International Journal of Geomechanics

Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid Reinforced Two
Layer Sands
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: GMENG-4990

Full Title: Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid Reinforced Two
Layer Sands

Article Type: Technical Note

Abstract: The lower bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements is used to
quantitatively estimate the pseudo static bearing capacity of rough strip footing placed
on geogrid reinforced sandy soil. The objective of this study is to show how the bearing
capacity of rough strip footing will be improved in seismic prone areas by (i) laying a
stronger soil layer beneath the foundation and (ii) inserting geogrid reinforcement strips
in the soil stratum. Both the soil mass and the foundation are subjected to horizontal
and vertical seismic acceleration. Solutions are obtained for different combinations of
(a) geometrical parameters (e.g. size of reinforcement, depth of reinforcement, top
(dense) layer thickness), (b) sand properties, and (c) seismic loadings. The optimum
width and the critical depth of the reinforcement strips corresponding to different soil
conditions and seismic loadings are presented in the article. It is observed that when
seismic loads are applied, the reinforcements are to be placed at shallow depth for
ensuring maximum benefit. The failure patterns are also drawn for few cases.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript igm-manuscript.pdf

1 Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid

2 Reinforced Two Layer Sands

3 Prateek Kumar1 and Manash Chakraborty2

4 Abstract: The lower bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements is used to

5 quantitatively estimate the pseudo static bearing capacity of rough strip footing placed on

6 geogrid reinforced sandy soil. The objective of this study is to show how the bearing capacity of

7 rough strip footing will be improved in seismic prone areas by (i) laying a stronger soil layer

8 beneath the foundation and (ii) inserting geogrid reinforcement strips in the soil stratum. Both

9 the soil mass and the foundation are subjected to horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration.

10 Solutions are obtained for different combinations of (a) geometrical parameters (e.g. size of

11 reinforcement, depth of reinforcement, top (dense) layer thickness), (b) sand properties, and (c)

12 seismic loadings. The optimum width and the critical depth of the reinforcement strips

13 corresponding to different soil conditions and seismic loadings are presented in the article. It is

14 observed that when seismic loads are applied, the reinforcements are to be placed at shallow

15 depth for ensuring maximum benefit. The failure patterns are also drawn for few cases.

16 Author keywords: Bearing Capacity, Limit Analysis, Reinforcement, Strip Foundation,

17 Seismic, Sand.
1
18 M Tech. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi-221005,

19 India. Email: prateekkr.civ17@itbhu.ac.in

2
20 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi-221005,

21 India. (corresponding Author). Email: manashchakra.civ@itbhu.ac.in

22

23
24 Introduction

25 Seismic forces significantly reduce the bearing capacity of foundations. A good amount of work

26 (Meyerhof, 1951, 1953; Sarma and Iossifelis, 1990; Budhu and Al-Karni, 1993; Richards et al.,

27 1993; Dormieux and Pecker, 1995; Soubra, 1997; Choudhury and Rao, 2005; Kumar and Rao,

28 2002; Ghosh, 2008; Shafiee and Jahanandish, 2010; Saha and Ghosh, 2015, 2017; Cascone and

29 Casablanca, 2016; Pain et al., 2016; Jadar and Ghosh, 2017) were done in the past for estimating

30 the reduction in bearing capacity of strip footing due to seismic acceleration. This reduction in

31 bearing capacity possesses a severe problem for the foundation designers. One of the most

32 convenient methods to overcome this problem is to improve the bearing capacity of the strip

33 footing by placing a dense sand layer over the existing weaker layer. This improvement depends

34 on the strength and the thickness of the top dense layer. Further improvement in the bearing

35 capacity can be achieved by reinforcing the soil. A number of researchers have studied the

36 bearing capacity of strip footing placed on reinforced sand layers through (a) experimental

37 (Huang and Tatsuoka, 1990; Khing et al., 1993; Omar et al., 1993; Das and Omar, 1994;

38 Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Adams and Collin, 1997; Dash et al., 2001; Shin et al., 2002; Patra et al.,

39 2005; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2013; Kazi et al., 2015; Infante et al., 2016; Prasad et al., 2016; Xu et

40 al., 2019), (b) numerical (Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Kotake et al., 2001; Michalowski, 2004; Abu-

41 Farsakh et al., 2007; Ghazavi and Lavasan, 2008; Kumar and Sahoo, 2013; Chakraborty and

42 Kumar, 2014a; Kazi et al., 2015; Sahu et al., 2017; Shahin et al., 2017) and (c) analytical (Chen

43 and Abu-Farsakh, 2015) approaches. These studies were mostly focused on determining the

44 improvement in bearing capacity due to the placement of different sized reinforcements at

45 various depths. This is to be noted that most of these works are limited to static case only.
46 This motivates the authors to quantitatively estimate the beneficial effect of the

47 reinforcement and the dense sand layer in improving the bearing capacity of strip footing

48 subjected to seismic forces. In this article, seismic loads are accounted by considering the

49 pseudo-static approach. The numerical solutions are obtained by employing lower bound limit

50 theorem. The obtained results are further verified with the solutions available in the literature.

51

52 Problem Statement and Domain

53 A rigid strip footing of width, b, is rested over two layered sand subjected to pseudo static forces.

54 The angle of internal friction of the top and the bottom layers are 1 and 2, respectively; where,

55 12. The thickness of the top dense layer is t. The ground surface is considered to be horizontal

56 and having zero surcharge. The soil in each layer is considered to be homogenous, isotropic,

57 perfectly plastic and governed by the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion and an associated flow

58 rule. The footing is assumed to be perfectly rough i.e. the friction angle has been completely

59 mobilized along the soil foundation interface. The soil is reinforced by a single layer of

60 reinforcement strip of width l and placed at a depth s below the foundation. It is intended to

61 prepare a design chart for the practicing engineers to choose the top layer thickness and the size

62 and position of the reinforcement corresponding to various seismic conditions.

63 Due to the asymmetric nature of seismic failure surface complete soil domain has been

64 considered in the present analysis. The domain has been kept sufficiently large so that the failure

65 surface is well contained within the domain. The width and depth of the soil domain has been

66 chosen as 30b and 7.5b, respectively. Fig. 1a shows the problem statement and the considered

67 domain.

68
69 Analysis

70 The collapse load for the present plane strain problem is determined by using the lower bound

71 formulation (as illustrated by Sloan, 1988) and, by employing the second-order cone

72 programming (as proposed by Makrodimopoulos and Martin, 2006; Krabbenhøft et al., 2007).

73 The magnitude of the total collapse load, obtained by integrating the stresses along the soil

74 footing interface, is maximized with respect to the following linear and non-linear constraints:

75 (a) Statical admissibility criteria:

76 (i) Equilibrium conditions in the entire domain:

 xx  xy  yy  xy
77 + = k h ; + = (1 − kv ) (1)
x y y x

78 where, (i) xx, yy and xy are the stress components at any arbitrary node, (ii) kh

79 and kv are the horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration coefficients,

80 respectively, and, (iii)  is the unit weight of the soil mass.

81 (ii) Conditions along the stress discontinuity line (as shown in Fig. 1b):

82  n1 =  n 2 ,  t1 =  t 2 ;  n3 =  n 4 ,  t 3 =  t 4 (2)

83 where, ni and ti are the normal and shear stresses at node, i.

84 (iii) Conditions along the stress boundary line:  n =  = 0

85 (iv) Yield condition throughout the domain:

(
( xx −  yy ) 2 + 4 xy2  2c cos  − ( xx +  yy ) sin  )
2
86 (3)

87 (b) Footing roughness condition:  t   n tan  ; here,  (roughness angle) is taken equal to .

88 (c) Conditions to incorporate the inclusion of reinforcement (as shown in Fig. 1a): Following

89 Chakraborty and Kumar (2014a), no explicit element is used for modelling the
 90 reinforcement; only the shear stress continuity (as mentioned in Eq. 2) is relaxed on the

91 edges of the elements lying above and below the reinforcement strips.

92  nu =  nl ,  tu   tl (4)

93 It is to be noted that the conditions in Eq.(4) are based on the assumptions that the reinforcement

94 layers are perfectly flexible (bending moment=0) but impart enough resistance against axial

95 tension. Considering the flexibility and the tensile strength of the geogrid sheets it can be

96 inferred that the present solutions are more applicable for geogrid strips.

97 Following the idea of Makrodimopoulos and Martin (2006) and Krabbenhøft et al. (2007) the

98 inequality constraint in Eq. (3) is expressed as a set of second-order constraints at each node and

99 can be presented as:

100 ( xx +  yy ) sin  + 1 = 2c cos  ; − xx +  yy +  2 = 0 ; −2 xy + 3 = 0 (5)

Here, the vector  = 1  2 3  satisfy  22 + 32  1 and thus represents the second order
T
101

102 cone. The construction of the global vectors and matrices are detailed in the work of Tang et al.

103 (2014) and hence, for the sake of brevity they are not repeated here. The final form of the

104 optimization problem can be expressed as follows:

105 Maximize: {g}T{ } Subjected to: A] { }= {B} (6)

106 where,

107 (i) {g} is the known global vector of the objective function

108 (ii) { } is the unknown global vector of the nodal stresses

109 (iii)A] is the known global matrix of all the constraints, and,

110 (iv) {B} is the known global right hand-side vector of all constraints.
111 Following Tang et al. (2014), the conic optimization was performed in MATLAB with the help

112 of MOSEK (Version 9.0.87), an optimization toolbox.

113

114 Results

115 The lower bound results are presented in the form of bearing capacity factor, N (=Qu/(0.5B))

116 and efficiency factors (  and ). It is to be clearly noted that in the present analysis due to

117 the assumption of cohesionless medium and zero surcharging, the bearing capacity is governed

118 solely by N component. The simulations are carried out by continuously varying the depth (s/b)

119 and width (l/b) of the geogrid strips for a certain soil profile (i.e. constant ,  and t/b) and

120 specific seismic conditions. This exercise is repeatedly carried out by changing the soil strength

121 parameters, top layer thickness and seismic coefficients. The range of t/b has been chosen

122 between 0.25 and 4. From the literature ( Omar et al., 1993; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2007) it is

123 evident that beyond this depth, there is no further improvement in bearing capacity. The

124 magnitude of kh and kv have been varied within the range of 0-0.6 and 0-0.2, respectively. From

125 the work of Richards et al. (1990, 1993) it can be concluded that the strength of the cohesionless

126 soil (i.e. internal friction angle) should always be greater than tan-1(kh/(1-kv)). This constraint is

127 imposed to avoid the plastic flow of the material which is termed as “shear fluidization” by

128 Richards et al. (1990). Table 1 shows the minimum value of  which is required to ensure

129 stability for different combinations of kh and kv. In the present analysis, the drained friction angle

130 of the bottom layer is considered to be 25, 28 and 33. This layer is strengthened by placing

131 stronger soil ( = 40 or 45) and a single layer of geogrid reinforcement in order to withstand

132 the seismic loadings. The programs are run for different combinations of (i) material strength
133 parameters (,  ) (ii) geometrical parameters (t/b, s/b and l/b) and (iii) seismic loading

134 parameters (kh and kv). A total number of 13230 programs were run for the analysis.

135 Fig. 2 shows the variation of N with l/b corresponding to different combinations of ,

136 , s/b, t/b, kh and kv. This figure suggests that N increases with increase in l/b up to an optimum

137 value (denoted as lopt/b) beyond which there is no appreciable increment in N . The magnitude of

138 lopt/b depends highly on s/b and seismic loadings. If the depth of the reinforcement is shallow,

139 and the seismic forces are highly dominant, the increase in N with l/b, however small may be,

140 continues to occur even when l/b>10. In the present article, the authors have considered lopt/b on

141 the basis of the following expression:

N − N
 2%
@ current l / b @ previous l / b
142 (7)
N @ current l / b

143 The analysis shows that when the reinforcement is placed at shallow depth (s/b<0.5) the value of

144 lopt/b is significantly larger for seismic case in comparison to its static counterpart.

145 It is also observed that N increases with increase in s/b up to a certain magnitude;

146 beyond this specific s/b, the magnitude of N starts to decrease. This particular s/b is termed as

147 critical s/b and denoted as scr/b. The magnitude of scr/b depends on the top layer thickness and

148 seismic conditions. Fig. 3 shows the variation of scr/b with t/b for  =45 and  =33. It is

149 observed that the value of scr/b initially increases and then decreases to a constant value. The

150 value of this peak value decreases with increases in kh. The numerical solutions further indicate

151 that within the zone of ground surface and scr/b, as the depth of the reinforcement increases the

152 required width of the reinforcement strip for imparting the maximum benefits become higher.

153 For a particular combination of   and t/b there is a maximum value of N (referred as

154 Nmax) which is obtained when the geogrid is placed at its critical depth (scr/b) and its width is
155 equal to lopt/b. Tables 2 and 3 provide the value of Nmax and its corresponding scr/b and lopt/b for

156 different soil profile subjected to different seismic conditions; Table 2 reports the solutions for kv

157 = 0 and Table 3 reports the solutions for kv = 0.2. As expected, the value of Nmax increases with

158 the thickness of top dense layer. This increment seems to take place up to a certain t/b; beyond

159 this t/b there is hardly any change in Nmax. The reported data indicate that the seismic loadings

160 impact significantly the value of Nmax. The table also indicates the efficiency factor 1 which is

161 defined as the ratio of the seismic bearing capacities of footing placed over reinforced soil to that

162 of its unreinforced counterpart. These tables can be used as design guidelines for choosing the

163 width and the position of the reinforced strip in order to achieve the maximum benefit of the

164 stronger layer and the reinforcement strips. For severe seismic forces, the analysis does not

165 converge when the footing was lying over the weaker stratum alone. The analysis begins to

166 converge with the placing of the stronger layer, although the obtained N is practically very

167 small. The insertion of geogrid strip further improves the bearing capacity.

168 Table 4 displays the magnitude of the efficiency factors−2 and 3; here, 2 indicates the

169 effect of placing the stronger layer and 3 indicates the combined effect of including the top

170 dense layer and the reinforcement strips below the strip footing which otherwise was resting on

171 the homogenous loose sand. For computing 3, the size and the position of the reinforcement are

172 considered as scr/b and lopt/b (as reported in Tables 2 and 3). The magnitude of 2 and3 increases

173 with increase in (i) t/b, (ii)  and (iii) kh. It can be inferred that placing of dense sand layer and

174 inclusion of geogrid strips in the seismic prone area improve the bearing capacity of strip footing

175 enormously.

176

177 Failure surface

178 From the lower bound analysis, the state of stress at every node of triangular element is obtained.

179 The state of stress at any node is being specified by x, y and xy; where, x and y are the

180 normal stress in x and y direction, respectively and xy is the shear stress in xy plane. The failure

181 pattern of the soil domain at the limit state can be drawn by computing a/d ratio at each node.

182 For a certain point within the soil domain, a and d indicate the diameter of the Mohr circle

183 representing the current state of stress and the failure state, respectively. As a/d approaches 1, the

184 node will be on the verge of plastic shear failure and if a/d<1 the node will be in a non-plastic

185 state. The detailed procedure of calculating a and d can be seen in the work of Chakraborty and

186 Kumar (2014a).

187 Fig.4 shows the failure surfaces for the static cases where a particular-sized

188 reinforcement (l/b=2) is placed in a certain soil layer configuration ( =40,  =25, t/b=1).

189 This figure shows the effect of changing the depth of the reinforcement (s/b) from the ground

190 surface. The dark zone indicates the plastic failure state. Failure surface seems to develop

191 symmetrically along the center line of the footing. The failure surfaces give an impression that

192 the extent of the failure zone increases up to a certain magnitude of s/b beyond which the size of

193 the failure surface decreases. This observation is consistent with the existence of scr/b as

194 discussed before. A triangular elastic wedge is observed to form just below the footing.

195 Additional patches of elastic zones are also formed near the ground surface and either side of the

196 reinforcements.

197 Fig. 5 depicts the failure surface by changing the width of the reinforcement. From this

198 figure it can be inferred that if all other input parameters (material properties, loading conditions

199 and depth of the reinforcement) remains to be the same, the width of the reinforcement strip does
200 not impact much on the size of the failure zone. However, as l/b increases the size of the

201 additional elastic zones near the reinforcement edges tend to grow.

202 Fig. 6 shows the impact of top layer thickness on formation of the failure surface. As the

203 thickness of the top layer soil increases the overall size and the horizontal extent of the failure

204 zone also increases. Beyond a certain thickness, the failure zone seems to be confined solely

205 within the top layer and hence, the bearing capacity would not be influenced by the bottom layer.

206 Similar to the observation of Merifield et al. (1999), the local elastic zone near the ground

207 surface seems to form as the thickness of the top layer increases.

208 Fig. 7 displays the effect of seismic forces on the development of the failure zones. The

209 failure surface which is symmetric about the center line of footing for static case becomes

210 asymmetric as the seismic forces are applied. The failure surface develops in the direction of

211 seismic force and grows in size with the increase in seismic acceleration intensity. Failure

212 surface also starts to develop on the other side of the footing edge when the magnitude of kh and

213 kv are very high (e.g. kh= kv=0.4).

214

215 Comparisons

216 The verifications of the proposed design charts are carried out by comparing the present results

217 with the available solutions in the literature. Table 5 shows the comparison of the seismic

218 bearing capacity for strip footing placed on two different homogenous sands, namely,  =30 and

219 45. The present solutions are compared with the (i) upper bound solutions of Dormieux and

220 Pecker (1995), Soubra (1997) and Ghosh (2008); (ii) limit equilibrium solutions of Sarma and

221 Iossifelis (1990) and Choudhury and Rao (2005); (iii) finite element solutions of Shafiee and

222 Jahanandish (2010); and (iv) stress characteristics’ solutions obtained by Kumar and Rao (2002)
223 and Cascone and Casablanca (2019). The present solutions are in close agreement with the

224 numerical solutions of Shafiee and Jahanandish (2010). Due to the lower bound nature of the

225 analysis, the computed numerical results are smaller than all the previously reported upper bound

226 solutions. Although the difference between the present solution and limit equilibrium solution

227 (Sarma and Iossifelis, 1990; Choudhury and Rao, 2005) is noticeable but the trend of the curve is

228 similar.

229 Table 6 presents the comparison of the obtained lower bound solution with the (i)

230 experimental solution of Hanna (1981), (ii) analytical solution of Farah (2004) and (iii)

231 numerical solution of Khatri et al. (2017). The comparison is done for two layered unreinforced

232 sands, where the friction angle of the top and the bottom layers are 47.7º and 34º, respectively.

233 The deviation between the present computed lower bound values and the lower bound values

234 reported by Khatri et al. (2017) can be attributed to the fact that the size of the domain and the

235 number of elements considered in both the analysis are not the same. For the present case, the

236 obtained solutions appear to be smaller than the experimental and the analytical solutions up to

237 t/b=0.5; for t/b1, the present analysis overestimate the load carrying capacity. This

238 overestimation may be due to the assumption of associativity in the present analysis.

239 The comparison of the non-seismic bearing capacity of strip foundation placed over

240 homogenous reinforced sand of friction angle equals to 30, 35 and 40 are displayed in Table

241 7. The efficiency factors obtained in the present analysis are compared with the upper bound

242 solutions obtained by Michalowski (2004) and Kumar and Sahoo (2013) and lower bound

243 solutions of Chakraborty and Kumar (2014a). The present solutions match quite well with these

244 reported data.

245
246 Conclusions

247 This article quantitatively presents how the load carrying capacity of the strip footing resting

248 over weaker stratum can be improved by placing a stronger layer of sand and inserting a single

249 layer of geogrid reinforcement beneath the footing. The analysis clearly shows that there is a

250 tremendous improvement in the load carrying capacity of soil due to the combined effect of

251 denser layer and the geogrid strips especially in the seismic prone area. The entire analysis was

252 performed by using lower bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements and non-

253 linear optimization. The proposed design charts would be useful in selecting the thickness of top

254 dense layer, the size and the position of the single layer geogrid strip, so that the maximum

255 benefit is achieved.

256

257 Data Availability

258 Some codes generated and used during the study are confidential in nature and may only be

259 provided with restrictions. Files for imposing the equality and inequality constraints can be

260 provided on requests. The entire program file containing the mesh generation, insertion of

261 reinforcements and failure contours can partially be provided.

262

263 Acknowledgement

264 The corresponding author acknowledges the support of “Department of Science and Technology

265 (DST), Government of India” under grant number DST/INSPIRE/04/2016/001692.

266

267 References
268 Abu-Farsakh, M., Q. Chen, and R. Sharma. (2013). “An experimental evaluation of the behavior

269 of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced sand.” Soils Found. 53(2): 335–348.

270 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2013.01.001.

271 Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., J. Gu, G. Voyiadjis, and M. Tao. (2007). “Numerical parametric study of

272 strip footing on reinforced embankment soils.” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board

273 2004(1): 132–140. https://doi.org/10.3141/2004-14.

274 Adams, M. T., and J. G. Collin. (1997). “Large model spread footing load tests on geosynthetic

275 reinforced soil foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123(1): 66–72.

276 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(66).

277 Boushehrian, J. H., and N. Hataf. (2003). “Experimental and numerical investigation of the

278 bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand.” Geotext.

279 Geomembranes 21(4): 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00029-3.

280 Budhu, M., and A. Al-Karni. (1993). “Seismic bearing capacity of soils.” Géotechnique 43(1):

281 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.181.

282 Cascone, E., and O. Casablanca. (2016). “Static and seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip

283 footings.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 84(1): 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2016.02.010.

284 Chakraborty, D., and J. Kumar. (2014a). “Bearing capacity of strip foundations in reinforced

285 soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 14(1): 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000275

286 Chakraborty, M., and J. Kumar. (2014b). “Bearing capacity of circular foundations reinforced

287 with geogrid sheets.” Soils Found. 54(4): 820–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2014.06.013.

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

289 reinforced soil foundation.” Soils Found. 55(1): 74–85.

290 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2014.12.006.
291 Choudhury, D., and K. S. S. Rao. (2005). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings.”

292 Geotech. Geol. Eng. 23, 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-9519-9.

293 Das, B. M., and M. T. Omar. (1994). “The effects of foundation width on model tests for the

294 bearing capacity of sand with geogrid reinforcement.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 12(2): 133–141.

295 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00429771

296 Dash, S. K., N. Krishnaswamy, and K. Rajagopal. (2001). “Bearing capacity of strip footings

297 supported on geocell-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 19(4): 235–256.

298 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00006-1

299 Dormieux·, L., and A. Pecker. (1995). “Seismic bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless

300 soil.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121(3):300-303.

301 Farah, C. A., (2004). Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on layered soils. M.Sc.

302 thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, ConcordiaUniv., Quebec

303 Ghazavi, M., and A. A. Lavasan. (2008). “Interference effect of shallow foundations constructed

304 on sand reinforced with geosynthetics.” Geotext. Geomembranes 26(5): 404–415.

305 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2008.02.003

306 Ghosh, P., (2008). “Upper bound solutions of bearing capacity of strip footing by pseudo-

307 dynamic approach.” Acta Geotech. 3(2): 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-008-0058-z.

308 Hanna, A. M., (1981). “Foundations on strong sand over lying weak sand.” J. Geotech. Engg.

309 Div. 107(7): 915–927.

310 Huang, C. C., and F. Tatsuoka. (1990). “Bearing capacity of reinforced horizontal sandy

311 ground.” Geotext. Geomembranes 9, 51–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(90)90005-W.

312 Infante D. U., G. A. Martinez, P. Arrúa, and M. Eberhardt, (2016). “Behavior of geogrid

313 reinforced sand under vertical load.” Int. J. Geomate. 10(21): 1862–1868.
314 Jadar, C. M., and S. Ghosh. (2017). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing using

315 horizontal slice method.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 11, 38–50.

316 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1183074.

317 Kazi, M., S. K. Shukla, and D. Habibi. (2015). “An Improved Method to Increase the Load-

318 Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing Resting on Geotextile-Reinforced Sand Bed.” Indian

319 Geotech. J. 45(1): 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-014-0111-9.

320 Khatri, V. N., J. Kumar, and S. Akhtar. (2017). “Bearing capacity of foundations with inclusion

321 of dense sand layer over loose sand strata.” Int. J. Geomech. 17(10): 06017018.

322 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000980.

323 Khing, K. H., B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, E. E. Cook, and S. C. Yen. (1993). “The bearing-capacity

324 of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 12(4): 351–361.

325 https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(93)90009-D.

326 Kotake, N., F. Tatsuoka, T. Tanaka, M. S. A. Siddiquee, and C. C. Huang. (2001). “FEM

327 Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of Level Reinforced Sand Ground Subjected to Footing

328 Load.” Geosynth. Int. 8(6): 501–549. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.8.0205.

329 Krabbenhøft, K., A.V. Lyamin, S.W. Sloan. (2007). “Formulation and solution of some plasticity

330 problems as conic programs.” Int. J. Solids Struct. 44: 1533–1549.

331 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.06.036

332 Kumar, J., and V. B. K. M. Rao. (2002). “Seismic bearing capacity factors for spread

333 foundations.” Géotechnique 52(2): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.2.79.

334 Kumar, J., and J. P. Sahoo. (2013). “Bearing capacity of strip foundations reinforced with

335 geogrid sheets by using upper bound finite-element limit analysis.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.

336 Methods Geomech. 37(18): 3258–3277. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2189.

337 Makrodimopoulos, A., and C. M. Martin. (2006). “Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-

338 frictional materials using second-order cone programming.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.

339 66(4): 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1567.

340 Merifield, R. S., S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. (1999). “Rigorous plasticity solutions for the bearing

341 capacity of two-layered clays.” Géotechnique 49(4): 471–490.

342 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.4.471.

343 Meyerhof, G. G., (1951). “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foudations.” Géotechnique 2(4):

344 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301.

345 Meyerhof, G. G., (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads.

346 Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. SMFE 1, 440–445.

347 Michalowski, R. L., (2004). “Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils.” J. Geotech.

348 Geoenvironmental Eng. 130(4): 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-

349 0241(2004)130:4(381).

350 MOSEK Optimization Toolbox for MATLAB 9.0.87- docs.mosek.com/9.0/toolbox/index.html.

351 Omar, M. T., B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, and S. C. Yen. (1993). “Ultimate bearing capacity of

352 shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement.” Can. Geotech. J. 30(3): 545–549.

353 https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-046.

354 Pane, V., A. Vecchietti, and M. Cecconi. (2016). “A numerical study on the seismic bearing

355 capacity of shallow foundations.” Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14(11): 2931–2958.

356 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9937-0.

357 Patra, C. R., B. M. Das, and C. Atalar. (2005). “Bearing capacity of embedded strip foundation

358 on geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 23(5): 454–462.

359 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2005.02.001.
360 Prasad, B. D., C. Hariprasad, and B. Umashankar. (2016). “Load-Settlement Response of Square

361 Footing on Geogrid Reinforced Layered Granular Beds.” Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 2(4): 36.

362 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0070-6.

363 Richards, R., D. G. Elms, and M. Budhu. (1993). “Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of

364 foundations.” J. Geotech. Eng. 119(4): 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

365 9410(1993)119:4(662).

366 Richards, R., D. G. Elms, and M. Budhu. (1990). “Dynamic fluidization of soils.” J. Geotech.

367 Eng. 116(5): 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:5(740).

368 Saha, A., and S. Ghosh. (2017). “Modified pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity analysis of shallow

369 strip footing considering total seismic wave.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 1–9.

370 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1405542.

371 Saha, A., and S. Ghosh. (2015). “Pseudo-dynamic analysis for bearing capacity of foundation

372 resting on c –Φ soil.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 9(4): 379–387.

373 https://doi.org/10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000081.

374 Sahu, R., C. R. Patra, N. Sivakugan, and B. M. Das. (2017). “Use of ANN and neuro fuzzy

375 model to predict bearing capacity factor of strip footing resting on reinforced sand and

376 subjected to inclined loading.” Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 3(3): 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-

377 017-0102-x.

378 Sarma, S. K., and I.S. Iossifelis. (1990). “Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow strip

379 footings.” Géotechnique 40(2): 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.2.265.

380 Shafiee, A., and M. Jahanandish. (2010). Seismic bearing capacity factors for strip footings. 5th

381 Natl. Congr. Civ. Eng. Ferdowsi Univ. Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
382 Shahin, H. M., T. Nakai, Y. Morikawa, S. Masuda, and S. Mio. (2017). “Effective use of

383 geosynthetics to increase bearing capacity of shallow foundations.” Can. Geotech. J. 54(12):

384 1647–1658. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0505.

385 Shin, E. C., B. M. Das, E. S. Lee, and C. Atalar. (2002). “Bearing capacity of strip foundation on

386 geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 20(2): 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/

387 A:1015059427487.

388 Sloan, S. W. (1988). “Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear

389 programming.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 12, 61–77.

390 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610120105.

391 Soubra, A. H. (1997). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings in seismic conditions.”

392 Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Geotech. Eng. 125, 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1680/igeng.1997. 29659.

393 Tang, C., K.K. Phoon, and K. C. Toh. (2014). “Lower-Bound Limit Analysis of Seismic Passive

394 Earth Pressure on Rigid Walls.” Int. J. Geomech. 14(5): 04014022.

395 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000385.

396 Xu, C., C. Liang, and P. Shen. (2019). “Experimental and theoretical studies on the ultimate

397 bearing capacity of geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 47(3): 417–428.

398 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2019.01.003.

399 Yetimoglu, T., J. T. H. Wu, and A. Saglamer. (1994). “Bearing capacity of rectangular footings

400 on geogrid‐reinforced sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 120(12): 2083–2099.

401 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2083).

402
403 List of figures

404 Fig. 1. (a) Problem domain and boundary conditions, (b) Stress discontinuity line.

405 Fig. 2. The variation of N with l/b corresponding to different s/b and t/b having 1=40,2=25

406 with (a) kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (b) kh=0.2, kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.2, kv=0.2; and 1=45, 2=25 with (d)

407 kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (e) kh=0.2, kv=0.0; and (f) kh=0.2, kv=0.2.

408 Fig. 3. The variation of scr/b with t/b for 1=45 and 2=33.

409 Fig. 4. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, t/b=1, l/b=2 with s/b equals to:

410 (a) 0.15, (b) 0.60, and (c) 1.20.

411 Fig. 5. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1 with l/b equals to:

412 (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 3.0.

413 Fig. 6. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, l/b=1 and t/b equals to :

414 (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 4.

415 Fig. 7. Failure patterns for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1, l/b =2 with (a) kh= kv=0.0; (b) kh=0.2,

416 kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.4, kv=0.0; and (d) kh=0.4, kv=0.2.

417
418 List of Tables

419 Table 1. The minimum values of  (min) for avoiding plastic flow (Richard et. al. 1990).

420 Table 2. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected

421 to constant kv (=0.0) different kh.

422 Table 3. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected

423 to constant kv (=0.2) different kh.

424 Table 4. The variation of 2 and 3 corresponding to different seismic coefficients.

425 Table 5. A comparison of the present solutions with those available in literature for homogenous

426 unreinforced sand of =30 and 45 subjected to different horizontal seismic accelerations

427 (i.e. kv=0).

428 Table 6. A comparison of bearing capacity in the form of N (=Qu/(0.5b ))for unreinforced

429 two layered sands (1=47.7º, 2=34º, =16.33 kN/m3and 2=13.78kN/m3).

430 Table 7. A comparison of efficiency factor for homogenous soil and different s/b ratio with kh=

431 kv=0.0.

432
Table Click here to download Table igm-table files.pdf

466 Table 1. The minimum values of  (min) for avoiding plastic flow (Richard et. al. 1990).
kh kv min
0.0 0.0 0.00
0.2 0.0 11.31
0.2 0.2 14.04
0.4 0.0 21.80
0.4 0.2 26.57
0.6 0.0 30.93
0.6 0.2 36.87
467
468
469 Table 2. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected
470 to constant kv (=0.0) different kh.
kh=0
___________ _____________________ kh=0.2
____________________ kh=0.4
__________________ kh=0.6
___________________
  t/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b
0.25 18.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 10.0 1.8 0.4 3.0 2.9 1.7 0.3 1.5 − − − −
0.50 29.1 1.6 0.6 3.0 16.4 1.7 0.4 3.0 6.3 1.6 0.4 3.0 − − − −
1.00 62.5 1.8 0.9 4.0 34.2 1.7 0.9 2.0 13.7 1.3 0.4 1.5 − − − −
1.50 77.5 1.4 1.3 3.0 43.5 1.3 0.4 1.5 22.3 2.0 0.3 1.5 − − − −
25°

2.00 96.6 1.3 0.7 1.5 59.9 1.8 0.4 1.5 24.5 2.2 0.3 1.5 − − − −
2.50 122.8 1.6 0.5 1.5 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 4.0
3.00 130.7 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 23.8 2.1 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
4.00 130.8 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.7 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.1 2.2 0.3 4.0 5.9 2.3 0.2 3.0
0.25 26.6 1.5 0.4 1.5 14.4 1.8 0.4 3.0 4.8 1.8 0.3 3.0 − − − −
0.50 39.4 1.6 0.6 1.5 21.8 1.8 0.4 3.0 9.0 1.7 0.4 4.0 − − − −
1.00 75.9 1.8 0.9 3.0 37.9 1.6 0.6 4.0 16.1 1.5 0.3 1.5 − − − −
1.50 85.6 1.4 0.7 1.5 50.0 1.5 0.4 1.5 24.4 2.2 0.3 3.0 5.8 − 0.2 2.0
40°
28°

2.00 107.2 1.4 0.5 1.5 65.3 1.9 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 5.0
2.50 128.1 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 3.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
3.00 133.6 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.9 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
4.00 134.0 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.9 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 4.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
0.25 53.5 1.7 0.5 1.5 26.6 1.9 0.4 1.5 9.7 2.0 0.3 1.5 2.2 1.8 0.2 5.0
0.50 66.3 1.7 0.6 1.5 35.1 1.9 0.4 3.0 13.7 1.8 0.4 1.5 3.9 1.6 0.2 1.5
1.00 93.0 1.6 0.7 1.5 49.5 1.7 0.5 1.5 20.2 1.8 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
1.50 107.7 1.5 0.6 1.5 59.6 1.7 0.4 1.5 24.4 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
33°

2.00 125.6 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.4 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.3 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 5.0
2.50 128.4 1.7 0.5 1.0 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
3.00 133.2 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 2.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
4.00 134.7 1.7 0.5 1.0 69.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
0.25 20.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 11.2 1.7 0.4 3.0 3.4 1.6 0.3 1.5 − − − −
0.50 35.0 1.5 0.7 3.0 20.0 1.7 0.6 4.0 7.9 1.5 0.4 3.0 − − − −
1.00 82.1 1.8 0.9 4.0 50.2 1.8 0.9 4.0 22.7 1.5 0.9 3.0 − − − −
1.50 119.2 1.6 1.3 3.0 84.8 1.7 1.3 3.0 33.7 1.2 0.4 1.5 − − − −
25°

2.00 147.5 1.3 1.3 2.0
2.50 189.9 1.2 1.3 1.5
3.00 239.5 1.2 0.8 1.5
4.00 294.7 1.4 0.6 1.5
0.25 30.9 1.6 0.5 1.5
0.50 48.7 1.6 0.7 1.5
1.00 102.2 1.8 0.9 3.0
1.50 141.3 1.5 1.3 3.0
45°
28°
96.7 1.3 0.7 2.0 51.6 1.7 0.4 1.0 − − − −
128.8 1.5 0.6 1.5 65.7 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 1.5
159.4 1.8 0.5 1.5 65.9 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.8 2.3 0.3 1.0
166.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.9 2.3 0.3 1.5
16.2 1.7 0.4 3.0 5.5 1.7 0.3 1.5 − − − −
26.9 1.7 0.6 4.0 11.2 1.6 0.4 3.0 − − − −
63.6 1.9 0.9 4.0 29.2 1.6 0.9 3.0 0.2 − 0.3 5.0
88.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 39.9 1.3 0.4 1.5 14.4 1.8 0.2 1.5

2.00 173.7 1.3 1.3 2.0
2.50 215.4 1.2 1.0 1.5
3.00 272.3 1.4 0.6 1.0
4.00 298.6 1.5 0.5 1.5
0.25 62.0 1.7 0.6 2.0
0.50 84.4 1.7 0.7 1.5
1.00 141.0 1.7 0.9 2.0
1.50 183.5 1.5 1.3 1.5
33°
110.9 1.3 0.7 1.5 58.7 2.0 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 3.0
144.6 1.6 0.6 1.5 68.2 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.2 0.3 2.0
165.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.2 0.4 2.0 18.8 2.3 0.3 2.0
167.8 1.9 0.5 2.0 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.9 2.3 0.3 1.5
30.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 11.0 1.8 0.3 1.5 2.7 1.5 0.2 3.0
45.7 1.8 0.6 1.5 19.2 1.8 0.4 3.0 6.6 1.5 0.4 1.5
92.3 2.0 0.9 3.0 33.5 1.4 0.6 1.5 14.1 1.7 0.3 1.5
109.7 1.5 0.7 2.0 50.9 1.7 0.4 1.5 18.6 2.3 0.3 1.0

2.00 213.1 1.2 1.0 5.0
2.50 266.3 1.4 0.6 1.5
3.00 297.8 1.5 0.5 1.0
4.00 298.7 1.5 0.5 1.0
471
472
139.7 1.6 0.6 5.0 66.7 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.6 2.3 0.3 1.0
166.1 1.9 0.5 1.5 67.1 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 1.0
166.2 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.8 2.3 0.3 1.5
168.2 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.6 2.3 0.4 3.0 18.9 2.3 0.3 2.0
473 Table 3. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected
474 to constant kv (=0.2) different kh.
475

_____________ kh=0.2
________________________ kh =0.4
________________________ kh=0.6
________________________
  t/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b
0.25 7.4 1.7 0.3 3.0 0.0 − 0.2 5.0 − − − −
0.50 13.4 1.7 0.4 3.0 0.0 − 0.2 5.0 − − − −
1.00 27.1 1.6 0.7 3.0 5.5 1.1 0.1 0.5 − − − −
1.50 37.5 1.4 0.4 1.5 12.0 2.1 0.3 1.5 − − − −
25°

2.00 51.7 1.9 0.4 1.5 11.8 2.1 0.3 1.5 − − − −

2.50 55.5 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.4 2.0 0.3 2.0 − − − −
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5 − − − −
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 3.0 12.0 2.1 0.3 5.0 − − − −
0.25 11.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.2 0.5 − − − −
0.50 17.9 1.8 0.4 3.0 4.8 1.5 0.3 3.0 − − − −
1.00 30.7 1.5 0.5 1.5 10.2 1.8 0.3 1.0 − − − −
1.50 42.7 1.6 0.4 1.5 11.8 2.1 0.3 1.5 − − − −
40°

28°

2.00 55.3 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.4 2.2 0.3 5.0 − − − −

2.50 55.0 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.5 − − − −
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.0 − − − −
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.1 2.1 0.3 5.0 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.5
0.25 21.1 1.9 0.4 1.5 4.6 1.8 0.2 5.0 − − − −
0.50 28.9 1.9 0.4 3.0 8.0 1.7 0.3 1.5 − − − −
1.00 39.1 1.6 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.5 − − − −
1.50 50.0 1.9 0.4 1.5 11.3 2.0 0.3 1.5 − − − −
33°

2.00 55.6 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.9 2.1 0.3 5.0 − − − −

2.50 55.6 2.1 0.4 2.0 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 3.0 11.9 2.1 0.3 1.5 0.7 2.3 0.1 1.5
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 2.0 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.5
0.25 9.1 1.8 0.4 1.5 − − − − − − − −
0.50 16.5 1.6 0.6 3.0 − − − − − − − −
1.00 42.0 1.7 0.9 3.0 9.8 1.2 0.9 0.5 − − − −
1.50 68.5 1.6 1.3 3.0 21.0 1.3 0.3 1.5 − − − −
25°

2.00 82.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 35.3 2.2 0.3 1.5 − − − −

2.50 111.0 1.6 0.5 1.5 37.1 2.3 0.3 1.5 − − − −
3.00 135.1 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.4 2.3 0.3 1.5 − − − −
4.00 140.1 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 5.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.0
0.25 13.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 2.6 1.5 0.3 1.5 − − − −
0.50 22.4 1.7 0.6 1.5 6.2 1.4 0.4 3.0 − − − −
1.00 53.3 1.8 0.9 4.0 16.3 1.3 0.9 2.0 − − − −
1.50 70.0 1.4 0.9 2.0 27.7 1.7 0.3 1.5 − − − −
45°

28°

2.00 94.0 1.4 0.6 1.5 37.3 2.3 0.3 1.5 − − − −

2.50 124.3 1.8 0.5 1.5 37.2 2.3 0.3 1.5 − − − −
3.00 140.3 2.1 0.4 2.0 37.4 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.0
4.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 5.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.0
0.25 24.6 1.8 0.4 1.5 6.2 1.8 0.3 3.0 − − − −
0.50 37.4 1.8 0.6 1.5 11.8 1.7 0.4 4.0 − − − −
1.00 72.8 1.9 0.8 3.0 22.2 1.4 0.4 1.5 − − − −
1.50 90.5 1.5 0.6 3.0 34.8 2.2 0.3 1.5 3.0 1.5 0.1 1.0
33°

2.00 117.0 1.7 0.5 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.0
2.50 138.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 3.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.5
3.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.5
4.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 2.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.5
476
477 Table 4. The variation of 2 and 3 corresponding to different seismic coefficients.
kv=0.0
_______________________________________________________________________ kv=0.2
_____________________
_____________ kh=0.0
_____________________ kh=0.2
____________________ kh=0.4
________________________ kh=0.2
_____________________
 t/b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
0.25 2.1 (2.3) 3.1 (3.4) 2.3 (2.7) 4.1 (4.6) 6.5 (8.1) 10.9 (12.6) 2.5 (3.0) 4.3 (5.2)
0.50 3.1 (3.8) 4.8 (5.8) 3.9 (4.9) 6.6 (8.1) 15.0 (19.8) 23.3 (29.1) 4.6 (5.8) 7.7 (9.5)
1.00 5.8 (7.6) 10.4 (13.7) 8.3 (11.2) 13.9 (20.4) 39.3 (54.9) 50.4 (83.6) 10.1 (13.9) 15.7 (24.2)
1.50 9.1 (12.8) 12.9 (19.8) 13.8 (20.1) 17.7 (34.4) 41.2 (105.2) 82.5 (124.4) 15.2 (25.1) 21.6 (39.6)
25°

2.00 12.0 (19.1) 16.1 (24.5) 13.8 (31.1) 24.3 (39.3) 41.0 (111.1) 87.8 (190.4) 15.4 (38.7) 29.9 (47.8)
2.50 12.4 (27.1) 20.4 (31.6) 13.8 (35.7) 27.8 (52.3) 41.1 (110.5) 88.8 (243.3) 15.4 (39.9) 32.1 (64.1)
3.00 12.7 (32.4) 21.7 (39.8) 13.8 (35.7) 28.1 (64.8) 41.1 (111.1) 90.3 (246.1) 15.4 (39.6) 32.3 (78.0)
4.00 12.7 (33.9) 21.7 (49.0) 13.8 (35.9) 28.1 (67.7) 41.0 (110.5) 91.1 (251.9) 15.4 (39.6) 32.3 (80.9)
0.25 1.8 (2.0) 2.7 (3.1) 2.0 (2.3) 3.6 (4.0) 3.6 (4.5) 6.6 (7.6) 2.0 (2.4) 3.6 (4.3)
0.50 2.5 (3.1) 4.0 (5.0) 3.1 (3.9) 5.4 (6.7) 7.2 (9.7) 12.4 (15.5) 3.3 (4.2) 5.8 (7.2)
1.00 4.3 (5.8) 7.7 (10.4) 5.9 (8.3) 9.4 (15.8) 15.3 (24.8) 22.2 (40.4) 6.6 (9.4) 9.9 (17.2)
1.50 6.4 (9.4) 8.7 (14.4) 8.5 (14.3) 12.4 (21.8) 15.4 (41.2) 33.7 (55.1) 8.6 (16.3) 13.8 (22.6)
28°

2.00 8.0 (13.7) 10.9 (17.7) 8.4 (21.4) 16.2 (27.5) 15.5 (41.3) 34.1 (81.1) 8.6 (22.0) 17.9 (30.4)
2.50 7.6 (18.7) 13.3 (22.0) 8.5 (21.9) 17.1 (35.9) 15.4 (41.3) 33.5 (94.3) 8.6 (22.1) 17.8 (40.2)
3.00 7.6 (19.7) 13.5 (27.8) 8.5 (21.8) 17.1 (41.2) 15.4 (41.6) 33.5 (93.4) 8.6 (22.2) 18.0 (45.5)
4.00 7.5 (19.7) 13.5 (30.5) 8.5 (21.9) 17.1 (41.6) 15.4 (41.6) 34.3 (94.2) 8.6 (22.3) 18.0 (45.5)
0.25 1.7 (1.7) 53.5 (2.9) 1.9 (1.7) 26.6 (3.0) 2.0 (2.7) 9.7 (4.8) 1.8 (1.8) 2.2 (3.2)
0.25 1.5 (2.3) 2.5 (4.0) 1.4 (2.5) 2.7 (4.6) 2.1 (4.7) 4.2 (8.4) 1.5 (2.7) 2.8 (4.9)
0.50 1.9 (4.0) 3.1 (6.6) 1.9 (4.6) 3.5 (9.3) 3.3 (10.2) 6.0 (14.7) 2.0 (5.1) 3.8 (9.6)
1.00 2.7 (5.9) 4.4 (8.7) 3.0 (7.3) 5.0 (11.0) 4.9 (13.1) 8.8 (22.2) 3.3 (8.2) 5.2 (11.9)
33°

1.50 3.5 (8.1) 5.1 (10.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.0 (14.0) 4.8 (13.1) 10.6 (29.2) 3.5 (9.0) 6.6 (15.4)
2.00 3.5 (9.2) 5.9 (12.6) 3.4 (8.9) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.6 (29.8) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.2)
2.50 3.5 (9.4) 6.1 (14.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.6 (29.6) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.4)
3.00 3.5 (9.5) 6.2 (14.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.9 (30.0) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.5)
478 Note: (1) The values within and outside the parenthesis indicate the efficiency factor for 1 equals to 45 and 40, respectively.
479 (2) 2 is the ratio of the bearing capacities of the unreinforced two layered systems and unreinforced homogenous (weak) soil.
480 (3) 3 is the ratio of the bearing capacities of the reinforced two layered systems and unreinforced homogenous (weak) soil.
481 The reinforcements are considered to be placed at scr/b and having width of lopt/b.
482
483 Table 5. A comparison of the present solutions with those available in literature for homogenous unreinforced sand of =30 and 45
484 subjected to different horizontal seismic accelerations (i.e. kv=0).
485
kh Present Ghosh Dormieux Soubra Choudhury Sarma and Shafiee and E. Cascone and Kumar and
Solution (2008)a & Pecker (1997)a and Rao Iossifelis Jahanandish O. Casablanca Rao (2002)d
_____ (LB)
___________ _____ (1995)a
_________ ____________ (2005)b
____________ (1990)b
______________ (2015)c
____________ (2016)d
_____________ ____________
0.0 13.9 (197.7) 36.3 22.7 25.0 31.5 19.0 (268.6) 24.0 (348.8) 15.7 14.7 (234.3) 7.6 (122.1)
0.1 9.7 (140.8) 20.3 - 15.6 18.9 8.1 (101.58) 16.2 (211.4) 7.9 13.4 (221.9) 6.9 (104.5)
0.2 6.0 (87.8) 11.1 7.1 8.9 10.3 3.8 (45.9) 9.5 (129.7) 5.7 12.0 (209.1) 4.7 (78.0)
0.3 3.2 (52.7) 5.3 - 4.5 4.9 1.8 (17.7) 4.7 (73.1) 2.7 10.9 (195.6) 2.5 (47.0)
0.4 1.4 (30.0) 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 0.7 (7.8) 2.2 (43.2) 1.3 8.8 (181.5) 1.0 (27.3)
486 Note: The numerical solutions within and outside the parenthesis are reported for  =45 and 30, respectively.
487 a
Upper bound solution using the rigid block method. Soubra (1997) computed the solutions by considering two different mechanisms.
488 b
Limit Equilibrium Solutions.
489 c
Displacement based Finite Element Method.
490 d
Method of stress characteristics.
491 Table 6. A comparison of bearing capacity in the form of N (=Qu/(0.5b ))for unreinforced
492 two layered sands (1=47.7º, 2=34º, =16.33 kN/m3 and 2=13.78kN/m3).
493
t/b Present Khatri et. al. (2017) Hanna Farah
a b
Solution
______ _______ LB
___________________UB (1981) (2004)
_______ ______
0.00 5.5 6.0 6.2 9.4 10.2
0.25 9.5 9.6 10.0 11.8 12.9
0.50 14.6 15.4 16.0 15.6 17.4
1.00 26.0 27.2 28.3 22.5 25.3
1.50 39.1 41.6 43.5 33.5 38.6
2.00 55.9 54.2 56.9 44.5 50.7
494 Note: LB and UB denotes lower bound and upper bound solution, respectively.
495 a
Experimental Solutions.
496 b
Analytical Solutions.
497
498 Table 7. A comparison of efficiency factor for homogenous soil and different s/b ratio with kh= kv=0.0.

___ =30
 =35
 =40

s/b Present Kumar Michalowski Chakraborty Present Kumar Chakraborty Present Kumar Michalowski Chakraborty
Solution and Sahoo (2004)b and Kumar Solution and Sahoo and Kumar Solution and Sahoo (2004)b and Kumar
___ ________ (2013)a
________ ___________ (2014a)c
_______ ______ (2013)a
________ (2014a)c
__________ ______ (2013)a
________ ___________ (2014a)c
___________
0.2 1.46 1.47 1.37 1.42 1.40 1.49 1.40 1.35 1.51 1.42 1.36
0.4 1.42 1.68 1.60 1.38 1.78 1.74 1.66 1.75 1.81 1.63 1.65
0.6 1.06 1.09 1.56 1.03 1.27 1.44 1.20 1.64 1.95 1.81 1.73
0.8 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.12 1.44 1.91 1.14
1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.15 1.48 1.00
499 Note: The efficiency factor is defined as the ratio of the bearing capacities of the reinforced and unreinforced soil.
500 a
Finite element upper bound solutions (linearizing Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion).
501 b
Upper bound solutions using rigid block mechanism.
502 c
Lower Bound solutions in combination with finite elements.
503
504
505
506
507
Figure Click here to download Figure igm-figure files.pdf

(a)
Qu
kv
 ≤(ccot−n)tan  =n = 0
kh
Geogrid Strips: b
s
 nu =  nl ,  tu   tl
kv t
l
Layer 1: 1
D
y kh
xy
Layer 2: 2 x

(b) x4, y4, xy4

4 x3, y3, xy3
i t 3
 n3 =  n 4
 n1 =  n 2
 t3 =  t 4
 t1 =  t 2 n
2 j
x2, y2, xy2 1
x1, y1, xy1
433
434 Fig. 1. (a) Problem domain and boundary conditions, (b) Stress discontinuity line.
435
 (a) kh=0.0, kv=0.0, 1=40 and 2=25 (b) kh=0.2, kv=0.0, 1=40 and 2=25 (c) kh=0.2, kv=0.2, 1=40 and 2=25

436
(d) kh=0.0, kv=0.0, 1=45 and 2=25 (e) kh=0.2, kv=0.0, 1=45 and 2=25 (f) kh=0.2, kv=0.2, 1=45 and 2=25

437
438 Fig. 2. The variation of N with l/b corresponding to different s/b and t/b having 1=40,2=25 with (a) kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (b) kh=0.2,
439 kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.2, kv=0.2; and 1=45, 2=25 with (d) kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (e) kh=0.2, kv=0.0; and (f) kh=0.2, kv=0.2.
440
441 Fig. 3. The variation of scr/b with t/b for 1=45 and 2=33.
442
443

444

445
446 Fig. 4. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, t/b=1, l/b=2 with s/b equals to:
447 (a) 0.15, (b) 0.60, and (c) 1.20
448

449

450
451 Fig. 5. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1 with l/b equals to:
452 (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 3.0.
453
454

455

456
457 Fig. 6. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, l/b=1 and t/b equals to:
458 (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 4.
459
460

461

462

463
464 Fig. 7. Failure patterns for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1, l/b =2 with (a) kh= kv=0.0; (b) kh=0.2,
465 kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.4, kv=0.0; and (d) kh=0.4, kv=0.2.