Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-00767-z (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)
ORIGINAL PAPER
Behavior of Pyramidal Shell Foundations on Reinforced
Sandy Soil
Hassan Sawsan A. . Al-Soud Madhat S. . Mohammed Shahad A.
Received: 16 July 2017 / Accepted: 26 November 2018 / Published online: 7 December 2018
 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018
Abstract Shell foundation has been considered as
the best shallow foundation for transferring heavy load
to weak soils because of the high bearing capacity
values, where a conventional shallow foundation
submit to excessive settlement. An experimental work
has been conducted to investigate the behavior of
pyramidal shell foundations as compared with flat
counterpart on loose sandy soils. Four types of
aluminum rigid foundation were casted for this
purpose; flat footing and shell footing of dimension
(20 9 20 cm) and different angles (20, 30, and 45).
Twenty eight loading tests were carried out on these
types of footings which were settled on the surface of
loose sand layer with and without geogrid reinforce-
ment. The geogrid sheet was inserted within the sand
layer (single and double layers) under the footing base.
The shell foundation on reinforced and unreinforced
sand showed higher ultimate load capacity than those
on unreinforced sand for flat foundation and the load-
settlement curves were clearly modified. The shell
foundations over reinforced soil can be considered as a
good method to increase the effective depth of the
foundation and decrease the resulting settlement. The
bearing capacity ratio (BCR) reaches to 88.5% and
settlement reduction factor (SRF) reaches to 37.3%,
where the BCR is the ratio of bearing capacity for a
Hassan S. A.  Al-Soud M. S. (&)  Mohammed S. A.
Civil Engineering Department, Mustansiriyah University,
Baghdad, Iraq
e-mail: ms_madhat@uomustansiriyah.edu.iq
foundation resting on reinforced (qR) to that resting on
unreinforced soil (q) while the SRF is the ratio of
settlement for a foundation resting on reinforced soil
(SR) to that resting on unreinforced soil. The exper-
imental work were also verified and analyzed numer-
ically using ABAQUS software taking into a
consideration the effect of different relative densities
(15%, 20%, 30%) on settlement and bearing capacity
of soil. The improvement range was greater at relative
density (15%), compared with the others which
reflects the improvement in loose condition due to
shell effect. This confirms the premise that shells are
reputably better performers in weaker soils that
necessitate a large load transferred to them.
Keywords Sandy soil  Geogrid reinforcement 
Shell footing  Soil improvement  Bearing capacity
ratio
1 Introduction
The elementary necessity of a foundation is the ability
to transfer the load from the superstructure to the soil
in such a way that the stresses induced in the soil
neither surpass the allowable value nor cause exces-
sive settlement. Shell foundation has been considered
the best shallow foundation for transferring heavy load
to weak soils because of the high bearing capacity
123
2438
values, where a conventional shallow foundation
submit to excessive settlement (Kurian 2006).
Bairagi and Buraghohain (1985) analyzed a square
hyper footing under axial and moment loads by the
finite element method (FEM). 3D isoparametric
elements were used to simulate the soil and shell with
several flatness ratio (i.e., rise/base width). The steeper
hypers were found to be structurally more efficient.
The base dimension was designed to provide any
tension stresses at the contact surface.
Kurian (1994, 1995) studied the effect of subsi-
dence of core soil on the behavior of shell foundation
using the FEM. It was found that the shells remain
stable up to limiting values of (75% to 100%) of
contact which are possibly considered in the field.
The bearing capacity and settlement of shell
foundations resting on dry sand under an axial load
were investigated by Hanna and Abdel-Rahman
(1998) using three types of shells: triangular, conical,
and pyramidal as compared to their conventional flat
counterpart. All the footings were tested both at the
surface and at an embedment depth of 0.75 times the
width of the footing using different relative densities
for sand bed. They concluded that the ultimate bearing
capacity of shell foundations is higher than that of their
conventional flat counterparts with the same plan
dimensions. They also found that the rupture surfaces
for the triangular shell footing went deeper than those
under a flat footing, which leads to an increase in the
ultimate load for the shell footing.
Hassan (2002) examined the behavior of hypar and
conical shells on Winkler foundations using FEM. The
soil and the foundation were modeled using four-node
elements with six and five degrees of freedom per
node. Parametric studies were made to observe the
effect of some selected parameters on the footings
behavior. Comparisons between the results obtained
and those from other investigations found it to be
acceptable with largest percentage difference of 8
percent in the value of the vertical displacement.
Haut and Mohammed (2006) studied the geotech-
nical behavior of the shell foundation using PLAXIS
software. It was found that the shell foundation had a
better load carrying capacity than the flat foundation.
They also found that using an edge beam at the bottom
of the shell efficiently increased the load carrying
capacity.
Esmaili and Hataf (2008) determined the ultimate
load capacities of three types of conical and pyramidal
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
shell foundations on unreinforced and reinforced sand
by laboratory model tests and numerical analysis. Both
the experimental and numerical studies indicated that,
if shell foundation thickness increases, the behavior of
the shell foundation on either reinforced sand or
unreinforced sand gets closer to that of flat founda-
tions. A new factor was also defined to present a
unique relation between the ultimate load capacity of
shell and flat foundations.
Fernando et al. (2011) calculated the bearing
capacities of conical and pyramidal shell foundations
on dry sand. The obtained experimental results were
compared with those of circular and square flat
foundations, respectively. It was determined that the
ultimate capacities of shell foundations were higher
than that of their flat equivalents with the same plan
dimensions, and that the failure mechanism under the
shell foundation was similar to its conventional flat
equivalent.
Azzam (2014) used different shell embedment
depth and subgrade densities to determine the ultimate
load capacities of strip shell foundations on unrein-
forced and reinforced sand as compared to flat
foundation. The experimental studies indicated that
the existence of reinforcement below the shell toe
significantly modified the bearing capacity and the soil
wedge between the shell and the soil above reinforce-
ment is effectively interlocked and the subgrade
densification is achieved. The load carrying capacity
of shell footing on reinforced loose subgrade was
reached to 2.8 times of flat footing at embedment
depth ratio of 0.75. The wedge of rupture surface for
the shell footing with reinforcement layer is deeper
than those of flat and shell footing without reinforce-
ment. The results were verified using plain strain
elastoplastic finite element analysis using program
PLAXIS 2D. The soil was modeled by the Mohr–
Coulomb failure criteria, which is a simple and rather
compatible and agrees with experimental testing
results compared with other models.
Fattah et al. (2015a, b) used RPC mixed with
different percentages of silica fume to prepare small
scale models of conical shell foundations embedded in
sand. They found that the ratio of rise to radius (f/r2)
for shell from 0.25 to 0.75 caused the ultimate load to
be increased by about 15%.
The objective of this study is to investigate the
behavior of pyramidal shell foundation models in on
reinforced and unreinforced loose sandy soils under
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
static load conditions and compare the results with flat
foundation. The effect of single and double geogrid
reinforcement on improvement of bearing capacity
and settlement was also examined. The experimental
results were validated with 3D FEM analyses using
ABAQUS software and extended for more parametric
studies.
2 Soil and Materials Used
2.1 Foundations
A set of pyramidal shell foundations of a width
(B = 200 mm) and thickness (t = 10 mm) with dif-
ferent shell angles 20, 30, 45 and flat foundation
were used in this study. The footing models are made
by sand casting using wood forms. Wood forms
pattern can be pressed into a fine sand mixture to form
the mold into which the high quality stainless
Aluminum Alloys were melted and poured into the
cavity of the sand mold, which is formed by the pattern
of wood forms. The bases of the footing models were
casted roughly to offer a good interaction with soil.
Figure 1 shows a general view for the shell footings.
2.2 Geogrid
Geogrids are one of the most commonly used forms of
reinforcement as they offer superior interface shear
resistance due to interlocking. Single and double
Goegrid sheets were placed within the sand bed at
distance (u) equal to B/3 or 2B/3 below the foundation
base as stated by (Chen 2007 and Abu-Farsakh et al.
2008) with (60 cm 9 60 cm) in dimensions for hor-
izontal sheet. The properties of Netlon geogrid as
provided by the manufacturer are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 1 Flat and shell footing models
2439
The influence depth (d) of the geogrid layers below the
footing’ base is:
d ¼ u þ ðN  1Þh ð1Þ
where u is top distance from the footing’s base to the
first geogrid layer, N is the number of geogrid layers,
and h is the distance between the geogrid layers
2.3 The Soil
Dry sand adopted in this study was subjected to
Standard laboratory tests to obtain its physical prop-
erties. A sieve analysis graph illustrates the grain size
distribution curve as shown in Fig. 2. These results
indicate that the sand is classified according to the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as poorly
graded sand (SP) with a coefficient of uniformity
Cu = 2.22 and the curvature coefficient Cc = 1.08 and
the mean particle size D50 equals to (0.39 mm). A
summary of the test results with standard specifica-
tions for each test are presented in Table 2.
3 Loading Frame
The frame was manufactured to apply the load on the
footing through a lever arm assembly and the loading
frame was support the sand box, the loading frame
assembly consist of following as shown in Fig. 3.
• Lever arm (beam) with (145 mm) in length and
(6 mm) in thickness was connected to the load
hanger with a beam ratios as 10:1 where this ratio
doubled the load imposing on the soil.
• Dead weights, including 5, 10 kg were used for
load tests.
• Three steel channels ( ), two channels of
]
(160 cm) length, (10 cm) width and thickness
(5 mm) was installed vertically by welded with
two steel angles (b) of dimensions (1 m) in length
and (5 mm) in thickness fixed under the tank, and
the third channel was fixed horizontally to these
two channels by four screws. These channels were
used to install a lever arm that carries the loads.
• Rigid loading shaft was placed in the upper
opening of load cell at the top part of the footings.
• Hollow steel section was fixed horizontally to the
tank behind the footings. This hollow section was
123
2440 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452

Table 1 Properties of Reinforcement CE121 geogrid

Netlon CE121 geogrid
Polymer type HDPE–high density polyethylene
Grid dimensions aperture (mm) 896
Thickness (mm) 3.3
Grid weight (kg/m2) 0.730
Maximum tensile strength (kN/m) 7.68
Extension at maximum load (%) 20.2
Load at 10% extension (kN/m) 6.8
Extension at 50% max load (%) 3.2
Modulus of elasticity E (GPa) 0.39

100 • Load cell; a compression load cell which was

90 connected with steel plate to measure the load
Finer percentage (%)

80
70
applied by the arm on the foundation.
60 • A digital load indicator; Load cell connected to a
50 digital load indicator, which shows the value of the
40
30 applied axial load.
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain size (mm)
4 Model Preparation and Testing Program

Fig. 2 Particles size distribution curve for sand
used to carry two dial gauges by its holders which
have magnetic stands.
The model tank used in this study with internal
dimensions of (900 mm 9 900 mm) and (1000 mm)
height. The dimensions are approximately compatible
with (Adachi et al. 1985) that is the effective width of
the soil on tank walls is equal to 2.5 times foundation

Table 2 Properties of sand

Parameter Value Method

Particle size, D10 (mm) 0.18 ASTM D6913

Particle size, D30 (mm) 0.28
Mean particle size, D50(mm) 0.39
Particle size, D60 (mm) 0.4
Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 2.22
Coefficient of curvature Cc 1.08
Specific gravity, Gs 2.7 ASTM D854-10
Maximum dry density, cmax (g/cm3) 1.714 ASTM D4253
Minimum dry density, cmin (g/cm3) 1.424 ASTM D4254
Internal friction angle, / 30 ASTM D3080
Modulus of elasticity E (kPa) at relative density 40%** 4952.38 ASTM D2435-04 (Odometer Test)
Classification according (USCS)* SP ASTM D2487
*Unified soil classification system
**Elastic modulus was calculated from Lambe and Whitmen (1979) using the odometer test

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
Fig. 3 Schematic of loading frame
width B and for soil depth 4 times of width. The tank
was made of (2 mm) thickness steel plates and four
steel angles were used to prevent buckling of
surrounding middle steel panels. The sand deposit
inside the model tank was organized using the sand
raining technique. The used placement technique in
this study intended at reaching greatest possible
uniformity in pouring sand can be attained if the sand
is allowed to fall into the tank slowly. A special raining
device was man-made to provide a uniform deposit
with the desired density according to (Kolbuszewski
1948). The device was a cylindrical reservoir with a
conical shape in the lower part. The outlet of the
conical is at the bottom and connected by a pipe of
35 mm diameter to a perforated plate. The perforated
steel plate of 100 mm diameter, with opening of
4.3 mm at the pattern of 7 mm spacing was attached to
the end of the pipe to control the rate of flowing sand.
The whole rainer was suspended at the top by a cable
through the roller to the mechanical lift which it
installed by steel frame.
The sand was placed at the desired relative density,
inside the model tank and soil core (the space under
the shell) as stated by Hanna and Abdel-Rahman
(1990). The sand filling process of shell models were
done by inserting a thin steel plate at the bottom of the
shell models before placing it on its location, then the
steel plate was slowly pulled out horizontally under-
neath the shell from the side while the shell footing
was centered in the model tank. To minimize grain
2441
size effects on soil-structure interaction of a founda-
tion case, Kusakabe [22] (1995) suggested that the
(D50/B) ratio should be smaller than (1/100). In this
study, the sand was examined with a mean diameter
D50 = 0.39 leading the D50/B ratio to be 0.0019.
After preparation of the loading test instrument, the
static compression tests were done according to
ASTM (D1194-94), the load is applied incrementally
by 5 kg and 10 kg over the steel disk on the load
hanger and each load remain for 15 min until the
failure load appeared which is defined as the load
causing excessive settlement in soil. Four dial gauges
with 0.01 mm sensitivity have been used, two dial
gauges measured settlements of the footings on rigid
plate that it mounted on two opposite sides of the
models and the two others observed the displacement
(heave or settlement) of the surrounding soil that
placed on aplastic ring plate and also installed with
side of tank by magnetic stand of its holders. Figure 4
shows the testing procedure in unreinforced and
reinforced sand.
5 Results and Discussions
To examine the settlement characteristic of shell
foundations as compared to their flat counterparts, a
non-dimensional settlement factor (Fs) is introduced in
Eq. (2) (Hanna and Abdel Rahman 1998).
Su A h c
Fs ¼ ð2Þ
qu
where Su is the settlement at the ultimate load, c is the
soil unit weight, Ah is the area of the footing and qu is
the ultimate load.
The shell efficiency factor (g) is also used which
represents the ratio between the difference in ultimate
loads of shell foundations over the ultimate load of flat
foundation.
q  quf
g ¼ us ð3Þ
quf
where g shell efficiency; qus ultimate load of shell
foundation; and quf ultimate load of flat foundation.
A summary of all the experimental results of this
study is shown in Table 3 including the above factors.
123
2442
Fig. 4 Rigid model under test
6 Effect of Shell Angles of a Pyramidal Shell
Foundation on Bearing Capacity and Settlement
Figure 5 shows the effect of shell foundation’s angles
on its load capacity and settlement. It is noted that the
increase in the shell angles leads to an increase in the
ultimate load values of pyramidal shell foundations
reaches to about 16% and decrease the ultimate
settlement by 33% for angle 45% as compared with
flat foundation. This behavior may be related to two
reasons first, the influence of increasing friction
between soil core and shell foundation and the second,
the increase of soil core size. In shell foundations, the
soil failure surfaces under foundation are not created
until soil core is integrated with shell foundation. This
integration happens during the loading process where
the soil core is compacted as much as possible and
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
thereafter, soil core acts as a part of shell foundation.
Therefore greater loads for integration of shell and
core behavior are needed, so ultimate load is
increased.
7 The Effect of Horizontal Geogrid Reinforcement
on the Bearing Capacity and Settlement
of Foundation
Two ratios were used to show the enhancement
achieved by using geogrid reinforcement, which were
the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) and the settlement
reduction factor (SRF).
The bearing capacity ratio is defined as the ratio of
bearing capacity at specific and ultimate settlement
according to behavior types of load- settlement for a
 Table 3 Summary of the experimental results of flat and shell footings on reinforced and unreinforced sand
Soil reinforcement FS 9 10-3 (g) Ultimate s/B = 5% s/B = 10% s/B = 15%
qu kN BCRs SRFs qs kN BCRs SRFs qs kN BCRs SRFs qs (kN) BCRs SRFs

Flat footing Unreinforced sand 3.59 – 4.6 – – 2 – – 3.8 – – 5.2 – –

Reinforced sand N = 1, u = B/3 2.54 – 5.3 1.15 0.81 2.5 1.25 0.9 4.2 1.11 0.8 6.1 1.17 0.87
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452

Reinforced sand N = 2, u = 2B/3 2.18 – 5.9 1.28 0.78 2.8 1.4 0.8 5.1 1.34 0.7 6.9 1.33 0.67
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = B/3 – – – – – 3 1.5 0.7 5.8 1.53 0.6 8.1 1.56 0.63
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = 2B/3 – – – – – 3.1 1.55 0.6 6.1 1.61 0.55 9.9 1.9 0.57
Shell footing 20 Unreinforced sand 3 10.87 5.1 – – 2 – – 3.7 – – 5.5 – –
Reinforced sand N = 1, u = B/3 2.11 15.09 6.1 1.19 0.84 2.8 1.4 0.7 5 1.35 0.7 7 1.27 0.77
Reinforced one layer N = 1 1.77 16.25 6.9 1.35 0.8 3 1.5 0.6 5.5 1.49 0.55 8 1.45 0.67
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = B/3 – – – – – 3.1 1.55 0.6 5.9 1.59 0.55 8.8 1.6 0.63
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = 2B/3 – – – – – 4 2 0.5 7.1 1.92 0.45 10.2 1.85 0.47
Shell footing 30 Unreinforced sand 2.65 15.22 5.3 – – 2.5 – – 4 – – 6 – –
Reinforced sand N = 1, u = B/3 2.07 16.98 6.2 1.17 0.91 2.6 1.04 0.9 5 1.25 0.8 7.1 1.8 0.83
Reinforced one layer N = 1 1.66 18.64 7 1.32 0.83 3 1.2 0.8 6 1.5 0.7 7.9 1.32 0.67
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = B/3 – – – – – 3.5 1.4 0.7 6.5 1.62 0.65 9 1.5 0.6
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = 2B/3 – – – – – 4.2 1.68 0.4 7 1.75 0.5 10.3 1.72 0.53
Shell footing 45 Unreinforced sand 2 19.57 5.5 – – 3 – – 4.9 – – 6.5 – –
Reinforced sand N = 1, u = B/3 1.53 20.75 6.4 1.16 0.89 3.5 1.17 0.8 5.8 1.18 0.85 7.5 1.15 0.77
Reinforced one layer N = 1 1.29 21.34 7.1 1.29 0.83 3.9 1.3 0.6 6.5 1.33 0.7 8 1.23 0.67
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = B/3 – – – – – 4 1.33 0.5 6.9 1.41 0.65 9 1.38 0.63
Reinforced sand N = 2, u = 2B/3 – – – – – 4.5 1.5 0.4 7.8 1.59 0.55 10.5 1.62 0.53
2443

123
2444 Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452

Fig. 5 Ultimate load and 5.5 28

Ult. settlment (mm)

settlement of foundations on
sand with different

Ult. load (kN)

foundation’s angles 24

5.0
20

4.5 16
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Shell angle (degree) Shell angle (degree)

foundation resting on reinforced (qR) to that resting on
unreinforced soil (q) as follows:
qR
BCR ¼
q
The settlement reduction factor is defined as the
ratio of settlement at specific and ultimate load
according to behavior types of load- settlement for a
foundation resting on reinforced soil (sR) to that
resting on unreinforced soil (s) as follows:
sR
SRF ¼
s of shell footings. The reinforcement is working
The results of load -settlement curve of flat
foundation located at the surface of loose sand on
reinforced and unreinforced sand are plotted in Fig. 6.
It can be noted the modification of load-settlement
curve for reinforced sand corresponding to unrein-
forced sand. This is due to the existence of the
reinforcement below the foundation which controls
and decreases the settlement. Moreover a progressive
densification is induced in the sand and relatively local
shear failure was shown especially for unreinforced
and one layer reinforced soil. In case of sand
reinforced with two geogrid layers, the load- settle-
ment relations are approximately linear until the end
ð4Þ of loading and the failure points could not be
determined. Doubling the reinforcement within the
sand offers a high strength causes the settlement trend
to be approximately constant and investigating the
final behavior of load-settlement needs high loads
which are out of the capability of the manufactured
apparatus. Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the effect of
geogrid reinforcement on the load-settlement relations
ð5Þ
together with the variation of shell’s angle to increase
the load carrying capacity and decrease the settlement
of the footing. Both the soil inside the shell wedge and
over the reinforced layer come to behave as a one unit
and effectively interlocked.
To show the improvement of bearing capacity and
settlement of foundation, the results of BCR and SRF
for ultimate and specific settlement are summarized in
Table 3.

Fig. 6 Load- settlement Load (kN)

curves for flat foundation on
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
unreinforced and reinforced 0
sand

10 Flat foundation
Settlment (mm)

Unreinforced sand
20
One geogrid layer (B/3)

One geogrid layer (2B/3)

30
Two geogrid layers (B/3)

40 Two geogrid layers (2B/3)

50

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452 2445

Fig. 7 Load -settlement Load (kN)

curves for pyramids shell 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
foundation 20 on 0
unreinforced and reinforced
sand
10 Shell foundation 20

Settlment (mm)
Unreinforced sand
20
One geogrid layer (B/3)

One geogrid layer (2B/3)

30
Two geogrid layers (B/3)

40 Two geogrid layers (2B/3)

50

Fig. 8 Load- settlement Load(kN)

curves for pyramids shell 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
foundation 30 on 0
unreinforced and reinforced
sand
10 Shell foundation 30
Settlment (mm)

Unreinforced sand
20
One geogrid layer (B/3)

One geogrid layer (2B/3)

30
Two geogrid layers (B/3)

40 Two geogrid layers (2B/3)

50

Fig. 9 Load- settlement Load (kN)

curves for pyramids shell 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
foundation 45 on 0
unreinforced and reinforced
sand
10 Shell foundation 45

Unreinforced sand
Settlment (mm)

20
One geogrid layer (B/3)

One geogrid layer (2B/3)

30
Two geogrid layers (B/3)

Two geogrid layers (2B/3)

40

50

The BCRs and SRFs obtained at settlement ratios is defined as the ratio of footing settlement (s) to
(s/B) of 5%, 10% and 15% where settlement ratio (s/B) footing width (B).

123
2446
Two different types of load-settlement behaviors
were observed in the footings tests. For the first type of
load-settlement curve the failure point is not well-
defined especially in reinforced models, while the
second type has a well-defined failure point.
The results show that:
1. BCR for ultimate and specific settlement
increased with increasing of qu and qs sequentially
for flat and pyramidal shell foundations, this
shows the enhancement which is gained when the
reinforcement is positioned at interface.
2. The variation of the settlement reduction factors
(SRF) for ultimate and specific settlement as a
function of (q) for the foundations tests. It is
obvious that the inclusion of the reinforcement
would reduce the settlement.
3. For one layer (N = 1), increasing the top geogrid
depth (u) from 67 mm to 134 mm (0.33 B to 0.67
B) causes the BCR to increase by (28–47)% and
reduces the SRF by (15.3–20)%.
4. For two layers (N = 2), increasing the top geogrid
depth (u) from 67 mm to 134 mm (0.33 B to 0.67
B) cause the BCR to increase by (62–89)% and
reduces the SRF by (33–37.3)%.
5. The efficiency is directly related to the shell’s
angle. An increase of about 5% in the efficiency is
obvious for a shell footing of an angle (20) by
using the geogrid depth 67 mm. But the efficiency
values come closer and the differences are almost
diminished with increasing shell’s angle up to 45.
6. The settlement factor is reduced by 39.27% for flat
foundation and reduced by 41% for shell
foundation.
8 Effect of Reinforcement Top Layer Location (u)
From (Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9) and Table 3, it can be seen that
when the location of the top layer of geogrid
(u) increases from 0.33 B to 0.67 B the BCR for
ultimate and specific settlement are increased and the
SRF decreases due to reinforced soil for flat and
pyramidal shell foundations. The shell efficiency g
increased and settlement factor decreased as compared
with flat foundation.
There is no optimum location of the first reinforce-
ment layer decided by other researchers. This dis-
crepancy on the optimum location of the top layer
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
reinforcement may be attributed to the different
properties of soil and reinforcement used by different
researchers. Chen (2007) found that the optimum
location is 0.33B while Latha (2009) reported that the
optimum spacing of reinforcing layers is about 0.4B
and Abu-Farsakh et al. (2008) showed that the top
layer spacing (u) and the vertical spacing (h) need to
be less than 0.5B.
9 Effect of Number of Reinforcement Layers (N)
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 also show that the reinforcement
effectively contributes in the modification of loose
sand state by increasing the BCR and reducing the
SRF for flat and shell foundations. Moreover, the
effect of reinforcement in reducing settlement factor
(Fs) and increasing the shell efficiency (g) is well
recognized in Table 3, which reflects the direct
relation between the base reinforcement and the
bearing capacity.
However, the significance of an additional rein-
forcement layer beyond the influence depth (d) de-
creases the BCR with the increase in the number of
layers (N) so the effect of reinforcement becomes
negligible below this depth (Latha 2009), where the
influence depths (d) used in this study are (67, 134, 201
and 268 mm) as calculated from Eq. (1).
It is found the total depth of reinforcement could
not be detected in this study due to limited capability
of the manufactured apparatus to use more than two
geogrid layers within the sand layer in the steel box.
10 Finite Element Geometric Modeling
3D finite element models have been developed to
simulate the geometry and test procedures used in the
experimental work. They consist of the foundations
with square dimensions 200 9 200 mm wide and
10 mm thick where positioned on a layer represented a
cubical soil mass with dimensions 900 9 900 mm
wide and 800 mm thick. The dimensions of soil inside
the shell are also represented as the core of shell
foundation. ABAQUS has an extensive elements
library to provide a powerful set of tools for solving
this problem. The soil and flat foundation were meshed
with solid elements using an 8-noded continuum linear
brick reduced integration element (C3D8R element),
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
while a 4-noded doubly curved thin or thick shell
reduced integration element (S4R element) were
considered for shell foundations as shown in Fig. 10.
Also 3D finite element models have been developed to
simulate the geometry but only one quarter of the
geometry has been modeled to take advantage of the
problem symmetry. The analysis is performed for up
one geogrid layers at distance 67 mm. The geogrid
used in the current study, involves an open area of
around (6 9 8) mm that will bring additional stiffness
when the geogrid is modeled as a (20 9 20) mm. With
the purpose of calibration of the (20 9 20) mm to
represent the accurate geogrid response, it is neces-
sarily to achieve an equivalent thickness. To deter-
mine an equivalent thickness that produces a similar
response to that obtained using the exact geogrid
geometry. The geogrid was meshed with solid ele-
ments using 8-node linear brick elements with eight
integration points as shown in Fig. 10. In the present
Fig. 10 Geometry of full
and quarter models finite
element
2447
study, the materials characteristics are divided into
two types: linear elastic and elastoplastic. The essen-
tial material properties for linear elastic materials
within the finite element method are the elastic
modulus (E), the poisson’s ratio (m) and the density
(c). The materials properties for foundations of
Aluminum and for geogrid are summarized in Table 4,
where the elastic modulus of Aluminum was prepared
according to (ASTM E8/E8M) for the tensile strength
testing. Also the elastic modulus of geogrid used was
prepared according to (ASTM 6637). The behavior of
soil layer has been considered in elastoplastic mode.
Drucker Prager analysis was used in elastoplastic
mode, considering data shown in Table 4. The direct
shear test was used to determine the angle of friction of
sand and the odometer test used to determine modulus
of elasticity.
There are many contact formulations used for
contact interaction between the parts of the model.
123
2448
Table 4 Material properties (ABAQUS Input Data)
Parameter
Footing(aluminum) Unit weight (c)
Thickness (t)
Young,s modulus (E)
Poisson,s ratio (m)
Soil (sand) Dry unit weight (c)
Friction angle (/)
Flow stress ratio
Dilation angle (w)
Poisson’s ratio (m)
Soil elasticity modulus (E)
Geogrid Unit weight (c)
Thickness (t)
Young,s modulus (E)
Poisson,s ratio (m)
*Bowles (1996)
**w & / - 30 (Bolton 1986)
Each formulation is based on an assignment of
‘‘master’’ and ‘‘slave’’ roles to the contact surfaces is
used to define the interaction in ABAQUS. In the
Interaction module, one can constrain the degrees of
freedom between regions of a model. In the present
work, the model incorporates two interface conditions:
i) footing to soil interface ii) soil to soil interface,
through three types of interaction the surface -to-
surface contact, tie constraint and shell-to-solid cou-
pling. The surface -to-surface contact with small
sliding is considered for all the contact interactions in
the model, but could undergo an arbitrary rotation of
the bodies (ABAQUS Theory Manual 2015).
Full interlocking between the soil and the geogrid is
assumed through surface to surface and tie constraint.
The model incorporates three interface conditions, i)
soil-to-soil; ii) soil-to-geogrid on horizontal surfaces;
iii) soil-to-geogrid on vertical surfaces within the
geogrid apertures. The finite element method was then
run simulating a static load which was modeled as a
concentrated load applying to a square contact area of
the column of foundations. The value of the applied
load in the ABAQUS was distributed uniformly in
loading steps until to reaching to load at which the soil
fail in experimental work. The representations of soil
inside the tank are done through fallowing boundary
conditions where these boundary conditions are des-
ignated in order to simulate to the real boundary
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
Value Units
2.7 9 10-9 Ton/mm3
10 mm
69,000 MPa
0.33 –
1.53 9 10-9 Ton/mm3
30 degrees
1 –
3** degrees
0.25* –
4 MPa
7 9 10-9 Ton/mm3
4 mm
390 MPa
0.25 –
conditions. Then the boundary conditions have a
significant influence in calculating the response of the
model, for sides of steel box it is acceptable to use
displacement and rotation boundary conditions in
static analysis, which incomes that no movement in
direction for four sides of steel box i.e. along the box
edges, the boundary nodes are horizontally con-
strained, but are free to move in the vertical direction.
For the bottom of box fix boundary conditions were
used to prevent movement in x, y and z direction i.e.
along the bottom surface of the box, the nodes at the
bottom of the box cannot move horizontally or
vertically. Symmetry boundary conditions were
assigned at the centerlines.
11 Verification of Computer Program Results
The load-settlement of unreinforced flat and shell
foundations and two models of reinforced flat and
shell 45 foundations obtained from laboratory tests
were verified by ABAQUS. Comparisons are made
between the typical experimentally obtained results
and those calculated in the numerical models. Load–
settlement curves for each analysis as shown in Fig. 11
are graphed with the same trends within 8–19%
discrepancy where the discrepancy is the ratio of qu
between the numerical and experimental work. As can
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452 2449

Fig. 11 Comparison Load (kN)

Load (kN)
between experimental and 0 2 4 6 8
0 2 4 6 8
numerical results. a For flat 0
0

Settlement (mm)
foundation model. b For

Settlement (mm)
10
shell foundation 20 model. 10
c For shell foundation 30 20 20
model. d For shell
30 30
foundation 45 model. e One Numerical
layer geogrid at 0.33B under Numerical
40 40 Experimental
flat foundation model. f One Experimental
50 50
layer geogrid at 0.33B under
shell foundation 45 model (a) (b)
Load (kN) Load (kN)
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0 0
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)
10 10

20 20

30 30
Numerical
Numerical
40 40 Experimental
Experimental
50 50
(c) (d)

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0 0
Settlement (mm)

10 Settlement (mm) 10

20 20

30 30
Numerical Numerical
40 40
Experimental Experimental
50 50
(e) (f)

Table 5 Ultimate load for numerical and experimental results

Analysis type Foundation type
Ultimate load, qu (kN) Flat Shell 20 Shell 30 Shell 45
Unreinforced sand Reinforced sand Unreinforced sand Reinforced sand

Numerical 4 4.5 4.3 4.9 5 5.4

Experimental 4.6 5.3 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.4
Discrepancy, qu (%) 15 17 19 8 10 18

be seen from results in Table 5, the numerical values
correspond reasonably well and with good agreement
between those of the laboratory model tests, validating
the results obtained in either case. Discrepancies may
be attributed to experimental human error in raining
effort to achieve required density and other environ-
mental factors associated with the laboratory setting.
12 Effect of the Relative Density and Shell Angle
on Settlement and Bearing Capacity
It was found that when relative density increases the
ultimate load increases and settlement factor decreases
as shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. By tangen-
tial method, the ultimate load and settlement were

123
2450
obtained from load–settlement curves as simulated in
ABAQUS program shown in Fig. 14. It can be seen
that within the range of low relative density (Dr-
\ 20%), the loose sand becomes more compacted
that need a large applied load transferred to them,
especially for shells angles 30 and 45.
The shell efficiency factors also decrease with the
increase in the relative density as shown in Fig. 15.
From this Figure, the variation of shell efficiency with
relative density at shell angle (20, 30 and 45) is
presented. It has been found that, increasing the
relative density reduces significantly the shell effi-
ciency factor for shell footings of different configu-
rations. The improvement range is higher at relative
density (15%), compared with relative densities (20
and 30%). This is because of increasing of the degree
of improvement in loose condition due to shell effect.
13 Conclusions
1. The improvement in unreinforced sand when the
shell angle increasing from 20 to 45 as compared
with flat foundation, that using a shell footing with
an angle (45) causes an increase of approximately
19.5% in the ultimate load over that of flat footing
and causes decrease of approximately 33% in the
ultimate settlement over that of flat footing.
2. For one layer (N = 1), increasing the top geogrid
depth (u) from 0.33 B to 0.67 B causes the BCR to
increase by (28–47)% and reduces the SRF by
(15.3–20)%.
4.5
Ultimate load, qu (kN)
3.5
Foundation type
Flat
2.5
Shell 20
Shell 30
Shell 45
1.5
15 20 25
Relative density (%)
Fig. 12 Ultimate Load (qu) versus relative density
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
0.4
Foundation type
Settlment factor (Fs)
Flat
0.3 Shell 20
Shell 30
Shell 45
0.2
0.1
15 20 25 30
Relative density (%)
Fig. 13 Settlement factor (Fs) versus relative density
3. For two layers (N = 2), increasing the top geogrid
depth (u) from 0.33 B to 0.67 B cause the BCR to
increase by (62–89)% and reduces the SRF by
(33–37.3)%.
4. The non-dimensional settlement factor (Fs) of flat
foundation is reduced by 39.27% for flat founda-
tion and reduced by 41% for shell foundation. The
shell efficiency increases remarkably for the tests
with increasing shell angle, where increased by
19.56% and by 21.34% as compared to their
counterpart unreinforced and reinforced with
horizontal geogrid flat foundation respectively.
5. Using Drucker–Prager failure criterion on an
elastic perfectly plastic soil model generated good
representation of the behavior of soil–structure
interaction in a cohesionless soil as confirmed by
the experimental study.
6. For verification unreinforced and two reinforced
foundation model, the finite element analysis
results show a reasonably good agreement with
laboratory experimental results; with a discrep-
ancy of within 8 to 19%.
7. The improvement range is higher at relative
density (15%), compared with relative densities
(20 and 30%). This is because of increasing of the
degree of improvement in loose condition due to
shell effect. This confirms the premise that shells
are reputably better performers in weaker soils
that necessitate a large load transferred to them.
30
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452 2451

Fig. 14 Load—settlement Load (kN) Load (kN)

curves for foundations. 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
a Flat foundation model. 0 0
b Shell foundation model

Settlment (mm)
20. c Shell foundation

Settlment (mm)
20 20
model 30. d Shell
foundation model 45
40 40
Dr=15% Dr=15%
60 Dr=20% 60 Dr=20%
Dr=30% Dr=30%
80 80
(a) (b)

Load (kN) Load (kN)

0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
0 0

Settlment (mm)
Settlment (mm)

20 20

40 40
Dr=15% Dr=15%
60 Dr=20% 60 Dr=20%
Dr=30% Dr=30%
80 80
(c) (d)

0.7 Report. Louisiana transportation research center (LTRC),

Dr=15% Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
0.6 (LADOTD), Baton Rouge, LA, Report No. FHWA/LA.07/
Effeciency factor (Fs)

Dr=20%
424
0.5 Dr=30% Adachi T, Tamura T, Yashima A (1985) Behavior and simula-
tion of sandy ground tunnel. In: Proceeding of 11th inter-
0.4 national conference on soil mechanic and foundation
engineering, vol 2, Sanfrancisco, pp 709–713
0.3 ASTM (2006a) D854-10 Standard test methods for specific
gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer
0.2 ASTM (2006b) D1194-94 Standard test method for bearing
capacity of soil for static load and spread footings
0.1
ASTM (2006c) D 2435-04 Standard test method for one-di-
mensional consolidation properties of soil using incre-
10 20 30 40 50
mental loading
Shell angle (degree) ASTM (2006d) D2487 Standard practice for classification of
soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification
Fig. 15 The shell efficiency factor versus shell angle for shell system)
footings at different relative density ASTM (2006e) D3080 Standard test method for direct shear test
of soils under consolidated drained conditions
Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank ASTM (2006f) D4253 Standard test methods for maximum
Mustansiriyah University/College of Engineering for the index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory
support offered during the present work. table
ASTM (2006g) D4254 Standard Test methods for minimum
index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of
relative density
References ASTM (2006h) D6637-01 Standard test method for determining
tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib
Abaqus Theory Guide (2015): Version 2016, Abaqus Inc., tensile method
Dassault Systèmes ASTM (2006i) D6913.04 Standard test methods for particle size
Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q, Yoon S (2008) Use of reinforced soil distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis
foundation (RSF) to support shallow foundation. Final

123
2452
ASTM (2006j) E8/E8M standard test methods for tension test-
ing of metallic material
Azzam WR, Nasr AM (2014) Bearing capacity of shell strip
footing on reinforced sand. J Adv Res 5:727–737. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.04.003
Bairagi NK, Buraghohain DN (1985) Application of finite ele-
ment to hyper shell footings. In: 2nd International confer-
ence on computer aided analysis and design in civil
engineering proceedings, vol 3. University of Rooker,
India, pp 61–69
Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands.
Geotechnique 36(1):65–78
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
Chen Q (2007) An experimental study on characteristics and
behavior of reinforced soil foundation. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Louisiana State, USA
Esmaili D, Hataf N (2008) Experimental and numerical inves-
tigation of ultimate load capacity of shell foundations on
reinforced and unreinforced sand. Iran J Sci Technol Trans
B, Eng 32(B5):491–500
Fattah MY, Waryosh WA, Al-Hamdani MAE (2015a) Experi-
mental and theoretical studies on bearing capacity of
conical shell foundations composed of reactive powder
concrete. Acta Geodyn Geomater J 12(180):411–426.
https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.0037
Fattah MY, Waryosh WA, Al-Hamdani MAE (2015b) Investi-
gation on the behavior of conical shell foundations com-
posed of reactive powder concrete embedded on sandy soil.
Adv Struct Eng 18(11):1859–1873
Fernando N. Sendanayake E. Sendanayake D, De Silva N (2011)
The experimental investigation of failure mechanism and
bearing capacity of different types of shallow foundations.
Civil Engineering Reserch of Industry, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Moratuwa, pp 67–72
Hanna AM, Abdel-Rahman MM (1990) Ultimate bearing
capacity of triangular shell strip footings on sand.
J Geotech Eng, ASCE 116(12):1851–1863
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2019) 37:2437–2452
Hanna AM, Abdel-Rahman MM (1998) Experimental investi-
gation of shell foundation on dry sand. Can Geotech J
35:847–857
Hassan SA (2002) Finite element analysis of shell footings.
M.Sc. Thesis, College of Engineering, Al-Mustansiriyah
University, Baghdad, Iraq
Haut BBK, Mohammed TA (2006) Finite element study using
FE Code (PLAXIS) on the geotechnical behavior of shell
footings. J Comput Sci 2(1):104–108
Kolbuzewski J (1948) An experimental study of the maximum
and minimum porosities of sand. In: Proc. 2nd international
conference on soil mechanic and foundation engineering,
vol 11, pp 58–165
Kurian NP (1994) Behavior of Shell foundations under subsi-
dence of core soil. In: Proceeding XIII international con-
ference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
New Delhi, vol 2, pp 591–594
Kurian NP (1995) Parametric studies on the behavior of conical
shell foundations. In: Proceeding V East Asia—Pacific
conference on structural engineering and construction,
Gold Coast, Australia, vol 2, pp 1733–1738
Kurian NP (2006) Shell foundation. Narosa Publishing House,
New Delhi
Kusakabe O (1995) Foundations. In: Taylor RN (ed) Geotech-
nical centrifuge technology, London: Blackie Academic
and Professional, chapter 6
Lambe TW, Whitmen RV (1979) Soil mechanics. Wiley, New
York
Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square
footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geo-
membr 27(2):81–294
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.