GI v8n6 Paper2

Technical Paper by N. Kotake, F. Tatsuoka, T.
Tanaka,
M.S.A. Siddiquee, and C.C. Huang
FEM SIMULATION OF THE BEARING CAPACITY OF
LEVEL REINFORCED SAND GROUND SUBJECTED TO
FOOTING LOAD
ABSTRACT: To obtain a better understanding of the bearing capacity characteristics
of reinforced sand subjected to a footing load and the associated reinforcing mechanisms,
results from plane strain laboratory model tests were simulated using a nonlinear elasto-
plastic finite element model (FEM). The following factors, which affect the strength and
deformation of sand, were considered in the simulations: (i) confining pressure; (ii)
anisotropy; (iii) nonlinear strain-hardening and strain-softening; (iv) dilatancy; and (v)
strain localization into a shear band(s) having a width proportional to the particle size.
Simulated load-settlement relationships were generally in good agreement with the phys-
ical experimental results. The strain and stress fields obtained from the FEM analysis
clearly reveal that the ground failure is extremely progressive. The peak strength is never
mobilized simultaneously along the potential failure planes.
KEYWORDS: Bearing capacity, Finite element method, Shear band, Stress path.
AUTHORS: N. Kotake, Engineer, Toyo Construction Co. Ltd., Japan, 3-7-1
Kandanishiki-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8463 Japan, Telephone: 81/3-3296-4623,
Telefax: 81/3-3296-4633, E-mail: kotake-nozomu@toyo-const.co.jp; F. Tatsuoka, Prof.,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-
8656, Japan, Telephone: 81/3-5841-6120, Telefax: 81/3-5841-8504, E-mail:
tatsuoka@geot.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp; T. Tanaka, Prof., Dept. of Biological & Environmental
Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan, Yayoi 1-1-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657,
Japan, Telephone: 81/3-5841-5346, Telefax: 81/3-5841-8170, E-mail:
atanak@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp; M.S.A. Siddiquee, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh,
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh, E-mail: sid@bangla.net; and C.-C. Huang, Prof., Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, Ta-Hsueh Road, Tainan,
Taiwan, 70101 ROC, E-mail: samhcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-
4061, USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-631-9334. Geosynthetics
International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATE: Original manuscript submitted 10 November 2001, revised version received 14
December 2001, and accepted 5 January 2002. Discussion open until 1 September 2002.
REFERENCE: Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Siddiquee, M.S.A., and Huang,
C.C., 2001, FEM Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of Level Reinforced Sand Ground
Subjected to Footing Load, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 501-549.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 501

KOTAKE et al. Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand Subjected to Footing Load
1 INTRODUCTION
Previous studies into the soil reinforcing technology have proven that it is very effective
to place horizontal tensile reinforcement layers of, for example, a polymer geogrid in
the ground immediately below a footing to improve the bearing capacity of the ground,
in particular of dense sand ground. This type of soil-reinforcing technology could be
used in practice as a cost-effective solution when compared to the conventional solution,
e.g., using a footing with a relevant embedment. Many experimental studies have been
conducted over the last two decades to clarify the reinforcing mechanism to predict the
ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced ground and to optimise the arrangement of rein-
forcement elements beneath the footing (Binquent and Lee 1975; Fragaszy and Lawton
1984; Guido et al. 1986; Akinmusuur and Akinbolade 1981; Huang and Tatsuoka 1988,
1990; Takemura et al. 1992; Ju et al. 1996). In these experimental studies, metal strips,
geotextile, and geogrids were used as tensile reinforcement.
Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990) performed a series of well-controlled model lab-
oratory tests under plane strain conditions to evaluate the bearing capacity of rein-
forced soil (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990)
evaluated the effects of the following reinforcement factors on the bearing capacity of
ground loaded with a strip footing: (i) length; (ii) number of layers (or depth of rein-
forced zone); (iii) horizontal spacing (or cover ratio); and (iv) stiffness and rupture
strength. A series of reference tests was also conducted using a surface footing and a
footing with different depths on and in unreinforced sand. The details of the experi-
mental procedures are described in Section 2. Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990) iden-
tified the following two reinforcing mechanisms that increase the bearing capacity of
level sand ground subjected to a footing load:
Deep footing mechanism: By placing horizontal tensile reinforcement layers hav-
ing an appropriate vertical spacing between the adjacent reinforcement layers a
reinforced zone is formed immediately below the footing, which behaves as a
semi-rigid block by restraining the lateral deformation of the sand in the reinforced
zone. When the compressive strength of the semi-rigid block is larger than the
bearing capacity of the underlying unreinforced deposit, the latter controls the peak
footing load. Even when the reinforcement length is equal to the footing width, the
peak footing load can become approximately equivalent to that of a deep rigid foot-
ing having the same width.
Wide slab mechanism (Schlosser and Elias 1978): When the reinforcement layers
are longer than the footing width, this mechanism becomes important, in addition
to the deep footing mechanism. That is, the reinforced zone behaves as a stiff,
but not perfectly rigid, reinforced block extending laterally beyond the width of
footing, spreading the footing load into a wider area below the reinforced zone than
it is when the reinforcement length is as short as the footing width.
Huang and Menq (1997) and Huang and Hong (2000) analysed their model tests
results and all other available test results and found that the bearing capacity of rein-
502 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

Figure 1. Setup of the laboratory model tests (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).
Figure 2. Schematic of the different groups of laboratory model tests performed in the
present study (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990).

forced ground subjected to footing load, as described above, could be predicted based
on these two reinforcing mechanisms.
The bearing capacity of unreinforced ground subjected to footing load is one of the
most important classical geotechnical engineering problems. A great number of
researches have been performed into this issue by means of theoretical, experimental
and numerical approaches. It has been found, however, that it is not possible to accu-
rately evaluate by the classical approach the bearing capacity factor for soil weight N
for a strip footing placed on or in sand and it is in particular the case with dense sand
having a high friction angle. Tatsuoka et al. (1991) and Siddiquee et al. (1999), for
example, showed that the classical bearing capacity theory over-simplifies the defor-
mation and strength characteristics of sand into an isotropic perfectly plastic one with
zero failure plane thickness, which results into the unreliable prediction of N associ-
ated with an unrealistic failure mechanism not exhibiting progressive failure (in the
sense that the peak strength of sand is not mobilized simultaneously along the potential
failure planes or shear bands). A reasonable prediction of the bearing capacity of
ground subjected to footing load by the classical theory is possible only when a reason-
able average operating strength of soil can be chosen, which is however usually not an
objective process. Huang and Tatsuoka (1990), Huang et al. (1994) and Huang and
Tatsuoka (1994) showed that the effects of progressive failure on the bearing capacity
of level ground and slope of sand become more important when sand is reinforced than
when sand is not unreinforced, and the failure becomes more progressive as the rein-
forcing effects become larger. Despite that several FEM solutions for N can be found
in the literature, most of them also assume isotropic perfectly plastic material property
of sand. On the other hand, a recent numerical study revealed that the bearing capacity
characteristics of level dense sand subjected to footing load observed in physical
model tests could be reasonably simulated by FEM only when based on an appropriate
and realistic constitutive model of the deformation and strength characteristics of sand
(Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Siddiquee et al. 1999, 2000). In their works, a number of factors
that affect the strength and deformation of sand were taken into account, including; a)
confining pressure; b) anisotropy; c) nonlinear strain-hardening and strain-softening;
d) dilatancy; and e) strain localization into a shear band(s) having a thickness propor-
tional to the sand particle size. For a realistic numerical simulation of the deformation
and failure of a reinforced soil mass, the relevant modelling of the interaction between
reinforcement and the surrounding soil is also essential in addition to the above. It has
also been shown that discrete reinforcement layers having locally a three-dimensional
structure, such as geogrid layers, can be adequately modelled into planar reinforce-
ment layers having an equivalent angle of friction at the interface between the sand and
the reinforcement, which is equal to or smaller than the angle of internal friction of
sand (Kotake et al. 1997; Kotake 1998; Kotake et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000). They
showed that by using this modelling procedure, the two-dimensional FEM can simu-
late rather accurately the global stress-strain relations of dense Toyoura sand speci-
mens reinforced with single- and multi-layers of geogrid observed in physical plane
strain compression (PSC) tests. The shear band patterns in the reinforced PSC speci-
mens were also well simulated in the FEM analysis.
The objective of the present paper is, therefore, to show that the FEM procedure

based on the realistic constitutive models of sand and sand-reinforcement interaction

that have been developed by the authors can also simulate accurately the global footing
load-settlement relationships of reinforced level ground, the effects of reinforcement
arrangement on the increase in the bearing capacity of ground subject to footing and
the failure pattern with shear band development in unreinforced and reinforced zones
that were observed in the above-mentioned model tests (Huang and Tatsuoka 1988,
1990). The reinforcing mechanism is also analysed based on the strain and stress fields
obtained from the FEM analysis, noting that it is very difficult to evaluate the stress
fields in a sand mass by physical experiments.
2 MODEL TESTS ON REINFORCED SAND (HUANG AND TATSUOKA

1990)
The models for physical experiments (Figures 1 and 2) were prepared by pluviating
air-dried Toyoura sand through air at a controlled fall height into a rigid sand box from
a slit of a hopper moving laterally at a controlled constant velocity. By this method,
homogeneous dense model grounds having similar relative densities (in a range of Dr =
80 to 86%) were obtained. Toyoura sand is a sub-angular to angular quartz-rich sieved
sand, having a specific gravity, Gs = 2.64, a mean grain diameter, D50 = 0.16 mm, and
a coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 1.46 having no fines content. The minimum and max-
imum void ratios are 0.605 and 0.977, respectively. The model sand ground had
dimensions of 1.83 m in width, 0.40 m in length, and 0.74 m in depth. The sidewalls of
the sand box consisted of 30 mm-thick transparent Acrylic plates with outside steel
stiffeners to ensure the plane strain conditions. The inside surface of the Acrylic plate
was well lubricated by means of a 0.2 mm-thick latex rubber membrane sheet in con-
tact with sand smeared with a 0.5 mm-thick silicone grease layer placed between the
membrane and the plate. The friction angle of the lubrication layers at the pressure lev-
els in the zone beneath the footing that are relevant to the model tests, estimated based
on the results from the direct shear tests on the lubrication layer (Tatsuoka et al. 1984),
is approximately 0.05.
A rigid 100 mm-wide and 398 mm-long footing with a rough base, which was
guided against tilting and translation by using a high precision linear-motion ball bear-
ing bushing, was loaded at a controlled constant displacement rate between 0.1 and 0.2
mm/minute. Local normal and shear stresses were measured by means of five two-
component load cells equipped at the central third of the footing base, each of which
could measure the normal and shear forces separately.
Strips made of phosphor bronze, 0.5 mm-thick and 3 mm-wide, were used as
model reinforcement. The surface of the strips was made rough by gluing the particles
of Toyoura sand. Tensile force activated in the reinforcement was measured by means
of electronic-resistant strain gauges. The measurement was rather accurate as phosphor
bronze is highly linear elastic. As effects of the rigidity of reinforcement on the bearing
capacity characteristics of footing were found insignificant in these model tests
(Huang and Tatsuoka 1990), it is likely that the effects of the arrangements of rein-
forcement layers and the failure mechanism of reinforced ground that were observed in

these model tests are also representative of those for sand ground reinforced with a rel-
atively stiff polymer geogrid.
On the outer surface of membrane used to lubricate the sidewalls of the sand box,
10 mm2 mesh had been drawn. Displacement fields on the intermediate principal
stress, 2 , plane of the model ground were obtained from displacements at the nodal
points of the mesh that were read from photographs taken occasionally during each
test. Average strains in each 10 mm 10 mm element were obtained from displace-
ments at four nodes of the element, assuming a linear variation in strain in the element.
The accuracy of the displacement measurement was estimated to be about 0.012 mm,
which is equivalent to a normal strain of about 1.0%. From strain fields on the 2
plane obtained as described above, the development of shear band pattern could be
traced, as shown later in Section 5. It had been confirmed that the displacements mea-
sured as described above were nearly the same as those at the central section of the
model sand ground, which were essentially free from the effects of side wall friction
(Tani 1986).
3 FEM SIMULATION PROCECURE
3.1 Analysed Model Tests
Among those described in Figure 2, the following two groups of model tests, using
short and long reinforcement layers, were selected for the FEM simulation:
1. Group-a: This group of model tests was performed to study into whether the use
of short reinforcement layers having a length L equal to the footing width B (i.e., L/
B = 1) is highly effective for improving the bearing capacity of ground subjected to
footing load. Effects of the number of reinforcement layers n (= 1, 2, 3, and 5) or
the depth of reinforced zone DR /B (= 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.5) on the bearing capacity
of ground were also investigated.
2. Group-b: This group of model tests was performed to study into the effects of the
length of reinforcement layers L (L/B = 1, 2, 3.5, and 6) when the number of rein-
forcement layers n was equal to 3. Only in the case of L/B = 3.5, the length of rein-
forcement layer was not uniform, i.e., L/B = 2 for the first top layer and L/B = 3.5
for the second and third layers.
3.2 FEM Modelling
The meshing shown in Figure 3 was used in the present FEM analysis. Taking advan-
tage of the symmetric nature of the problem, only a half domain of the model ground
was analysed. The ground was discretized into four-noded quadrilateral plane ele-
ments. The total number of plane elements and the nodal points are 540 and 581,
respectively. The vicinity of the footing was discretized into 10 mm 10 mm square
elements to capture the deformation and failure modes in these critical zones. This
mesh size was considered to be adequate based on the results of a parametric study on
the effects of mesh size in the numerical simulation by using the present FEM code of

Figure 3. Finite element mesh used in the present study.
plane strain compression tests (Kotake et al. 1999) and bearing capacity model tests
(Siddiquee et al. 1999), both using Toyoura sand. To minimise possible effects of
mesh-dependency on the results among different analysis cases, the same mesh shown
in Figure 3 was used throughout the present analysis.
As for the boundaries of the ground, vertical rollers were placed along the footing
centreline, i.e., the axis of symmetry. Horizontal and vertical rollers were placed along
the bottom and other lateral boundaries of the analysis domain, respectively, which
was different from the actual boundary conditions in the physical model tests. This
boundary condition was considered much more representative of the one in the model
tests than fixed boundaries, as the sand was in contact with an untreated but nearly flat
steel surface in the model tests. It was confirmed that the bearing capacity of ground
obtained by this FEM analysis using this roller boundaries becomes only slightly
smaller than the value when using fixed boundaries (Kotake 1998). This small effect of
boundary condition is due seemingly to that the distance between the footing base and
the bottom and lateral boundaries is sufficiently large.

3.3 Constitutive Model for Sand
As the details of the sand constitutive model have been reported in several previous
papers by the authors of the current paper (Tatsuoka et al. 1993; Siddiquee et al. 1995,
1999, 2000; Kotake et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000), only a brief outline is given below.
General Framework. A generalized elasto-plastic analysis with a non-associated

flow rule was performed using an isotropic strain-hardening-softening model. The
yield function and the plastic potential were of Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager
types, respectively. The yield function is expressed as:
1
= I 1 + ----------- J 2 K (1)
g()
where: I1 = first invariant of stress (i.e., hydrostatic stress component, which is positive
in compression); J2 = second stress invariant (i.e., deviatoric stress); K = cohesion
intercept, which is equal to zero in the present analysis; and g() = Lode angle func-
tion, which is defined as:
3 sin mob
g ( ) = ---------------------------------------------------------------- (2)
2 3 cos 2 sin sin mob
where is the deviatoric stress at = 30 (on the -plane) and the growth function (or
the strain-hardening function), which is related to the mobilized angle of internal fric-
tion, mob , as:
2 sin mob
= ----------------------------------------- (3)
3 ( 3 sin mob )
The plastic potential function is defined as:
= I 1 + J 2 K = 0 (4)
where K is the cohesion intercept, which is equal to zero in the present study. This
potential function has a similar form to the yield function, Equation 1, when g() = 1.0.
Equation 4 has the advantage of differentiability at all stress states. The coefficient
is defined depending on the type of analysis. For the present plane strain conditions,
is defined as:
tan
= ---------------------------------- (5)
9 + 12 tan2
where is the mobilized angle of dilatancy, which is given by:
d 1p + d 3p
= arc sin -----------------------
- (6)
d 1p d 3p

where d 1p and d 3p are the major and minor plastic principal strain increments (posi-
tive in compression). In the present study, the value of was determined by Equation
7, which was obtained by modifying the Rowe's original relation (Rowe 1962) to sim-
ulate, as closely as possible, the results from the physical PSC tests on Toyoura sand
(Park and Tatsuoka 1994):
R = ( R res 1 ) D + 1 (7)
where: R = principal stress ratio, (1 / 3); and D = principal plastic strain ratio, equal
to d 1p / d 3p . Rres is the value of R at the residual state, which is linked to the resid-
ual angle of friction res , which has been found to be a function of the confining pres-
sure, 3 , for Toyoura sand (Siddiquee et al. 1999), as:
res ( in degrees ) = 35.67 3.00 log ( 3 p a ) (8)
where pa = 98 kPa. According to Equation 8, the values of Rres and res decrease with
an increase in the confining pressure. Similar results have been obtained for other
types of sands (Siddiquee et al. 1999).
Growth Function and Peak Strength. The pre-peak stress-strain relationships of the
test material (i.e., Toyoura sand) in PSC reported by Tatsuoka et al. (1986) and Park
and Tatsuoka (1994) were modelled into the generalized hyperbolic equation, which is
summarized in Appendix A (Tatsuoka et al. 1993). The general hyperbolic equation
(Equation A1) was used as the growth function for the yield surface defined in Equa-
tion 1. The growth functions for typical cases are depicted in Siddiquee et al. (1999)
and Kotake et al. (1999). The model considers the pressure-level dependency of the
internal friction angle peak and the elastic shear modulus and the inherent anisotropy
in the strength and deformation properties with regard to the angle of the direction of
1 relative to the bedding plane. The peak angle of friction, peak , of Toyoura sand that
is modelled below was used in the present analysis.
When the confining pressure 3 is higher than, or equal to, the critical value, (3)o :
3
peak ( degrees ) = 0.98 59.47 ( 1.5 e ) 10 ( 1 e ) log10 ------------- R ( ) (9a)
( 3 )0
and when 3 is lower than (3)o :
peak ( degrees ) = 0.98 { 59.47 ( 1.5 e ) }R ( ) (9b)
where (3)o is given by:

( 3 ) = 4 ( 1 e ) pa ( p a = 98 kPa ) (10)
The anisotropy function R() is the average curve for dense Toyoura sand (Figure 4).
A coefficient of 0.98, which is introduced in Equation 9, was not originally used by
Tatsuoka et al. (1993) to fit the PSC data reported by Tatsuoka et al. (1986) and it was
not used for the FEM simulation of the model plane strain bearing capacity tests of a
strip footing on Toyoura sand performed by Tani (1986) (Siddiquee et al. 1999). The

Figure 4. Dependency of peak on the angle of the 1 direction relative to the bedding
plane of Toyoura sand in PSC (Tatsuoka et al. 1986).
reason for the introduction of a coefficient of 0.98 is as follows. The bearing capacity
factor N obtained from a series of bearing capacity tests on unreinforced Toyoura sand
conducted by Huang and Tatsuoka (1988, 1990) was generally slightly smaller than
those from the test series conducted by Tani (1986) under the similar conditions. It was
considered that this variance was due primarily to the different batches of Toyoura
sand used in these two series of model tests; Yasin et al. (1999) showed that the
strength and deformation characteristics of different batches Toyoura sand could be
quite different in plane strain compression tests at low confining pressures. In the
present analysis, therefore, the original peak friction angle peak was reduced by 2% so
that the N value for the unreinforced Toyoura sand ground obtained by the present
FEM simulation became the same as the value measured by Huang and Tatsuoka
(1988, 1990). However, this slight adjustment has no important effects on the conclu-
sions obtained in the present study.
In the present FEM analysis, the anisotropic material property is taken into account
at each step of computation by continuously and repeatedly redefining the deformation
and strength characteristics as a function of the angle, , until the computed value
converges to the respective assumed value from which the deformation and strength
characteristics at each point was obtained in the computation step immediately before.
Therefore, the isotropy of the yielding property (Equation 1) in the constitutive model
has no direct consequence in the analysis results for the present analysis of globally
monotonic loading cases.
Modelling of Shear Banding. In the present analysis, it is assumed that:

1. The deformation of a given sand mass under a uniform boundary stress condition
be homogeneous in the pre-peak regime; and
2. Strain localization into a shear band starts suddenly at the peak stress state, while

the peak strength is a material property, independent of boundary conditions.

These assumptions are a reasonable approximation of experimental results from an
extensive series of PSC tests (Tatsuoka et al. 1990; Yoshida et al. 1994; Yoshida and
Tatsuoka 1997). Based on these assumptions, Tatsuoka et al. (1991), Siddiquee et al.
(1999), and Kotake et al. (1999) introduced a shear banding phenomenon in their FEM
analysis by using a strain localization parameter, S, in the additive decomposition of
the total strain increment as follows (Tanaka and Sakai 1993):
d ij = d ije + Sd ijp (11)
where d ije is the elastic strain increment. The elastic deformation properties of Toy-
oura sand are summarised in Appendix B. The parameter S is the area ratio equal to
Fb / Fe , where Fb is the area of a single shear band in each finite element and Fe is the
area of the finite element. The plastic strain component d ije is determined by the yield
function (Equation 1) and the plastic potential (Equation 6). Then, the rate of post-peak
strain softening associated with shear banding depends on the strain localization
parameter S, which is solely a function of the shear band width, w. As the shear band
width w is basically proportional to the particle size (e.g., Yoshida et al. (1994) and
Yoshida and Tatsuoka (1997)), the effects of sand particle size on the failure strength
of a sand mass can be simulated by the present FEM procedure (e.g., Siddiquee et al.
(1999)). By ignoring the effects of the orientation of the shear band in each finite ele-
ment, an approximated form of S used in the present study can be expressed as:
w
S = ---------- (12)
Fe
To model the post-peak, stress-strain properties of sand inside each shear band, the
following strain-softening stress-strain relationship was introduced:
( f )2
R = R res + ( R peak R res ) exp -------------------- (13)
r
where: R = 1 / 3 ; Rpeak = (1 / 3)peak = (1 + sin peak)/(1 sin peak); peak = peak

angle of friction (Equation 9); Rres = residual stress ratio (Equation 8); = total shear
strain (= 1 3) inside a shear band; and f = shear strain when R = Rpeak . The value of
the strain softening parameter, r , was determined from exponential fitting of the
experimental results obtained by Yoshida et al. (1994) and Yoshida and Tatsuoka
(1997), which is equal to 0.513 for a Toyoura sand shear band thickness of 3 mm.
This method, taking into account strain localization associated with shear banding
by introducing a characteristic width of shear band and by defining specific and objec-
tive shear deformation and dilatancy characteristics inside shear bands, is similar to the
method proposed by Pietruszcak and Mroz (1981). However, unlike the Pietruszcak
and Mroz (1981) method, the direction of shear banding was not specified in the
present study. Rather, it is implicitly assumed that the direction of the shear band coin-
cides, in a broad sense, with the direction of maximum shear strain.

3.4 Modelling of Reinforcement
A soil mass reinforced with metal, geosynthetic strips, or a geogrid has a three-dimen-
sional (3-D) structure at a local scale, which cannot be modelled directly in a two-
dimensional (2-D) plane strain numerical analysis, like the present FEM analysis.
Thus, each phosphor bronze strip layer was modelled as a planar reinforcing layer by
using beam elements in the present plane strain FEM analysis. The values of axial and
bending stiffness of each planar member were set equal to the respective average value
of the original reinforcement layer consisting of strips. To this end, the linear elastic
property with a Youngs modulus equal to 1.22 108 kN/m2 of the phosphor bronze
strips evaluated by the stress-strain test was used. In the present case, the original 400
mm-wide reinforcement layer consisted of 24 strips placed in a sand box, with a cover
ratio CR = 18%; thus, the beam element had a cross-sectional area, A = 9.0 10-3 cm2
and a moment of inertia, I = 1.875 10-6 cm4 per unit length in the 2 direction.
In the present FEM analysis, no particular interface elements were used, since no
pronounced slippage between sand and reinforcement and pullout failure of reinforce-
ment was observed in the physical experimental tests. Therefore, the friction angle at
the sand-reinforcement interface was eventually equal to the friction angle of the sand
in the adjacent zone, which is the same with the respective mobilised peak value of SS
= arctan( / n)max along the interface. Note that the SS value is a function of the direc-
tion of the major principal stress relative to the direction of the interface while affected
by the normal strain condition in the longitudinal direction of the interface. On the
other hand, some attempts were made to take into account the effects of possible slip-
page and imperfect friction conditions along the interface by introducing special inter-
face elements (Kotake 1998; Kotake et al. 1999), which will be reported elsewhere by
the present authors.
3.5 Numerical Procedure
General. A set of nonlinear equations was solved using the dynamic relaxation tech-
nique (Tanaka and Kawamoto 1988), which has a reputation for solving highly nonlin-
ear equations, especially for high friction angle materials such as dense Toyoura sand,
which is used in the present study. The integration of the elasto-plastic equations was
performed by the return-mapping scheme (Ortiz and Simo 1986), which is a first order
approximated Euler backward integration. A FEM code with an optimised dynamic
relaxation solver developed by Tanaka and Kawamoto (1988) was used. Four-noded
quadrilateral elements along with reduced integration (Zienkiewicz et al. 1971) were
used to improve the bounds of the solution in pseudo-equilibrium for this highly non-
linear material (Toyoura sand). To prevent any probable hourglass mode, an anti-hour-
glass scheme, proposed by Flanagan and Belytschko (1981), was adopted. Following
an elastic stiffness approach, a very small elastic stiffness (0.05% of the actual material
stiffness) was added to the nonlinear system, as hourglass resisting nodal forces, when-
ever any sand element started to form an hourglass mode. The details are described by
Siddiquee et al. (1995).
The numerical procedure described above has been used to simulate the failure of

unreinforced and reinforced sand specimens in plane strain compression tests (Kotake
et al. 1997, 1999; Peng et al. 2000) and in the bearing capacity failure tests using a
strip footing on unreinforced sand (Tatsuoka et al. 1991; Siddiquee et al. 1999, 2000).
Tatsuoka et al. (1991) and Siddiquee et al. (1999, 2000) obtained a satisfactory agree-
ment of global stress-strain behaviour (in the PSC tests) and load-deformation or foot-
ing settlement relations (in the model footing tests) between the numerical simulation
and the physical experiments. Also, the development of a shear band in unreinforced
and reinforced sand masses was reasonably simulated. The previous achievements
described above are the basis for the present study on the bearing failure characteristics
of reinforced sand.
Initial Stress Condition and Loading Method in the Simulation. The initial stress
state of homogeneous level ground, called the Ko-stress condition, is represented as:
( v )o = d h ( h )o = Ko ( v )o (14)
where: (v)o and (h)o = initial vertical and horizontal stresses, respectively; and h =
depth, which is taken at a Gauss point of each concerned plane element in the present
FEM analysis. A Ko value of 0.34 was used, which was obtained by substituting the
average initial void ratio, eo = 0.66, of the model ground into the following empirical
equation:
K o = 0.52 e o (15)
Equation 15 was obtained by means of special triaxial compression tests using a

double-cell triaxial apparatus containing a specimen of air-pluviated Toyoura sand
(Okochi and Tatsuoka 1984). The unit weight of sand d = 15.58 kN/m3, which gives
the initial void ratio eo= 0.66, was used as the average value of the measured values
ranging from 15.40 to 15.65 kN/m3 in the physical experiments. On the other hand, the
initial stress state in the model sand ground was analysed by applying gravity to the
model ground, allowing one-dimensional (1-D) compression by the self-weight of the
sand to take place in the sand mass. The initial stress state obtained by such a FEM
gravitational force analysis as above was in a good agreement with Equation 15, vali-
dating the present analysis method (Kotake 1998).
Simulation of Loading Procedure. In the same way as the physical model tests, a
central and vertical load was applied to a rigid footing with a rough base under dis-
placement control. Uniform vertical displacements were prescribed to the nodal points
of the sand ground model, which was contact with the footing base while lateral move-
ments of those nodal points were fixed to model the rough base footing condition. The
displacement rate in the analysis was 0.01 mm/step; i.e., 0.01%/step of the footing
width B, which had been found to be small enough to keep enough accuracy and
numerical stability even for the most densely and widely reinforced ground in the
present study. A force norm and an energy norm of 1 10-6 were specified for an equi-
librium iteration tolerance in the calculation of a dynamic relaxation scheme. It was
found that a tighter tolerance than the above required more iterations with a very small

improvement of the solution, while a looser tolerance caused an unacceptable fluctua-

tion when overestimating the bearing capacity of ground subjected to a footing load.
More details of the convergence check are described by Siddiquee et al. (1995),
Kotake (1998), and Peng et al. (2000). All the analyses were carried out using 1,500
displacement incremental steps until the normalized footing settlement S/B became
0.15, which is enough for the purpose of the present study, i.e., a simulation that well
exceeds the maximum footing load state.
4 LOAD-SETTLEMENT RELATIONS
4.1 General
Figures 5 and 6 show the normalized load-settlement relationships (i.e., the N = 2q/
(d B) and S/B relationships) obtained from the physical experiments on the unrein-
forced and reinforced ground models (Groups A and B in Figure 2) and the corre-
sponding FEM analyses. In the FEM analyses, the average footing pressure, q, was
obtained by simply averaging the vertical stresses at the Gauss points in the soil ele-
ments immediately beneath the footing base. The vertical displacement prescribed as
the settlement at the footing base was defined as the footing settlement S. Figures 7
and 8 summarize the effects of the number of reinforcement layers, n (i.e., the depth of
reinforced zone DR /B) and the effects of reinforcement length, L, on the maximum
value of the normalized peak footing load N, N , and the relative settlement at peak
footing load, Sf /B, from the physical experiments and the FEM analysis.
4.2 Unreinforced Ground
It may be seen from Figure 5 that for the unreinforced model ground, the pre-peak
load-displacement relationship and the peak footing load obtained from the FEM anal-
ysis is in a good agreement with the result from the physical experimental results. It
should be noted that unrealistic results could be obtained by numerical analyses based
on a constitutive model of sand that does not take into account the relevant factors (i.e.,
Factors (i) to (iv) listed in Section 1). Figure 9 shows the results from a parametric
study into the effects of these parameters on the bearing capacity of level ground
loaded with a 500 mm-wide strip footing under otherwise the same conditions as in the
present case (i.e., central and vertical loading on a rigid and rough footing under plane
strain conditions on Toyoura sand with a void ratio equal to 0.66) (Siddiquee et al.
1999). Table 1 shows the analysis cases and the various assumptions used in the analy-
sis. When referring to the results presented in Figure 9, it could be understood that a
discrepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment for the unrein-
forced model ground (Figure 5) is insignificant.
It is also true, however, that the FEM results exhibit a noticeably larger pre-peak
stiffness and smaller settlement at the peak footing load state when compared to those
from the physical experiment. This discrepancy becomes larger as the reinforcing
effects become larger as shown below. In addition, the post-peak footing load behav-

400
Group-a: L/B=1
300
FEM
n=0
n=1
N (=2q / d B)
n=2
n=3
200 n=5
TEST
n=0
n=1
100 n=2
n=3
n=5
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
S/B
Figure 5. Normalized load-settlement relations for Group A obtained from
experimental tests and FEM analysis.
500
Group-b: n=3
400
FEM
L/B=0
L/B=1
300
N (=2q / d B)
L/B=2
L/B=3.5
L/B=6
200 TEST
L/B=0
L/B=1
L/B=2
L/B=3.5
100
L/B=6
0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
S/B
Figure 6. Normalized load-settlement relationships for Group B obtained from
experimental tests and FEM analyses.

(a)
350
Group-a: L/B=1
300
N (=2q / d B)
250
200
150
100
FEM
50 Test
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
DR / B
(b) 0.15
0.14
0.13 Group-a: L/B=1
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
Sf / B
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03 FEM
0.02 Test
0.01
0.00
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
DR/B
Figure 7. Group A physical experimental results and FEM analysis results: (a) effect of
number of reinforcement layers on the maximum value of the normalised peak footing
load; (b) effect of number of reinforcement layers on the relative settlement at peak
footing load.

(a) 600
(a)
Group-b: n=3
500
400
N (=2q / d B )
300
200
FEM
100
Test
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L/B
(b)
(b) 0.15
0.14
0.13
Group-b: n=3
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
Sf / B
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03 FEM
0.02 Test
0.01
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L/B
Figure 8. Group A physical experimental results and FEM analysis results: (a) effect of
reinforcement length on the maximum value of the normalised peak footing load; (b) effect
of reinforcement length on the relative settlement at peak footing load.

(a) (b)
518
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6
Figure 9. Effects of influencing factors on the load-settlement relationship in the numerical analysis compared with the physical test result
for a strip footing with a width of 500 mm under plane strain conditions on Toyoura sand with a void ratio equal to 0.66 (Figures 19 and 20
in the paper by Siddiquee et al. 1999): (a) cases a to d; (b) cases e to j.

Table 1. Analysis cases and assumptions used in each case (Siddiquee et al. 1999)
Analysis case Assumptions Assumption number Assumption definition
A 1 1 Linear elastic: E = 125.6 MPa, = 0.3
B 2 2 Nonlinear elastic: E = 2(1+)G, G = f(p,e)
C 2, 3, 4, = 49 3 Elasto-perfectly plastic
D 2, 3, 5, = 49 4 Associated flow rule
E 2, 5, 6, = 49 5 Non-associated flow rule
F 2, 5, 6, 7 6 Isotropic hardening
G 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 7 Pressure level dependency of
H 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 8 Strength anisotropy
I 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 9 Strain softening
J 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 10 Shear banding
11 Double yield surface model
iour becomes more different between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment.
These issues are discussed later in Section 4.4.
4.3 Reinforced Ground
Short Reinforcement. The following trends of behaviour can be observed in the

results from the physical experiments on Group A models shown in Figures 5 and 7:
1. The initial stiffness and the peak footing load of reinforced ground increase signifi-
cantly with the increase in the number of reinforcement layers (i.e., the deep foot-
ing mechanism), despite the fact that the reinforcement length, L, was the same as
the footing width, B. This result indicates that the so-called anchoring mechanism
by a part of the reinforcement layers extending outside the potential failure zone,
advocated by Binquent and Lee (1975), is not the unique reinforcing mechanism
that increases the bearing capacity of level ground subjected to a footing load.
2. The effects of the number of reinforcement layers on the bearing capacity charac-
teristics are significant, at least until the depth of the reinforced zone becomes 1.5
times as large as the footing width, B.
3. The settlement at peak footing load increases with the increase in the bearing
capacity of ground subjected to a footing load.
It may also be seen that the FEM analyses can reasonably simulate Trends 1 and 2,
observed in the physical experiment results summarised above, in particular the effects
of reinforcement on the coefficient N (Figure 7a). It is also true, however, that the
FEM analysis exhibits noticeably higher pre-peak stiffness and smaller relative settle-
ment at peak footing load, Sf /B, (Figure 7b) when compared with those from the phys-
ical experiments, and this trend is stronger with better reinforced ground.
Long Reinforcement. Figures 6 and 8 show the Group B physical experimental

results, in which the reinforcement layers are longer than the footing width, B. The fol-
lowing trends of behaviour can be observed in the physical experimental results.
1. To increase the bearing capacity and initial rigidity of ground subjected to a footing
load, it is efficient to increase the reinforcement length L from B to 2B as far as the
footing load is vertical and central. However, the improvement rate noticeably
decreases as the length ratio L/B increases to more than 2.
2. It may be seen from the comparison of Figures 5 and 6, or Figures 7a and 8a, that
when using the same amount of reinforcement, it is more cost-effective to increase
the number, n, of reinforcement layers having a length ratio of L/B = 1.0 until the
depth of the lowest reinforcement layer becomes 1.5B than to increase the length
ratio L/B to more than 2 with n = 3.
This result also indicates that the so-called anchoring effect by a part of the rein-
forcement layer extending outside the potential failure zone (Binquent and Lee 1975)
is not relevant to the present case either.
It can also be seen that the FEM simulation captures the trends of behaviour
described above. It is also true, however, that, for the cases of L/B 2, the FEM analy-
ses overestimate the N values (Figure 8a) to a greater extent than the case of L/B = 1.0
while the FEM analysis underestimates the footing settlement at the peak footing load
(Figure 8b).
4.4 Possible Factors Responsible for the Discrepancy Between the Numerical
Analysis and the Physical Experiments
There are a number of possible factors responsible for the discrepancy in the pre-peak
stiffness and peak footing load between the FEM analyses and the physical experi-
ments, including the following:
1. Effects of bedding error at the footing base on the measured footing settlements in
the physical experiments: The effect of this factor could only be a part of the dis-
crepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiment. In particular, it is
unlikely that this factor can explain the major discrepancy observed in the rein-
forced model ground.
2. Numerical procedure and constitutive modelling:
(a)Non-uniform finite element mesh in terms of size and shape: This factor could
not be directly confirmed in the present study. Due to computational time, it was
not possible to perform FEM analyses using a fine mesh in the whole analysis
domain as was used around the footing base. Despite this, it seems that the effect
of this factor on the present FEM analysis results are insignificant because;
it was confirmed that the initial K0 stress state obtained by the FEM gravita-
tional force analysis using the meshing shown in Figure 4, which was used
throughout in the present study, is essentially the same as the one obtained
from physical experiment results (Kotake 1998); and
strain fields in the ground obtained from the present FEM analysis are very
similar to those observed in the physical experiments as described in Section 5.

(b)Approximated nature of the modelling of strain localization. It seems that the

effects of this factor will also be small, as it has been confirmed that the present
meshing is fine enough in that effects of some changes in the fineness of mesh
from that shown in Figure 4 on the pre-peak behaviour and peak footing load are
insignificant (Siddiquee et al. 1999; Kotake et al. 1999).
(c)Approximate nature of the reinforcement modelling and the interface between
the sand and reinforcement. As mentioned earlier, each reinforcement layer
consisting of strips was modelled into a planar reinforcement layer in the present
2-D analysis, while no particular interface elements were used to account for
possible interaction at the sand-reinforcing members interface. Kotake (1998)
performed an FEM analysis considering this factor by introducing equivalent
reduced interface friction angles between the linear-discrete reinforcement and
the sand. Kotake (1998) found that the effects of this factor became more impor-
tant as the cover ratio, CR, of reinforcement decreases and the stiffness of the
reinforcement decreases. However, this factor is only part of the cause for the
discrepancy between the FEM analysis and the physical experiments. The
authors of the present paper will report the results in the future.
(d)Under-prediction of shear strain in the model sand ground due to the improper
constitutive modelling of the stress-strain behaviour of sand. There could be
two potentially influencing sub-factors: (i) continuous rotation of the principal
stress direction on the stress-strain behaviour of the sand; and (ii) stress path
dependency of strain. It seems that the effect of the first factor is not significant
when based on the results from a series of torsional shear tests on dense Toyoura
sand (Pradhan et al. 1988). It seems that this assumption is relevant, as, in the
present case, the amount of the rotation of the principal stress direction in the sand
zone immediately below the footing, which primarily controls the bearing capac-
ity of ground, is insignificant (Tani 1986). On the other hand, the effects of the
second factor could be significant, as discussed below.
Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) investigated the effects of intermediate stress paths on
strain values at a given target stress point by performing a series of special plane strain
compression tests on Toyoura sand along various stress paths starting from the com-
mon origin on the stress plane. Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) found that both volumetric
and shear strains observed at a given target stress state become noticeably stress path-
dependent. In particular, the shear strain becomes larger when having traced intermedi-
ate stress paths closer to the failure envelope (such as anisotropic compression at a
high constant stress ratio) than when having traced intermediate stress paths more
remote from the failure envelop (such as isotropic compression followed by plane
strain compression at a constant confining pressure). The strength of the zone in the
ground immediately below the footing controls the bearing capacity of the ground. It is
shown in Section 6.3 that in this zone, when increasing the footing load, the pressure
level increases only with a small increase in the stress ratio. Therefore, the stress paths
are very similar to those during anisotropic compression at a high constant stress ratio
close to the failure envelop. This is particularly the case for reinforced ground.
On the other hand, the present FEM analysis is based on the constitutive model

assuming that the hardening parameter for the yield function is the plastic shear strain,
while the plastic shear strain (and associated plastic volumetric strain) is stress path-
independent. In addition, the constitutive model was constructed using the data from
PSC tests in which the specimens were subjected to first isotropic compression and
then axial compression at a constant confining pressure. Therefore, it is likely that the
shear strains in the ground, and thereby the footing settlement, are underestimated in
the present FEM analysis, and it is to a larger extent with more effectively reinforced
ground (Kotake 1998; Kotake et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000). Peng et al. (2001b) devel-
oped another type of constitutive model using the modified irreversible strain energy
as the hardening parameter, which is stress path-independent. Peng et al. (2001a)
showed that the stress path-dependency of plastic strains observed in the plane strain
compression tests reported by Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000) could be properly simulated
by this new formulation, and the pre-peak load-settlement relationship and peak foot-
ing load observed in the physical experiments reported in the present paper could be
much better simulated by the FEM analysis based on the new approach. The results
from this recent analysis will be reported in the near future by the authors of the
present paper. In view of the above, it is likely that this 2-D factor is the most impor-
tant among those listed above.
Another important limitation of the present numerical analysis is that the post-peak
behaviour observed in the physical model tests is relatively poorly simulated. It seems
that this limitation is due primarily to the fact that the present numerical analysis is based
on the small-strain theory. More studies will be necessary to know whether the observed
post-peak behaviour can be better simulated when based on the large-strain theory.
Despite the several important limitations discussed above, the present simulation
procedure can predict the effects of the reinforcement layer arrangement on the pre-
peak load-settlement relationship and the peak footing load with reasonable accuracy,
perhaps better than those predicted by most numerical analysis procedures reported in
the literature.
5 STRAIN FIELDS
5.1 General
In Figures 10 through 16, the strain fields on the 2 plane obtained from the displace-
ment fields measured in the physical experiments are compared with those obtained
from the FEM analysis. In Figures 10 to 16, the contours of the maximum shear
strains, max = 1 3 , accumulated from the start of loading are presented.
5.2 Unreinforced Ground
Figure 10 shows the max contours observed at the peak footing load state (at S/B =
0.07) in the physical experiment for the unreinforced model ground (Huang and Tat-
suoka 1990). Figure 11 shows the max contours at four loading stages: pre-peak (S/
B = 0.03), peak (S/B = 0.55), and post-peak (S/B = 0.07 and 0.12), from the corre-

Figure 10. Strain field at the peak state (S/B = 0.07) in the unreinforced ground from the
physical experiment (after Huang & Tatsuoka 1990) (contours of the maximum shear
strains, max = 1 3 ).
sponding FEM analysis. By comparing the strain fields at the same relative settlement
(S/B = 0.07) for the physical experiment and the FEM analysis, it can be seen that the
FEM analysis simulates the strain field very well, including the shear banding pattern
observed in the physical experiment. In addition, the following trends of behaviour
may be seen in Figure 11:
1. At S/B = 0.03 (in the pre-peak regime, Figure 11a), a shear band starts to develop at
each edge of the footing. The stress state in zones where max 5% can be consid-
ered to be at or approximately at the peak stress state, as the shear strain at the peak
state is approximately 5% in the corresponding PSC test (Figure A1).
2. Until the peak footing load state (S/B = 0.055, Figure 11b) is reached, the zones
having max 5% further develop, indicating the formation of a wedge bounded by
well-defined shear bands immediately below the footing. Inside the section close to
the footing edge of the shear band, max > 20%, indicating that the stress state in
that section has already become close to the residual stress state. This strain field
obtained from the numerical analysis is consistent to the one obtained from the
physical experiment (Figure 10).
3. At S/B = 0.07 (immediately after the peak footing load state, Figure 11c), the shear

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 11. Strain fields in the unreinforced ground from the FEM analysis (the vertical
and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B = 0.3 (pre-peak); (b) S/B = 0.55
(peak footing load); (c) S/B = 0.07; (d) S/B = 0.12.

strain concentrates more extensively into the shear band, while the shear strains in
the zones outside the shear bands (i.e., the zones inside and outside the wedge)
have not increased noticeably from the values at the peak footing load state,
remaining at relatively small values. This result indicates that, in the post-peak
footing load regime, the yielding conditions inside and outside the shear bands are
utterly different from each other; i.e., yielding with the increase in the plastic shear
strain is continuing inside the shear bands, while elastic rebounding with no
increase in the plastic strain is taking place outside the shear bands.
4. As seen in Figure 11d, as the loading further proceeds, the shear band further
develops forming transient zones on both sides of the active wedge, as predicted by
the classical bearing capacity theory (e.g., Terzaghi (1943)). It is to be noted, how-
ever, that the formation of the wedge zone and transient zones is highly progres-
sive, while the passive zone is not yet formed at this stage.
These results indicate that the failure of unreinforced sand ground (and also rein-
forced ground as shown below) is highly progressive, indicating that any numerical
analysis not taking into account this phenomenon cannot be warranted.
5.3 Reinforced Ground With Short Reinforcement Layers
Figure 12 shows the max contours for the following three states in the physical model
tests of Group A, reported by Huang and Tatsuoka (1990):
1. S/B = 0.07 (pre-peak state) in Test 10, in which a surface footing was placed on
sand ground reinforced with three layers of short reinforcement (L/B = 1.0) with
the deepest reinforcement layer at a depth of DR /B= 0.9.
2. S/B = Sf /B = 0.09 (peak footing load state) in Test 10.
3. S/B = Sf /B = 0.09 (peak footing load state) in Test 6, in which a rigid and rough
deep footing with Df /B = 0.9 was placed in unreinforced sand ground, performed
as a reference test for Test 10.
The following trends of behaviour may be seen from Figure 12:
1. In Test 10, only small strains are induced inside the reinforced zone extending to a
depth of DR within the footing width beneath the footing, while a pair of shear
bands develop along the vertical lateral faces of the reinforced zone already well
before the peak footing load state (Figure 12a).
2. At the peak footing load state (Figure 12b), a largely strained zone forms below the
reinforced zone, of which the pattern and shape is similar to that of the active zone
that developed below a rigid deep footing (Figure 12c). This similarity in the strain
field indicates that the reinforced zone in Test 10 behaves like the underground part
of a rigid footing, exhibiting the deep footing mechanism.
3. The failure of the reinforced sand ground in Test 10 is highly progressive, to a
higher extent than it is in the unreinforced ground (Figure 10).
Figure 13 shows the max contours at four loading stages obtained from the FEM
analyses of Test 10: pre-peak (S/B = 0.03), peak (S/B = 0.05), and post-peak (S/B =

(a) (b) (c)
526
Figure 12. Strain fields from the physical experiments (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990): (a) Test No. 10, L/B = 1, n = 3, DR = 0.9, S/B =
0.07; (b) Test No. 10, L/B = 1, n = 3, DR = 0.9, S/B = 0.09; (c) Test No. 6, unreinforced, deep footing, DR = 0.9, S/B = 0.09.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 13. Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with L/B = 1, n
= 3, and DR = 0.9 (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B =
0.03 (pre-peak); (b) S/B = 0.05 (peak footing load); (c) S/B = 0.10 (post-peak); (d) S/B =
0.15 (post-peak).

0.10 and 0.15). By comparing Figures 12a and Figure 13a (at pre-peak footing load
state) and Figures 12b and Figure 13b (at peak footing load state), it may be seen that
the strain field pattern, showing the development of shear bands by footing loading, in
sand ground reinforced with short reinforcement layers observed in the physical exper-
iment (Test 10) is simulated very well by the FEM analysis. The following trends of
behaviour can also be seen in Figure 13:
1. At S/B = 0.03 (the peak footing load state, Figure 13a), a shear band starts to
develop from each edge of the footing nearly in the vertical direction, unlike the
case of unreinforced sand ground (Figures 10 and 11).
2. At S/B = 0.05 (peak footing load state, Figure 13b), a shear band develops down-
ward fully along the respective lateral face of the reinforced zone.
3. At S/B = 0.10 (post-peak footing load state, Figure 13c), the shear band develops
further, forming a well-defined active wedge beneath the reinforced zone.
4. At S/B = 0.15 (post-peak footing load state, Figure 13d), after having reached the
apex of the active wedge, the shear band further extends laterally, starting the for-
mation of a transient zone outside the active wedge.
The strain fields from the FEM analysis shown in Figure 13 also show that the fail-
ure of reinforced ground upon footing-loading is highly progressive.
5.4 Reinforced Ground With Long Reinforcement Layers
Figure 14 compares the strain fields in terms of max contours at S/B = 0.07 obtained
from three physical experiments with L/B = 2, 3.5, and 6 of Group B, performed to
evaluate the effects of the length of the reinforcement. S/B = 0.07 is the footing settle-
ment ratio at which the peak footing load was attained in the unreinforced sand loaded
with a surface footing. The following features may be noted from Figure 14:
1. By using reinforcement longer than the footing width B, the strain field becomes
different from that in the test with L/B = 1.0 (Figures 12a and 12b), diffusing the
shear bands and spreading the zones with larger strains into wider areas. It is likely
that clearly defined shear bands cannot develop while passing through the rein-
forcement layers, being restrained by the reinforcement stiffness. It is likely that by
behaving like a flexible slab foundation that is wider than B, the zone reinforced
with reinforcement layers longer than B spreads the footing load more widely in
the ground (i.e., the wide slab mechanism).
2. The strain field does not change largely as L becomes larger than 2B. This means
that the effective width of the wide slab foundation cannot become much larger
than a certain critical value, say 2B.
3. Despite the diffusion of shear bands due to an interaction with the long reinforce-
ment layers, a wedge that is similar to the ones when L/B = 1.0 in Group A (Figures
12a and b) is formed immediately below the reinforcing zone.
In summary, the strain fields obtained from the physical experiments show that the
reinforcing mechanism for the sand ground that is densely reinforced by using long
reinforcement layers consists of: (i) the deep footing mechanism, as typically observed

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 14. Strain fields from the physical experiments in reinforced ground with S/B = 0.07 (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990): (a) Test No.
12, L/B = 2, n = 3; (b) Test No. 18, L/B = 3.5, n = 3; (c) Test No. 17, L/B = 3.5, n = 3.
529
when L/B = 1.0; and (ii) the wide slab mechanism.

Figures 15a, 15b, and 15c show the strain fields at S/B = 0.10 obtained from the
FEM analysis, corresponding to those at S/B = 0.07 from the physical model tests (Fig-
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 15. Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with S/B = 0.10
(the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) L/B = 2; (b) L/B = 3.5; (c)
L/B = 6.

ure 14). By comparing Figures 14 and 15, it may be seen that the strain fields observed
in the physical experiments are well simulated by the FEM analysis, in particular, the
wide slab mechanism observed in the physical experiments is captured very well by
the FEM analysis. It is to be noted that the interaction between the shear bands and the
reinforcement layers can be better understood from the strain fields obtained from the
FEM analysis. For example, it may be seen from Figure 15 that the strain is larger at
the middle height of the respective sand layer sandwiched between two vertically adja-
cent reinforcement layers, showing that the reinforcements are effectively restraining
the deformation of the surrounding sand. It is difficult to examine this point from the
strain fields obtained from the physical experiments (Figure 14).
Figure 16 shows the strain fields in terms of max contours at four loading stages for
the case of L/B = 2 (n = 3) obtained from the FEM analyses: pre-peak (S/B = 0.06),
peak (S/B = 0.08), and post-peak (S/B = 0.10 and 0.15). It may be seen that the basic
features of the pattern of the strain field within the footing width seen in Figure 16 is
similar to the one in the case of L/B = 1 (n = 3) presented in Figure 13. It may also be
seen that the zones with higher strains become larger, extending to outside the footing
width, with the increase in the length of the reinforcement from L/B = 1.0 to 2.0, show-
ing that the wide slab mechanism is relevant in the case of L/B = 2 (n = 3).
6 STRESS FIELDS
6.1 Contact Pressure at the Footing Base
Figure 17a shows the distributions of contact pressure at the footing base at the respec-
tive peak footing load state for sand ground that is either unreinforced or reinforced
with different numbers of reinforcement layers, n, in the case of L/B = 1.0, obtained
from the physical experiments (Group A). Figure 17b shows the corresponding results
from the FEM analysis. Note that the stress distributions for the full footing width are
presented in Figure 17a, while those for a half of the footing width are shown in Figure
17b. The following trends of behaviour may be seen:
1. The contact pressure at the footing base generally increases with increases in the
number of reinforcement layers with a larger increase at locations closer to the cen-
tre of the footing. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the deep footing
mechanism is the major factor for the increase in the bearing capacity of ground by
reinforcement in the present case.
2. The distributions of contact pressure obtained from the FEM analyses agree very
well with the physical experimental results. This is another validation of the FEM
method used in the present study.
Figures 18a and 18b compare the contact pressure distributions at the respective
peak loading state between the physical experiment and the FEM analysis, similar to
those presented in Figure 17, for the length ratios L/B = 1.0, 2.0, 3.5, and 6 when the
number of reinforcement layer is equal to three. The contact pressure distribution
when the ground is not reinforced is also shown for the reference. The following trends

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 16. Strain fields in the reinforced ground from the FEM analysis with L/B = 2, n
= 3, and DR = 0.9 (the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) S/B =
0.06 (pre-peak); (b) S/B = 0.08 (peak footing load); (c) S/B = 0.10 (post-peak); (d) S/B =
0.15 (post-peak).

(a) (b) Center of Footing
DR/B=1.5; n=5
~0 kN/m )
DR/B=0.9; n=3
2
5 DR/B=0.6; n=2
DR/B=0.3; n=1
2
Normal stress on footing base, q ( 1
Unreinforced
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
X (cm)
Figure 17. Normal stress distribution on the footing base at the respective peak footing
load state (Group A): (a) physical experiments (after Huang and Tatsuoka 1990); (b) FEM
analysis.
of behaviour may be noted from Figure 18:

1. The contact pressure at the footing base generally increases with increases in the
length of the reinforcement layer, while the rate of increase is very small when L/B
becomes larger than 2. This trend of behaviour corresponds to the effects of rein-
forcement length on the N value (Figure 8a).
2. Despite the fact that the reinforcement layers are longer than the footing width B,
the increase in the contact pressure at the footing base by reinforcement is substan-
tially larger at locations closer to the center of the footing. It seems that the contri-
bution of the wide slab mechanism to the increase in the bearing capacity by using
reinforcement layers longer than B is reflected in the increase in the contact pres-
sure at locations closer to the footing edge, compared with that seen in the case of
short reinforcement (i.e., L/B = 1.0). These results indicate that, even when rein-
forcement layers are longer than B, the deep footing mechanism is more important
than the wide slab mechanism.
3. Also in this case, the distributions of contact pressure obtained from the FEM anal-

(a) Center of Footing (b)

Center of Footing
5 6
10 kN/m )
L/B=6
2
L/B=3.5 L/B= 6
L/B=2 L/B= 3.5
~0 (kN/m )
2
L/B=1
2
L/B= 2
5
Normal stress on footing base, q ( ~

Unrein- L/B= 1
4 forced L/B= 0
2
1
4
Norm alStress on Footing Base
3
3
2 2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
X (cm)
0
1 2 3 4 5
LoadcellNo.
5 0 5 (cm )
Figure 18. Normal stress distribution on the footing base at the respective peak footing
load state (Group B): (a) physical experiments (after Huang 1988); (b) FEM analysis.
yses agree very well with the physical experimental results.
6.2 Stress Fields in the Ground
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate in detail the stress fields in the
ground by physical experiments using sand, despite that this information is essential
for a better understanding of the reinforcement mechanism. It is valuable, therefore, to
examine the stress fields obtained from the FEM analysis. Figures 19a, 19b, and 19c
show the contours of the major, 1 , and minor, 3 , principal stresses at the respective
peak loading stage obtained from the FEM analyses for: (i) unreinforced ground; (ii)
reinforced ground (L/B = 1 and n = 3); and (iii) reinforced ground (L/B = 2 and n = 3).
The following trends of behaviour can be seen in Figures 19a, 19b, and 19c:
1. The increase in the values of 1 and 3 associated with footing loading is particu-
larly large in the zone below the footing, which supports the major part of the foot-
ing load. This result corresponds to the pattern of the increase in the contact
pressure at the footing base by footing loading (Figures 17 and 18).
2. The values of 1 and 3 in the high stress zones correspond to each other. In fact,

(a) 76
CL 76
C
L
Unreinforced: S/B=0.0 Unreinforced: S/B=0.0
74 74
72 0.30 3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 72

0.20 1 ( x 102 kN/cm2)
70 70
68 68
2.0
66 0.05 66
0.20
64 64
0.10 62
62 0.50
60 0.20 60
1.00
0.10 0.10 58
58
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(b)
C
L C
L
76 76
L/B=1, n=3, S/B=0.0 L/B=1, n=3, S/B=0.05

74 74
72 3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 72 1 ( x 102 kN/cm2)

0.8
70 70
3.0
68 0.7 68
3.0
66 0.8 66 3.0
2.0
64 0.60.5 64
0.1 0.5
0.2 1.0
62 62
0.05 0.2
60 0.3 60
0.4
58 1.0
58
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(c)
C
L C
L
76 76
L/B=2, n=3, S/B=0.08 L/B=2, n=3, S/B=0.08
74 74
0.9 3 ( x 102 kN/cm2) 5.0 1 ( x 102 kN/cm2)
72 72
1.3
70 70
1.2
68 68
1.2
66 1.11.20.7 66 0.20
1.0 0.20.10.05 3.0 4.0
64 0.8 64 3.0 2.00.50
0.1
0.50
62 0.3 62
0.6
60 0.4 60 1.0
0.5 3.0
58 58
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Figure 19. Contours for principal stresses 1 and 3 at the respective peak footing load
state(the vertical and horizontal axes are length in centimeters): (a) unreinforced; (b)
reinforced (L/B =1, n = 3); (c) reinforced (L/B = 2, n = 3).

the stress ratio 1 / 3 in that zone is always close to the peak value (1 / 3)peak .
This is discussed in Section 6.3.
3. The increase in the stress level in the central part of the reinforced zone, near the
centreline of the footing, when L/B > 2 (Figure 19c) is noticeably higher than when
L/B = 1 (Figure 19b), indicating important effects of the wide slab mechanism.
Correspondingly, the zone in which the pressure level increases by reinforcement is
wider when L/B = 2 than when L/B = 1. Despite the above, the increase in the stress
level by the deep footing mechanism seen in Figure 19b is the major component of
the increase in the stress level seen in Figure 19c.
4. The increase in the bearing capacity of reinforced ground with the increase in the
length of reinforcement layers, L, is insignificant when L > 2B (Figure 8a). Corre-
sponding to the above, the increase in the stress level in the zone adjacent to the
side end of the reinforcement layers when the reinforcement length increases from
1B to 2B is insignificant, in particular at the levels of the first and second reinforce-
ment layers (Figure 19c).
The stress state in the reinforced zone immediately below the footing is similar to
the one in PSC specimens reinforced with tensile reinforcement layers (Kotake 1998;
Kotake et al. 1999; Peng et al. 2000). Kotake (1998), Kotake et al. (1999), Peng et al.
(2000) showed that the rigidity of reinforcement and the spacing between vertically
adjacent reinforcement layers are the two major factors that control the deformation
and strength characteristics of reinforced PSC specimens. This implies that whether
the internal failure in the reinforced zone or the external failure below the reinforced
zone takes place in such bearing capacity tests as those performed in the present study
depends on the configuration of reinforcement layers. The strain and stress fields
obtained from the physical tests and corresponding FEM analysis show that external
failure took place in the present case.
6.3 Local Stress Paths in the Ground
The three figures of Figure 20b show the local stress paths on the 1 3 plane in the
representative elements, Nos. 83, 85, and 89, located at three locations at the same depth
in the three cases shown in Figure 20a. These elements are located either outside the
shear band at different distances to the respective shear band or inside the shear band.
The ranges of footing settlement ratios, S/B, for which the stress paths are presented are
listed in the respective figure in Figure 20b. The max contours at the respective post-
peak footing load state obtained from the FEM analysis are shown in Figure 20a. On the
stress planes in Figure 20b, lines of constant principal stress ratios R = 1 / 3 are
depicted for reference. Note that the equi-shear strain lines, max , on this stress plane,
which approximately represent the yield loci, are slightly curved due to their pressure-
dependency (Appendix A). The following points may be noted from Figure 20:
1. Unreinforced ground (the right of Figure 20a):
(a)In Element 83, which is located adjacent to the centreline of the footing, both 1
and 3 values increases until S/B = 0.04, while the local principal stress ratio R =

(a)

Figure 20. Local stress paths of representative elements (the vertical axes are length in centimeters): (a) location of representative elements
on max contours (continued on next page).
537
538
(b)
R=7 6 5 R=8 7 6 5 R=7

5 Elem-83 5 Elem-85 Elem-89
0.20
R=4 L/B=2
R=6
2
R=4
2
4 4
L/B=1
2
L/B=1 0.15
2
R=5
2
R=3 R=3
3 3
2
R=4
1 (x10 kN/m )
1 (x10 kN/m )
0.10
L/B=2 L/B=2
1 (x10 kN/m )
2 2 L/B=1 R=3
Unreinforced Unreinforced
0.05 Unreinforced
1 1
Unrnfcd (S/B=0 0.04) Unrnfcd (S/B=0 0.04) Unrnfrcd (S/B=0 0.01)
L/B=1 (S/B=0 0.05) L/B=1 (S/B=0 0.05) L/B=1 (S/B=0 0.02)
L/B=2 (S/B=0 0.06) L/B=2 (S/B=0 0.06) L/B=2 (S/B=0 0.07)
0 0 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

2 2 2 2 2 2
3 (x10 kN/m ) 3 (x10 kN/m ) 3 (x10 kN/m )
Figure 20 continued. (b) 1 and 3 relationships

1 / 3 is always close to the peak value from immediately after the start of load-
ing. More precisely, R = 1 / 3 5 at early stages of loading. With the increase
in the footing load, R = 1 / 3 gradually increases until it reaches the peak
value, equal to approximately 7, and then it starts decreasing with the stress state
entering into the local post-peak regime before the peak footing load state is
attained at S/B = 0.055.
(b)In Element 85, which is located at the center of a half of the footing width while
close to a potential shear band in the unreinforced ground, both 1 and 3 con-
sistently increase while the R-value increases at a small rate from early stages of
loading. The peak R value, which is equal to approximately 8, is reached before
the peak footing load is attained.
(c)These results indicate that the peak footing load is attained after the local peak
stress state has been passed in many elements in the zone that supports the major
part of the footing load. This is due to the progressive failure of the ground.
2. In the reinforced ground (the middle and left of Figure 20a):
(a)In Elements 83 and 85, which are located inside the reinforced zone, both 1 and
3 increase more significantly than in the case of unreinforced ground, showing
significant effects of reinforcing. The local principal stress ratio, R = 1 / 3 , is
rather constant, increasing at a very low rate in a range between 4 and 5. Until
the peak footing load state is attained at S/B = 0.05 (when L/B = 1) and S/B =
0.06 (when L/B = 2), the stress ratio R = 1 / 3 is kept noticeably below the
peak value, showing that these elements have not reached the failure conditions.
This result clearly shows that the most fundamental reinforcing mechanism is
the increase in the 3 value, which results in the increase in 1 , but it is not the
increase in the R = 1 / 3 value.
(b)The value of R = 1 / 3 is slightly lower in the reinforced ground with L/B = 2
than in the ground reinforced with L/B = 1, due likely to positive effects of the
wide slab mechanism.
(c)Element 89 is located outside the wedge that is formed in the unreinforced
ground while in the vicinity of the lateral surface of the reinforced zone (i.e., in
the vicinity of the potential shear band in the reinforced ground). In Element 89,
the local peak stress state is attained at relatively early loading stages. Also, the
stress paths are generally very complicated, probably due to a large rotation of
the principal stress direction. In the reinforced ground with L/B = 2, the values
of both 1 and 3 increase at a nearly constant R, equal to approximately 7, even
after the local peak state is attained while before the peak footing load is
attained. This result also indicates a highly progressive nature of the failure of
reinforced sand ground subjected to a footing load.
As seen from the above, the stress paths in the elements beneath the footing are
basically similar to that of anisotropic compression at a constant principal stress ratio
at relatively high ratios. This trend is particularly relevant to the reinforced ground. As
mentioned in Section 4.4, the deformation characteristics of dense Silver Leighton
Buzzard (SLB) and Toyoura sands during anisotropic compression, as well as axial

compression at a constant confining pressure following isotropic compression, both

under plane strain conditions, were studied by Tatsuoka and Kohata (1995), Yasin et
al. (1997), and Yasin and Tatsuoka (2000). They found noticeable effects of intermedi-
ate stress paths on the strain values, which are not taken into account in the present
FEM analysis.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In studying the results from the FEM analysis presented above, the following conclu-
sions can be derived:
1. Realistic numerical solutions of the bearing capacity characteristics of dense sand
ground with and without reinforcement layers subjected to a footing load could be
obtained by properly taking into account the effects of the relevant factors on the
deformation and strength characteristics of sand. These factors are as follows: (i)
confining pressure; (ii) anisotropy; (iii) nonlinear pre-peak strain-hardening and
strain-softening; (iv) dilatancy; and (v) strain localization into a shear band(s) with
a width in proportional to the particle size. In particular, it is essential to properly
simulate the progressive failure of ground, which becomes more important with
reinforced ground.
2. The nonlinear, elasto-plastic FEM procedure described in the present paper could
simulate well the reinforcing effects on the bearing capacity of sand ground sub-
jected to footing loadings, observed in physical model experiments using different
numbers and lengths of reinforcement layers. In particular, the changes in the fail-
ure mode of the ground by reinforcing with different arrangements of reinforce-
ment layers observed in the physical experiments could be well simulated.
3. The strain and stress fields in the ground obtained from the FEM analyses recon-
firmed several important findings obtained by the physical experiments on the rein-
forcing mechanism, including the following:
(a)The failure of ground, in particular that of reinforced ground, subjected to foot-
ing loading is highly progressive. The degree of progressive failure becomes
more pronounced as the reinforcing effects become larger.
(b)When the reinforcing members are longer than the footing width, the contribu-
tion of the wide-slab mechanism to the increase in the bearing capacity by rein-
forcement becomes important. Even in that case, the contribution by the deep
footing mechanism, as typically observed when the length of reinforcement lay-
ers is equal to the footing width, is more important than that of the wide-slab
mechanism.
(c)In both unreinforced and reinforced ground, the stress paths in the zone support-
ing the major part of the footing load are similar to that of anisotropic compres-
sion at a constant high stress ratio, showing that the fundamental reinforcing
mechanism is the increase in the 3 value.

REFERENCES
Akinmusuur, J.O. and Akinbolade, J.O., 1981, Stability of Loaded Footings on Rein-
forced Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 819-827.
Binquent, J.O. and Lee, K.L., 1975, Bearing Capacity of Loaded Footings on Rein-
forced Soil, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 107, No. 6, pp. 819-827.
Flanagan, D.P. and Belytschko, T., 1981, A Uniform Strain Hexahedron and Quadri-
lateral with Orthogonal Hourglass Control, International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 679-706.
Fragaszy, R. and Lawton, E., 1984, Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Subgrades,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 10, pp. 1500-1511.
Guido, V.A., Chang, D.K., and Sweeney, M.A., 1986, Comparison of Geogrid and
Geotexile Reinforced Earth Slabs, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, No.
4, pp. 435-440.
Huang, C.C. and Hong, L.L., 2000, Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Settlement of
Footings on Reinforced Sandy Ground, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.
65-73.
Huang, C.C. and Menq, F.Y., 1997, Deep-Footing and Wide-Slab Effects in Rein-
forced Sandy Ground, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, Vol. 123, No. 1, pp. 30-36.
Huang, C.C. and Tatsuoka, F., 1988, Prediction of Bearing Capacity in Level Sandy
Ground Reinforced with Strip Reinforcement, Theory and Practice of Earth Rein-
forcement, Yamanouchi, T., Miura, N., and Ochiai, H., Editors, Balkema, Proceed-
ings of the International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth
Reinforcement, Fukuoka Kyushu, Japan, October 1988, pp. 191-196.
Huang, C.C. and Tatsuoka, F., 1990, Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Horizontal
Sandy Ground, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 236-267.
Huang, C.C. and Tatsuoka, F., 1994, Stability Analysis for Footings on Reinforced
Sand Slopes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 21-37.
Huang, C.C., Tatsuoka, F., and Sato, Y., 1994, Failure Mechanisms of Reinforced
Sand Slopes Loaded With a Footing, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp.
27-40.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., and Takagi, Y., 1978, Shear Moduli of Sands Under Cyclic
Torsional Loading, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Ju, J.W., Son, S.J., Kim, J.Y., and Jung, I.G., 1996, Bearing Capacity of Sand Founda-
tion Reinforced by Geonet, Earth Reinforcement, Ochiai, H., Yasufuku, N., and
Omine, K., Editors, Balkema, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka, Japan, November 1996, pp. 603-608.
Kotake, N., 1998, FEM Simulation of Deformation and Failure of Reinforced Soil,
Doctoral Thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kotake, N., Tanaka, T., Tatsuoka, F., and Yamauchi, H., 1997, Numerical Simulation

of Strain Localization and Failure in Reinforced Sand, Deformation and Progres-

sive Failure in Geomechanics, Asaoka, A., Adachi, T., and Oka, F., Editors, Perga-
mon, Proceedings of the International Symposium Deformation and Progressive
Failure in Geomechanics, IS-NAGOYA97, Nagoya-shi, Japan, pp. 247-252.
Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Siddiquee, M.S.A., and Yamauchi, H., 1999, An
Insight into the Failure of Reinforced Sand in Plane Strain Compression by FEM
Simulation, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 103-130.
Okochi, Y. and Tatsuoka, F., 1984, Some Factors Affecting Ko-Values of Sand Mea-
sured in Triaxial Cell, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.52-68.
Ortiz, M. and Simo, J.C., 1986, An Analysis of a New Class of Integration Alogo-
rithms for Elasto-Plstic Constitutive Relations, International Journal of Numeri-
cal Methods in Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 353-366.
Park, S. and Tatsuoka, F., 1994, Anisotropic Strength and Deformation of Sands in
Plane Strain Compression, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Vol. 1, New Delhi,
India, pp. 1-4.
Peng, F.L., Kotake, N., Tatsuoka, F., Hirakawa, D., and Tanaka, T., 2000, Plane Strain
Compression Behavior of Geogrid-Reinforced Sand and its Numerical Analysis,
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 55-74.
Peng, F.L., Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M.S.A, Kotake, N., and Huang, C.C., 2001a,
Numerical Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of a Strip Footing on Reinforced
Sand, Geosynthetics Engineering Journal, the IGS Japan Chapter, pp. 75-82.
Peng, F.L., Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M.S.A., and Yasin, S.J.M., 2001b, A New Consti-
tutive Model for Granular Materials, Proceedings of the Tenth International Con-
ference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG), Vol. 1,
Tucson, Arizona, USA, January 2001, pp. 383-388.
Pietruszcak, S.T. and Mroz, Z,. 1981, Finite Element Analysis of Deformation of
Strain Softening, International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 327-334.
Pradhan, T.B.S., Tatsuoka, F., and Horii, N., 1988, Strength and Deformation Charac-
teristics of Sand in Torsional Simple Shear, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 28, No. 3,
pp. 131-48.
Rowe, P.W., 1962, The Stress Dilatancy Relation for Static Equilibrium of an assem-
bly of Particles in Contact, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, United
Kingdom, Series A, pp. 500-527.
Schlosser, F. and Elias,V., 1978, Friction in Reinforced Earth, Proceedings of the
ASCE Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,
April 1978, pp. 735-763.
Siddiquee, M.S.A., Tanaka, T., and Tatsuoka, F., 1995, Tracing the Equilibrium Path
by Dynamic Relaxation in Materially Nonlinear Problems, International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 19, pp. 749-767.

Siddiquee, M.S.A., Tanaka, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tani, K., and Morimoto, T., 1999,
Numerical Simulation of Bearing Capacity Characteristics of Strip Footing on
Sand, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 93-109.
Siddiquee, M.S.A., Tatsuoka, F., Tanaka, T., Tani, K., Yoshida, K., and Morimoto, T.,
2000, Model Tests and FEM Simulation of Some Factors Affecting the Bearing
Capacity of Footing on Sand, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 53-76.
Tani, K., and Morimoto, T., 1999, Numerical Simulation of Bearing Capacity Charac-
teristics of Strip Footing on Sand, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 93-
109.
Takemura, J., Okamura, M., Suemasa, N., and Kimura, T., 1992, Bearing Capacity
and Deformation of Sand Reinforced With Geogrids, Earth Reinforcement Prac-
tice, Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S. and Otani, J., Editors, Balkema, 1993, Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Vol. 1, Kyushu
University, Fukuoka, Japan, November 1992, pp. 695-700.
Tanaka, T. and Kawamoto, O., 1988, Three-Dimensional Finite Element Collapse
Analysis for Foundations and Slopes Using Dynamic Relaxation, Proceedings of
the Sixth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics,
Balkema, Vol. 1, Innsbruck, Austria, April 1988, pp. 1213-1218.
Tanaka, T. and Sakai, T., 1993, Progressive Failure and Scale Effect of Trap-Door
Problems with Granular Materials, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 11-
22.
Tani, K., 1986, Mechanism of Bearing Capacity Failure of Shallow Foundation on
Sand, Master of Engineering Thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. (in Japa-
nese)
Tatsuoka, F. and Kohata, Y., 1995, Stiffness of Hard Soils and Soft Rocks in Engi-
neering Applications, Pre-Failure Deformation of Geomaterials, Shibuya, S.,
Mitachi, T., and Miura, S., Editors, Balkema, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials,
Sapporo, Japan, September 1994, pp. 947-1063.
Tatsuoka, F., Molenkamp, F., Torii, T., and Hino, T., 1984, Behaviour of Lubrication
Layers of Platens in Element Tests, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.
113-128.
Tatsuoka, F., Nakamura, S., Huang, C.C., and Tani, K., 1990, Strength Anisotropy
and Shear Band Direction in Plane Strain Tests of Sand, Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Tatsuoka, F., Okahara, M., Tanaka, T., Tani, K., Morimoto, T., and Siddiquee, M.S.A.,
1991, Progressive Failure and Particle Size Effect in Bearing Capacity of a Foot-
ing on Sand, Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991, McLean, F., Campbell,
D.A., and Harris, D.W., Editors, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 27,
Vol. 2, Proceedings of a congress held in Boulder, Colorado, USA, June 1991, pp.
788-802.
Tatsuoka, F., Sakamoto, M., Kawamura, T., and Fukushima, S., 1986, Strength and

Deformation Characteristics of Sand in Plane Strain Compression at Extremely

Low Pressure, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 65-84.
Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M.S.A., Park, C.C., Sakamoto, M., and Abe, F., 1993, Mod-
elling Stress-Strain Relations of Sand, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.
60-81.
Terzaghi, K., 1943, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, New York, USA, 510 p.
Yasin, S.J.M. and Tatsuoka, F., 2000, Stress History-Dependent Deformation Charac-
teristics of Dense Sand in Plane Strain, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.
77-98.
Yasin, S.J.M., Umetsu, K., Tatsuoka, F., Authur, J.R.F., and Dunstan, T., 1999, Plane
Strain Strength and Deformation of Sands Affected by Batch Variations in Two
Different Types of Apparatus, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.
80-100.
Yoshida, T. and Tatsuoka, F., 1997, Deformation Property of Shear Band in Sand Sub-
jected to Plane Strain Compression and its Relation to Particle Characteristics,
Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Vol. 1, Hamburg, Germany, September 1997,
pp. 237-240.
Yoshida, T., Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M.S.A., Kamegai, Y., and Park, C.S., 1994,
Shear Banding in Sand in Plane Strain Compression, Localization and Bifurca-
tion Theory for Soils and Rocks, Adachi, T., Oka, F., and Yashima, A., Editors,
Balkema, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Localization and
Bifurcation Theory for Soils and Rocks, Gifu, Japan, September 1997, pp. 165-
179.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., and Too, J.M., 1971, Reduced Integration Technique
in General Analysis of Plates and Shells, International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 275-290.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
B = footing width (m)

Cu = coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless)
CR = cover ratio of reinforcement (%)
D = principal plastic strain ratio, equal to d 3p /d 1p
Dr = relative density (%)
D50 = mean particle diameter (m)

DR = depth of reinforced zone (m)

e = void ratio (dimensionless)
eo = initial void ratio (dimensionless)
Fb = area of single shear band in each finite element (m2)
Fe = area of finite element (m2)
Gs = specific gravity of soil (dimensionless)
g() = Lode angle function (dimensionless)
h = depth of Gauss point of each plane element in present FEM analysis (m)
I1 = first stress invariant (dimensionless)
J2 = second stress invariant (dimensionless)
K, K = cohesion intercepts in yield function and potential function, respectively
(Pa)
K0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest (dimensionless)
L = length of reinforcement layers (m)
N = normalized footing load (= N = 2q/(d B) (dimensionless)
N = bearing capacity factor for gravity (dimensionless)
n = number of reinforcement layer (dimensionless)
pa = reference pressure (= 98 kPa)
q = footing pressure (Pa)
R = principal stress ratio (= 1 / 3 ) (dimensionless)
R() = anisotropy function (dimensionless)
Rpeak = peak principal stress ratio = (1 / 3)peak (dimensionless)
Rres = value of R at the residual state (dimensionless)
S = area ratio (= Fb/Fe ) (dimensionless)
Sf = settlement at peak footing load (m)
w = shear band width (m)
d 1p = major plastic principal strain increments (positive in compression)
(dimensionless)
d 3p = minor plastic principal strain increments (positive in compression)
(dimensionless)
d ij = total strain increment (dimensionless)

d ije = elastic strain increment (dimensionless)

d ijp = plastic strain component (dimensionless)
' = coefficient of plastic potential function for I1 in plastic potential function
(dimensionless)
= angle of direction of 1 relative to the horizontal bedding plane ()
f = shear strain when R = Rpeak = (1 / 3)peak (dimensionless)
r = strain softening parameter (dimensionless)
1 = major principal strain (dimensionless)
3 = minor principal strain (dimensionless)
= total shear strain (= 1 3)
d = dry unit weight of soil (N/m3)
max = maximum shear strain (dimensionless)
= deviatoric stress at = 30 degrees on the plane (dimensionless)
= angle in Lode angle function ()
= yield function (Pa)
mob = mobilized angle of internal friction ()
peak = peak internal friction angle ()
res = residual angle of friction ()
(h)o = initial horizontal stress (Pa)
(v)o = initial vertical stress (Pa)
(3)o = initial minor principal stress (Pa)
1 = major principal stress (Pa)
2 = intermediate principal stress (Pa)
3 = minor principal stress (Pa)
= plastic potential function (Pa)
= mobilized angle of dilatancy ()

APPENDIX A
THE GENERALIZED HYPERBOLIC EQUATION
The generalised hyperbolic equation (GHE) (Tatsuoka et al. 1993) is given as:
1
R = 1 + ------------------------------------------------------ (A1)
1 1
---------------- + ------------------------------
A max C ( R max 1 )
where: R = 1 / 3 and Rmax = (1 / 3)max , which is obtained from Equation 9a; max =
shear strain, which is equal to 1 3 ; and A and C = model parameters given as:
2C 1 G max
A(0) + A() A(0) ()
A = ----------------------- = ------------------------------- + --------------------------- cos ------------- (A2)
3 2 2
--- + 1
x
C2 ( 0 ) + C2 ( ) C2 ( 0 ) C2 ( )

C = ------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------ cos ------------ (A3)
2 2
--- + 1
x
where: x = normalized shear strain, which equals max / ref ; and ref = reference shear
strain, which equals max /Gmax ; max = peak shear strength, which equals [(1 - 3)max /
2]; and Gmax = initial elastic shear modulus (described in Appendix B). The parame-
ters, C2(0), C2(), A(0), A(), , and are introduced to give as much flexibility as
possible to the GHE, compared with the original Kondners hyperbolic equation with
constant values of A and C. For the parameters C2(0), C2(), A(0), and A(), 0 and
mean the initial and peak stress states, x = 0 and x = . The values of these
parameters should be determined so as to as accurately as possible fit a given stress-
strain relation for a wide strain range from very small strains to those at the peak stress
state, e.g., from 0.0001% to 1 to 10%.
The hyperbolic relationships, including Equation A1, do not have zero tangent
modulus at the peak stress state at a finite strain. Therefore, a modification was intro-
duced to have zero tangent modulus at a given peak stress state (f , Rpeak ) and
smoothly be connected to the post-peak stress-strain equation (Equation 11), as
explained in Tatsuoka et al. (1993).
The shear strain at the peak is given as:
f ( % ) = f1 ( 3 ) f ( e ) g ( ) (A4)
where f1 = f when e = 0.7 and = 90, given as:

f1 = 3.75 for ( 3 0.15 p a ) (A5a)
f1 = 5.05 + 4.165 log ( 3 p a ) for ( 3 > 0.15 p a ) (A5b)

The void ratio function f (e) and the anisotropy function g () are given as:
f ( e ) = 1.0 + 3.42 ( e 0.7 ) (A6a)
2
g ( ) = 1.668 1.336 ( 90 ) + 0.668 ( 90 ) (A6b)
where (in degrees) is the angle of the direction of 1 relative to the horizontal bed-
ding plane.
Figure A1 shows four average stress and average strain relationships simulated by
the GHE for isotropically consolidated Toyoura sand specimens having heights H of
20, 50, 105, and 200 mm (Tatsuoka et al., 1993). These are typical of such simulations.
The simulated relationship for H = 105 mm is well comparable with the experimental
one from a PSC test on a specimens with a height of 10.5 cm. It may be seen that the
post-peak relationship largely depends on the specimen height, as observed in actual
PSC tests. This feature is one of the essential parts of the sand model used in the
present study. The post-peak modelling is explained with reference to Equation 11.
Figure A1. Four average stress and average strain relationships of Toyura sand in PSC
simulated by the generalised hyperbolic equation (GHE), compared with experimental
data (Tatsuoka et al. 1993).

APPENDIX B
ELASTIC DEFORMATION PROPERTIES OF TOYOURA SAND
The elastic strain increments, which appear in Equation 11, are given by the genera-
lised Hooks law:
e e
d ij = D ijkl d kl (B1)
e
where: dij = stress increment; and D ijkl = symmetric elastic stiffness matrix. To for-
mulate Equation B1, the elastic shear modulus Ge (= Gmax) was obtained using the fol-
lowing empirical relationship:
e m
G = Go fe ( e ) ( p ) (B2)
where: e = void ratio; p = current mean principal stress, which equals (1 + 2 + 3)/3;
and fe(e) is given as;
2
( 2.17 e )
f e ( e ) = -------------------------- (B3)
1+e
The exponent m equals 0.4 for Toyoura sand. An elastic Poissons ratio equal to 0.3 was
used. The empirical equation, Equation B2, was originally obtained from the results of
a series of resonant-column tests on Toyoura sand reported by Iwasaki et al. (1978).
More recent studies (Tatsuoka and Kohata 1995; Tatsuoka et al. 1997; Hoque and
Tatsuoka 1998) have shown that the elastic Youngs modulus Eie defined for the major
principal elastic strain increment, d ie , and the major principal stress increment, di ,
in a certain direction i is an essentially unique function of the instantaneous normal
stress i acting in the direction i. According to the above, the elastic Poissons ratios
and shear moduli are also functions of the current stress state. The shear modulus
e = ( d d ) 2 ( d e d e ) is then a function of the average stress = ( +
G 13 1 3 1 3 m 1
3)/2, not of p. In the present study, where plastic strains are dominant over elastic
strains, the differences in the results of numerical analyses using the shear moduli
based on p and m were found to be not noticeable.

GI v8n6 Paper2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GI v8n6 Paper2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Paper by N. Kotake, F. Tatsuoka, T.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 501

502 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 503

504 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

based on the realistic constitutive models of sand and sand-reinforcement interaction

2 MODEL TESTS ON REINFORCED SAND (HUANG AND TATSUOKA

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 505

3 FEM SIMULATION PROCECURE

3.1 Analysed Model Tests

3.2 FEM Modelling

506 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

Figure 3. Finite element mesh used in the present study.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 507

3.3 Constitutive Model for Sand

General Framework. A generalized elasto-plastic analysis with a non-associated

The plastic potential function is defined as:

508 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

where (3)o is given by:

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 509

Modelling of Shear Banding. In the present analysis, it is assumed that:

510 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

the peak strength is a material property, independent of boundary conditions.

d ij = d ije + Sd ijp (11)

where: R = 1 / 3 ; Rpeak = (1 / 3)peak = (1 + sin peak)/(1 sin peak); peak = peak

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 511

3.4 Modelling of Reinforcement

3.5 Numerical Procedure

512 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

Equation 15 was obtained by means of special triaxial compression tests using a

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 513

improvement of the solution, while a looser tolerance caused an unacceptable fluctua-

4.2 Unreinforced Ground

514 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 515

516 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 517

in the paper by Siddiquee et al. 1999): (a) cases a to d; (b) cases e to j.

4.3 Reinforced Ground

Short Reinforcement. The following trends of behaviour can be observed in the

Long Reinforcement. Figures 6 and 8 show the Group B physical experimental

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 519

520 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

(b)Approximated nature of the modelling of strain localization. It seems that the

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 521

5.2 Unreinforced Ground

522 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 523

524 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

5.3 Reinforced Ground With Short Reinforcement Layers

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 525

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 527

5.4 Reinforced Ground With Long Reinforcement Layers

528 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

when L/B = 1.0; and (ii) the wide slab mechanism.

530 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

6.1 Contact Pressure at the Footing Base

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 531

532 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6

(a) (b) Center of Footing

of behaviour may be noted from Figure 18:

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 6 533

(a) Center of Footing (b)