Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Submitted: 20 April 2018
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 01 March 2019
Manuscript title: Experimental and numerical studies of a strip footing on geosynthetic-
reinforced sand
Authors: Youwei Xu1,2, Guanxi Yan1, David J. Williams1, Mehdi Serati1, Alexander
Scheuermann1 and Timothy Vangsness1
Affiliations: 1School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia and 2UWE Global Pty Ltd, Shenzhen, China
Corresponding author: Youwei Xu, School of Civil Engineering, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Tel.: +61412158918.
E-mail: youwei.xu@uq.edu.au; ceo@uweglobal.com

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Abstract

The behaviour of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced soils has been investigated by many researchers through

experimental and numerical modelling under stress-controlled or strain-controlled conditions. It is believed that

stress-controlled tests better represent the field conditions because the load applied to the footing increases as

the super structure is being built. Therefore, a new experimental set-up was designed under a stress-controlled

condition, with the application of particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique. A series of model footing tests

were carried out using this equipment to investigate the behaviour of the geosynthetic-reinforced soil below a

strip footing. The deformation inside the soil mass below the strip footing was determined using the PIV

technique. The reinforcing performances of the single-layer and multi-layer geotextile and geogrid embedded at

different depths were compared and discussed by analysing the load-settlement curves. The optimum

embedment depth for the single-layer geosynthetic reinforcement is in the vicinity of 0.4B. It is found that there

is a stepwise increase phenomenon in settlement under the stress-controlled condition. The ultimate bearing

capacities were determined from the obtained stepwise load-settlement curves using three approaches, including

the tangent intersection method, the tail linear method and the allowable settlement method. The three

approaches were coded in a Python program in order to easily determine and compare the results. In addition,

the experimental model footing tests were simulated using the finite element method (FEM) under the same

stress-condition condition with good agreement for a settlement range within 0.1B.

Keywords: geosynthetics; particle image velocimetry; local/punching shear failure; stress-controlled; strip

footing; ultimate bearing capacity

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
1 Introduction

The geosynthetic reinforcing technique has been successfully adopted as a cost-effective

solution to improve bearing capacity and reduce settlement of the soils below foundation. In
the past two decades, many experimental, numerical and analytical studies have been carried
out to study the behaviour of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced soils (Yetimoglu et al.,
1994; Adams and Collin, 1997; Shin et al., 2002; Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003;Abu-Farsakh
et al., 2013; Chen and Abu-Farsakh, 2015; Mosallanezhad et al., 2016; Nasr and Azzam
2016). Several key parameters that may influence the reinforcing performance had been
studied, mainly including the number of reinforcement layers, the spacing between
reinforcement layers, the depth to the first reinforcement layer, the size of reinforcement, the
type of geosynthetic reinforcement, the tensile modulus of geosynthetic, the embedment
depth, the shape of the footing and the soil density. The previous studies have indicated that
there is an optimum embedment depth (0.25B~0.5B) for the first layer of reinforcement, and
there appeared to be an optimum reinforcement spacing (0.15B~0.2B) for the multi-layer
reinforcements (Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Adams and Collin, 1997; Shin et al., 2002; Basudhar
et al., 2007; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2013). The effective influencing depth of the footing load is
within 1.0B~2.0B, and the effective length of the geosynthetic is between 6.0B and 8.0B
(Omar et al., 1993; Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Adams and Collin, 1997; Basudhar et al., 2007;
Latha and Somwanshi, 2009; Ahmadi and Hajialilue-Bonab, 2012; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2013).
Both strain-controlled and stress-controlled tests are commonly used in geotechnical testing,
such as direct shear and triaxial tests (Murthy, 2002). A strain-controlled test is carried out by
applying a constant rate of displacement (strain) throughout the test and measuring the
applied load (stress), while a stress-controlled test is carried out by applying a constant rate of
load (stress) throughout the test and measuring the induced displacement (strain). The typical
stress-strain curve obtained from a strain-controlled test normally shows that the stress
increases with the strain until a peak stress is reached. And then, after the peak, a significant
reduction in stress is observed at a larger strain. Thus, both the peak and ultimate strengths
could be obtained from a strain-controlled test. By contrast, the stress-strain curve obtained
from a stress-controlled test normally shows that stress continually increases with the strain
without a peak, with only an ultimate strength obtained.
Some researchers chose to carry out the strain-controlled model footing tests at a constant
rate of displacement (Shin et al., 2002; Ahmadi and Hajialilue-Bonab, 2012; Abu-Farsakh et
al., 2013). Some researchers chose the stress-controlled model tests using a hand-operated
hydraulic jack; however, it was difficult to control the stress rate by hand operation (Omar et
al., 1993; Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Lee and Manjunath, 2000; Biswas and Krishna 2017).
Choosing stress-controlled conditions in model tests can better represent the loading
conditions in the field. This is because an increasing load is applied to the foundation as the
super structure is being constructed, resulting in an increasing settlement.
Furthermore, conventional model footing tests can merely provide the settlement of the
footing or the surface settlement of the soil by installing linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) on the surface of the footing and the adjacent soil. The particle image
velocimetry (PIV) is a new technique applied to geotechnical testing to measure the soil
deformation inside the soil mass using digital cameras (White et al., 2003; Ahmadi and
Hajialilue-Bonab, 2012; Mirzababaei et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Moghadam et al., 2018).
Therefore, in this study, a series of model strip footing tests was carried out on geosynthetic-
reinforced sand under stress-controlled conditions to investigate the load-settlement
responses and bearing capacities. PIV technique was applied in the experiment to analyse the

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
soil deformation inside the soil mass during the loading process. Finally, finite element
method (FEM) was applied to simulate the experimental model strip footing tests in order to
provide more insight into the stress and deformation inside the soil mass. The numerical FEM
results obtained were compared with the experimental PIV results.
2 Materials used

2.1 Sand

An air-dry fine sand was used below the strip footing. Geotechnical characterisation tests
were carried out on the sand in the laboratory, including sieve analysis, specific gravity test,
maximum and minimum density tests and direct shear tests. The sand was classified as a
poorly graded sand (SP) by the Uniform Soil Classification System (USCS), with the grain
size ranging between 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm. The maximum and minimum dry densities
determined by using a vibratory table and funnel method respectively are 1734 kg/m3 and
1582 kg/m3. In this study, the sand was loosely placed into the model tank in order to control
the same initial density condition, which results in an approximate density of 1620 kg/m3 (Dr
≈ 27%). The sand has a friction angle of 31° determined by the direct shear tests. In
summary, all the basic parameters of the sand are shown in Table 1.
2.2 Geogrid and geotextile

The geosynthetics used as reinforcements in the model footing tests include a woven
polypropylene geotextile (HP340) and a biaxial geogrid (GX40/40). The aperture size of the
geogrid GX40/40 is 25 mm by 25 mm. The geogrid and geotextile have the same ultimate
tensile strength (40 kN/m) to ensure the comparability of the test results. The basic properties
of the two geosynthetics are summarised in Table 2. More information about the geosynthetic
materials used in this study could be found in the previously published papers (Xu et al.,
2018a, b, c).
3 Methodologies

3.1 Experimental study

3.1.1 Experimental set-up

Figure 1 shows the schematic design of a strip footing (width B=50 mm, with an approximate
scale of 1:10) resting on the sand with the inclusion of the geosynthetic reinforcements at
different depths (0.2B, 0.4B and 0.6B). Figure 2 shows the experimental set-up of the model
tank in the laboratory. The tank used for the model footing tests has a length of 1220 mm, a
height of 450 mm and a width of 100 mm. The front side of the tank is transparent for
measuring the deformation below the footing using the particle image velocimetry (PIV)
technique. The markers embedded in the sand were captured by a Kodak DC280 camera with
1760 × 1178 pixel resolution (Figure 2a). The strip footing has a width of 50 mm, a thickness
of 20 mm and a length of 99.6 mm. The length of the strip footing is almost equal to the
width of the tank to model the plane strain condition in the laboratory. The load was applied
by a lever loading yoke to the strip footing, and a linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) was used to measure the induced settlement of the footing caused by loading.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
3.1.2 Marker installation

Conventional laboratory model footing tests can only measure the surface settlement of the
soil by placing LVDTs on the top of the footing and the adjacent soil. This experimental set-
up with a transparent wall is able to measure the deformation inside the soil mass using the
PIV technique. Figure 3 shows the layout of the small markers installed in the sand in order
to help the camera capture the deformation of different locations below the footing. The
initial vertical spacing is 0.2B for the first two rows because they are close to the
geosynthetics. The spacing changes to 0.4B for the other rows. The horizontal spacing
between each marker is maintained at 0.4B. Therefore, an area of 4B by 2B below the footing
can be emphatically monitored by the camera using the PIV technique. Also highlighted in
Figure 3 are the four vertical (A, Ab1, Ab2 and Ab3) and seven horizontal markers (Al3, Al2,
Al1, A, Al1, Al2 and Al3). The horizontal and vertical displacements of these two groups of
highlighted locations were determined using the PIV technique and compared with the FEM
results in this paper.
3.1.3 Loading method

The model tests were carried out under stress-controlled conditions by increasing the load on
the strip footing. Preliminary trial tests showed that manually adding dead weights might
cause a sudden failure of the footing, and the relationship between the load and settlement
obtained was not a continuous curve. Considering the drawbacks of this loading method by
placing dead weights, a new loading method using the weight of the sand was proposed and
detailed herein. As shown in Figure 2(b), a bucket filled with sand was sitting on the top of
the tank (Bucket 1), and a small hole (Diameter =6.35 mm) was drilled at the bottom edge of
the bucket and temporarily blocked by a piece of plastic tape. Another empty bucket (Bucket
2) was hanging under the lever arm. After removing the plastic tape, the sand in Bucket 1
would flow into Bucket 2 via a long funnel. In this way, a small load increment would be
applied to the strip footing gradually. The applied load was increased with the increasing
weight of sand in Bucket 2. This loading method was carefully calibrated before carrying out
the model footing tests. Therefore, the stress-controlled condition was ensured and
maintained throughout the tests in this study.
3.1.4 Testing program

To study the behaviour of the strip footing on the geosynthetic-reinforced soil under the
stress-controlled condition, the following three groups of model strip footing tests were
carried out using the experimental set-up and loading method described previously,
including:
(1) Group 1: Sand without reinforcement;

(2) Group 2: Sand with single-layer reinforcement (geotextile HP340 or geogrid

GX40/40) embedded at different depths (0.2B, 0.4B and 0.6B);

(3) Group 3: Sand with multi-layer geotextile reinforcement (geotextile HP340)

embedded at different depths (0.2B+0.4B, 0.4B+0.6B and 0.2B+0.4B+0.6B).

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
3.2 Numerical study

Finite element method (FEM) was applied to simulate the experimental model strip footing
tests, and then the results of the FEM results were compared with the experimental results.
The geometry and boundary conditions of the numerical model were maintained the same as
within the experiment. The three dimensions x, y, z were all constrained for the bottom
boundary. The left and right boundaries were constrained in the x and z direction so that the
free settlement was allowed. The front and back boundaries were constrained only in the z
direction in order to allow the soil to deform vertically and horizontally, representing a plain
strain condition. The soil was modelled using a 3D deformable solid with the elasto-plastic
constitutive Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model (element type C3D8R). The geotextile HP340 was
modelled using the planar shell “Membrane Elements” (element type M3D4R), and the
geogrid GX40/40 was modelled using the planar wire “Truss Elements” (element type
T3D2). The elastic model was selected for the geotextile and geogrid due to the high tensile
strengths. The interaction between the soil and the geosynthetics was simulated by the
constraint type “Embedded Region”, representing the geosynthetic embedded in the soil. The
mesh refinement was conducted in the vicinity of the loading area under the footing to
improve the accuracy of the numerical solution. The sensitivity analyses of different mesh
sizes were performed to find the most suitable mesh arrangement considering both the
solution convergence and the computational time. The horizontal displacement U1
(displacement in the x direction) of the loading area was restrained to zero, representing the
rough contact between the footing and the soil. The footing settlement was obtained from the
vertical displacement U2 (displacement in the y direction) of the middlemost node beneath
the footing during the loading process. The FEM simulations were also conducted under
stress-controlled conditions by applying a pressure to the footing area. The basic model
parameters of the sand and geosynthetics used in the FEM simulation are shown in Table 3.
3.3 Interpretations

3.3.1 Ultimate bearing capacity

The ultimate bearing capacity (qu) is defined as the load per unit area of the foundation at
which the shear failure occurs in soil (Das, 2010). For a model footing test on a dense soil
under a strain-controlled condition, a general shear failure typically occurs with an obvious
peak in the load-settlement curve. This peak was classified as the ultimate bearing capacity.
However, for the model footing tests carried out under stress-controlled conditions, there
tended to be no peak reached, with a punching or local shear failure occurring in the stress-
controlled experiment.
There are three approaches available in literature to determine the ultimate bearing capacity
from the load-settlement curves without a definite peak. The most commonly used method is
the tangent intersection method (Adams and Collin, 1997; Lee and Manjunath, 2000;
Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003; Nasr and Azzam 2016). This method illustrates that the two
tangent lines are drawn from the initial and end points of the load-settlement curve, and the
point of the intersection of the two tangents is extended back to the load-axis to determine the
ultimate bearing capacity. The second method is the tail linear method (Vesić, 2002; Omar et
al., 1993; Yetimoglu et al., 1994; El Sawwaf, 2007; Das, 2010; Mosallanezhad et al., 2016).
The ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the point where the load-settlement plot becomes
practically linear (or reaching a constant rate of settlement). At this point, the soil is believed

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
to have reached its capacity. The last method is the allowable settlement method (Latha and
Somwanshi, 2009; Tafreshi and Dawson, 2010). The ultimate bearing capacity is determined
as the point where settlement reaches a certain allowable value, with examples such as 5%B,
10%B, or 15%B.
3.3.2 BCR and SRF

The increase in ultimate bearing capacity due to the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement
can be expressed in terms of a non-dimensional parameter called the bearing capacity ratio
(BCR), which is the ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity of a footing on the reinforced soil
to that on the unreinforced soil:
q
BCR  u ( R ) (1)
qu
where the BCR is the bearing capacity ratio; qu(R) and qu are the ultimate bearing capacities of
the footing on the reinforced and the unreinforced soil.
The reduction in settlement due to the inclusion of the geosynthetic reinforcement is defined
as the settlement reduction factor (SRF), which is the ratio of the settlement of the footing on
the reinforced soil to that on the unreinforced soil at a specific load:
s( R )
SRF  (2)
s
where the SRF is the settlement reduction factor; S(R) and S are the settlement of the footing
on the reinforced and the unreinforced soil.
4 Experimental results and discussion

4.1 Sand without reinforcement

The strip footing model tests on sand without reinforcement were carried out twice to check
the repeatability of the experimental set-up. It was found that the load-settlement curves
obtained from the two individual tests matched closely, indicating that the experimental set-
up and loading method are reliable and repeatable. The results obtained for sand without
reinforcement (Group 1) are used as the basis for the analyses and comparisons with the
results for the geosynthetic-reinforced sand with different configurations (Groups 2 and 3).
4.2 Sand with single-layer reinforcement

Figure 4 compares the results of the sand without reinforcement and the sand with a single
layer of geosynthetic reinforcement at different depths (0.2B, 0.4B and 0.6B). It was found
that the obtained bearing capacity was the highest for the single-layer reinforcement (either
geotextile or geogrid) embedded at 0.4B below the strip footing, indicating the optimum
embedment depth is in the vicinity of 0.4B. By contrast, some previous studies suggested that
there is an optimum embedment depth ranging from 0.25B to 0.5B (Yetimoglu et al., 1994;
Adams and Collin, 1997; Shin et al., 2002; Basudhar et al., 2007; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2013).
This is likely because the geosynthetic reinforcement embedded at 0.4B was able to mobilise
a higher tensile stress under the load, leading to a reduction in the settlement of the footing. It
was also found that the results obtained for the geosynthetics embedded at 0.2B and 0.6B are
very close, as shown in Figure 4. The load-settlement curves show that the settlement of the
footing steadily increases with the applied load in the earlier stage (within 5%B). After that,
the settlement of the footing shows a clear stepwise increase under the stress-controlled

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
condition. The stepwise phenomenon indicates that a small load increment cannot cause an
obvious settlement. When the load is increased to a certain value, it will then result in a
sudden settlement.
This stepwise settlement phenomenon noticed in the experiment has not been detailed in the
literature; therefore, it is reported in this paper, with a possible explanation. It was observed
that for small load increments of less than 5 kPa, there were no obvious increases in
settlement. However, once the load exceeded 5 kPa, sudden settlements were observed. After
an increase in settlement, again a load of greater than 5 kPa was required to cause further
settlement. Consequently, a series of sudden stepwise increase in settlement of the strip
footing continually occurred under the linearly increasing stress-controlled condition. This
phenomenon described above was found to be called “sudden jerks” by Das (2010) in the
local shear failure of foundations. Das (2010) summarised that there are three types of failure
modes in soils for shallow foundations, namely the general shear failure for a dense sand or
stiff cohesive soil, the local shear failure for a sand or clayed soil of medium compaction, and
the punching shear failure for a fairly loose soil. As the sand was initially loosely-placed in
this study, it was believed that the punching shear failure occurred first; when the sand
became denser after a larger settlement of over 5%B, the local shear failure occurred in the
later stages under the stress-controlled condition. Therefore, there was no peak in the load-
settlement curves obtained.
This failure mode with a stepwise phenomenon noticed could be interpreted from an energy
perspective. That is, the potential energy inside the soil mass gradually accumulated as the
applied load increased without significant settlement. When the potential energy in the soil
mass accumulated to a certain value beyond a limit equilibrium state, the potential energy of
the soil particles was converted into kinetic energy, resulting in an obvious settlement of the
footing. After settlement, a new limit equilibrium state was reached, allowing the sand to
store more energy due to an increased packing density.
Figure 5 compares the performance of the single-layer geotextile and geogrid embedded at
the same depths. It was found that the geotextile had a better performance than the geogrid.
This is probably because the aperture size (25 mm by 25 mm) of the geogrid is over 50 times
larger than the average particle size (D50=0.48 mm) of the fine sand, resulting in poor
interlocking and interaction between the sand and the geogrid. However, the continuous
geotextile sheet was contacted with the sand on the whole area, providing a better
performance. The load-settlement curves obtained by Abu-Farsakh et al. (2013) also show a
similar finding. Overall, the sand reinforced with single-layer geosynthetic (either geotextile
or geogrid) at different depths all performed much better than the unreinforced case.
4.3 Sand with multi-layer reinforcement

Figure 6 shows the load-settlement curves for the sand reinforced with the multi-layer
geotextile. It is evident that the sand reinforced with three layers of geotextile (at
0.2B+0.4B+0.6B) was able to bear the highest load. The results of the sand with double-layer
reinforcement (either at 0.2B+0.4B or 0.4B+0.6B) were similar to the results of the sand with
only a single-layer geotextile at the optimum depth of 0.4B. After the settlement exceeded
20%B (10 mm), the sand with double-layer reinforcement could bear more load than the sand
with single-layer reinforcement. This is because the double-layer geotextile would produce a
higher tension (membrane effect) at a large deformation, increasing the ultimate bearing
capacity. As the allowable settlement of the footing is very strict in design in order to protect
the safety of the super structure, the benefits of the double-layer reinforcement are not
significant within an allowable settlement of 20%B.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
4.4 Ultimate bearing capacity

In the present study, it is believed that the punching and local shear failure occurred in the
geosynthetic-reinforced sand under the linearly increasing stress-controlled conditions. As
shown in Figures 4-6, there was no peak occurring in the load-settlement curves. The
settlement continued to increase with the increasing applied load. Therefore, the three
approaches mentioned previously were adopted to determine the ultimate bearing capacity.
As the stepwise load-settlement curves were obtained under the stress-controlled condition
(instead of smooth curves), it is challenging to adopt the tangent intersection method and tail
linear method when it comes to determine the two tangent lines and the tail linear line.
Therefore, the mathematical methods for the three approaches adopted in this study are
presented in detail as follows:
(1) Tangent intersection method: the polynomial regression was adopted to represent the
experimental data, and then the two tangent lines were drawn from the initial and the end
points of the best-fit curve. Finally, the coordinate of the point of intersection of the two
tangents was calculated. The corresponding load at this point of intersection was taken as the
ultimate bearing capacity qu, as shown in Figure 7.
(2) Tail linear method: the polynomial regression was first adopted to represent the
experimental data, and then a best-fit linear line for the last portion of the stepwise
experimental data was obtained. Finally, the coordinate of the point of intersection of the
best-fit tail linear line and the best-fit polynomial curve was calculated. The load
corresponding to the first point of intersection (there maybe two points of intersection) was
taken as the ultimate bearing capacity qu, as shown in Figure 7.
(3) Allowable settlement method: the polynomial regression was adopted to represent the
experimental data, and then the best-fit polynomial equation obtained was used to calculate
the corresponding loads for the settlement of 5%B, 10%B and 15%B respectively. These
loads were taken as the ultimate bearing capacity qu at different allowable settlement values,
as shown in Figure 7.
The three methods mentioned above were programmed in Python, and an example
calculation for the test with the geotextile embedded at the optimum depth of 0.4B is shown
in Figure 7. Table 4 shows all the ultimate bearing capacities calculated using the three
approaches coded in a Python program. Also shown in Table 4 are the corresponding BCRs
calculated using Eq. (1). It is evident that the optimum embedment depth for the
geosynthetics is in the vicinity of 0.4B, and the geotextile performed better than the geogrid
in the model tests. The further improvement of the multi-layer reinforcements was not
significant compared to the results of the single-layer reinforcement embedded at the
optimum depth of 0.4B.
It was found that the ultimate bearing capacities determined by the tangent intersection
method are close to the results obtained by the allowable settlement method (s/B=5%). The
ultimate bearing capacities determined by the tail linear method are in good agreement with
the results obtained by the allowable settlement method (s/B=15%) for a larger allowable
settlement case. Since a strip footing is usually not allowed to have an excessive settlement, it
is recommended that the tangent intersection method is the most suitable method to
determine the ultimate bearing capacity for the load-settlement curves without a peak, such as
the local and punching shear failure. In addition, the allowable settlement method is an easier
and faster alternative to determine the target bearing capacity for different allowable
settlement values.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
It was found that SRFs decreased dramatically with the increasing load under stress-
controlled conditions. It should be noted that the SRF should be theoretically lower than 1
due to the effect of reinforcement. However, some of SRFs calculated at the lower pressure
of 15 kPa are abnormal. This is likely due to the initial minor sample preparation difference
(most noticeable for the case with geogrid at 0.6B). When loading up to 40 kPa, representing
the approximate ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced sand, the induced settlement
for the geosynthetic-reinforced sand has been reduced by 15%-35%, as shown in Tables 5
and 6.
5 Numerical results and discussion

5.1 Finite element results

Due to the length limit of this paper, only some typical FEM results are presented herein.
Figure 8 shows the deformed finite element mesh of the geotextile and geogrid embedded at
the optimum depth of 0.4B. Figure 9 shows the contour plots of the horizontal displacement,
vertical displacement and shear stress of the foundation soil for the geotextile embedded at
0.4B. It was found that the failure surface in the foundation soil model did not extend to the
ground surface. This proved again that the FEM simulation under the stress-controlled
condition also showed the local or punching shear failure. As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the
load only influences the soil within a distance of 2B horizontally from the middle of the
footing and 2B below the footing. It had little impact on the soil beyond a distance of 4B
from the footing. This could also be proven by the experimental observations of the pre-
located markers in the area of 4B by 2B below the footing (Figure 10).
5.2 Settlement of the four vertical markers along the central line

Figure 11 shows the load-settlement curves and the vertical displacements of the four vertical
markers (A, Ab1, Ab2 and Ab3) below the footing during the loading process (e.g. geotextile at
0.4B). The settlement had decreased by over 50% when comparing the settlement of the
markers A and Ab3, indicating that the influence of loading on the soil below 1.6B was
insignificant.
5.3 Horizontal and vertical displacement of the seven horizontal markers

Figure 12 shows the load-deformation curves of the seven horizontal markers (Al3, Al2, Al1,
A, Al1, Al2 and Al3) below the footing for the sand with geotextile embedded at the optimum
depth of 0.4B, as an example. As shown in Figure 12, the FEM simulation produced ideal
symmetric results with the equal vertical and horizontal displacements (opposite
sign/direction) for each pair of markers that have the same distance from the footing on the
left and right. Figure 13 compares the vertical and horizontal displacement during the loading
process for geotextile at 0.4B. It was found that the vertical displacement decreased
dramatically with an increasing distance from the footing. For example, the vertical
displacement of the two markers Al2 and Ar2, which located only 0.2B horizontally from the
edge of the footing, decreased by over 70% compared to the settlement of the middlemost
point A. The deformation had become insignificant for the markers Al3 and Ar3 at a distance
of 1.6B horizontally from the middle of the footing. In terms of the horizontal displacement,
the soil near the edge of the footing tended to have larger horizontal movement. Therefore,
reinforcing the soil near the edge of the footing may be able to further improve the bearing

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
capacity, which deserves further studies. A possible ground improvement suggestion would
be installing geosynthetic-reinforced sand columns near the edge of the footing.
6 Comparison between FEM and PIV results

6.1 Vertical and horizontal displacement of highlighted markers

Both the FEM and PIV technique can provide the deformation inside the soil mass. Figure 14
compares the FEM and PIV results of the vertical displacement of the four vertical markers
and the horizontal displacement of the seven horizontal markers for geotextile at 0.4B. As
shown in Figure 14, the FEM simulation underestimated the deformation that soils
experienced in the experiment. The influence of footing load on soil deformation was also
found to be insignificant when it is beyond a distance of 1.6B from the footing.
6.2 Load-settlement curves and ultimate bearing capacities

The load-settlement curves obtained from the FEM simulation were compared with the
experimental results, as shown in Figure 15 (e.g. geotextile at 0.4B). It was found that within
a small settlement range (0.1B=5 mm), the FEM results matched closely with the
experimental results. However, for the last half portion of the curves under the higher load,
the settlement calculated by the FEM was slightly lower than the real settlement obtained
from the experiment. The obtained ultimate bearing capacities using the tangent intersection
method for the FEM and experimental results were generally quite close.
7 Conclusion

A series of laboratory model strip footing tests was carried out to study the behaviour of soil
reinforced with single-layer and multi-layer geosynthetics under stress-controlled conditions.
The PIV technique was adopted to monitor the deformation inside the soil mass.
Furthermore, the FEM was applied to simulate the experimental model footing tests under the
same boundary and loading conditions. Based on the selected results presented in this paper,
the following main conclusions can be drawn:
(1) A stepwise behaviour in load-settlement curves was found under stress-controlled

conditions, showing punching and local shear failure.

(2) It is recommended that the tangent intersection method is the most suitable approach to

determine the ultimate bearing capacity from the load-settlement curves without a peak.

The allowable settlement method (s/B=5%) is an easier and faster alternative to determine

the target bearing capacity for different allowable settlement values.

(3) The geotextile had a better performance than the geogrid in the model footing tests. The

further improvement that the multi-layer reinforcements provided was not significant

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
compared to the result of the single-layer reinforcement embedded at the optimum depth

of 0.4B.

(4) The load-settlement curves obtained from the FEM results matched closely with the

experimental results within a small settlement range (0.1B). However, for a larger

settlement, the FEM underestimated the actual deformation.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
References

Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q and Sharma R (2013) An experimental evaluation of the behavior of

footings on geosyntheticreinforced sand. Soils and Foundations 53(2): 335–348.

Adams MT and Collin JG (1997) Large model spread footing load tests on geosynthetic

reinforced soil foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering 123(1): 66-72.

Ahmadi H and Hajialilue-Bonab M (2012) Experimental and analytical investigations on

bearing capacity of strip footing in reinforced sand backfills and flexible retaining

wall. Acta Geotechnica 7(4): 357-373.

Basudhar PK, Saha S and Deb K (2007) Circular footings resting on geotextile-reinforced

sand bed. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25(6): 377-384.

Biswas A and Krishna AM (2017) Behaviour of geocell–geogrid reinforced foundations on

clay subgrades of varying strengths. International Journal of Physical Modelling in

Geotechnics 1-14, doi: 10.1680/jphmg.17.00013.

Boushehrian JH and Hataf N (2003) Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing

capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand. Geotextiles and

Geomembranes 21(4): 241-256.

Chen Q and Abu-Farsakh M (2015) Ultimate bearing capacity analysis of strip footings on

reinforced soil foundation. Soils and Foundations 55(1): 74-85.

Das BM (2010) Principles of foundation engineering. Cengage Learning.

El Sawwaf MA (2007) Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay

slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25(1): 50-60.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Kim JH, Lee ST and Kim DS (2017) Observation of sand movement during bucket

installation. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 1-14, doi:

10.1680/jphmg.16.00048.

Latha GM and Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic

reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27(4): 281-294.

Lee KM and Manjunath VR (2000) Experimental and numerical studies of geosynthetic-

reinforced sand slopes loaded with a footing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37(4):

828-842.

Mirzababaei M, Mohamed M and Miraftab M (2017) Analysis of strip footings on fiber-

reinforced slopes with the aid of particle image velocimetry. Journal of Materials in

Civil Engineering 29(4): 04016243.

Moghadam MJ, Zad A, Mehrannia N and Dastaran N (2018) Experimental study of the

influence of the shape and configuration of plate anchors on retaining walls.

International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 1-49, doi:

10.1680/jphmg.17.00040.

Mosallanezhad M, Hataf N and Sadat Taghavi SH (2016) Experimental and large-scale field

tests of grid-anchor system performance in increasing the ultimate bearing capacity of

granular soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53(7): 1047-1058.

Murthy VNS (2002) Geotechnical engineering: Principles and practices of soil mechanics

and foundation engineering. Taylor & Francis.

Nasr AMA and Azzam WR (2016) Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip footings resting on

sand. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 17: 177-194, doi:

10.1680/jphmg.16.00008.

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Omar M, Das B, Yen S, Puri V and Cook E (1993) Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular

foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal 15(2): 246-

252.

Shin EC, Das BM, Lee ES and Atalar C (2002) Bearing capacity of strip foundation on

geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering 20(2): 169-180.

Tafreshi SNM and Dawson AR (2010) Comparison of bearing capacity of a strip footing on

sand with geocell and with planar forms of geotextile reinforcement. Geotextiles and

Geomembranes 28(1): 72-84.

Vesić AS (2002) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Journal of Soil

Mechanics and Foundations Division ASCE 94(SM3): 661–688

White DJ, Take WA and Bolton MD (2003) Soil deformation measurement using particle

image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Géotechnique 53(7): 619-631.

Xu Y, Williams DJ and Serati M (2018a) Influence of anchorage angles on pull-out

resistance of geotextile wrap around anchorage. Geosynthetics International 25(4):

378-391. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00022

Xu Y, Methiwala J, Williams DJ and Serati M (2018b) Strength and consolidation

characteristics of clay with geotextile encased sand column. Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement 171(3): 125-134.

https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.17.00070

Xu Y, Williams DJ and Serati M (2018c) Investigation of shear strength of interface between

roadbase and geosynthetics using large-scale single-stage and multi-stage direct shear

test. Road Materials and Pavement Design

https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.1561378

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Yetimoglu T, Wu JTH and Saglamer A (1994) Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on

geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120(12): 2083-2099.

Caption List of Tables

Table 1. Basic parameters of air-dry sand

Table 2. Basic properties of geosynthetics
Table 3. Basic model parameters used in FEM simulation
Table 4. Ultimate bearing capacities and BCRs calculated using three approaches
Table 5. SRFs for single-layer reinforcement
Table 6. SRFs for multi-layer reinforcements

Table 1. Basic parameters of air-dry sand

D50 D10
Sample Cu Cz Gs ρdmax (kg/m3) ρdmin (kg/m3) ϕ (°) USCS
(mm) (mm)
Sand 0.48 0.32 1.56 1.16 2.644 1734 1582 31 SP
Table 2. Basic properties of geosynthetics

Tensile Nominal Strain at Percentag

Apertur
Apertur Strengt thicknes maximu e of
Geosynthetics Polymer e size
e Shape h s m load opening
(mm)
(kN/m) (mm) (%) area (%)
Geogrid
Polyester Square 40 1 25×25 11 76.8
GX40/40
Polypropylen
Geotextile HP340 Woven 40 0.6 - 15 -
e
Table 3. Basic model parameters used in FEM simulation

Parameters Loose sand Gravel HP340 GX40/40

Young's Modulus, E (MPa) 2.5 20 500 500

Poisson’s Ratio, ν 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Density, γ (t/m3) 1.62 1.65 - -
Friction Angle, φ (°) 31 40 - -
Dilation Angle, ψ (°) 1 10 - -
Cohesion Yield Stress, c (kPa) 5 1 - -

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Table 4. Ultimate bearing capacities and BCRs calculated using three approaches

Tangent
Tail linear
Test intersection s/B=5% s/B=10% s/B=15%
meothod
method
qu B qu B qu B
qu BC
qu (kPa) BCR (kPa C (kPa C (kPa C
(kPa) R
) R ) R ) R
Sand without
29.4 - 34.5 - 29.2 - 34.1 - 38.8 -
reinforcement
1.1 1.3 1.5
Geotextile at 0.2B 32.7 1.11 49.4 1.43 33.3 47.4 58.1
4 9 0
1.5 1.8 2.0
Geotextile at 0.4B 45.4 1.54 74.1 2.15 45.4 63.7 77.6
6 7 0
1.2 1.5 1.6
Geotextile at 0.6B 36.9 1.25 50.5 1.46 36.4 51.5 63.0
5 1 2
1.0 1.3 1.4
Geogrid at 0.2B 33.3 1.13 56.7 1.64 31.8 45.4 55.8
9 3 4
1.3 1.5 1.7
Geogrid at 0.4B 37.0 1.27 69.9 2.02 38.2 53.9 65.9
1 8 0
0.9 1.2 1.3
Geogrid at 0.6B 30.7 1.04 50.0 1.45 27.1 42.0 53.7
3 3 8
Geotextile at 1.3 1.7 1.9
43.7 1.49 72.5 2.10 39.8 59.7 75.1
0.2B+0.4B 6 5 3
Geotextile at 1.2 1.6 1.8
42.5 1.45 69.3 2.01 36.5 56.7 72.6
0.4B+0.6B 5 6 7
Geotextile at 1.4 2.0 2.3
53.1 1.81 89.0 2.58 43.3 70.0 91.1
0.2B+0.4B+0.6B 8 5 5

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Table 5. SRFs for single-layer reinforcement

Without
Lo Geotextil Geotextil Geotextil Geogrid Geogrid Geogrid
reinforce
ad e at 0.2B e at 0.4B e at 0.6B at 0.2B at 0.4B at 0.6B
ment
s s s s s s
(kP SR SR SR SR SR SR
s (mm) (mm (mm (mm (mm (mm (mm
a) F F F F F F
) ) ) ) ) )
15. 0.52
1.0 0.40 0.8 0.7 0.66 1.3 0.7 1.01 1.9
0.510 0.38 0.38
2 36 7 0 5 2 0 5 3 9
20. 0.94
0.7 0.65 0.5 0.74 0.5 0.8 0.75 0.6 1.77 1.4
1.258 1.07
8 51 5 2 5 9 5 4 0 9 1
24. 1.40
0.8 0.88 0.5 1.05 0.6 1.79 1.1 1.01 0.6 2.30 1.4
1.632
9 66 2 4 9 5 2 0 5 2 1 1
30. 2.05
0.7 1.19 0.4 1.68 0.5 2.41 0.8 1.56 0.5 2.95 1.0
2.956
5 06 4 0 3 7 3 2 1 3 7 0
34. 0.4 1.53 0.2 2.10 0.3 2.95 0.4 2.07 0.3 3.85 0.5
6.793 2.79
9 1 8 3 1 1 4 3 6 1 5 7
40. 3.54 0.2 0.1 3.08 0.2 4.21 0.3 2.66 0.2 4.33 0.3
12.579 1.92
5 8 8 5 6 5 3 3 7 1 6 4
Table 6. SRFs for multi-layer reinforcements

Without Geotextile at Geotextile at Geotextile at

Applied load
reinforcement 0.2B+0.4B 0.4B+0.6B 0.2B+0.4B+0.6B
(kPa) s (mm) s (mm) SRF s (mm) SRF s (mm) SRF
15.2 0.510 0.456 0.89 0.73 1.43 0.463 0.91
20.8 1.258 0.829 0.66 1.057 0.84 0.859 0.68
24.9 1.632 1.196 0.73 1.426 0.87 1.33 0.81
30.5 2.956 1.62 0.55 1.999 0.68 1.514 0.51
34.9 6.793 1.991 0.29 2.437 0.36 1.807 0.27
40.5 12.579 2.505 0.20 2.897 0.23 2.21 0.18

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Caption List of Figures

Figure 1. Schematic design of model strip footing test

Figure 2. Experimental set-up of model strip footing test: (a) front view; (b) back view

Figure 3. Layout of markers below footing

Figure 4. Load-settlement curves for single-layer geosynthetic reinforcement at different

depths: (a) geotextile; (b) geogrid

Figure 5. Comparisons of performances of single-layer geotextile/geogrid: (a) at 0.2B; (b) at

0.4B; (c) at 0.6B

Figure 6. Load-settlement curves for multi-layer geotextile reinforcement at different depths

Figure 7. Three approaches to determine ultimate bearing capacity from load-settlement

curves

Figure 8. Vertical displacement (settlement) contour plots of: (a) geotextile at 0.4B; (b)

geogrid at 0.4B

Figure 9. Contour plots of: (a) horizontal displacement; (b) vertical displacement; (c) shear

stress

Figure 10. Displacement vector from PIV results

Figure 11. Behaviour of the four vertical markers along the central line below footing: (a)

load-settlement curves; (b) vertical displacement (settlement)

Figure 12. Load-deformation curves of the seven horizontal markers for geotextile at 0.4B

Figure 13. Deformation of the seven horizontal markers for geotextile at 0.4B: (a) vertical

displacement; (b) horizontal displacement

Figure 14. Comparisons of deformation obtained from FEM and PIV results for geotextile at

0.4B: (a) vertical displacement of the four vertical markers; (b) horizontal

displacement of the seven horizontal markers

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021
Figure 15. Comparisons between experimental and numerical results for geotextile at 0.4B

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jphmg.18.00021

Downloaded by [ Newcastle University] on [24/03/19]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.