate the testing of all the footings as shown in Fig. 7. The box is com-
prised of 12 steel UPN-100 sections bolted together to formulate its frame and 10 mm
plexiglass sheets that act as vertical boundaries. The inner dimensions of the box were
chosen after reviewing other experimental work from the literature and after running
a numerical simulation using Plaxis 3D. In the literature, the dimensions of the sand-
box used by [20] were 1.40 × 1.40 × 1.0 m for a soil height of 0.8 m, while the dimen-
sions of the sandbox used by [18] were 0.5 × 0.5 × 1.0 m. After running a numerical
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8 Plaxis 3D results for the sandbox (a) overview, (b) stress, and (c) strain
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9 Straining actions in plexiglass using SAP2000 (a) force F11, (b) bending M22, and (c) bending M33 on
steel channels supporting plexiglass
model using Plaxis 3D, with the intention to detect and minimize the soil confine-
ment and boundary interference effects during testing, the final dimensions of the
sandbox were selected. Also, the acting lateral stresses on the boundaries due to the
own weight of soil were determined to design the UPN steel cross-section and plexi-
glass thickness. Figure 8 shows the stresses and displacements inside the numerical
models, where proper boundary conditions were used to represent the edges of the
sandbox.
The steel UPN cross-sections and thickness of plexiglass were designed by per-
forming a numerical simulation using SAP2000 software to ensure the ability of the
sandbox boundaries to withstand the acting loads. The loads were due to lateral earth
pressure acting on the plexiglass (simulated as shell elements) and supported by the
steel UPN sections. Figure 9 represents the geometry and staring actions for the
sandbox model. The design of the plexiglass as well as the steel UPN sections was per-
formed based on SAP2000 outcomes to safely withstand the bending moments and
limit deflections to allowable limits.
The soil selected to fill the sandbox was classified as medium-dense sand. After
assembling the sandbox, the soil layers were compacted following 5 cm thickness lifts
(layers). Each layer was compacted to reach a relative density of 58%, which is equiva-
lent to a dry unit weight of 1.71 kPa (above 85% of the maximum dry density of the
used sand) according to [32]. To maintain a constant compaction effort of each soil
layer, a small roller compactor was fabricated with a total weight of 13.2 kg, as shown
in Fig. 10a.
(a) Roller compactor (b) Soil pressure cell (c) Strain Gauge
18
Unit Weight (kN/m3)
17
16
15
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of passes
(d) Number of passes on the dry unit weight
Fig. 10 Experimental test setup (a) compaction tool for soil in the sandbox, (b) and (c) instrumentation
inside soil and footing steel reinforcement, and (d) number of passes for soil layers
To determine the number of passes required for each soil layer, a correlation
between the number of passes and soil dry unit weight was plotted. The correlation
is resented in Fig. 10d, which required a few trials in the lab using the fabricated
small roller compactor. The plot started linearly until an approximate unit weight of
16.4 kN/m3, followed non-linearly with a descending slope as the number of passes
increased. From that plot, sixty (60) passes were identified and applied for each soil
layer inside the sandbox to reach the desired relative density and dry unit weight.
The load test procedure was performed by applying a vertical load using a 300 kN
hydraulic jack, connected to a load cell to record readings during testing. The settle-
ment was recorded using a linear variable displacement transformer (LVDT) placed
on the top of the footing model. Two concrete strain gauges and one steel strain gauge
were installed inside each folded footing model. Finally, three pressure cells were used
to record pressure readings inside the compacted soil layers underlying the footing
model. Two of them were placed directly underneath the footing; one in the center
and the other in the corner of the footing. The third pressure cell was placed at a
depth of 0.5 m below the footing centerline. Figure 10b, c show a photo of the pres-
sure cells and strain gauge sensors that were used in the experimental testing.
Figure 11a shows the reactionless loading frame setup, where the load should be
transferred within its box structural system. However, the sandbox was directly rested
(a) 30-ton loading frame and test setup
(b) F45-N footing setup

Fig. 11 Experimental test setup (a) loading frame, and (b) footing under axial loading
on a slab-on-grade to satisfy the designed dimensions and weight. The total weight of
the loading frame was estimated to be 46 kN, therefore, the maximum safe load to be
applied during the testing of the footing models was limited to 40 kN for the whole
setup, and that to avoid uplifting the loading frame. The full experimental setup and
instrumentation are presented in Fig. 11b. It is worth noting that the allowable test
load was equal to 20 kN, this load was increased to the maximum safe limit of 40 kN
during testing (if the soil did not show clear signs of bearing capacity failure). At first,
the load was applied in increments until 20 kN, where each increment represented
20% of the maximum load (i.e., 4 kN increments). After surpassing the allowable load,
a constantly ascending loading rate was applied until reaching the maximum safe load
limit of 40 kN.
F0-N F15-N F15-E F0-N F30-N F30-E

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
Settelment (mm)
Settelment (mm)
-3 -3
-4 -4
-5 -5
-6 -6
-7 -7
-8 -8
-9 -9
Load (kN) Load (kN)
(a) F15 (b) F30
F0-N F45-N F45-E

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
0
-1
-2
Settelment (mm)
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
Load (kN)
(c) F45
Fig. 12 Load versus settlement measurements for various folded footings (a) footing model F15, (b) model
F30, and (c) model F5
Results and discussion
Experimental results
Results of load testing the seven (7) footing models are summarized herein, and before
presenting the results, it is worth noting that the sensors readings were corrected by
using a moving average of 50, to smoothen curves and filter the dispersion of the results
while performing the experiments.
Figure 12 shows the load-settlement curves of the different folded footing models com-
pared to the flat footing model. Figure 12a presents the results of the 15° folding angle
for both cases N and E (normal case using sand, and the case of using EPS) inside the
shell folded footing bottom cavity. The load-settlement curve of F15-E has shown lower
settlement values at any designated load compared to F15-N and F0-N. The settlements
of F0-N, F15-N, and F-15-E were found to be 5.88, 4.48, and 3.35 mm, respectively at the
maximum allowable load value of 20 kN. This indicates that the use of folded footings
with sand filling the bottom cavity yielded a 23.8% reduction in settlement, while the
inclusion of EPS within the cavity resulted in more reduction that reached 43%. Lower
0° 15° 30° 45°

8
7
Settlement (mm)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
Without EPS (N) With EPS (E)
Load (kN) / Type
Fig. 13 Settlement at certain loading points for folded footings with and without EPS
Pressure Corner Pressure Center (h=0 m) Pressure Center (h=-0.5 m)

140
120
Pressure (kPa)
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30
F0-N F15-N F15-E F30-N F30-E F45-N F45-E
Footing Name/ Load (kN)
Fig. 14 Pressure cell readings for different folded footings
settlement in F15-E indicates a better performance, which is attributed to the analogy

between folded footings with EPS filling and folded footings with proper compaction of
soil inside its cavity.
Results from the 30° folding angle models are plotted against the conventional flat
model in Fig. 12b. Settlements of F30-N and F30-E are equal to 4.42 and 3.26 mm,
respectively, at the maximum allowable load. It can also be seen that F30-E yielded
lower settlement compared to F0-N, which is the same observation noticed for the
15° footing models. Comparing the trends in reduction in the settlement, it was found
that F30-N achieved a reduction of 24.8% and F30-E resulted in 44.6%, when com-
pared with the conventional flat footing model. Results of the 15° and 30° models
indicate that a new governing parameter in the resulting settlement is not only the
folding angle, but also the inclusion of EPS filling inside the cavity of the folded foot-
ings. Figure 12c shows the load-settlement curves of 45° footing models compared to
the flat footing model. The settlement of F45-N and F45-E was 3.82 and 4.38 mm at
20 kN. A reduction of 35% and 25.5% for F45-N and F45-E models was noticed for
the 45° models. Although the difference is not very significant, the trend was reversed
compared with the 15° and 30° angle models.
The settlements at specific loading steps are provided in Fig. 13 to compare the
load-settlement behavior for all footing models. It was found at a load value of 10 kN
that the minimum settlement was recorded for F15-E with 1.29 mm displacement.
On the other hand, the maximum settlement was noticed in the F0-N model with a
value of 2.73 mm. The same trend continues with the steps up to 20 and 30 kN, where
the minimum settlements were observed for models F45-E and F30-E, respectively. It
must be mentioned that the conventional flat footing model F0-N provided the high-
est settlement among all the models with a value of 7.46 mm at load 30 kN.
Three pressure cells were placed inside the sandbox soil underneath the footing
models at various depths to measure the actual pressure inside the soil at different
loading ranges. Figure 14 shows the effect of loading steps on the observed pressure
in each of the footing models. As can be seen from the figure that the most reliable
measurements were obtained from the pressure cell at a depth 0.5 m below the center-
line of the footings. Results from the corner pressure cell for F0-N were omitted (due
to possible errors) from the figure to provide better curves. At a loading value of 10
kN, at 0.5 m below the footing level; the maximum pressure was recorded for F30-N
and F15-E with values equal to 32.17 and 27.23 kPa, whereas the minimum pressure
was observed for F0-N with a value of 7.55 kPa. The same trend continued for the
20 kN loading step at the same pressure cell 0.5 m below the footings, where maxi-
mum pressure was found with both F30-N and F15-E with values 64 and 63.9 kPa,
Pressure at the corner (h=0) Pressure at the center (h=0 m)
F0-N F15-N F0-N F15-N
F15-E F30-N F15-E F30-N
F30-E F45-N F30-E F45-N
F45-E F45-E
150 40
30
100
Pressure (kPa)
Pressure (kPa)
20
50 10
0
0
-10
-50 -20
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Load (kN) Load (kN)
(a) (b)
Pressure at the center (h=-0.5 m)

F0-N F15-N
F15-E F30-N
F30-E F45-N
F45-E
200
150
Pressure (kPa)
100
50
0
0 20 40 60
Load (kN)
(c)
Fig. 15 Load and pressure reading from various pressure cells (a) corner cell at h = 0, (b) center cell at h = 0,
and (c) center cell at h = −0.5 m
and the minimum pressure obtained for F0-N with a value equal to 26.75 kPa. Finally,
the maximum pressure at the 30 kN loading step recorded a value of 110 kPa for the
F30-N model, while the minimum pressure was observed for F0-N with a value equal
to 47 kPa. Such results indicate that the stress bulb extends to a further depth in case
of the using folded footings, and that effect was more prominent for the 15° and 30°
footing models.
Figure 15a, b present more detailed insights into the pressure readings at the corner
and the center of the footings at the top surface of the soil. Both figures were presented
in the study to include all the pressure cell readings, even the one that was omitted
before. However, some of the values did not show a logical trend in the readings, which
may be attributed to the presence of air pockets just above the pressure cell, or between
the bottom surface of the concrete footings and the soil. While Fig. 15c shows reasonable
readings that were located 0.5 m below the center of the footings. The figure shows that
F30-N gave nearly a similar behavior to F15-E, having the highest pressure at most of
the loading steps. It can also be seen that the conventional flat footing model F0-N gave
the lowest pressure reading compared to all the other models. All the pressure curves in
Fig. 15c followed the same profile of increasing pressure by increasing the test loaf until
the maximum safe limit of 40 kN, where F15-E provided the highest pressure of 152 kPa.
Ring beam behavior

To verify the hypothesis that the ring beam should safely carry tensile stresses in the case
of folded footings according to (Ahmed E. Gomaa et al., In-press article), a strain gauge
was placed on the reinforcement steel rebar inside the hidden ring beam for all folded
footing models. Although the concrete of the folded footings did not reach the failure
stress, nor showed any apparent cracks, however, the strain readings showed that the
hidden ring beam carried tensile stresses for all the folded footing models. The tensile
stresses in the rebar were calculated according to the direct stress–strain relationship,
using an elastic modulus of steel equal to 200 GPa. As shown in Fig. 16a, increasing the
folding angle yielded a tensile stress inside the ring beam, for both cases including and
excluding EPS. However, it was observed that for the models with EPS, the maximum
tensile stresses occur at a folding angle of 22.5°, while in case of models without EPS
the tensile stresses reached the maximum at a folding angle of 38°. The tensile stresses
with EPS (Current study)

1.6 without EPS (Current study)
1.4 (Gomaa et al., In-press article)
Poly. (with EPS (Current study))
Stress (N/mm2)
1.2 Poly. (without EPS (Current study))

Poly. (Gomaa et al., in-press)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 15 30 45
Folding angle (deg.)
(b)
(a)
Fig. 16 Hidden ring beam (a) relation between folding angle and tensile stress, and (b) steel reinforcement
seemed to be relatively higher in case of models with EPS compared to other models.
Figure 16b shows a photo of ring beam reinforcement that was used in all the footing
models, except that for the flat footing model that used a steel mesh.
Bearing capacity modification factor

The approach for developing a bearing capacity modification factor for folded footings
(with and without EPS filling in the bottom cavity) was to evaluate the stress under each
footing model with a constant value for settlement. Accordingly, the stress level was
acquired for all footings at a settlement of 5 mm, and using the relationship between set-
tlement and stress at the center pressure cell at depth (h = − 0.5 m). The ratio between
stress under the flat footing and folded footings was considered as a modification factor
for ultimate bearing capacity, and this modification factor can be multiplied to account
for the shell folded footing effects with different folding angles (with and without EPS
filling). The soil bearing capacity for the square footings was obtained from the key
equation provided by [41]:
1
qult = cNc + γ BNγ + γDf Nq (7)
2
where c is soil cohesion, B is foundation width, Df is foundation depth, and γ is soil unit
weight Nc , Nγ , and Nq are bearing capacity factors presented in the following equations
by [31, 36, 38]:

π φ
Nq = eπ tanφ tan2 + (8)
4 2

Nc = Nq − 1 cotφ (9)

Nγ = Nq − 1 tan(1.4φ) (10)
For the used compacted sand in this study (φ = 31.7° and c = 8.4 kPa) and considering
a foundation depth, Df = 0 (footings were rested on the top of sand), the bearing capac-
ity factors Nc and Nγ are equal to 34.61 and 20.92, respectively. Therefore, using the
7
αb = -0.0065θ2 + 0.3505θ + 1.19
6
Modification factor αb
R² = 0.94
5
4
αb = 0.1104θ + 0.83
3 R² = 0.99
2 EPS
NO-EPS
1 Poly. (EPS)
Linear (NO-EPS)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Folding angle θ (deg.)
Fig. 17 Bearing capacity global modification factor
ultimate bearing capacity Eq. (7), and considering the shape factors c and γ equal to
1.3 and 0.7 for a square-shaped footing (ECP-202, 2001); the soil bearing capacity for a
flat square footing would be equivalent to 440 kPa.
By assuming a linear relation between the ultimate bearing capacity and the measured
stress, an ultimate bearing capacity modification factor “ αb ” was calculated as presented
in Fig. 17. From the figure, it was noticed that the relation between the folding angle and
the stress level at 5 mm settlement was linear for the folded footing without EPS. This
is because introducing a folding angle leads to a concentration of stresses in the middle
section under the footing. This occurs due to increasing the confining effects applied on
the supporting soil because lateral forces increase with folding angles. The relationship
for a global bearing capacity modification factor of folded footings without EPS is pre-
sented in Eq. 11.
αb = 0.11θ + 0.834 (11)
In case of folded footings with EPS, a different behavior was observed. First, the stress
increased with the increase in the folding angle, then started decreasing after a folding
angle of 15°. The stress concentration decreased in value due to the presence of the EPS
core (EPS filling the bottom cavity of the shell folded footing), which tends to relieve the
resulting stresses. Equation 12 shows the relation between the global bearing capacity
modification factor for folded footings with EPS.
αb = −0.0065θ2 + 0.35θ + 1.19 (12)
Table 2 presents the values of the global bearing capacity modification factor for shell
folded footings (square shaped) resting on medium-dense sand, and that for both bot-
tom cavity filling types (i.e., with and without EPS). The table also presents the calculated
soil bearing capacity for similar folded footings in similar conditions but for a range of
folding angles.
Table 2 Bearing capacity global modification factor for different folding angles
Folding angle Sand filling EPS filling
αb qult (kPa) αb qult (kPa)
0° 1.00 440.56 1.00 440.56

5° 1.39 610.66 2.78 1225.34
10° 1.94 853.86 4.05 1782.65
15° 2.49 1097.05 4.99 2196.78
20° 3.04 1340.24 5.60 2467.73
25° 3.59 1583.43 5.89 2595.49
30° 4.15 1826.62 5.86 2580.07
35° 4.70 2069.81 5.50 2421.47
40° 5.25 2313.00 4.81 2119.68
45° 5.80 2556.19 3.80 1674.71
Modification factor for settlement

It was essential to provide a modification factor for the closed-form solution used to cal-
culate settlement, and that for shell folded footings. Based on the conventional equation
for settlement calculation in sandy soil provided by [40], a modification factor “ αs ” was
calculated and proposed for the maximum strain influence “ I∈p ”. The conventional equa-
tion for settlement is presented in Eq. 13.
′
I H
εi i
δ = C1 C2 C3 q − σzD (13)
Esi
where δ is the settlement in meters and the factors C1 , C2 , and C3 are factors for the effect
of the depth of foundation, creep factor, and shape factor, respectively. In the case pre-
sented herein, all the C-factors were evaluated as 1.00; since the footing was assumed
just after construction, square-shaped, and the soil overburden pressure at foundation
depth was equal to zero. The applied pressure from the footing on the soil is represented
′
by “ q ” and “ σzD ” represents the soil stress at the foundation level. The summation was
carried out over the depth of influence equal to twice the width of the footing. Iεi repre-
sents the influence value at soil layer “ i ”, “ Hi ” is the depth of layer and “ Esi ” is the modu-
lus of elasticity of the soil layer.
The elastic modulus of soil was calculated assuming that the pressure distribution
beneath the footing to match the strain influence chart presented in Fig. 18. The total
settlement was measured as 0.0066 m, this value was equated to the integration of
strain along the influence chart multiplied by the sandbox height. By using the stress
obtained from the pressure cell at a depth of -0.5 m, the value of the elastic modulus
Strain influance factor, I0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0
0.5 I0 p
L/B = 1
1.0
Z/B
1.5 F0
F15-N
F15-E
F30-N
2.0 F30-E
F45-N
F45-E
2.5
Fig. 18 Influence zone under the folded footings
EPS SAND
Poly. (EPS) Poly. ( SAND)
1.2
1.0
Modification factor αs
αs = 0.0004θ2 - 0.0255θ + 0.97
0.8 R² = 0.87
0.6
0.4
αs = 0.0006θ2 - 0.0372θ + 0.98
0.2 R² = 0.96
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Folding angle θ (deg.)
Fig. 19 Settlement modification factor for various folding angles
Table 3 Settlement modification factor for different folding angles

Folding angle αs Sand Filling αs EPS Filling
0° 1.00 1.00
5° 0.85 0.81
10° 0.75 0.67
15° 0.68 0.56
20° 0.62 0.48
25° 0.58 0.42
30° 0.56 0.40
35° 0.57 0.41
40° 0.59 0.45
45° 0.63 0.52
was computed to be equal to 4058 kN/m3. This value should be constant and must not
change during the calculation even by changing the footing folding angle. The influ-
ence value is governed by the maximum strain influence “ I∈p ”, which is presented in
Eq. 14:

qn
I∈p = 0.5 + 0.1 ′ (14)
σzp
The modification factor “ αs ” was proposed to estimate variations in stain influence
by estimating a modified strain influence in case of the presence of a folding angle as
presented in Eq. 15.

qn
I∈p−mod. = αs (0.5 + 0.1 ′ ) (15)
σzp
The proposed factor “ αs ” was calculated for different folding angles and presented in
Fig. 19. From the figure, the peak influence equation was modified using the deduced
fitting equations. Equation 16 presents the modification factor that can be used for
footings with a cavity filled with EPS, and Eq. 17 can be used for footings with a cavity
filled with sand, where θ is the folding angle in degrees (note soil and loading condi-
tions must be similar to those presented herein).
θ2
αs = + 0.037θ + 0.98 (16)
1667
θ2
αs = + 0.026θ + 0.97 (17)
2500
Table 3 shows the settlement modification factor that should be multiplied by the
maximum strain influence, to account for variations in settlement that occur due to
using square-shaped shell folded footings with various folding angles, with and with-
out EPS filling the bottom cavity.
Limitations
This research as well as any other included some limitations. (1) The loading frame
and sandbox setup; being rested on a slab-on-grade limited the maximum load to 40
kN to avoid uplifting of the loading frame. (2) Another limitation was the pressure sen-
sors’ errors, as some pressure sensors produced a non-logical reading, especially the
sensors at the foundation level (h = 0). (3) Finally, the loading frame size allowed only
the construction of quarter-scale prototypes, therefore full-scale models would still be
needed to support the results of this study. A recommendation for future work based on
this study would be developing and verifying a 3D finite element model for shell folded
footings with and without EPS filling for the bottom cavity. A parametric analysis can
take place using the verified FE model to examine the effects of changing folded footing
dimensions, EPS density, and undelaying soil properties. Finally, a modification factor
can be introduced to bearing capacity and settlement for various L/B ratios for folded
footings with and without an EPS.
Conclusions
This paper aims to investigate the soil behavior under folded isolated footings upon the
inclusion of EPS blocks or sand soil within the footing bottom cavity. Seven-quarter
scale prototypes with folding angles of 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°, with/without EPS were uti-
lized to examine the bearing capacity and settlement behavior of the supporting soil. To
simulate the experimental behavior of the footings, the study started with proper mate-
rial characterization, then a large sandbox was designed, fabricated, and filled with clean
well compacted sand. A fully instrumented test setup was used to measure the load, set-
tlement, soil pressure, and rebar tensile strains for all the footing models. The main con-
clusions from this work can be summarized in the following points:
1. Based on the simplified ultrasonic test method and its wave decay curves, the damp-
ing properties of EPS and concrete were derived and showed that the angular natural
frequency of EPS is nearly 7.5% higher than the natural frequency of concrete. Fur-
thermore, Rayleigh coefficients were calculated based on the ultrasonic outcomes.
2. Compared to conventional isolated footing models F15-N and F15-E yielded a 23.8%
and 43.0% reduction in settlement, respectively. The superior behavior of F15-E indi-
cates an analogy between folded footings with EPS and folded footings with proper
compaction of soil within their cavity, a behavior that proved to reduce settlement.
3. Measurements under the folded footing models indicated that the governing param-
eter in the resulting settlement may not only be the folding angle itself but also the
inclusion of EPS inside the cavity of folded footing, especially for 15° and 30° folding
angles.
4. Measuring the pressure at − 0.5 m below the footing level for both folded foot-
ings and conventional flat footings proved that the maximum pressure in the soil,
increased from 2.3 B to 4.2 B depending on the folding angle and presence of EPS.
Such behavior implies that the stress bulb extends to a further depth in case of folded
footings, an effect that was more prominent in the 15° and 30° folding angles.
5. The hypothesis that the ring beam would carry tensile stresses upon loading the
folded footings proved to be true, depending on the results of the strain gauges.
Moreover, the maximum stresses seemed to be much higher in case of models
including EPS compared to the other models. However, further testing for the con-
crete footings still needs to be done, under higher loading conditions to give more
insight into its cracking behavior.
6. Based on the bearing capacity equation introduced by [41], and the experimental
results of this study, a bearing capacity global modification factor was proposed for
folded footings with and without EPS, for a range of folding angles.
7. Based on the results of this study, and the conventional settlement equation that is
provided by [40], a settlement modification factor was proposed to compute the set-
tlement under folded footings with and without EPS for a range of folding angles.
Acknowledgements
This paper is a part of the FIF-EPS ongoing research project, which is funded by the 2022 Internal Fund of the Research
Grants Office of Nile University, Egypt. Also, this research was supported by Eng. Ahmed Dawood, Lab Engineer of Civil
Lab Complex at Nile University. A special thanks to Mr. Waleed Gomaa and ChemaFoam Company for their support in
the experimental program.
Author contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: A.G. carried out the experimental tests, analysis, and interpreta-
tion; A.H. carried the numerical analysis and developed the correlations; Y.M. drafted the manuscript and monitored
experimental testing program; and S.A discussed the research main ideas and revised the outcomes. All authors read
and approved the final manuscript.
Data Availability
Experimental testing raw data were generated at the Civil Engineering Laboratories of Nile University, Egypt. Derived
data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author Prof. Sherif S. AbdelSalam [sabdel-
salam@nu.edu.eg] on request.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 17 October 2022 Accepted: 17 March 2023

References
1. Abd-El-Mottaleb HE, Salah M, AbdelSalam SS (2022) Ultrasonic characterization of expanded polystyrene used for
shallow tunnels under seismic excitation. Ain Shams Eng J 13:101722
2. Abdelrahman, G. and El Kamash, W. 2014. Behavior improvement of raft foundation on port-said soft clay utilizing
geofoam. Ground Improve Geosynth
3. AbdelSalam SS, Jama R, Salah M (2019) EPS inclusion to reduce vertical stresses on shallow tunnels. Geosynth Int
26:121–135
4. AbdelSalam SS, Azzam SA, Fakhry BM (2017) Reliability and 3D modeling of flexible walls with EPS inclusion. Int J
Geomech 17:04016153
5. AbdelSalam SS, Hasan AM (2019) Characterization of shear strength and compressibility of diesel contaminated
sand International congress and exhibition sustainable civil infrastructures. Springer, Berlin
6. Agarwal K and Gupta R 1977. Soil-structure Interaction in Shell Foundations. Proceeding of the International Work-
shop on Soil Structure Interaction. pp. 110–112.
7. Ahmed E. Gomaa Ahmed M. Hasan, Yasser M. Mater and AbdelSalam S S. (2022). 3D Modeling of folded footings
with ring beam on sand using various folding angles. 5th International Conference on green energy and environ-
ment engineering (CGEEE 2022). In-press article. Springer
8. Azzam A. A. and AbdelSalam S S. (2015). EPS Geofoam to Reduce lateral earth pressure on rigid walls. Proceedings of
International Conference on advances in structural and geotechnical engineering
9. Azzam SA, Shokry BM, AbdelSalam SS (2017) 3D Modeling of EPS geofoam buffers behind diaphragm walls inter-
national congress and exhibition sustainable civil infrastructures innovative infrastructure geotechnology. Springer,
Berlin, pp 46–53
10. Azzam W, Nasr A (2015) Bearing capacity of shell strip footing on reinforced sand. J Adv Res 6:727–737
11. Beju Y, Mandal J (2017) Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: preliminary characteristic evaluation. Proced Eng
189:239–246
12. Choo YW, Abdoun TH, O’Rourke MJ, HA D (2007) Remediation for buried pipeline systems under permanent ground
deformation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:1043–1055
13. Chopra AK (1995) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River
14. Dewi R, Idris Y, Sutejo Y, Al Munawar SA (2021) Bearing capacity of folded plate foundations in clay soil. J Appl Eng
Sci 19:681–687
15. Diab AF, El Sakhawy NR, Elkilany ME, Al-Badwy RA (2021) Effect of geofoam under strip footing rested on swelling
soil. J Appl Sci Eng 24:681–685
16. Doroudiani S, Omidian H (2010) Environmental, health and safety concerns of decorative mouldings made of
expanded polystyrene in buildings. Build Environ 45:647–654
17. ECP-202 ECP-202, 2001. Egyptian code for soil mechanics—design and Construction of Foundations. Part 3.
ECP-202ECP-202.
18. El-Kady MS, Badrawi EF (2017) Performance of Isolated and Folded Footings. Journal of Computat Design Eng
4:150–157
19. Gao H, Liu J, Liu H (2011) Geotechnical properties of eps composite soil. Int J Geotech Eng 5:69–77
20. Gendy, M. E., Araby, I. E., Kamash, W. E., Sallam, E. and Labban, A. E. 2019. Effect of using EPS geofoam on deforma-
tion behavior of square footings on clay subjected to static and dynamic loads: experimental study. 5th Interna-
tional Conference on Geofoam Blocks in Construction Applications. Springer. 251–266.
21. Gnananandarao T, Dutta RK, Khatri VN (2020) Model studies of plus and double box shaped skirted footings resting
on sand. Int J Geo-Eng 11:1–17
22. Hassan SA, Al-Soud MS, Mohammed SA (2019) Behavior of pyramidal shell foundations on reinforced sandy soil.
Geotech Geol Eng 37:2437–2452
23. Huat BB, Mohammed TA (2006) Finite element study using FE code (PLAXIS) on the geotechnical behavior of shell
footings. J Comput Sci 2:104–108
24. Iyer, T. and Rao, N. 1970. Model studies on funicular shells as rafts on sands. Proceedings Symposium on Shallow
Foundations. Bombay. India pp. 149–156.
25. Krishnan A, Sivapriya S, Nagarajan V (2017) Finite element analysis of HYPAR shell footings with variation in edge
beam dimensions and embedment ratio. Int J Earth Sci Eng 10:150–154
26. Kurian NP, Jeyachandran S (1972) Model studies on the behavior of sand under two and three dimensional shell
foundations. Indian Geotechn J 2:79–90
27. Kuttah D (2019) Strong correlation between the laboratory dynamic CBR and the compaction characteristics of
sandy soil. Int J Geo-Eng 10:7
28. Lingwall, B. and Bartlett, S. 2014. Full-scale testing of an EPS geofoam cover system to protect pipelines at locations
of lateral soil displacement. Pipelines 2014: From underground to the forefront of innovation and sustainability.
29. Løkke A, Chopra AK (2017) Direct finite element method for nonlinear analysis of semi-unbounded dam–water–
foundation rock systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 46:1267–1285
30. Meguid MA, Khan MI (2019) On the role of geofoam density on the interface shear behavior of composite geosys-
tems. Int J Geo-Eng 10:1–18
31. Meyerhof GG (1963) Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can Geotech J 1:16–31
32. Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley & Sons, New York
33. Mousa MA, Uddin N (2009) Experimental and analytical study of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)/autoclaved
aerated concrete (AAC) sandwich panels. Eng Struct 31:2337–2344
34. Nagesh S, Jagadeesh H, Nithin K (2021) Study on effect of laboratory roller compaction on unconfined compressive
strength of lime treated soils. Int J Geo-Eng 12:22
35. Ossa A, Romo M (2011) Dynamic characterization of EPS geofoam. Geotext Geomembr 29:40–50
36. Prandtl L (1921) Uber die Eindringungs-festigkeit (Harte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden. Z
Angew Math Mechanik. https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19210010102
37. Rehman ZU, Khalid U, Farooq K, Mujtaba H (2018) On yield stress of compacted clays. Int J Geo-Eng 9:1–16
38. Reissner H. (1924). Zum Erddruckproblem. Proc. of the 1st Inter. Congress for applied mechanics, delft, The Nether-
lands, pp 295–311
39. Schackow A, Effting C, Folgueras MV, Güths S, Mendes GA (2014) Mechanical and thermal properties of lightweight
concretes with vermiculite and EPS using air-entraining agent. Constr Build Mater 57:190–197
40. Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved strain influence factor diagrams. J Geotech Eng Div
104:1131–1135
41. Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York
42. Thompsett D, Walker A, Radley R, Grieveson B (1995) Design and construction of expanded polystyrene embank-
ments: practical design methods as used in the United Kingdom. Constr Build Mater 9:403–411
43. Vėjelis S, Gnip I, Vaitkus S, Keršulis V and Vaitkus S. (2008). Shear strength and modulus of elasticity of expanded poly-
styrene (EPS). Mater Sci 14
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Shell Folded Footings Using Different Angles and EPS Cavity Filling: Experimental Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shell Folded Footings Using Different Angles and EPS Cavity Filling: Experimental Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomaa

et al. International Journal of

ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access

Shell folded footings using different angles

Conventional Models without EPS Models with EPS

F0-N F15-N F15-E

(a) Flat footing model

(c) 30° folded footing model

Materials characterization using ultrasonic

(a) The bottom face of “F45-E” and “F45-N” footing models.

(b) Concrete footing models.

Compressive strength (MPa)

Dry density of sand (kN/m3)

Ultrasonic wave Ultrasonic wave

C(t) = ρe−ζ∗wn ∗t (1)

To represent the material damping properties in finite element software packages

Table 1 Damping properties for EPS and concrete

ωn[rad/sec.] 282483.79 37,528.65

Fig. 7 Sandbox dimensions and instrumentation (mm)

Folded footing test setup

(a) (b) (c)

(a) (b) (c)

(a) 30-ton loading frame and test setup

(b) F45-N footing setup

F0-N F15-N F15-E F0-N F30-N F30-E

(a) F15 (b) F30

F0-N F45-N F45-E

0° 15° 30° 45°

Pressure Corner Pressure Center (h=0 m) Pressure Center (h=-0.5 m)

settlement in F15-E indicates a better performance, which is attributed to the analogy

Pressure at the center (h=-0.5 m)

Ring beam behavior

with EPS (Current study)

1.2 Poly. (without EPS (Current study))

Bearing capacity modification factor

αb = 0.11θ + 0.834 (11)

αb = −0.0065θ2 + 0.35θ + 1.19 (12)

0° 1.00 440.56 1.00 440.56

Modification factor for settlement

Strain influance factor, I0

Table 3 Settlement modification factor for different folding angles

Received: 17 October 2022 Accepted: 17 March 2023

You might also like

Table 1 Damping properties for EPS and concrete

Fig. 7 Sandbox dimensions and instrumentation (mm)

Table 3 Settlement modification factor for different folding angles