Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No.

Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-

reinforced sand
M. Laman1 and A. Yildiz2
1
Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cukurova, 01330,
Balcali, Adana, Turkey, Telephone: +90 322 338 6702, Telefax: +90 322 338 6126,
E-mail: mlaman@cukurova.edu.tr
2
Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Cukurova, 01330,
Balcali, Adana, Turkey, Telephone: +90 322 338 6702, Telefax: +90 322 338 6126,
E-mail: azim@cu.edu.tr

Received 15 April 2005, revised 3 August 2006, accepted 22 November 2006

ABSTRACT: Numerical predictions of the ultimate bearing capacity of ring foundations supported
by a sand bed with and without geogrid reinforcement are presented. Numerical analyses of the
test models were carried out using the finite element package Plaxis. It is shown that the
behaviour of ring foundations on sand beds may be reasonably well represented by the hardening
soil model available in the Plaxis package. The hardening soil model parameters were derived from
the results of drained triaxial tests. The parameters investigated are the effect of depth of first
reinforcement layer, the number of reinforcement layers and reinforcement layer size on the
ultimate bearing capacity of ring foundations. The results from the finite element analysis are in
very good agreement with the experimental observations. The results of this study showed that the
reinforcement had a considerable effect on the ultimate bearing capacity of the ring foundations. It
was also shown that ultimate bearing capacity values can, depending on the reinforcement geogrid
arrangement, be improved by up to three times that of the unreinforced case for the model
arrangements investigated.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Shallow foundations, Ring foundations, Geogrid, Finite element

modelling

REFERENCE: Laman, M. & Yildiz, A. (2007). Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 2, 52–64 [doi: 10.1680/gein.2007.14.2.52]

tion can be improved by placing reinforcement under the

1. INTRODUCTION
Reinforced soil is used in many different areas of civil
engineering, notably in retaining walls, seawalls, embank-
ments, dams, bridge abutments and foundation slabs. The
horizontal placement of reinforcement materials beneath
foundations to improve the load-bearing capacity of
shallow foundations has attracted a great deal of attention.
There have been numerous experimental studies on this
subject in the literature (Binquet and Lee 1975;
Akinmusuru and Akinbolade 1981; Fragaszy and Lawton
1984; Huang and Tatsuoka 1990; Khing et al. 1993). More
recently the use of geosynthetics for soil reinforcement
has been reported in the literature (Guido et al. 1986;
Singh 1988; Omar et al. 1993a, 1993b; Das et al. 1994;
Yetimoglu et al. 1994; Adams and Collin 1997; Shin and
Das 2000; Alawaji 2001; Yoo 2001; Boushehrian and
Hataf 2003; Laman and Yildiz 2003; Patra et al. 2005;
Soleimanbeigi and Hataf 2005, 2006). These investiga-
tions have demonstrated that both the ultimate bearing
capacity and the settlement characteristics of the founda-
1072-6349 # 2007 Thomas Telford Ltd
foundations.
In recent decades, an exponential growth in the area of
digital computers and computational mechanics has re-
sulted in the application of the non-linear finite element
method to almost all areas of geotechnical engineering,
including shallow foundations. The finite element method
(FEM) has also become a highly useful tool, and has been
widely used for the numerical analysis of reinforced soil
structures (Abdel-Baki and Raymond 1994; Yetimoglu et
al. 1994; Ismail and Raymond 1995; Kurian et al. 1997;
Chandrashekhara et al. 1998; Otani et al. 1998; Yoo
2001). It provides the advantage of idealising the material
behaviour of soil, which is non-linear with plastic defor-
mations and stress path dependent, in a more rational
manner. The FEM can also be particularly useful for
identifying the patterns of deformations and stress distri-
bution in and around the reinforcing elements, during
deformation and at ultimate state. Abdel-Baki and
Raymond (1994) have performed some experimental work
and finite element (FE) analyses for footings on soils
52
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand
reinforced by a single strong layer of reinforcement. The
footings were subjected to concentric, eccentric and
inclined loadings. A simple design procedure was intro-
duced for the design of footings on reinforced soil.
Yetimoglu et al. (1994) investigated the bearing capacity
of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand by
performing both laboratory model tests and FE analyses.
This study showed that the bearing capacity of rectangular
footings could be increased significantly by incorporating
geogrid reinforcement at strategic elevations in the foun-
dation soil. It was also shown that the reinforcement
configuration could have a very significant effect on the
bearing capacity of the reinforced foundation. The stress–
strain behaviour of the sand was simulated by the
modified hyperbolic model (Duncan and Chang 1970) in
the analyses. The predicted settlements from analyses were
much higher than those from the physical tests. Yetimoglu
et al. (1994) explained that this was attributed to compac-
tion-induced stress that was not accounted for in the
analysis. Ismail and Raymond (1995) carried out model
tests and FE analysis of strip footings on geosynthetic-
reinforced layered soil deposits. The results were used to
formulate a design theory. Kurian et al. (1997) developed
a 3D non-linear FE program and investigated reinforced
soil systems with reinforcement layers placed horizontally
under the footing. The stress–strain behaviour of soil was
simulated using a hyperbolic model (Duncan and Chang
1970). The agreement between the results of the tests and
the FE analyses showed a good match in this study. The
settlements predicted from the analyses were found to
diverge from the experimental results at the final stages of
the tests. Kurian et al. (1997) mentioned that the reason
for this is that the analysis does not take into account soil
plasticity that develops during strain-softening.
Chandrashekhara et al. (1998) have used two different
methods to model reinforced soil: discrete and composite
models. In the discrete model the soil and the reinforce-
ment are modelled separately, whereas in the composite
model the reinforcement and its surrounding soil are
unified in the model. Otani et al. (1998) have studied the
bearing capacity of foundations seated on geosynthetic-
reinforced cohesive soil using a rigid plastic FEM based
on the upper-bound theorem and reinforced soil simulated
using the composite model with an equivalent cohesion.
Yoo (2001) presented the results of laboratory model tests
on the bearing capacity behaviour of a strip footing on a
geogrid-reinforced earth slope. A series of FE analyses
was also performed by Yoo (2001) on a prototype-scale
slope to ascertain the validity of the findings from the
laboratory model tests and to supplement the results of the
model tests. On the basis of the laboratory model test
results and the FE analyses, critical values of the geogrid
parameters for maximum reinforcing effect were sug-
gested.
Ring foundations are used in a variety of structures,
such as cooling towers, smoke-stacks, transmission towers,
radar stations, liquid storage tanks and TV antennae.
Analyses for the ultimate bearing capacity of these
foundations are not as advanced and as well understood as
those for strip, rectangular, square and circular founda-
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
53
tions. A few studies relating to ring foundations have been
reported in the literature. Studies of ring foundations on
reinforced soil are limited. Ismael (1996) investigated the
behaviour of ring foundations on very dense cemented
sands by using plate loading tests. The load–settlement
curves and ultimate bearing capacities for solid and ring
plates were compared. Ismael (1996) found that the
ultimate bearing capacity of ring plates is close to that of
the solid plates, and proposed that ring foundations can
be used with different ratios of the inside to outside radii
(ri /re ) up to 75% in practical applications. Ohri et al.
(1997) performed a series of laboratory tests on model
ring footings and found that, for a ratio of internal to
external diameter of the ring (n) equal to 0.38, the unit
bearing capacity reaches its maximum for dune sand.
Hataf and Razavi (2003) found that the value of n for the
maximum unit bearing capacity of sand is not unique, but
is in the range 0.2–0.4. Boushehrian and Hataf (2003)
performed tests to investigate the bearing capacity of
circular and ring footings on reinforced sand by conduct-
ing laboratory model tests together with numerical analy-
sis. The effects of the depth of the first layer of
reinforcement, vertical spacing and the number of reinfor-
cement layers on the bearing capacity of the footings were
investigated. In the numerical analysis, they found that the
maximum bearing capacity ratio (BCR) is n
0.40 for
ring foundations. Laman and Yildiz (2003) performed
some experimental analysis and investigated the bearing
capacity of ring foundations supported by sand beds with
and without geogrid reinforcement; they showed that the
optimum ring width ratio (r/R) is 0.30. They found that a
ring foundation with optimum width gives similar per-
formance to that of a full circular foundation with the
same outer diameter.
In this study, non-linear FE analyses were carried out
on ring foundations resting on reinforced sand soil using
the FE program Plaxis v.7.2 (Brinkgreve and Vermeer
1998). The hardening soil model (Schanz et al. 1999),
incorporating parameters from drained triaxial compres-
sion and oedometer tests, was used for the mathematical
modelling of the non-linear soil in the numerical analyses.
The improvement in the bearing capacity of reinforced
soil system and the mechanism of geogrid–soil interaction
was investigated. The results were compared with the
results of model tests reported by Yildiz (2002) and
Laman and Yildiz (2003).
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
2.1. General
The experimental programme was carried out using a test
facility in the geotechnical laboratory of the Civil En-
gineering Department of the University of Cukurova. The
experimental set-up has been used extensively for the
bearing capacity of shallow foundations on reinforced
sand (Yildiz 2002; Laman and Yildiz 2003). The facility
and a typical model are shown in Figure 1. Details of the
experimental programme, test procedures and analysis of
the test results of model studies of the ultimate bearing
54 Laman and Yildiz
Reaction beam
shearing resistance of the sand having a dry unit weight
17.1 kN/m3 and under normal pressures of 50, 100, and
Loading 200 kPa was determined by direct-shear tests. The meas-
handle
Mechanical jack ured average peak friction angle was 418.

Proving ring 2.3. Model foundations

Displacement Loading tests were carried out on five different model
ADU transducers rigid foundations fabricated from mild steel. All models
Model plate were 20 mm thick and 85 mm in diameter. The first of the
D
five model foundations was circular; the others were ring
H ⫽ 700 mm

PC
Wooden plate
foundations. The radii of the inner boundaries of the ring
Sand foundations were 12.5, 22.5, 27.5 and 32.5 mm.

2.4. Details of geogrids

Two different types of geogrid, Terragrid GS1000 (uni-
W ⫽ 700 mm
axial) and Tensar SS20 (biaxial), were used as reinforce-
(a) ment. The physical and mechanical properties of the
Glass plate geogrids as listed by the manufacturer are given in Table 2.

D ⫽ 85 mm 2.5. Model tests

Tests were conducted in a steel tank 700 mm long by
L ⫽ 700 mm

Ring 700 mm wide and 700 mm deep. The model foundation

foundation tests were performed at a unit weight of 17.1 kN/m3 . To
Wooden
plate
maintain consistency of the in-place density throughout
Sand
the test pit, the same compactive effort was applied to
Steel each layer. The model foundation was placed on the
profile
W ⫽ 700 mm surface of the sand bed at predetermined locations in the
(b) test pit. Vertical compressive load was applied in small
increments to the model foundation by means of a mech-
Figure 1. General layout of physical model test: (a) elevation;
(b) plan view
anical jack supported against a reaction beam. Constant
load increments were applied until the foundation settle-
ment during the load increment had stopped. The tests
capacity of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand were continued until the applied vertical load clearly
have been presented in detail by Yildiz (2002) and Laman reduced, or a large settlement of the foundation resulted
and Yildiz (2003). from a relatively small increase in vertical load.

2.2. Soil properties 2.6. Geometric parameters investigated

Uniform, clean, fine sand obtained from the Seyhan Figures 2 and 3 show the geometry of the model ring
riverbed in Southern Turkey was used for the model tests. foundation–geogrid reinforcement system considered in
The properties are summarised in Table 1. The angle of this investigation.
The term bearing capacity ratio (BCR) is commonly
Table 1. Properties of sand used to express and compare the results from reinforced
and unreinforced soils under surface loading. The ultimate
Property Value bearing capacities of the foundation–soil system with and
without reinforcement were obtained from the loading
Coarse sand fraction (%) 0 pressure–settlement relationship. The parameters investi-
Medium sand fraction (%) 34
gated, including the settlement of the loading plate, s, are
Fine sand fraction (%) 66
D10 (mm) 0.28 normalised by the width (diameter) of the loading plate, D
D30 (mm) 0.36 (¼ B).
D60 (mm) 0.42 Four series of tests were conducted on the model
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 1.50 foundations. The details of the tests are given in Table 3,
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 1.10
and are described below.
Specific gravity 2.68
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3 ) 17.80 The primary purpose of Test Series I was to evaluate the
Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m3 ) 15.90 effect of ring width ratio (r/R) on the ultimate bearing
Average dry unit weight during model tests (kN/m3 ) 17.10 capacity of the ring foundation for unreinforced and
Average relative density Dr during model tests (%) 65 (1) reinforced cases. Test Series II, III and IV were designed to
c (kPa) 0
examine the effects of the depth of the top reinforcement

(degrees) 41
Unified Soil Classification System SP layer (u), the number of reinforcement layers (N) and the
size of each reinforcement layer (BR ) on the bearing
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand 55

Table 2. Geogrid properties

Parameters Uniaxial geogrid Biaxial geogrid

Polymer Polypropylene Polypropylene

Unit weight (N/m2 ) 5 2
Aperture size (MD/XD) (mm) 14/80 39/39
Rib width
Longitudinal (mm) 5 2.20
Transverse (mm) - 2.40
Rib thickness
Longitudinal (mm) 0.95 1.10
Transverse (mm) - 0.80
Junction thickness (mm) 2.40 4.10
Tensile strength (kN/m)
MD 28.60 (load at 12% strain) 20 (Ultimate strength)
XD 14.30 (load at 10% strain) 20 (Ultimate strength)

MD: machine direction.

XD: cross machine direction.
Based on manufacturer’s specifications.

B⫽D
Table 3. Details of model tests
q q
r
R Test Variable Constant parameters
r series parameter
R r/R u/D h/D N BR /D

I r/R – 0.30 0.30 4 5

II u/D 0.30 – 0.30 4 5
III N 0.30 0.30 0.30 – 5
IV BR /D 0.30 0.30 0.30 4 –
z
(a) (b)
using the program Plaxis (Version 7.2). Plaxis is an FE
Figure 2. Ring foundation: (a) plan view; (b) elevation package specially developed for the analysis of deforma-
tion and stability in geotechnical engineering problems
(Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998). Stresses, strains and
B⫽D failure states of a given problem can be calculated.
Q Different constitutive models are available in Plaxis. An
elasto-plastic hyperbolic model called the hardening soil
model (HSM) was selected for the non-linear sand behav-
iour in this study. The results from the non-linear FE
u
analysis are in very good agreement with the experimental
N⫽1 observations using the HSM parameters. Other material
h models (linear elastic and Mohr–Coulomb) were also used
d
to analyse the behaviour of ring foundations supported by
a sand bed with and without geogrid reinforcement, but
they are not presented here, as the results obtained were
not in good agreement with the experimental findings.
N⫽4
The HSM is an advanced model for simulating the behav-
iour of different types of soil, both soft and stiff (Schanz
BR
et al. 1999). When subjected to primarily deviatoric
loading, sandy soil decreases in stiffness, and simulta-
Figure 3. Geometric parameters for model tests
neously irreversible plastic strains develop. The observed
relationship between the pressure and the axial strain can
capacity of the ring foundations. The results of four series be well approximated by a hyperbola, as used in the
of tests were reported by Laman and Yildiz (2003). variable elastic hyperbolic model (Duncan and Chang
1970). The HSM is formulated in the framework of the
classical theory of plasticity. The HSM supersedes the
3. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS hyperbolic model: first by using the theory of plasticity
The FE studies of the bearing capacity of ring foundations rather than the theory of elasticity, second by including
resting on reinforced and unreinforced sand bed with the soil dilatancy, and third by introducing a yield cap (Schanz
same model geometries as in the tests were carried out et al. 1999).
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
56 Laman and Yildiz
500
Limiting states of stress are described by means of the
friction angle
, cohesion c and dilatancy angle ł. Soil
stiffness is described by using three different input
400
stiffnesses: the triaxial loading stiffness E50 , the unload-
ing–reloading stiffness Eur , and the oedometer loading
stiffness Eoed . The HSM also accounts for stress depen-
dence of stiffness moduli. This means that all stiffness 300

σ (kN/m2)
values increase with pressure. Hence all three input
stiffness values relate to a reference stress, usually taken
as 100 kN/m2 (Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998). Figure 4 200
shows the results of a drained triaxial test that was carried
Eoed ⫽ 28000 kN/m2
out on the sand used in the study. Under primary loading
the behaviour is distinctly non-linear, and is assumed to be 100
hyperbolic up to a failure stress. In contrast to E50 , which
determines the magnitude of both the elastic and the
plastic strains, Eur is a true elasticity modulus. In conjunc- 0
tion with a Poisson’s ratio ur , the elasticity modulus Eur 0 0.01 0.02
Axial strain (%)
determines the soil behaviour under unloading and reload-
ing. Both the secant virgin loading modulus E50 and the Figure 5. Oedometer test results on sand used
unloading modulus Eur are stress-level dependent. For the
HSM, these parameters are computed as
In addition to the moduli Eref ref
50 and E ur , the oedometer
 m ref
c cot
þ  3 modulus Eoed is also an input modulus for the HSM.
E50 ¼ E ref (1) Together with the parameters m,  ur , c9,
9 and the
50
c cot
þ pref
 m dilatancy angle ł, there are a total of eight input
c cot
þ  3
Eur ¼ E ref (2) parameters (Vermeer et al. 2001). The soil parameters in
ur
c cot
þ pref Table 4 represent sand used in the model tests.
The initial stresses in the soil are generated using Jaky’s
Eref
50 and Eur
ref
are input parameters for a particular formula, expressed by Equation 4 (in Plaxis, the procedure
reference pressure pref . The exponent m can be determined to generate initial soil stresses is often known as the K0
from both oedometer and triaxial test results. A value of procedure),
m ¼ 0:5 is typical for sands, and m
1.0 for clays. Figure
5 shows the results of an oedometer test that was carried K 0 ¼ 1  sin
(4)
out on the sand used in the study. In the HSM the virgin
oedometer stiffness is stress dependent according to where K0 is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure and

is the friction angle of the soil.
 m The ring foundation is modelled as a rigid plate, and is
c cot
þ  3
Eoed ¼ E ref (3) considered to be very stiff and rough in the analyses.
oed
c cot
þ pref
Values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of 207 3
106 kN/m2 and 0.25, respectively, were assumed for the
500 foundation.
σ3 ⫽ 100 kN/m2 Geogrids are represented by the use of special tension
elements (five-node geotextile elements) in Plaxis. The
400 E50 ⫽ 28 000 kN/m2 only material property of a geogrid is an elastic axial
stiffness EA, which was taken as 465 kN/m for the
Deviatoric stress (kN/m²)

300 Table 4. HSM parameters

Parameter Value

200 Reference stress for stiffness, pref (kN/m2 ) 100

Unit weight, ªn (kN/m3 ) 17.10
Secant stiffness, E50 (kN/m2 ) 28 000
Eur ⫽ 72 500 kN/m2 Unloading/reloading stiffness, Eur (kN/m2 ) 72 500
100 Oedometer stiffness, Eoed (kN/m2 ) 28 000
Power, m 0.50
Cohesion, c (kN/m2 ) 0.30
Friction angle,
(degrees) 41
0 Dilatancy angle, ł (degrees) 11
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Poisson’s ratio,  0.20
Axial strain (%) K0 0.34
Failure ratio, Rf 0.90
Figure 4. Drained triaxial test results for sand
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand 57

uniaxial geogrid in the program. It is often convenient to A A

combine these elements with interfaces to model the

interaction with the surrounding soil. For the modelling of
the geotextile, the stress–strain behaviour at the soil
interface is simulated by an elastic-perfectly plastic model.
The model parameters at the soil interface can be gener-
ated from that soil using the interaction coefficient Ri ,
defined as the ratio of the shear strength of the soil/
structure interface to the corresponding shear strength of
the soil (Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998). The magnitude
of the interaction coefficient (Ri ) for all grades of
geotextile was 1.0 and 0.3 for the sand/geotextile interface
and the clay/geotextile interface, respectively, as obtained
from Long et al. (1997) and Long (1997). This means that
the friction between geogrids and sand is large enough for
there to be no relative displacement between the two
materials (full friction). Hence the effect of the soil/
reinforcement interface roughness on the bearing capacity
is due to a perfectly rough soil/reinforcement interface
(
i ¼
). Fully rough interface conditions (Ri ¼ 1) were
assumed in the study.
Plaxis incorporates a fully automatic mesh generation
procedure, in which the geometry is divided into elements
of the basic element type, and compatible structural
elements. Five different mesh densities are available in
Plaxis, ranging from very coarse to very fine. In order to
obtain the most suitable mesh for the present study,
preliminary computations using the five available levels of
global mesh coarseness were conducted. In the analysis,
the number of elements was changed from 42 (very
coarse) to 457 (fine) for the axisymmetric condition. As
seen in Figure 6, the mesh size has minimum effect on the
results after about 250 to 300 elements. This corresponds
to the medium mesh with refinement around the model
foundation where large stress concentrations are expected.
Consequently this mesh procedure was adopted in this
study. The sand medium was modelled using 15-node
triangular elements. A typical graded FE mesh composed
of soil, foundation and reinforcement elements, together Figure 7. Typical finite element mesh
with the boundary conditions used, is shown in Figure 7.
The number of triangular elements and nodal points varied
with model geometry and the geogrid reinforcement respectively. The analyses were carried out using an
arrangements, but the average numbers of triangular axisymmetric model. The boundaries of the mesh were
elements and nodal points in the mesh were 272 and 2273, based on the soil bin dimensions used in the physical
modelling. In previous supplementary analyses, Yildiz
300 (2002) reported that these boundary distances did not
influence the results. Plaxis generates full fixity at the
Ultimate bearing capacity (kN/m2)

280 base of the geometry and smooth conditions at the vertical

sides, including the symmetric boundary.
260 In Plaxis there are various procedures available for the
solution of non-linear plasticity problems. All procedures
are based on an automatic step size selection. Load
240
advancement ultimate level is one of these procedures.
The automatic step size procedure is used primarily for
220
calculation phases where a particular ultimate load level
has to be reached. The procedure terminates the calcula-
200 tion when the specified load level is reached, or when soil
0 100 200 300 400 500
failure is detected. By default, the number of additional
Number of elements
steps is set to 250, but this parameter does not play an
Figure 6. Influence of mesh size on FE results important role, because generally the calculation stops
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
58
before the number of additional steps is reached. An
important property of this calculation procedure is that the
user specifies the values of the total load to be applied.
The size of the first load step is chosen automatically,
depending on the applied algorithm. In Plaxis the input
values of a distributed load are given in force per area (for
example kN/m2 ). By default, when applying loads to the
geometry boundary, the load will be a unit pressure
perpendicular to the boundary. Afterwards the total load
level (external loads) is determined globally by means of
the total load multipliers (ÓMloadA) for load system A.
In this case, the total load level that is to be reached at the
end of the calculation phase is defined by entering values
for the Total multipliers in the Multipliers tab sheet. The
actual applied load at the end of the calculation phase is
the product of the input value of the load and the
corresponding total load multiplier, provided a collapse
mechanism or unloading does not occur earlier. For plastic
calculations, load advancement ultimate level was selected
in the analysis.
4. COMPARISON BETWEEN
NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS
4.1. General
In this study, Plaxis analyses were carried out to investi-
gate the effect of varying reinforcement configurations on
the bearing capacity of the ring foundation–soil system.
The results of Plaxis analyses of the unreinforced and
reinforced cases were compared with the results of the
earlier physical modelling of Laman and Yildiz (2003).
FE studies of the bearing capacity of ring foundations with
the same arrangements of reinforcement and foundation
geometries as in the tests were carried out.
Typical plots for the load–settlement behaviour ob-
tained from the experimental test and FE analysis of the
unreinforced sand case are shown in Figure 8. The vertical
displacements predicted by the HSM are in very good
agreement with the experimental results. The measured
and predicted ultimate bearing capacities for the unrein-
forced sand are 212 kN/m2 and 220 kN/m2 , respectively.
Loading pressure, q (kN/m2)
0 50 100 150
0 N ⫽ 4, BR/D ⫽ 5
2
Settlement ratio, s/D (%)
4
6 1.0
8
10
Figure 8. Curves of settlement versus loading
Laman and Yildiz
The settlement ratio (s/D ) for the unreinforced sand at
failure was approximately 4.9% in the test and 5.4% in the
analysis. The failure loads were obtained from the load–
settlement (q–s) graphs and used to calculate the ultimate
bearing capacities. In a few reinforced cases, depending
on the reinforcement arrangements, the plot of q against s
takes almost a linear shape, and a peak value (ultimate
bearing capacity) is never observed. Hence, when deter-
mining the ultimate bearing capacity using the q–s curves,
the loading pressure producing a foundation settlement of
10% of the foundation width (i.e. 0.1D ) at the foundation
centre was taken as the ultimate bearing capacity (Vesic
1973; Yoo 2001).
4.2. Effect of ring width ratio on BCR
Figure 9 shows the relation of BCR to ring width ratio,
r=R, obtained using the program Plaxis and the model
tests (Test series I reported by Yildiz 2002) by using the
values of ultimate bearing capacities. For the analyses, the
values of u/D, h/D, N and BR /D were kept constant at
0.30, 0.30, 4 and 5, respectively, as in the tests. It can be
seen from Figure 9 that a good agreement is found
between the experimental results and the FE modelling.
The results show that the optimum BCR value is obtained
when r/R
0.3 for both the experimental study and the
FE modelling. In the literature, the ratio of inside to
outside radii (ri /re ) is generally recommended to be in the
range 0.2–0.4 for ring foundations. Ohri et al. (1997)
found that for a ratio of internal to external diameter of
the ring (n) equal to 0.38 the unit bearing capacity reaches
its maximum for dune sand. Hataf and Razavi (2003)
found that the value of n for maximum unit bearing
capacity of sand is not unique but is in the range 0.2–0.4.
Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) found that the maximum
BCR is obtained for n
0.40 for ring foundations in the
numerical analysis.
4.3. Effect of depth to first reinforcement level on
BCR
Figure 10 shows the relation of BCR to reinforcement
depth ratio u/D, obtained using the program Plaxis and the
model tests (Test series II reported by Yildiz 2002) by
using the values of ultimate bearing capacities. For the
4.0
200 250 300 u/D ⫽ 0.30, h/D ⫽ 0.30
Bearing capacity ratio, BCR
3.0
Test (r/R)opt Model test
Plaxis FE analysis (Plaxis)
2.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ring width ratio, r/R
Figure 9. Relationship between BCR and r/R
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand 59
4.0
over collapsible soil to control wetting-induced collapse
Model Test settlement, and recommended a geogrid depth of 0.1D for
Bearing capacity ratio, BCR

FE analysis (PLAXIS)
3.0 a circular foundation.

(u/D)opt 4.4. Effect of number of reinforcement layers on

2.0
1.0
0
0 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90
Top reinforcement depth ratio, u/D
Figure 10. Relationship between BCR and u/D
analyses, the values of r/R, N, h/D and BR /D were kept
constant at 0.30, 4, 0.30 and 5, respectively, as in the tests.
The results from the FE analysis are in very good
agreement with the experimental observations. These
results show that, with the increase in reinforcement depth
ratio u/D, BCR remains constant to an optimum value of
u/D about 0.30 ((u/D )opt ¼ 0.30) and then it decreases
until u/D ¼ (u/D )crt ¼ 1. For values of u/D greater than
1.0, the BCR values remain practically constant. For
values of u/B greater than 1.0, the topmost geogrid layer
acts somewhat like a rigid rough base. It may be
concluded that, up to a u/D ratio of 0.30, the type of
failure resembles that of a typical plunging shear failure.
This is due to insufficient top layer depth below the
foundation.
In the literature, most studies are on strip, square and
rectangular foundations; there is very limited work on ring
foundations. The embedment ratio (u/D ) is generally
BCR
Figure 11 shows the relation of BCR to the number of
reinforcement layers, N, obtained using the program Plaxis
and the model tests (Test series III reported by Yildiz
2002). For the analyses, the values of r/R, u/D, h/D and
1.05 1.20 BR /D were kept constant at 0.30, 0.30, 0.30 and 5,
respectively, as in the tests. It can be seen from Figure 11
that excellent agreement is found between the results of
the experimental study and the FE modelling. The results
show that a sharp increase in bearing capacity was
observed as the number of layers increased up to four.
However, the addition of more than four layers of
reinforcement (Nopt ) did not contribute much to bearing
capacity improvement (corresponding to a reinforcement
depth of approximately 1.2D ).
In addition, the influence of the depth ratio of reinforce-
ment (d/D ) was also investigated. Figure 12 shows the
relation of BCR with d/D obtained using the ultimate
bearing capacity values from the tests and the FE analysis.
In the analyses, the depth of the first reinforcement layer
and the vertical spacing between the reinforcement layers
were kept constant at 0.30D. As can be seen, the BCR
values obtained from the tests and the FE analysis are in
very good agreement. The bearing capacity of the founda-
4.0
Model test
FE analysis (PLAXIS)
Bearing capacity ratio, BCR

recommended to be in the range 0.2–0.4. Singh (1988), 3.0

based on his study of square footings on sands reinforced

Nopt
with mild steel grids, indicated that the optimum depth of
2.0
the first reinforcement layer was about 0.25B for both
single-layer and multi-layer reinforced sands. Omar et al.
(1993b) proposed that the maximum depth of placement 1.0
of the first layer of geogrid should be less than about B to
take advantage of reinforcement for strip and square
foundations supported by sand reinforced with geogrid 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
layers. Yetimoglu et al. (1994) obtained an optimum Number of reinforcement layers, N
embedment depth for the first reinforcement layer of 0.30
of the footing width for single-layer reinforced sand, Figure 11. Relationship between BCR and N
whereas for multi-layer reinforced sand this value was
0.25 for rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. 4.0
Adams and Collin (1997) found that the BCR value Model test
Bearing capacity ratio, BCR

increased significantly when the depth of the top layer of FE analysis (PLAXIS)
3.0
reinforcement was less than 0.50B for geosynthetic re-
inforcement placed below shallow spread footings. The (d/D)crt
maximum improvement in bearing capacity occurs when 2.0
the depth to the top layer of reinforcement is within a
depth of 0.25B from the bottom of the footing. Based on
1.0
the experimental and numerical studies for circular foot-
ings on reinforced sand, Boushehrian and Hataf (2003)
proposed that the maximum bearing capacity occurs at 0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
different values of u/DO and z/DO depending on the Reinforcement depth ratio, d/D
number of reinforcement layers. Alawaji (2001) investi-
gated the potential benefits of geogrid-reinforced sand Figure 12. Relationship between BCR and d/D
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
60
tion bed increases with increase in d/D up to (d/D )opt . The
optimum value of d/D was found to be about 1.2. The
reinforcement layers located beyond a depth of about 1.2D
did not contribute to the considerable increase in the
bearing capacity.
Both the experimental and FE studies indicated that there
was an effective placement zone for which the bearing
capacity was at its highest, depending on the number of
reinforcement layers, the distance between the first layer of
reinforcement and base of the footing, and the vertical
spacing between the reinforcement layers for a given soil.
Akinmusuru and Akinbolade (1981) found the optimum
value of N to be 3 for square footings. Guido et al. (1986)
also found the optimum value of N to be 3 for square
footings. The effective depth of reinforcement (d ) is
generally recommended to be in the range 1.4B–2.0B.
Omar et al. (1993a) found that the critical depth of
reinforcement is about 2B for strip foundations and 1.4B
for square foundations. Yetimoglu et al. (1994) found that
the bearing capacity of reinforced sand increased with
reinforcement layer number and reinforcement size when
the reinforcement was placed within a certain effective
zone. The extent of the effective zone is approximately
1.5B from the bottom of the base and edges of the
rectangular footing.
4.5. Effect of size of reinforcement layers on BCR
Figure 13 shows the relation of BCR to the size of the
reinforcement layer, BR /D, obtained using the program
Plaxis and the model tests (Test series IV reported by
Yildiz 2002). For the analyses, the values of r/R, u/D, h/D
and N were kept constant at 0.30, 0.30, 0.30 and 4,
respectively, as in the tests. The results from the FE
analysis are in very good agreement with the experimental
observations. It can be seen from Figure 13 that BCR
increases with increasing reinforcement layer size up to a
width of about 3D, after it remains relatively constant.
The optimum size of reinforcement layer, BR , is
generally recommended to be in the range 2B–8B. Singh
(1988) found the optimum value of the reinforcement size
ratio to be approximately 2 for square foundations on
geogrid-reinforced sand. Omar et al. (1993b) found that
4.0
Model test
FE analysis (PLAXIS)
Bearing capacity ratio, BCR
3.0
(BR/D)opt
2.0
1.0
0
0 1 2 3
Reinforcement length ratio, BR/D
Figure 13. Relationship between BCR and BR /D
Laman and Yildiz
the optimum size of the reinforcing geogrid layer was
about 8B for strip and 4.5B for square foundations. Omar
et al. (1993a) proposed that the optimum size of the
reinforcing geogrid layers will vary, based on the B/L ratio
of the rectangular foundation. Yetimoglu et al. (1994)
obtained the optimum size of reinforcement as 4.5 times
the rectangular footing width. For efficient and economic-
al reinforcement of sand pads over collapsible soil,
Alawaji (2001) proposed that the geogrid width be four
times the diameter of the loaded area (D ).
As seen from Figures 10–13, both the experimental and
FE studies indicated that, depending on the reinforcement
arrangement, the bearing capacity can be improved by up
to three times that of the unreinforced soil. In all the cited
studies, the BCR was generally found to be in the range
2–4, depending on the reinforcement arrangement.
The FEM generates an effective analysis and evaluation
of displacements, stress and forces in and around the
reinforcing elements, soil and foundation. Figures 14 and
15 show some typical examples of the resultant vertical
and horizontal displacement fields below the ring founda-
tion for unreinforced and reinforced cases at a loading
pressure q ¼ 200 kN/m2 (this value is very close to the
ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced sand). The
optimum values obtained were used in the reinforced
analysis. It can be seen that there is a clear reduction of
horizontal and vertical displacements for the reinforced
case compared with the unreinforced case. The reinforced
soil structure behaves as a rigid slab below the foundation,
and distributes the load into the underlying ground. This
reduces the lateral and vertical displacements, resulting in
uniform settlement. Furthermore, interlocking between the
geogrid and the sand prevents lateral and vertical displace-
ments near the plate edge.
4.6. Effect of reinforcement stiffness on BCR
FE analyses were also conducted to investigate the effect
of axial rigidity (EA) of the geogrid reinforcement on
bearing capacity of ring foundation. For the analyses, the
values of r/R, u/D, h/D, N and BR /D were kept constant at
0.30, 0.30, 0.30, 4 and 5 respectively. Figure 16 shows the
relation of the bearing capacity to EA. The value of
bearing capacity increases with EA and appears to be
practically constant at 200 kN/m, which is much smaller
than the values of the geogrid used in this study. The
influence of reinforcement stiffness on the optimum num-
ber of reinforcement layers was also investigated. Three
different values of reinforcement stiffness (EA ¼ 25, 50
and 465 kN/m) were chosen in the calculations. Figure 17
shows the variation of the optimum number of geogrid
layers for different values of reinforcement stiffness. The
results of these analyses indicated that the optimum num-
ber of reinforcement layers was affected more by the
lower reinforcement stiffness values than the existing
reinforcement stiffness value which is 465 kN/m.
The research reported herein also included some addi-
4 5 6 tional tests with biaxial geogrid reinforcement to verify
whether the results obtained from the tests with uniaxial
geogrid reinforcement are similar to or different from
those with biaxial geogrid reinforcement. In the tests, the
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand 61

A A A A
0.250

0.000

⫺0.250

⫺0.500

⫺0.750

⫺1.000

⫺1.250

⫺1.500

⫺1.750

⫺2.000

⫺2.250

⫺2.500

⫺2.750

⫺3.000

⫺3.250

⫺3.500

⫺3.750

⫺4.000

⫺4.250

⫺4.500
Vertical displacements (Uy) Vertical displacements (Uy)
Extreme Uy ⫺ 4.36 ⫻ 10⫺3 m Extreme Uy ⫺ 2.72 ⫻ 10⫺3 m

Figure 14. Vertical displacement fields below ring foundations (q 200 kN/m2 )

values of r/R, u/D, N, h/D and BR /D were kept constant at
0, 0.30, 4, 0.30 and 3, respectively. Figure 18 shows
typical plots of vertical loading pressure against settlement
for biaxial and uniaxial geogrid reinforcement, together
with the results of an unreinforced soil test. The effect of
reinforcement on the bearing capacity and settlement
behaviour of sandy soil can clearly be seen. As the results
for reinforced sand are essentially similar, it can be
concluded that axial stiffness values of both biaxial and
uniaxial geogrid layers greater then 200 kN/m do not
affect the bearing capacity significantly. Similar results
were found by Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) and
Yetimoglu et al. (1994). Hence selecting a more rigid
reinforcement does not always lead to larger BCR values.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The ultimate bearing capacity of ring foundations sup-
ported by a sand bed with and without geogrid reinforce-
ment was investigated using the non-linear FE program
Plaxis, and by physical modelling. Based on this investiga-
tion the following main conclusions can be drawn.
Numerical analyses, using an elasto-plastic hyperbolic
model (hardening soil model), incorporating parameters
derived from drained triaxial tests, gave results that closely
match those from physical model tests. Therefore the
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
bearing capacity values for ring foundations can be im-
proved by up to three times that of the unreinforced case,
depending on the reinforcement geogrid arrangement.
The optimum location of the first geogrid layer to
obtain maximum benefit from the reinforcement is about
0.3D below the bottom of the ring foundation. The
optimum number of layers of reinforcement is found to be
4, and the optimum size of the reinforcement layers is 3D.
Hence there is an effective zone within the stress bulb
below the foundation in which the reinforcement layers
should be located to increase bearing capacity signifi-
cantly. The depth of this effective zone is about 1.2D from
the bottom of the foundation, and its size is about 3D for
ring foundations.
From the numerical studies carried out, it was noted
that the value of bearing capacity increases with reinforce-
ment stiffness, and appears to be practically constant
beyond a critical value, depending on the reinforcement
arrangement and soil properties. The optimum values to
obtain the maximum BCR are sensitive to geogrid reinfor-
cement layers with stiffness values less than the critical
value. The critical rigidity was 200 kN/m in this study. It
was also concluded that the optimum values are not
improved by increasing the number of rigid geogrid
reinforcement layers.
The results of numerical modelling have shown that
62 Laman and Yildiz
[*10⫺3 m]
A A A A
1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

⫺0.100

⫺0.200

Horizontal displacements (Ux) Horizontal displacements (Ux)

Extreme Ux 908.12 ⫻ 10⫺6 m Extreme Ux 370.67 ⫻ 10⫺6 m

Figure 15. Horizontal displacement fields below ring foundations (q 200 kN/m2 )

800 3.5
Ultimate bearing capacity, qu (kN/m2)

700 EA ⫽ 465 kN/m

EA ⫽ 50 kN/m
600
3.0 EA ⫽ 25 kN/m
500 Nopt
400
BCR

300 2.5
Nopt
200

100
2.0
0 Nopt
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Axial rigidity, EA (kN/m)

Figure 16. Relationship between bearing capacity and axial 1.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
rigidity of geogrid N

Figure 17. Effect of reinforcement stiffness on optimum

quantitative results are sensitive to the magnitude of the number of reinforcement layers
stiffness of the reinforcement assumed. This highlights the
need to use appropriately scaled reinforcement stiffness
properties in physical tests to ensure that reduced-scale embedment. This study provides a better understanding of
models are not over-reinforced. the reinforcement mechanisms for shallow foundations on
It is proposed that the FE program Plaxis can be used to geogrid-reinforced sand. A more exhaustive investigation,
design reinforced soils in an efficient and accurate preferably including field testing, is required to confirm
manner, provided suitable material properties are used. that the above conclusions apply to field-scale founda-
The foregoing conclusions apply to shallow depths of tions.
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Numerical studies of ring foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand 63
0
q loading pressure (N/m2 )
Biaxial geogrid
1 q0 ultimate bearing capacity for unreinforced sand
Uniaxial geogrid
Unreinforced (N/m2 )
Settlement ratio, s/D (%)

2 qr ultimate bearing capacity for reinforced sand

(N/m2 )
3
R outer radius of ring foundation (m)
4 Rf failure ratio (dimensionless)
r inner radius of ring foundation (m)
5 r/R ring width ratio (dimensionless)
s settlement of foundation (m)
6
W width of test tank (m)
7 ªn unit weight (N/m3 )
0 200 400 600 800 1000  Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless)
Loading pressure, q (kN/m2)

angle of internal friction (degrees)
ł dilatancy angle (degrees)
Figure 18. Curves of settlement ratio versus loading pressure

Future research should investigate three-dimensional REFERENCES

effects on reinforced soil foundation systems and the Abdel-Baki, M. S. & Raymond, G. P. (1994). Reduction of settlement
influence of more sophisticated soil models to represent using soil geosynthetic reinforcement. Vertical and Horizontal
the sand in numerical simulations. Different soils should Deformations of Foundations and Embankments, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp.
525–537.
also be evaluated to see whether the trends observed in Adams, M. T. & Collin, J. G. (1997). Large model spread footing load
this study apply to other soils. tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundation. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 123, No. 1, 66–73.
Akinmusuru, J. O. & Akinbolade, J. A. (1981). Stability of loaded
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS footings on reinforced soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 107, No. 6, 819–827.
The authors thank the Cukurova University Scientific Alawaji, H. A. (2001). Settlement and bearing capacity of geogrid-
Research Project Directorate for supporting this study reinforced sand over collapsible soil. Geotextiles and Geomem-
(Project no: FBE.99.D8). branes, 19, No. 2, 75–88.
Binquet, J. & Lee, K. L. (1975). Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 101, No.
NOTATIONS 12, 1241–1255.
Boushehrian, J. H. & Hataf, N. (2003). Experimental and numerical
Basic SI units are given in parentheses. investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring
footings on reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 21,
B breadth of foundation (m) No. 4, 241–256.
BCR bearing capacity ratio (dimensionless) Brinkgreve, R. B. J. & Vermeer, P. A. (1998). Finite Element Code for
Soil and Rock Analyses. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
BR reinforcement size (m) Chandrashekhara, K., Antony, S. J. & Mondal, D. (1998). Semi-analytical
Cc coefficient of curvature (dimensionless) finite element analysis of a strip footing on an elastic reinforced
Cu coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless) soil. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 22, No. 4–5, 331–349.
c cohesion (N/m2 ) Das, B. M., Shin, E. C. & Omar, M. T. (1994). The bearing capacity of
D diameter of foundation (m) surface strip foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand and clay: a
comparative study. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 12,
DO outer diameter of ring foundation (m) No. 1, 1–14.
Dr relative density (dimensionless) Duncan, M. & Chang, C. Y. (1970). Nonlinear analysis of stress and
D10 effective size of sand particles (dimensionless) strain in soil. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, ASCE,
d reinforcement depth (m) 96, No. 5, 1629–1653.
Fragaszy, R. J. & Lawton, E. (1984). Bearing capacity of reinforced sand
EA axial stiffness of geogrid reinforcement (N/m)
subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
E50 secant stiffness (N/m2 ) 110, No. 10, 1500–1507.
Eoed oedometer stiffness (N/m2 ) Guido, V. A., Chang, D. K. & Sweeny, M. A. (1986). Comparison of
Eur unloading–reloading stiffness (N/m2 ) geogrid and geotextile reinforced slabs. Canadian Geotechnical
H height of test tank (m) Journal, 23, No. 4, 435–440.
h vertical distance between reinforcement layers (m) Hataf, N. & Razavi, M. R. (2003). Behavior of ring footing on sand.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transaction B, 27,
L length of test tank (m) 47–56.
K0 coefficient of lateral earth pressure Huang, C. C. & Tatsuoka, K. (1990). Bearing capacity of reinforced
(dimensionless) horizontal sandy ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9, No. 1,
m coefficient (dimensionless) 51–82.
N number of reinforcement layers (dimensionless) Ismael, N. F. (1996). Loading tests on circular and ring plates in very
dense cemented sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
u depth of first reinforcement layer (m) 122, No. 4, 281–287.
pref reference stress for stiffness (N/m2 ) Ismail, I. & Raymond, G. P. (1995). Geosynthetic reinforcement of
Q load (N) granular layered soil. In Proceedings of Geosynthetics’95 Con-

Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2

64
ference, Nashville, TN. Industrial Fabrics Association International,
Roseville, MN, USA, vol. 1, pp. 317–330.
Khing, K. H., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K., Cook, E. E. & Yen, S. C. (1993).
The bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced
sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12, No. 4, 351–361.
Kurian, N., Beena, K. S. & Kumar, R. K. (1997). Settlement of reinforced
sand in foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 123, No.
9, 818–827.
Laman, M. & Yildiz, A. (2003). Model studies of ring foundations on
geogrid-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics International, 10, No. 5,
142–152.
Long, P. V. (1997). Behavior of Geotextile Reinforced Embankment on
Soft Ground. Doctoral Dissertation No. GE-96–1, Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Long, P. V., Bergado, D. T. & Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1997). Localized
mobilization of geotextile reinforcement force at failure surface.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, pp. 1761–1764.
Ohri, M. L., Purhit, D. G. M. & Dubey, M. L. (1997). Behavior of ring
footings on dune sand overlaying dense sand. Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Civil Engineering, Tehran, Iran,
vol. 2, pp. 268–277.
Omar, M. T., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K. & Yen, S. C. (1993a). Ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid-
reinforcement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30, No. 3, 545–549.
Omar, M. T., Das, B. M., Yen, S. C., Puri, V. K. & Cook, E. E. (1993b).
Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16, No. 2, 246–252.
Otani, J., Ochiai, H. & Yamamoto K. (1998). Bearing capacity analysis of
reinforced foundation on cohesive soil. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 16, No. 4, 195–206.
Patra, C. R., Das, B. M. & Atalar, C. (2005). Bearing capacity of
The Editors welcome discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 October 2007.
Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 2
Laman and Yildiz
embedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 23, No. 5, 454–462.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A. & Bonnier, P. G. (1999). The hardening
soil model: formulation and verification. Beyond 2000 in
Computational Geotechnics, A. A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam,
pp. 281–296.
Shin, E. C. & Das, B. M. (2000). Experimental study of bearing capacity
of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics
International, 7, No. 1, 59–71.
Singh, H. R. (1988). Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Soil Beds. PhD
thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Soleimanbeigi, A. & Hataf, N. (2005). Predicting ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on reinforced cohesionless soils
using artificial neural networks. Geosynthetics International, 12,
No. 6, 321–332.
Soleimanbeigi, A. & Hataf, N. (2006). Prediction of settlement of
shallow foundations on reinforced soils using neural networks.
Geosynthetics International, 13, No. 4, 1–10.
Vermeer, P. A., Punlor, A. & Ruse, N. (2001). Arching effects behind a
soldier pile wall. Computers and Geotechnics, 28, No. 6–7, 379–
396.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99,
No. 1, 45–73.
Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J. T. H. & Saglamer, A. (1994). Bearing capacity of
rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120, No. 12, 2083–2099.
Yildiz, A. (2002). Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Geogrid-
Reinforced Sand. PhD thesis, University of Cukurova, Turkey.
Yoo, C. (2001). Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behaviour of
strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 19, No. 5, 279–298.