Effect of footing shapes and reinforcement on bearing capacity of

three adjacent footings

S. S. Saraf
1Assistant Professor, P.R. Pote College of Engineering and Management, Amravati, Maharashtra, India

S. S. Pusadkar
2Associate Professor, Government College of Engineering, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

ABSTRACT
The effect of geogrid reinforcement on bearing capacity was studied on three surface square footings in series.
Parameters included under the reinforcement configuration were, length of reinforcement on either side beyond
center of footings (Lx), depth of first geogrid layer (u), vertical distance between geogrid layers (h) and center to
center distance between three footings (S). Also influence of footing shapes were studied for square, circular and
rectangular shape of same cross-sectional area for optimum reinforcement configuration. In order to evaluate these
effects, laboratory model tests were conducted at 55% relative density of sand. Bearing capacity of adjacent footings
has been observed to be improved by providing geogrid reinforcement layer in the foundation soil under closely
spaced footings. It was observed that the reinforcement configurations play a vital role in bearing capacity
improvement. It was also observed that bearing capacity of the soil varies with the shape of footings.

1 INTRODUCTION 1993a,b; Das and Omar, 1994; Yetimoglu et al., 1994;

The lowest part of a structure which transmits its weight
to the underlying soil or rock is the foundation. The
foundation design is aimed at providing a means of
transmitting the loads from a structure to the underlying
soil without causing any shear failure or excessive
settlement of the soil under the imposed loads. Bearing
capacity is the supporting power of a soil or rock, which
play important role in design of foundation. The bearing
capacity may be determined by analytical methods,
conducting field & laboratory tests and from the building
codes.
In recent times, rapid urbanization coupled with
scarcity of land force several heavy axi-symmetric
structures to come up ever closer to each other, which
may sometime cause severe damage to the structures
from both strength and serviceability point of view. Due
to close spacing, the behaviour of interfering footings
becomes different from that of a single isolated footing.
Therefore, the foundations in the field generally
interfere with each other to some extent and are rarely
isolated. Interference of foundations can cause changes
in bearing capacity and load-settlement behaviour, as
compared to isolated foundations. The influence of the
interference is directly related to the distance between
adjacent footings. Now a day’s immense civil
engineering developments are continuing all over the
world. The technique of reinforcing the soil below
shallow foundations with geosynthetic reinforcement is
one of the fastest growing ground improving techniques
in the field of geotechnical engineering.
The behaviour of reinforced soil foundation (RSF)
as well as the effect of different parameters on bearing
capacity of isolated footing have been experimentally
studied by many researchers (Binquet and Lee, 1975a,
1975b; Akinmusuru and Akinbolade, 1981; Guido et al.,
1985, 1986; Huang and Tatsuoka, 1990; Omar et al.,
Adams and Collin, 1997; Kurian et al., 1997; Gabr et al.,
1998; Shin et al., 2002; Patra and Das, 2005: Basudhar
et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007, 2009; Abu-Farsakh et
al., 2008, 2013; Sharma et al., 2009; Vinod et al., 2009;
Latha and Somwanshi, 2009a,b; Demir et al., 2013;
Chakraborty and Kumar, 2014).
Numerous investigations have been carried out, to
study the bearing capacity of two interfering footings on
unreinforced sand (Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983; Khan et
al., 2006; Kumar and Ghosh 2007; Kumar and Bhoi
2009 ; Mabrouki et al., 2010; Kouzer and Kumar 2010;
Ghosh and Sharma 2010; Ghosh and Kumar 2011;
Nainegali and Basudhar 2011; Srinivasana and Ghosh
2013; Nainegali et al .2013) and reinforced sand (Khing
et al., 1992; Al-Ashou et al. 1994; Kumar and Saran
2003; Ghazavi and Lavasan 2008; Ghosh and Kumar
2009; Pusadkar and Saraf 2012; Ghazavi and Lavasan
2012; Pusadkar and Saraf 2012; Naderi and Hataf
2014).The result of these research works shows a
significant improvement in bearing capacity and
settlement after providing continuous geogrid
reinforcement. It was also observed that the ultimate
bearing capacity of neighbouring footings increase as
the spacing between footing decreases.
The literatures, only shows work on the interfering
effects of multiple footings on unreinforced sand
(Graham et al., 1984; Lee and Eun, 2009; Kumar and
Bhattacharya, 2010; Daud, 2012). However, the
experimental study on the interfering effects of three
adjacent footings on reinforced sand is not available.
This revels that the study on effect of reinforcement
configurations, spacing between footings and shape of
footings on bearing capacity of three adjacent footing
on reinforced sand is need of the future. In order to
evaluate the performance of three adjacent footings on
reinforced sand, laboratory experiments to simulate the
various conditions of footing was performed and results

1
were compared for development of knowledge base in
this regards.
2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
From the literature study it was observed that, most of
the works on the interfering effects of three adjacent
footings were for unreinforced sand. Limited information
is available for reinforced sand. The main objective of
this research work was to experimentally investigate
effect of footing shapes and reinforcement on bearing
capacity of three adjacent footings. The effect of
geogrid reinforcement on bearing capacity was studied
on three surface square footings in series. Parameters
included under the reinforcement configuration were,
length of reinforcement on either side beyond center of
footings (Lx), depth of first geogrid layer (u), vertical
distance between geogrid layers (h) and center to
center distance between three footings (S). The
influence of footing shapes was studied for square,
circular and rectangular shape of same cross sectional
area for optimum reinforcement configuration. For these
purposes, extensive laboratory model tests were
conducted at 55% relative density of sand for simulating
the various conditions of footing. For reinforced sand
three geogrid layers (N=3) were used. Figure 1 shows
typical layout of multi-layered geosynthetic reinforced
sand bed adopted in the model tests.
Figure 1. Layout of geogrid reinforced sand bed
3 MATERIALS & EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS
3.1 Materials
For the model load tests, cohesion less dry sand
(Kanhan Sand) available in Nagpur region of Vidarbha,
passing through 2 mm IS sieve and retaining on 1 mm
IS sieve was used as the foundation material. The
properties of sand used is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Properties of sand used
Properties Values
Specific Gravity 2.53
Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3) 15.21
Maximum Unit Weight(kN/m3) 16.26
Minimum Unit Weight(kN/m3) 14.20
Angle of Internal Friction 34°
Coefficient of Uniformity Cu 2.8
Coefficient of Curvature Cc 1.37
Effective Size D10 0.50
Commercially available continuous biaxial geogrid in
three layers was used for reinforcing the sand bed.
Three model footings of square, rectangular and
circular shapes were fabricated by using cast iron
material of same cross sectional area. The sizes of
footings for square, rectangular and circular shapes
were 10cm X 10cm, 14.1cm X 7.1 cm and 11.3cm
diameter respectively. Every footing has a little groove
at the center to facilitate the application of load. The
base of the model footings was roughened by fixing a
thin layer of sand to it with epoxy glue. The footings
were provided with the two flanges on two sides of
footings to measure the settlement of footing under the
action of load with the help of dial gauges as shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Model footing
3.2 Test set-up
Laboratory plate load test setup consists of a test bed
tank and loading frame assembly. The sand beds were
prepared in a steel test tank of size 2.5m x 1.5m x 0.9m
stiffened at different levels to avoid volume change
during preparation of reinforced sand bed. The tank
was fabricated using steel plates of 6 mm thickness. A
loading frame consist of two vertical ISMB 200 girders
bolted with ISMB 200 horizontal reaction beam for
applying the load to the model footing is assembled.
The load was applied with manually controlled hydraulic
jack bolted on reaction frame. For transferring the
symmetrical loads to three footings, load transfer beam
of size 800x50x50mm having arrangement to change
the spacing between footings was fabricated and
connected to hydraulic jack. Load on each footing were
measured with the help of proving ring placed between
footing and load transfer beam. Dial gauges were
placed on each flanges of each footing to measure the
settlement. The schematic diagram of the experimental
setup used for studying the effect of footing shapes and
reinforcement on bearing capacity of three adjacent
footings is as shown in Figure 3.
2

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of test set-up
3.3 Testing procedure
For the load test, initially the tank was filled with the dry
sand of 2 mm passing and retaining on 1 mm IS sieve
up to 600mm depth. The sand was poured in the tank
by rainfall technique keeping the height of fall as 25 cm
to maintain the constant relative density and average
unit weight of 55% and 15.21 kN/m3 respectively
throughout the bed. The height of fall to achieve the
desired relative density was determined a priori by
performing a series of trials with different heights of fall.
Whenever the sand is deposited up to the desired
location of the bottom layer geogrid reinforcement from
bottom of footing, the top surface of the sand was
levelled and the bottom geogrid reinforcement was
placed. Again, the sand was filled over this geogrid
reinforcement layer in the tank up to the desired
location of the next layer and similarly the multi-layered
geosynthetic reinforced sand bed adopted in the model
tests as shown in Figure 1 were prepared. The
prepared top surface of sand was levelled and three
surface square footings 10cm x10cm size in series at
different spacing are then placed on the prepared
reinforced sand bed. The middle footing was placed
exactly at the centre of the loading jack to avoid
eccentric loading.
Figure 4. Actual experimental setup used
A manually controlled hydraulic jack, installed
between the load transfer beam and strong reaction
frame as shown in Figure 3 was used to provide the
required load on the footings. A calibrated proving ring
was used to measure the load transferred to the footing.
The load was applied in small increments. Each load
increment was maintained constant until the footing
settlement was stabilized. All the three footings were
simultaneously loaded vertically. The vertical
displacement of each test footing was measured by
taking the average of two dial gauges readings. By
gradually increasing the load, a series of tests were
carried out so as to monitor the complete load
deformation plots till the ultimate failure occurs. Figure 4
shows the actual experimental setup used for load
tests.
3.4 Testing program
Initially one model plate load test was conducted on
three surface square footing in series resting on
unreinforced sand bed, each at varying spacing
distance between footings 1B, 2B and 3B where B is
width of footing. After that three different series of
model tests (i.e. A to C) were carried out on footings
resting on geosynthetic reinforced sand beds by varying
different parameters such as, depth of the top most
reinforcement layer from the base of the footing (u),
vertical spacing between consecutive layers of
reinforcement (h), center to center distance between
three footings(S) and length of geogrid reinforcement
on either side beyond center of footings (Lx). Table 2
presents the description of each of these series with the
parameters used. All the varying parameters are
expressed in non-dimensional form in terms of the
footing width (B) as u/B, h/B, Lx/B and S/B.
Table 2. Description of laboratory model test series for
reinforcement configuration
Test Details of parameters used in tests
Series
S/B LX/B h/B u/B
0.2
A 1 4, 3 & 2 0.3 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 & 0.5
0.4
0.2
B 2 4, 3 & 2 0.3 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 & 0.5
0.4
0.2
C 3 4, 3 & 2 0.3 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 & 0.5
0.4
After performing the model load tests mentioned in the
Table 2, the optimum geogrid reinforcement
configuration (u/B=0.3, h/B=0.3 & Lx/B=3, N=3) was
determined by comparing the results from Figure 5, 6 &
7. After that, the two different series of model tests (i.e.
D & E) were carried out to investigate the effect of
footing shapes on bearing capacity of three adjacent
footings for square, circular and rectangular shape of
same cross sectional area. Table 3 presents the
description of each of these series with the parameters
used.
Table 3. Description of laboratory model test series for
different footing shapes
Test
Details of parameters used in tests
Series
3
 Footing 4.1.1 Effect of length of reinforcement on either side
Foundation Bed Type S/B beyond center of footing (Lx/B)
Shapes

Figure 5, 6 and 7 shows the variation of BCR with the

length of reinforcement on either side beyond center of
Optimum Geogrid footing for test series A, B and C respectively. From
1, 2 & Square,
Reinforcement these figures it can be seen that, initially up to Lx/B=3
D 3 Circular &
(u/B=0.3,h/B=0.3 & the BCR increases rapidly with increase in the length of
Rectangular
Lx/B=3,N=3) reinforcement on either side beyond center of footing.
After that the improvement in BCR is very marginal. It
was also observed that, the BCR is maximum for test
series A when the ratio of center to center distance
Square, between the three footings and width of footing is unity
E Unreinforced 1, 2 & Circular & (S/B=1).
3 Rectangular

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The load settlement behaviour of footings was

determined by conducting a model plate load tests as
describe in Table 2 & 3. The load settlement curves
were plotted for each case. The ultimate failure load
was decided from load settlement curve and thus
ultimate bearing capacity was calculated. The typical
load settlement curves for isolated and three square
footing in series at different spacing for reinforced sand
are as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 5(a) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.2

Figure 4. Typical load settlement curves for isolated and

three square footings in series at different spacing for
reinforced sand

4.1 Bearing capacity ratio (BCR)

The performance improvement in terms of the increase

in the ultimate bearing capacity due to the provision of
geosynthetic reinforcement is quantified through a non-
dimensional parameter, the bearing capacity ratio
(BCR), which is defined as follows shown in “Equation Figure 5(b) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.3
1”

[1]

Where qu int(reinforced) is the ultimate bearing capacity

of an interfering footing on the reinforced sand and q u
int (unreinforced) is the ultimate bearing capacity of the
same footing on unreinforced sand.

4
Figure 5(c) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.4 Figure 6(b) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.3

Figure 5. Test series A for S/B =1

4.1.2 Effect of depth of first layer reinforcement (u/B)

and vertical distance between layers (h/B)

From the figure 5b, 6b and 7b it can be seen that, the

BCR is optimum when the depth of inclusion of first
layer geogrid reinforcements and vertical distance
between consecutive layers is 0.3 times the width of
footing for all the three test series. It was also observed
that, the BCR is maximum for test series A when the
ratio of center to center distance between the three
footings and width of footing is unity (S/B=1).

Figure 6(c) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.4

Figure 6 Test series B for S/B =2

Figure 6(a) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.2

Figure 7(a) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.2

5

Figure 7(b) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.3
Figure 7(c) Variation of B.C.R. with Lx/B for h/B=0.4
Figure 7 Test series C for S/B =3
After comparing the variation of BCR with Lx/B for test
series A, B and C as shown in figure 5, 6 and 7, it was
observed that the BCR is optimum for the geogrid
reinforcement configuration with u/B=0.3, h/B=0.3,
Lx/B=3, and N=3.
4.1.3 Effect of footing shapes
Figure 8a and 8b shows the variation of U.B.C. with
center to center distance between footings for optimum
geogrid reinforced and unreinforced sand respectively.
From the results it was observed that for both the test
series D and E ultimate bearing capacity of square
footing is more than the circular and rectangular footing
of same cross sectional area.
Also, the same trend as observed while finding the
optimum geogrid reinforcement was seen for footing
spacing (S/B). As the center to center distance between
footings decreases the ultimate bearing capacity
increases. For all the three shapes it was observed that,
the U.B.C. of three interfering footing is nearly equal to
the U.B.C. of isolated footing for S/B more than three.
Figure 8(a) Test series D for optimum geogrid
reinforced sand
Figure 8(b) Test series E for unreinforced sand
Figure 8. Variation of U.B.C. with center to center
distance between footings
5 CONCLUSIONS
• Reinforcement configuration plays a very
significant effect on the behaviour of reinforced
sand foundation.
• The optimum length of geogrid reinforcement
on either side beyond center of footing is three
times the width of the footing (Lx/B=3).
• The optimum depth of first layer geogrid
reinforcement is 0.3 times the width of the
footing (u/B=0.3) and the optimum vertical
distance between geogrid reinforcing layers is
also 0.3 times the width of the footing
(h/B=0.3).
• Ultimate bearing capacity of square footing is
more than the circular and rectangular footing
of same cross sectional area.
• The bearing capacity of interfering footing on
unreinforced and reinforced sand increases as
spacing decreases.
• A considerable improvement in bearing
capacity and settlement has been observed by
providing geogrid reinforcement layers in the
foundation soil.
6
 • When the footings are placed at a distance
more than three times width of footing, there is
no interference.
6 REFERENCES
Abu -Farsakh, M., Chen, Q., Sharma, R. and Zhang, X.,
2008. Large-scale model footing tests on geogrid
reinforced marginal embankment soil. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM 31 (5): 413–423.
Abu-Farsakh, M., Chen, Q. and Sharma, R. 2013. An
experimental evaluation of the behavior of footings
on geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Soils and
Foundation, 53 (2): 335–348.
Adams, M.T., and Collin, J.G.1997. Large model spread
footing load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 123 (1): 66–
72.
Akinmusuru, J.O. and Akinbolade, J.A.1981. Stability of
loaded footing on reinforced soil. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 107 (6): 819–827.
Al-Ashou, M.O., Sulaiman, R.M., and Mandal, J.N.
1994. Effect of number of reinforcing layers on the
interference between footings on reinforced sand,
Ind. Geotechnical Journal, 24(3): 285-301.
Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S. and Deb, L.2007. Circular
footings resting on geotextile-reinforced sand bed.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25 (6): 377–384.
Binquet, J. and Lee, K.L.1975a. Bearing capacity tests
on reinforced earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 101(No. GT12): 1241–
1255.
Binquet, J.and Lee, K.L.1975b. Bearing capacity
analysis on reinforced earth slabs. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 101 (No.
GT12): 1257–1276.
Chakraborty, M. and Kumar, J. 2014. Bearing capacity
of circular foundations reinforced with geogrid
sheets. Soils and Foundations,
.http://dxdoi.org/10.1016/j. sandf.2014.06.013.
Chen, Q., Abu-Farsakh, M., Sharma, R. and Zhang, X.,
2007. Laboratory investigation of behavior of
foundations on geosynthetic-reinforced clayey soil.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2004: 28–38.
Das, B.M. and Cherif, S.L.1983. Bearing capacity of two
closely spaced shallow foundations on sand, Soils
and Foundations, 23(1): 1–7.
Das, B.M. and Omar, M.T.1994. The effects of
foundation width on model tests for the bearing
capacity of sand with geogrid reinforcement.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 12: 133–
141.
Daud, K.A.2012. Interference of shallow multiple strip
footings on sand, The Iraqi Journal for Mechanical
and Material Engineering, 12(3): 492-507.
Demir, A., Laman, M., Yildiz, A. and Ornek, M. 2013.
Large scale field tests on geogrid-reinforced
granular fill underlain by clay soil. Geotext.
Geomembr. 38: 1–15.
Gabr, M.A., Dodson, R. and Collin, J.G. 1998. A study
of stress distribution in geogrid-reinforced sand. In:
Proceedings of Geosynthetics in Foundation
Reinforcement and Erosion Control Systems, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication, 76: 62–76.
Ghazavi M. and Lavasan, A.A.2008. Interference effect
of shallow foundation constructed on sand
reinforced with geosynthetics, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes Science Direct, 26: 404-415.
Ghazavi, M. and Lavasan, A.A.2012. Behaviour of
closely spaced square and circular footings on
reinforced sand, Soils and Foundations, 52(1):160 -
167.
Ghosh, P. and Kumar, J.2009. Interference effect of two
nearby strip footing on reinforced sand,
Contemporary Engineering Science, 2(12): 577-592.
Ghosh, P. and Sharma, A.2010. Interference effect of
two nearby strip footings on layered soil: theory of
elasticity approach, Acta Geotech Springer
Publication, 5(3): 189-198.
Ghosh, P., Kumar, S.2011. Interference effect of two
nearby strip surface footings on cohesionless
layered soil, International Journal of Geotechnical
Eng. 5(1): 87-94.
Graham, J., Raymon, G.P. and Suppiah, A.1984.
Bearing capacity of three closely spaced footings on
sand, Journal of Geotechnique, 34(2): 173-182.
Guido, V.A., Biesiadecki, G.L. and Sullivan, M.J.1985.
Bearing capacity of a geotextile reinforced
foundation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 3: 1777–1780.
Guido, V.A., Chang, D.K. and Sweeny, M.A., 1986.
Comparison of geogrid and geotextile reinforced
slabs. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 20: 435–440.
Huang, C.C. and Tatsuoka, F.1990. Bearing capacity
reinforced horizontal sandy ground. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 9: 51–82.
Khan, I.N., Bohara, K.C., Ohari, M.L. and Sinfh,
A.A.2006. Study on interference of surface model
footing resting on sand, The Institution of Engineers
Malaysis , 67 : 15-23.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.D. and Yen,
S.C.1992. Bearing capacity of two closely-spaced
strip foundations on geogrid reinforced sand,
Proceedings of International Symposium on Earth
Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, Japan, 1: 619-
624.
Kouzer, K.M. and Kumar, J.2010. Ultimate bearing
capacity of a footing considering the interference of
an existing footing on sand, Geotechnical and
Geological Engg, 28 (4): 457- 470.
Kumar, A. and Saran, S.2003. Closely spaced footings
on geogrid-reinforced sand, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engg ASCE 129(7): 660-
664.
Kumar, J. and Bhattacharya, P.2010. bearing capacity
of interfering multiple strip footings by using lower
bound finite elements limit analysis, Computers and
Geotechnics, 37: 731–736.
Kumar, J. and Bhoi, M.K.2008. Interference of two
closely spaced strip footings on sand using model
tests, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engg ASCE, 134(4): 595–604.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P.2007. Ultimate bearing
capacity of two interfering rough strip footings,
International Journal of Geomechanics ASCE, 7(1):
53–62.
Kurian, N.P., Beena, K.S. and Kumar, R.K. 1997.
Settlement of reinforced sand in foundations.
(ASCE). J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engineering, 123
(9): 818–827.
7
Latha, G.M. and Somwanshi, A.2009a. Bearing Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H. and Saglamer, A.1994.
Capacity of square footings on geosynthetics Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, reinforced sand. Journal of Geotechnical
27 (4), 281–294. Engineering, ASCE 120 (12): 2083–2099.
Latha, M.G. and Somwanshi, A.2009b. Effect of
reinforcement form on the bearing capacity of
square footings on sand. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 27 (6): 409–422.
Lee, J. and Eun, J.2009. Estimation of bearing capacity
for multiple footings in sand, Computers and
Geotechnics, 36: 1000–1008.
Mabrouki, A., Benmeddou, D., Frank, R. and Mellas,
M.2010. Numerical study of the bearing capacity for
two interfering strip footings on sand ,Computers
and Geotechnics, 37: 431–439.
Naderi, E. and Hataf, N.2014. Model testing and
numerical investigation of interference effect of
closely spaced ring and circular footings on
reinforced sand, Journal of Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 42: 191-200.
Nainegali, L. and Basudhar, P.2011. Interference of two
closely spaced footings: a finite element modeling,
Geo-Frontiers, 3726-3735.
Nainegali, L., Basudhar, P.and Ghosh, P.2013.
Interference of two asymmetric closely spaced strip
footings resting on non-homogeneous and linearly
elastic soil bed, International Journal of
Geomechanics ASCE, 13(6): 840-851.
Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K. and Yen, S.C.1993b.
Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
sand with geogrid reinforcement. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 20 (3): 435–440.
Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Yen, S.C., Puri, V.K. and Cook,
E.E.1993a. Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular
foundations on geogridreinforced sand.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 16 (2): 246–
252.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Atalar, C.2005. Bearing capacity
of embedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced
sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23: 454–
462.
Pusadkar, S. S. and Saraf, S. S.2012. Interference of
adjoining circular footings on reinforced sand,
Proceeding of the Indian Geotechnical Conference,
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, New Delhi
India, 1: 373-375.
Pusadkar, S. S. and Saraf, S. S.2012. Interference of
adjoining rectangular footings on reinforced sand,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology (IJCIET), 3(2): 447-454.
Sharma, R., Chen, Q., Abu-Farsakh, M. and Yoon, S.
2009. Analytical modeling of reinforced soil
foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (1):
63–72.
Shin, E.C., Das, B.M., Lee, E.S. and Atalar, C.2002.
Bearing capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 20: 169–180.
Srinivasana, V. and Ghosh, P.2013. Experimental
investigation on interaction problem of two nearby
circular footings on layered cohesionless soil,
Geomechanics and Geoeng, 8(2): 97-106.
Vinod, P., Bhaskar, A.B. and Sreehari, S.2009.
Behavior of a square model footing on loose sand
reinforced with braided coir rope. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 27 (6): 464–474.