Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1993, 11, 1-14

A laboratory investigation into the settlement

of a foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand due
to cyclic load
B. Y E O , S.C. Y E N , V.K. P U R I , B.M. DAS and M.A. W R I G H T
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,Illinois,62901, USA

Received 14 August 1992

Summary

Laboratory model test results for permanent settlement of a shallow square foundation supported by
geogrid-reinforced sand and subjected to cyclic loading are presented. During the application of the
cyclic load, the foundation was subjected to a sustained static load. Tests were conducted with only one
type of geogrid and at one relative density of compaction of sand. Based on the model test results, the
nature of variation of the permanent settlement of the foundation with the intensity of the static loading
and the amplitude of the cyclic load intensity are presented in a non-dimensional form.
Keywords: Cyclic load, geogrid, sand, settlement, foundation.

Introduction

Several laboratory model tests results are presently available which relate to the
determination of permanent settlement of shallow foundations subjected to various types of
dynamic loading. Cunny and Sloan (1961), Shenkman and MeKee (1961), Jackson and
Hadala (1964), and Carroll (1963) conducted several small-scale laboratory tests to observe
the load-settlement relationships for shallow foundations supported by sand and clayey soils
due to vertical transient loading. Raymond and Komos (1978) presented the results of cyclic
load amplitude and the related settlement of strip surface foundations supported by dense
sand, in which the frequency of the cyclic load was well below the resonance frequency.
Brummund and Leonards (1972) published laboratory model test results for the permanent
settlement of circular foundations on granular soil subjected to vertical vibration. In these
tests, the peak acceleration was varied from about 0.1 g to 1.2 g (0=acceleration due to
gravity). In spite of these studies, there are several factors which control the permanent
settlement of shallow foundations due to dymanic loading, which have not yet been clearly
identified.
Several studies are now in progress to evaluate the effectiveness of using geogrids as
reinforcement in various types of soil in order to increase the static load-bearing capacity of
0960-3182 9 1993 Chapman & Hall
2 Yeo et al.
shallow foundations (e.g. Guido et al., 1986; Khing et al., 1992 and 1993). This paper
presents the results of some laboratory model tests related to the permanent settlement of a
square surface foundation supported by geogrid-reinforced sand and subjected to cyclic
loading superimposed on a static load.

Laboratory model test parameters

Figure 1 shows a square surface foundation measuring B • B supported by a sand layer

reinforced with N layers of geogrid. The first layer of geogrid is located at a distance u
measured from the bottom of the foundation. The vertical distance between each consecutive
geogrid layer is h. The size of each geogrid layer is equal to b x b. The depth of geogrid
reinforcement, d, measured from the bottom of the foundation, can be expressed as

d=u+(N-1)h (1)

It has been shown by several investigators that, under static loading condition with b/B, u/B,
and h/B remaining constant, there is a critical reinforcement depth ratio, d/B= (d/B),,

~. B ))
$r162 S Foundation

;'"$'-'-i.:/..".":.'.':):
U
-"."-"?" Sand ."-" Geogridlayer -

h
)
d h

N
P
Plan

Geognd layer

~ B wl

Fig. 1. Square foundation supported by geogrid-reinforced sand

Settlement offoundations
beyond which the increase in the ultimate and allowable bearing capacities due to the
reinforcement is almost negligible. In a similar manner, if the magnitudes of u/B, h/B, and d/B
remain constant, there is a critical width ratio, b/B= (b/B)or, beyond which the ultimate
bearing capacity of the foundation remains practically constant. Previous work (Binquet and
Lee, 1975; Guido et al., 1986; Khing et al., 1992 and 1993) has also shown that, in order to
derive the maximum benefit from the soil reinforcement, it is essential that the u/B ratio be
less than about 0.67 to 0.75. In most practical cases, it is kept between 0.25 and 0.4. Similarly,
the h/B ratio is also kept between 0.25 and 0.4. Thus, in the present series of model tests, the
ratios of u/B and h/B were both kept equal to 0.333; however, any other suitable
combinations could have been chosen.
The present study for the permanent settlement of a square foundation on geogrid-
reinforced sand due to dynamic loading is divided into three phases. During Phase 1, static
bearing capacity tests were conducted to evaluate (d/B)cr and (b/B),. In Phase 2 of the test
programme, the model foundation was tested with optimum reinforcement (i.e. b/B=
(b/B)c~, d/B= (d/B),, and u/B = h/B = 0.333). A sustained static load was initially applied,
followed by a superimposed cyclic load of the nature shown in Fig. 2. The frequency of the
cyclic load was kept at 1 cycle s- 1 which was well below the resonant frequency. Tests
conducted in Phase 3 were similar to those in Phase 2; however, they were conducted
without geogrid reinforcement in the sand. This was done to compare the settlement levels
with and without reinforcement at similar levels of load intensity (static and dynamic).

Intensity of
cyclic load

qd !
I [
i

I
i

~T
t -~ Time, t
period = 1 sec
Fig. 2. Nature of cyclic load imposed on the foundation

Laboratory model tests

Laboratory tests were conducted using a model foundation with dimensions of 76.2 mm x
76.2 mm (B x B). The model foundation was made from an aluminium plate. The base of the
model foundation was made rough by cementing a thin layer of sand using glue. The sand
used for the tests had 100% passing a 0.85-mm sieve, 26% passing a 0.425-mm sieve and 0%
passing a 0.25-mm sieve. The average physical properties of the sand during the laboratory
4 Yeo et al.

Table 1. Average physical properties of the sand during the model tests
Parameter Quantity
Maximum dry unit weight (kN m-3)a 18.94
Minumum dry unit weight (kN m - 3 ) a 14.07
Dry unit weight during model tests (kN m-3) 17.14
Relative density of compaction during model tests (%) 70 mm
Angle of friction, ~b, during model tests (deg)b 40.3
"ASTM test designation D-4253;
b From direct shear test.

Table 2. Physical properties of the geogrid

Parameter Description/quantity
Structure Punctured sheet drawn
Polymer PP/HDPE co-polymer
Junction method Unitized
Aperture size (MD/XMD) 25.4 mm/33.02 mm
Nominal rib thickness 0.762 mm
Nominal junction thickness 2.286 mm

tests are given in Table 1. A biaxial geogrid was used for reinforcement, and its physical
properties are given in Table 2.
Model tests were conducted in a Plexiglas box measuring 760 mm • 760 m m x 760 mm.
The sides of the box were heavily braced to prevent lateral yielding. In conducting the tests,
sand was poured into the box in 25.4-mm high layers using a raining technique. The~tccuracy
of sand placement and consistency of placement density were checked during raining by
placing small cans with known volumes at different locations in the sand at desired values of
u/B and h/B. After completion of the sand placement, the model foundation was placed on
the surface of the sand for starting the test. As mentioned before, the laboratory study was
divided into three phases. A brief description of each phase of the laboratory tests follows.

Phase 1 - Static tests

The tests in this phase were conducted to determine (d/B)~ r and (b/B)~ r. In conducting the
tests, load to the model foundation was applied by a hydraulic jack. The loading ram was
fixed to the model foundation and the foundation was not allowed to rotate. The settlement
corresponding to a given load was measured by two dial gauges. Three series of tests were
conducted, and the details are given in Table 3.

Phase 2 - Cyclic tests (with soil reinforcement)

It will be shown in the following section that the magnitudes of (d/B)c r and ( b / B ) , obtained
from the tests conducted in Phase 1 were about 1.33 and 4, respectively. Hence in this phase,
Settlement of foundations

Table 3. Details of static tests - Phase 1

Test Constant Variable
series parameters" parameters Comments
1-A Dr = 70% To determine ultimate bearing
capacity, %, on unreinforced
sand
1-B D~=70% N = I , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 To determine (d/B)cr
u/B = h/B = 0.333
b/B=6
1-C Dr = 70% bib = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 To determine (b/B)cr
u/B = h/B = 0.333
N=4
"D r = relative density.

for all tests, the following constant parameters were adopted: u/B=h/B=0.333; b / B g
(b/B)~ r = 4 ; d/B,~ (d/B)~ r = 1.33; and average relative density of sand, Dr= 70%.
For conducting the cyclic load tests in this series, a universal testing machine was used to
apply load on the foundation. The magnitude of the load and the foundation settlement were
recorded by a data acquisition system. In order to start a test, a static allowable load per unit
area, qs, with a desired factor of safety (FS= qJqs) was first applied to the foundation,
followed by the application of the cyclic load, qd. The period, T, of the cyclic load for all tests
was 1.0 s. Details of the laboratory tests conducted in this phase of the study are given in
Table 4.

Table 4. Details of cyclic tests - Phase 2 (with soil reinforcement)

Test
series qs/qu (%) FS=qu/qs qd/% (%)
2-A 13.2 7.6 4.36, 10.67, 14.49 and 22.33
2-B 25.0 4 4.36, 10.67, 14.49 and 22.33
2-C 33.3 3 4.36, 10.67, 14.49 and 22.33
Note: For all tests, d/B~ (d/B)c~= 1.33; b/B,~ (b/B)cr=4; qu ~ 175 kN m -2
(obtained from Phase I tests).
qs - static load intensity.
qd - cyclic load intensity.

Phase 3 - Cyclic tests (without soil reinforcement)

These tests were similar to those conducted in Phase 2; however, they were performed
without reinforcement in the soil. Details of the laboratory tests for this series are given in
Table 5. It is important to note that the magnitude of qu ( = 175 k N m -2) in Table 5 is the
same as that in Table 4. This is the ultimate bearing capacity obtained from tests in Phase 1
with critical soil reinforcement (i.e. d/B=(d/B)r r and b/B=(b/B)r The purpose of
6 Yeo et al.

Table 5. Details of cyclic tests - Phase 3 (without reinforcement)

Test
series qs/qu (%) FS=qu/qs qa/qu (%)
3-A 13.2 7.6 4.36, 10.67 and 14.49
3-B 25.0 4 4.36, 10.67 and 14.49
3-C 33.3 3 4.36, 10.67 and 14.49
Note: qu~ 175 kN m - 2 a s obtained from Phase 1 tests with reinforcement
d/B ~ (d/B)cr= 1.33 and biB ~ (b/B)cr = 4.

conducting these tests was to determine the role of soil reinforcement in decreasing the
permanent settlement due to cyclic loading.

Model test results

Phase1 - Static tests

The plots of the load per unit area (q) versus foundation settlement (s) obtained from test
series 1-A and 1-B are shown in Fig. 3. The test in series 1-A was conducted on unreinforced
sand (i.e. N = 0 ) , and the tests in series 1-B were conducted on reinforced sand with
u / B = h / B = 0 . 3 3 3 and b/B=6. It can be seen from these plots that, as the number of
reinforcement layers (and hence d) increased, the ultimate bearing capacity (%) increased
accompanied by an increase in the settlement at ultimate load. The magnitude of s/B at
ultimate load with no reinforcement is about 3.5% and it increased to about 6.5% for the
case of N = 6. Fig. 4 shows a plot of qu versus d/B which is based on the results shown in
Fig. 3. The magnitude o f % increases rapidly with d/B. However, for d/B greater than about
1.33, the slope ofAqu/A(d/B ) reaches a minimum value. Hence, d/B = 1.33 may be taken to be
approximately equal to the critical value (d/B)~ c
Using the load per unit area versus displacement plots obtained from series l-C, the
ultimate bearing capacities were determined in a similar manner as in series 1-A and 1-B. In
this series the magnitudes of u/B and h/B were both kept equal to 0.333. The reinforcement
depth ratio d/B was kept equal to 1.33 since this was established to be (d/B)c r from Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 shows the plot ofqu versus bib obtained from the tests in series 1-C. Based on this plot,
it can be seen that a very small increase in the ultimate bearing capacity is achieved when the
bib ratio exceeds a value of about 4. Hence, the critical ratio ( b / B ) , can be taken as
approximately equal to 4.

Phase 2 - Cyclic tests (with soil reinforcement)

For all tests in this phase, it was decided that the geogrid reinforcement should be optimum,
i.e. d/B ~ (d/B)c r = 1.33 and b/B = (b/B)c r -- 4. As in Phase 1, the value of u/B = h/B was kept
equal to 0.333. For any given test in this series, a static load per unit area, qs, was first applied
to the model foundation, after which a cyclic load per unit area, qd, was superimposed. The
settlement, s d, due to the cyclic loading was monitored. A schematic diagram for the nature of
variation of s d with the number of load cycles (n) for all tests is shown in Fig. 6. The
Settlement o f foundations 7

Load per unit area, q (kN/m~)

35 70 105 140 175 210
0
'
9 Ultimat; bearing
capacity, q.
1 x~ ~,,.~, u/B = h/B = 1/3

3
N=0

67 1/2/ 3/4~6

Series I-B
I I I I 1

Fig. 3. Variation of load per unit area versus normalized settlement s/B (series 1-A and
l-B)

250 , , I I I I

z.-M 21)0 r

9~ 1511
r
e~

...= 100

o u/B = h/B = I}.333

50
bib = 6

0 I I I I I I
0 0.333 0.67 1,0 1.333 1.67 2.0 2.333
d/B
Fig. 4. Variation of qu versus d/B (series 1-A and l-B)

magnitude of s d increases with n to almost a m a x i m u m values s~tu) at n = nor. F o r n > nor, the
increase in permanent settlement is zero, or very small.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the plots of s J B versus n obtained from test series 2-A, 2-B, and
2-C, respectively. Also shown in these figures are the points which represent n~r for each
curve. Based on the experimental results shown in these figures, the following general
conclusions can be drawn.
8 Yeo et al.
250
a"

200

150

100

09 u/B = h/B = 0.333

50
E N=4

I I I I i I
00 1 2 3 4 5 6
b/B
Fig. 5. Variation of q. versus d/B (series 1-A and l-C)

Number of load cycles, n (log scale)

............ ] ....

Sd

Fig. 6. Variation of foundation settlement due to cyclic load

(1) For given values of qs/qu and n, the magnitude of Sd/B increases with the increase of
qa/qu.
(2) If the magnitudes of qJqu and n remain constant, the value of sd/B increases for an
increase in G/q,.
(3) The magnitude of nor for all tests is approximately the same, varying between
1.75 x 10 s and 2.5 x 105 cycles.
As shown in Fig. 6, the maximum settlement due to dynamic loading, sa<u), may be taken to
be approximately equal to the settlement between n = 0 and n = nor. Using this definition, the
values of sd<,) for various G/G and qa/qu combinations were calculated and are shown in
Fig. 10. Based on this figure, it can be seen that with FS(= qu/G) varying between 7 and 3 (i.e.
G/q,, varying between 13.2 and 33.3%) and qa/qu~ 10%, the magnitude of the maximum
settlement due to cyclic load may be in the range of 5 to 20% of the width of the foundation. If
Settlement of foundations

Cycles of load application, n

010~ 10~ 105 103 104 105 106

10

2O
e_ net ~14"49

30
u / B = h / B = 0.333 qd/q, = 22.33%
N=4
40 b/B = 4
qJqu = 13.2%

50 I I I I f

Fig. 7. Variation of Sd/Bwith number of load cycles (series 2-A)

Cycles of load application, n

010 ~ 101 102 103 104 l0 s 106

~, 2O

30
h/B 0.333
N=4
40 b/B = 4 -.
qJq~ = 22.33%
q,/q, = 25.0%

50 t i ~ i
Fig. 8. Variation of sa/B with number of load cycles (series 2-B)

qa/qu is increased to about 20%, the maximum settlement Saiu) for a similar range of FS
increases to a range of 30 to 40% of the foundation width.

Phase 3 - Cyclic tests (without soil reinforcement)

Figure 11 shows the results of cyclic load tests conducted under series 3-C (qs/qu = 33.3%).
The nature of variation of s J B versus n is similar to those shown in Figs 7, 8, and 9. For all
tests conducted in Phase 3, the magnitude of nor varied between 1.5 x 105 and 2.0 x 10 s
10 Yeo et 'al.

Cycles of load application, n

10~ 10~ 102 103 104 10~ 10~
II

10 !

~ 20
g
9 JZer
30
u/B = h/B = 0.333
N=4
40 [- b/B = 4

50
] qJq. = 33.3%

~ i I i
qa/q. = 22.33%

Fig. 9. Variation of s J B with number of load cycles (series 2-C)

qd/qu (%)
4 8 12 16 20 24
I I ]

10

~q~q. = 13.2%
21)

30
33.3% ~

40

f ! I i I

Fig. 10. Variation of sa{.}/B with qa/q~ and q J q . (Phase 2)

Settlement offoundations Ii

Cycles of load application, n

010~ 10~ 102 103 1r 1r 106
I I I 1 I

20

4 36~

40

9 no, .67%
q/q~= 33.3% ~ b ~--_"
9 u--
60 Sand without re'mforcement ~q~/.q9%
b ~-I

80 r r I I

Fig. 11. Variation of sd/B with number of load cycles (series 3-C)

qffq.(%)
0 4 8 12 16 20
0 /,\[~', ' ' ' '

Ix",,

20 , ~ "x~

~ 40

oo -

70 , ~ i r

Fig. 12. Variation of sd(.)/Bwith qd/q.and qa/q~(Phase 3)

cycles. These are in the same range as those obtained in Phase 2. Fig. 12 shows a plot of
Sd(u)/Bversus qd/qu obtained for all tests in this phase.
Using the experimental values of Sdr for various combinations of qJqu and qffqu as
shown in Figs 10 and 12, the settlement ratios of S~(u)_rei.f.... d/Sd(u)-unrei.f.... ~ have been
calculated and are shown in Fig. 13. Atthough there is some scatter, it appears that the
settlement ratio varies linearly with qd/q, and is not dependent on qs/qu.
12 Yeo et al.
qd/q, (%)
4 8 12 16 20
0 I I I I

i /.333%
10 \\ qJq"= / 9 25%
\ [ [] 13.2%
\
k
20 \
\
Y. \ \
D
3o \
i
\
i 9 \
~ 40 \
\ 9
\m
\

50 \~
ID

60 ,,, n n r

Fig. 13. Plot of Sa(u)_,einfo,cea/Sd(u)..... inforeedversus qa/qu (Phases 2 and 3)

General c o m m e n t s on the test programme

It appears reasonable to expect that the magnitude of the permanent settlement of

foundation will be a function of the following parameters:

(a) the relative density of compaction;

(b) stiffness of the geogrid; and
(c) soil-geogrid friction angle.

The present tests have been conducted at one relative density of compaction. Further tests
need to be conducted by varying the degree of compaction to develop proper design criteria.
One of the major shortcomings of the present tests lies in the use of full-scale geogrid in
model-scale foundation tests. This is true of practically all such studies now available in the
literature. However, it needs to be pointed out that the geogrid used for the present study is
the weakest available commercially in the US and is too weak for any full-scale foundation
construction. The results of this study are the first of their type and provide general guidelines
for practical design considerations.
Another shortcoming of any bearing capacity related laboratory model tests is the
existence of scale effects. Therefore a limited number of supplementary static tests on square
foundations were conducted to observe the variation of qu with the width of the foundation
(B). All tests were conducted on reinforced sand. For these tests, the following were the
controlling parameters:
Soil relative density of compaction = 70%
Soil unit weight of compaction = 17.14 kN m -3
u / B = h / B = 0.333
d / B = (d/B)o~ = 1.33
b i B = (b/B)c r = 4
B= 76.2 mm, 101.6 mm, 152.4 ram, and 228.6 mm
Settlement offoundations 13

~B~cm~
0.01 0 02 0.03 0.04
I80 ~
I I

E
~. 140

I00 p i f
50 IO0 150 200 250
B (ram)
Fig. 14. Variation of qu of square foundation with width B

Fig. 14 shows the variation ofq, with B (and ?B where ? = unit weight of sand). The ultimate
bearing capacity of reinforced sand decreases with increasing foundation width and appears
to achieve an approximately constant value at B ~ 2 0 0 mm. The total decrease in the
magnitude ofqu is about 18%. DeBeer (1965) studied the scale effects on the ultimate bearing
capacity of surface foundations on unreinforced sand; this study has also been cited by Vesic
(1975). The results of that study show that the ultimate bearing capacity reaches a constant
value at 7 B ~ 0 . 0 3 k g c m -2. For the present test programme 7B~0.0133kgcm -2.
According to DeBeer's study on unreinforced sand, the increase in qu for ? B ~
0.0133 kg cm -z to 0.03 kg cm -z ranges from 5 to 25% with an average of about 12 to 15%.
This is consistent with what is shown in Fig. 14. It may therefore be speculated that the
results of the ultimate bearing capacity and permanent dynamic settlement determined in
this study deviate by about 10% when related to an actual field condition.
The results of this study may be used for preliminary consideration of the design of the
foundations for low-speed machinery and other such structures in which settlement due to
cyclic loading is a primary consideration.

Conclusions

A number of laboratory model tests were conducted to assess the cyclic load-induced
settlement of a shallow square foundation supported by sand reinforced with layers of
geogrid. The tests were conducted at one relative density of compaction of sand, and using
only one type of geogrid. For cyclic tests, the depth of reinforcement and the size of the
reinforcement layers were equal to the critical values dcr and bcr x bcr, respectively. The
optimum value of dcr and br were determined in the laboratory by conducting static bearing
capacity tests. Based on the laboratory model tests, the following general conclusions can be
drawn.
(1) For mobilization of the maximum bearing capacity for the sand-geogrid system
tested, the optimum values of the depth of reinforcement and the width of
reinforcement were approximately equal to 1.33B and 4B, respectively.
14 Yeo et al.

(2) For a given sustained load intensity (qs) and number of load cycles (n), the settlement
due to cyclic loading increases with increasing magnitude of the cyclic load qd"
(3) For similar values of qd and number of load cycles, the cyclic load-induced settlement
increases with increasing intensity of the sustained load (qs).
(4) The maximum cyclic load-induced settlement of a foundation is a function of qs, qd,
the stiffness of the geogrid, and the degree of compaction of soil.
(5) For similar values of qs and qd, geogrid reinforcement can greatly reduce the
permanent settlement.
(6) Cyclic load-induced permanent settlement of geogrid-reinforced sand supporting a
foundation may be large and, in the actual field construction, soil stablization work
may be necessary.

References

Binquet, J. and Lee, K.L. (1975) Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced earth slabs, ASCE Journal
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 101, 1257-76.
Brummund, W.F. and Leonards, G.A. (1972) Subsidence of sand due to surface vibration, ASCE
Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 98, 27--42.
Carroll, W.F. (1963) Dynamic bearing capacity of soils. Vertical displacements of spread footings on
clay: Report 5. Static and impulsive loadings, US Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report
3-599, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Cunny, R.W. and Sloan, R.C. (1961) Dynamic loading machine and results of preliminary small-scale
footing tests, ASTM STP 305, 65-77.
DeBeer, E.E. (1965) Bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations on sand, Proceedings of
Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA, pp. 15-34.
Guido, V.A., Chang, D.K. and Sweeny, M.A. (1986) Comparison of geogrid and geotextile reinforced
slabs, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23, 435-40.
Jackson, J.G., Jr. and Hadala, P.F. (1964) Dynamic bearing capacity of soils. Report 3. The
application of similitude to small-scale footing tests. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Yen, S.C., Puri, V.K. and Cook, E.E. (1992)Interference effectof two closely-
spaced strip foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puff, V.K., Cook, E.E. and Yen, S.C. (1993) Bearing capacity of strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, London (in press).
Raymond, G.P. and Komos, F.E. (1978) Repeated load testing of a model plane strain footing,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15(2), 190-201.
Shenkman, S. and McKee, K.E. (1961) Bearing capacity of dynamically loaded footings, ASTM STP,
305, 78-80.
Vesic, A.S. (1975) Bearing capacity of shallow foundation, in Foundation Engineering Handbook,
(edited by Winterkorn, H.F. and Fang, H.Y.) Van Nostrand, New York, pp. 121-47.