See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348432120

Plate load tests for investigation of the load–settlement behaviour of shallow

foundation on bitumen-coated geogrid reinforced soil bed

Experiment Findings in Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s41062-020-00397-6

CITATIONS READS

8 1,275

3 authors:

Bashir Ahmed Mir Javed Bhat

National Institute of Technology Srinagar 31 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS
104 PUBLICATIONS 768 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Asif Akbar
National Institute of Technology Srinagar
3 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soft ground improvement using sand drains and sand compaction piles View project

Some Studies on Reconstituted Clays View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bashir Ahmed Mir on 10 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00397-6

TECHNICAL PAPER

Plate load tests for investigation of the load–settlement behaviour

of shallow foundation on bitumen‑coated geogrid reinforced soil bed
Asif Akbar1 · Javed Ahmad Bhat1 · Bashir Ahmed Mir1

Received: 30 May 2020 / Accepted: 31 October 2020

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
The paucity of the desirable construction land in India due to day by day increasing population has put grand challenges in
front of engineers. So they accentuated the use of undesirable construction land which is having low bearing capacity and
large plastic deformation. Among several ground improvement techniques, geosynthetic reinforced soil system is widely
adopted as foundation medium keeping in view its economical benefits and sustainable development. Therefore, the main
objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a bitumen-coated geogrid reinforcement on the bearing capacity ratio
of a shallow foundation in a two-layer silty clay foundation bed. The top layer of locally available silty clay was compacted
at OMC (19%) with 0.95MDD, and the bottom soft layer was compacted at dry side of OMC (15%) with 0.75MDD. Vari-
ous model plate load tests were carried out using a square footing of size 200 mm and thickness 25 mm over a silty clay
bed reinforced with bitumen-coated geogrid BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80 having different ultimate strengths in a test tank of
dimensions 1000 × 1000 × 1000 mm. The effect on bearing capacity and plastic deformation due to varying end conditions of
geogrid reinforcement was also investigated. The other various parameters investigated were the top spacing ratio, width of
the geogrid, no. of layers of the geogrid and the stress distribution in various reinforcement layouts. The bearing capacity ratio
of reinforced clay was found to be increased by 20–55% than unreinforced clay. The settlement reduction factor of reinforced
clay was increased by 9–40% than unreinforced clay. Also the vertical stresses were reduced up to 20% in reinforced clay.

Keywords Soft soil · Geosynthetics · Reinforcement · Settlement · Foundation bed · Bearing capacity ratio

Introduction Among several ground improvement techniques, geosyn-

The scarcity of the desirable construction sites has neces-
sitated the use of weak and expansive soil deposits as foun-
dation medium or as a construction material [1–3]. How-
ever, these soils pose severe soil stability problems due
low bearing capacity, large plastic deformation and need
ground strengthening for sustainable development [4–7].
* Asif Akbar
asif_41phd17@nitsri.net; er.asif7299@gmail.com;
asif_41phd@nitsri.net
Javed Ahmad Bhat
bhat_javed@nitsri.net
Bashir Ahmed Mir
p7mir@nitsri.net; bashiriisc@yahoo.com;
bamiriitb@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology Srinagar, Hazratbal, Srinagar,
Kashmir, J&K 190006, India
thetic reinforced soil system is widely adopted as foundation
medium keeping in view its economical benefits and sustain-
able development [8, 9]. The technique of reinforcing weak
soil originated from ancient times, but the most prominent
phase of soil reinforcement system started during 1960s and
1970s. Among various soil reinforcing techniques, geogrid
reinforcement is widely used for improving the load–set-
tlement behaviour of shallow foundations in marginal soils
[10–16]. Since the soil is strong in shear and compression
but weak in tension, Binquet and Lee [17] were the first who
provided the concept of reinforced soil foundation (RSF)
system. They conducted many load tests of strip footing on
sand using house hold aluminium foil as tensile reinforce-
ment. They showed that the strength of foundation bed was
enhanced and the settlement of the weak soil was reduced to
a large extent. McGown at el. [18] proposed the use of steel
strips, aluminium foil, magnesium alloy etc., as inextensi-
ble reinforcements, which are brittle and rupture under peak
stresses. They also found that the inextensible inclusions at

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 80 Page 2 of 17
the post-rupture phase develop intense local shear planes and
proposed the use of extensible reinforcement like synthetic
fibres. Depending upon the proficient and cost effectiveness
of the extensible reinforcement, geosynthetics material are
the most advanced and convenient to their functions [19–23].
According to their functions, different types of geosynthet-
ics are geotextile, geogrid, geocell, geonet, geofoam, geo-
composite and geoclay liner (GCL). Among these materials,
geotextiles and geogrids are mostly used as reinforcement
for weak soils under foundations and roadways due to its
multifunctional properties [24–28]. The friction developed
between the soil grains and the geosynthetics material is
the prior mechanism, which later on helps in reducing the
lateral deformation of soil [29–32]. The soil–geogrid inter-
action relocates the stress from soil to reinforcement due to
the frictional development between the soil grains and the
geogrid apertures from top layer to bottom layer [33–36].
Many other researchers put enormous efforts to study the
effect of geogrid reinforced weak soil bed under foundations
[37–42].
It has also been reported by various researchers that
geogrid reinforcement significantly improved strength char-
acteristics of cohesive soil [43–48]. They showed that the
efficiency of the geogrid depends on distinct parameters such
as top layer spacing, number of reinforcement layers, width
of reinforcement layer, distance between the two reinforce-
ment layers, tensile strength of reinforcement, etc. It has
also been reported that the optimum value of top geogrid
reinforcement layer (N) from foundation base is one-third
of the width of foundation in clayey soil [49–53]. Wayne
et al. [54] and Patra et al. [55] have reported that the number
of reinforcement layers beyond N > 4 will lead no further
improvement in strength. Das and Omar [56] and Cicek
et al. [57] reported that the width of the geogrid beyond 5B
geogrid reinforcement showed no further improvement. The
increase in bearing capacity and reduction in settlement is
attributed due higher tensile strength of geosynthetic mate-
rial. The stiffer tensile reinforcement helps in distributing
the vertical stress to a wider area thus reduces the vertical
deformations [58].
There are extensive studies available on shallow founda-
tions resting on geogrid and geocell reinforced sand with
single or multilayer uniform reinforcement layouts without
wrap-around ends embedded in sand bed [59–63]. But, this
uniform arrangement of reinforcement requires large width
in the sand bed, which in practical situations may not be
permissible. It has been reported that geogrid reinforcement
performance and the bearing capacity can be enhanced by
wrapping ends of the reinforcement layers in the embed-
ded sand bed [64–66]. However, only a limited test results
are available on shallow foundations resting on reinforced
silt clay bed with full wrap-around ends of geogrid rein-
forcement [67, 68]. Therefore, the main objective of this
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80
study was to investigate the load–settlement behaviour of
shallow foundation on bitumen-coated geogrid reinforced
silt clay soil bed with varying end conditions in double
layered soil system. In this paper, soil samples were col-
lected from Rakhi Arth, a marshy land spread over 7526
canals on the outskirts of Srinagar city. The soil samples
were pulverized and dried before testing. The silty clay soil
bed was prepared in two layers in a test tank of dimensions
1000 × 1000 × 1000 mm. The top layer of silty clay was com-
pacted at optimum moisture content (OMC = 19%) with 0.95
timed dry unit weight (MDU) , and the bottom soft layer was
compacted at dry side of OMC (15%) with 0.75MDU. Vari-
ous model plate load tests were carried out using a square
footing of size 200 mm and thickness 25 mm over a silty clay
bed reinforced with bitumen-coated geogrid BX-40, BX-60
and BX-80 having different ultimate strengths in a test tank
(1000 × 1000 × 1000 mm). The effect on bearing capacity
and plastic deformation due to varying end conditions of
geogrid reinforcement was also investigated. The other vari-
ous parameters investigated were the top spacing ratio, width
of the geogrid, no. of layers of the geogrid and the stress
distribution in various reinforcement layouts.
Materials and test programme
Soil
The disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were collected
from three boreholes at three sites at Rakhi Arth Bemina,
Srinagar. The disturbed soil samples were collected in large
plastic bags. The undisturbed samples were collected in core
cutters and properly sealed to avoid loss of moisture content.
All samples were transported to Geotechnical laboratory.
The disturbed soil samples were pulverized properly and
dried and subjected to various laboratory tests for determina-
tion of physical properties [69–73], index properties [74–76]
and engineering properties [77, 78]. All the physical proper-
ties are given in Table 1, and the particle size distribution
curves are shown in Fig. 1. From grain size analysis and
index properties, it seen that the soil can be classified as
clayey silt with appreciable fine content. In situ moisture
content (%) was found to be 28.6%. In situ dry unit density
(kN/m3) was found to be 13.9. The specific gravity varied
between 2.62 and 2.64. The maximum dry unit weight,
MDU (kN/m3) was found to be 16.78 at optimum moisture
content (OMC) of 18%. The value of cohesion at OMC and
0.95 * MDU, c (kPa) was 41, and angle of friction at OMC
and 0.95 * MDU was 22 which suggested low sand content
into the soil sample. The natural moisture content and field
dry unit weight determined from undisturbed soil samples
are also given in Table 1.
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 3 of 17 80

Table 1  Geotechnical characteristics of weak sample Strata Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd is a global manufacturer
Properties Average value and distributor of geosynthetics. The geogrid used in
our tests is a Stratagrid™ Biaxial grid which is polyes-
In situ moisture content, w (%) 28.6 ter geogrid reinforcement (PET); these high-performance
In situ dry unit weight, γd (kN/m3) 13.9 grids are constructed of high molecular weight and highly
Specific gravity, GS by Density bottle method 2.63 tenacity knitted polyester yarns. A tenure UV stabilized
Particle size distribution by wet sieve analysis saturation bitumen coating exalt chemical and mechani-
Sand (%) 8.2 cal properties of Stratagrid. This will increase the life and
Silt (%) 87.6 enabling its usage in harsh soil conditions. The bitumen
Clay (%) 4.2 coating is an extremely refined and solvent extracted crys-
Percentage finer 75 micron (%) 91.8 talline form of bitumen which provides a rough texture
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 5.8 of the grid surface thus providing better frictional char-
Curvature coefficient, Cc 1.2 acteristics. Three types of Stratagrid™ Biaxial geogrid
Liquid limit, LL (%) by Casagrande method 33.3 that are BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80 were used as shown in
Plastic limit, PL (%) 24.8 Fig. 2a. They are possessed with different tensile strengths
Plastic index (%) 8.5 and varying aperture sizes. The physical and mechanical
Plastic index of A-line, P­ IA = 0.73(LL-20) (%) 9.7 properties of the geogrid are provided by the manufacturer
Plastic index of U-line, P­ IU = 0.9(LL-8) (%) 22.77 and are listed in Table 2.
Consistency index 0.56
Soil classification ML
Clay mineral Kaolinite mineral Model load test up
Maximum dry unit weight, MDU (kN/m3) 16.78
Optimum moisture content, OMC (%) 18 The model tests were conducted in a steel tank of dimen-
In situ cohesion by direct shear test, c (kPa) 27.5 sions 1 m × 1 m × 1 m. The sides of the tank were made of
In situ angle of internal friction by DST, ϕ (°) 19.6 6 mm thick steel plates, perfected welded and braced with
Cohesion at OMC and 0.95 ⃰ MDU, c (kPa) 41 L-sections to give extra durability and firmness to the tank.
Angle of friction at OMC and 0.95 ⃰ MDU, ϕ (°) 22 The square model footing used in the test was 25 mm thick
mild steel plate with dimensions of 0.2 m × 0.2 m. The test
setup used is shown in Fig. 2b, c, respectively. The loading
Geogrid was applied through a 50 KN capacity screw jack fitted on
a loading frame.
Three different grades of geogrid were used which were
procured from M/S Strata Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. M/S

100

90 Dia. S-1(mm) S-2 (mm)

S-1: Rakhi Arth Bemina Srinagar
D 10 0.005 0.0044
80 S-2: Rakhi Arth Bemina Srinagar D 15 0.007 0.006
D 20 0.0093 0. 0084
70 Soil Coeff. S-1 S-2
Percentage finner ( %)

D 30 0.015 0.013
Cu 6.0 5.7 D 45 0. 02 0.02
60
Cc 1.5 1.5 D 50 0.023 0.021
SN 386 436 D 60 0.03 0.025
50
k (m/s) 1.5*10-7 1.2*10 -7 D 85 0.06 0.05
40

30 Cu: Coefficient of uniformity; C c : Coefficient of curvature

SN: Suitability number (required for fill material criteria)
20 k : Coefficient of permeability derived from gradation data

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Partical size (mm)

Fig. 1  Grain size distribution curve of two soil samples

13
 80 Page 4 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80

Fig. 2  a Different grades of bitumen-coated geogrid. b Experimental setup for model tank under static plate load test, c showing experimental
setup of geogrid reinforced clay bed under static plate load, d the earth pressure transducers placed under the footing at a depth of 300 mm

Data measuring and recording system
The 20-channel TDS-540 data logger is a static strain meter
used to record the measured data. This instrument manipu-
lates highly accurate, stable and multipoint measurements.
The KDJ-500KPA & KDJ-200KPA which are the stain-
less steel soil pressure gauges each having 200 mm outside
diameter were used. They are load cell type soil pressure
gauges and designed with a high level of resistance to lateral
pressure. The CDP-100 & CDP-200 displacement transduc-
ers were used to measure the settlement of the footing with
more precision. The CDP displacement transducer is a com-
pact, easy to operate strain gauge type transducer which is
designed to produce a large output and to deliver stable per-
formance. So highly accurate measurements can be made.
These transducers are suitable for both static and dynamic
measurements.
Preparation of section bed
Soil sample was prepared for a two-layer system in which a
stiff layer was overlaid on a soft layer. The soil sample was
left for air drying so that there is no moisture content left
into the voids. Thenceforth, the soil sample was pulverized
and sieved through 4.75-mm sieve. After that, the required
moisture content was provided by hand mixing a 15 kg of
soil sample with the water at every time. For the bottom
layer, the moisture content of soil was fixed less than opti-
mum moisture content (i.e. < OMC) and the soil sample was
compacted at dry side of OMC. The soil was filled into 220

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 5 of 17 80

Table 2  Properties of geogrid

Sr. no. Properties of Geogrid Unit BX40 BX60 BX80

1 Mechanical properties (ASTM D6673-Method A)

i. Tensile strength in machine direction (MD) kN/m 40 60 80
ii. Tensile strength in cross-machine direction (CMD) kN/m 40 60 80
iii. Creep limited strength in machine direction (MD) kN/m 27.2 40.8 54.4
iv. Creep limited strength in cross-machine direction (CMD) kN/m 27.2 40.8 54.4
v. Creep reduction factor 1.47 1.47 1.47
vi. Partial factor installation damage in clay, silt or sand 1.07 1.07 1.07
2 Molecular properties
i. Molecular weight (ASTM D 4603/GRI GG8) gm/mol min. 25,000
ii. Carboxyl End Group (ASTM D 7409/GRI GG7) nmol/kg max. 30
3 Physical properties
i. Aperture size mm 23 20 20
ii. Rib width mm 4.5 5 6
iii. Product weight g/sqm 300 419 558

litre barrel for maturing. The lid of the barrel was covered
with a polythene sheet around it so as to make it airtight
and restrict the loss of moisture content. For the top layer,
the moisture content of the soil was kept equal to optimum
moisture content, i.e. w = OMC, and the soil samples were
filled into barrels for maturating. The depth of the soft layer
and the stiff layer was fixed for all the tests. The thickness
of the bottom layer after compaction was fixed as 60 cm,
and the depth of the top layer was fixed as 30 cm. The top
10 cm was left unfilled so that the dispersion of soil sample
at the time of compaction may be avoided. At the begin-
ning, the tank was filled with soft silty clay having mois-
ture content less than OMC which is fixed as 15%. The dry
density of the bottom layer was fixed as 0.85MDU, so the
required weight of the soil was calculated for each lift. In
this case, whole soil at once was filled into the tank and
compacted with a hand drop hammer of 12.25 kg weight.
When the soil was compacted up to a prescribed depth, the
four earth pressure gauges were placed at different locations
from centre to centre distance of the footing and gauges, i.e.
0, 230 mm, 240 mm and 250 mm, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 2d. A geotextile layer was laid at the interface of
the two layers to restrict the possibility of moisture change.
Thenceforth, the second layer having moisture content equal
to optimum moisture content was laid but in layers of 25 mm
in order to obtain the adequate dry density of 0.95MDU. The
geogrid was laid in three different layouts as planar, wave
and looped as shown in Fig. 3 to vary the end conditions of
reinforcement.
Experimental procedure
The surface of the foundation bed was properly levelled and
the square footing was placed at the centre of the levelled
bed which coincides the centre of the geogrid top layer. A
series of model plate load tests were conducted to investi-
gate the load–settlement behaviour of shallow foundation
on bitumen-coated geogrid reinforced silt clay soil bed with
varying end conditions in double layered soil system as per
standard codal procedure [79]. The applied load was meas-
ured with a proving ring placed at the centre of the foot-
ing. Two displacement transducers (CDP 100) were placed
at the opposite corners of the square footing to measure
the foundation settlement, and two transducers (CDP 50)
were placed at 5 cm and 10 cm from the edge of the foot-
ing to measure the respective heaving around the footing.
The static loading was applied with a screw jack fixed at
the centre of the loading frame and the proving ring using
a plumb bob. The loading was maintained until the settle-
ment was lesser than 0.03 mm/min for consecutive 2 mints.
In the beginning for small load, the rate of settlement was
found to be less than 0.03 mm/min for consecutive 2 mints
after 10–20 min. Thus, the reading was taken when this con-
dition would have occur. And for the large loads, that is,
after the settlement of 10 mm, the reading was taken after
90–120 min. So it would have taken almost 10 h for a single
test only. The test programme was categorized into four dif-
ferent series shown in Table 3.
Test results and discussions
The results of the model plate load tests are explained in
Table 3. In this table, the bearing capacity obtained at settle-
ment ratio s/B = 5%, s/B = 10% and ultimate settlement, i.e.
25 mm, are presented. The settlement ratio (s/B) is defined
as the ratio of the settlement of the footing (s) to the width

13
 80 Page 6 of 17
Fig. 3  Different layouts of geogrid to create different end conditions
of the footing (B). Various results interpreted from different
tests are shown graphically in Figs. 4 and 5.
Figure 4a–c represents the pressure–deformation curves
measured for model footing tests with a single layer of
geogrid BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80 placed at different top
spacing ratios (TSR). The top spacing ratio is defined as
the ratio of the distance of the top geogrid layer from the
base of the footing (u) to the width of the footing (B). Fig-
ure 5 presents the pressure–deformation curves obtained
from the model plate load tests using four layers of geogrid
BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80. The pressure–deformation curves
obtained from model footing tests for different layouts of
geogrid are shown in Fig. 6. After observing the pres-
sure–deformation curves, the pressure keeps increasing with
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80
the increase in plastic deformation for both unreinforced and
reinforced clay. This plastic deformation resembles with a
typical punching shear failure as reported by Milligan et al.
[80] and Shukla [27]. The improvement in bearing capacity
and settlement using geogrid as tensile inclusion is shown
by BCR and SRF which are dimensionless quantities that
are defined as:
BCR = qR ∕q (1)
where qR is the bearing capacity of soil with reinforcement,
q is the bearing capacity of soil without reinforcement [17]:
(2)
( )
SRF = SO − SR ∕SO
where SO is the settlement of unreinforced soil at any par-
ticular pressure, SR is the settlement of reinforced soil at any
particle pressure. The test results showed that the settlement
of geogrid reinforced soil bed was significantly reduced
compared to unreinforced soil bed. Similar results have been
reported by other researchers [e.g. 81–83].
Variation in bearing capacity ratio (BCR) with Top
spacing ratio (TSR)
The top spacing ratio (TSR) is a dimensionless quantity
which is defined as ratio of the distance between the top
layer reinforcement and the base of foundation (u) to the
width of the square footing (B), i.e.
TSR = u∕B (3)
From Fig. 7, it is very clear that the optimum value of TSR
was found to be 0.31 and the value of u was equal to 62 mm
for B = 20 mm. Chen et al. [84] also reported the optimum
value of TSR was 0.33 and u = 51 mm for B = 15 mm for
foundations on geosynthetic reinforced clayey soil. Akin-
musuru and Akinbolade [85] reported the maximum value
of BCR at TSR = 0.5 for shallow foundation underlain by
reinforced sand bed. However, Singh [86] found that for
square footings on mild steel grids reinforced sand bed, the
maximum value BCR was achieved at optimum value of
TSR = 0.25 without any affect by the reinforcement.
The BCR was initially increased and got a maximum
value at TSR = 0.31 and then again decreased upon increas-
ing the value of u. The pullout failure of reinforcement that
occurs at small values of TSR is responsible for lower BCR
value and the shear failure above the reinforcement at large
TSR [87]. As shown in Fig. 4, the value of BCR for single
layer of geogrid is maximum at optimum value of TSR which
is 0.31. Therefore, at optimum value of TSR, the BCR was
large due to the adequate frictional interaction between grid
and the soil grain which induces maximum tensile strain in
geogrid reinforcement. There was no effect of ultimate ten-
sile strength of geogrid on TSR. The value of TSR was similar
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 7 of 17 80

Table 3  Details of the model plate load test programme

Test series Test no Type of reinforcement Variable Constant S/b = 5% S/b = 10% Sult BCRult
Q (kPa) Q (kPa) Qult(kPa)

1 Unreinforced 671.97 1042.75 1187.28

A 2 BX-40 Tsr0.15 N=1 610.8 908.35 1044.8 0.87
3 Tsr0.31 B = 30 mm 677.5 1050.6 1171.4 0.98
4 Tsr0.375 570.11 908.87 1057.38 0.89
5 BX-60 Tsr0.15 N=1 532.85 843.5 976.54 0.822
6 Tsr0.31 B = 30 mm 745.12 1213.63 1428.27 1.2
7 Tsr0.375 720.63 1123.6 1273.7 1.07
8 BX-80 Tsr0.15 N=1 548.47 913.52 1062.89 0.89
9 Tsr0.31 B = 30 mm 852.55 1358.99 1571.22 1.32
10 Tsr0.375 545.64 874.74 1039.64 0.87
B 11 BX-40 b/B = 30 N=1 677.5 1050.6 1171.4 0.98
12 b/B = 90 Tsr0.31 727.38 1134.85 1326.57 1.11
13 BX-60 b/B = 30 N=1 745.12 1213.63 1428.27 1.20
14 b/B = 90 Tsr0.31 788.08 1373.76 1474.84 1.24
15 BX-80 b/B = 30 N=1 852.55 1358.99 1571.22 1.32
16 b/B = 90 Tsr0.31 897.08 1407.32 1658.06 1.39
C 17 BX-40 Planar layout N=2 u = h = 6.2 734.97 1141.38 1331.91 1.12
18 N=3 b/B = 90 759.34 1183.97 1362.51 1.14
19 N=4 783.08 1211.66 1382.41 1.16
20 BX-60 Planar layout N=2 u = h = 6.2 801.06 1292.09 1487.92 1.25
21 N=3 b/B = 90 819.58 1303.03 1504.14 1.26
22 N=4 840.26 1306.71 1507.8 1.27
23 BX-80 Planar layout N=2 u = h = 6.2 906.57 1408.44 1657 1.4
24 N=3 b/B = 90 920.15 1427 1688.42 1.42
25 N=4 923.33 1448.86 1705.52 1.44
D 26 BX-40 Wave layout u = h = 6.2 842.93 1328 1549.88 1.3
27 Looped layout b/B = 90 854.87 1340.10 1557.87 1.31
N=4
28 BX-60 Wave layout u = h = 6.2 864.98 1361.06 1583.40 1.33
30 Looped layout b/B = 90 878.39 1378.67 1604.52 1.35
N=4
31 BX-80 Wave layout u = h = 6.2 960.35 1540.53 1792.55 1.5
32 Looped layout b/B = 90 984.83 1568.43 1822.99 1.54
N=4

for all grades of geogrid, i.e. BX-40, BX-60 AND BX-80.
Similar findings were also reported by Aria et al. [88].
Variation in bearing capacity ratio due to the width
of reinforcement
The total no. of six plate load tests was performed to explore
the effect of different types of geogrid reinforcement BX-40,
BX-60 and BX-80 on the bearing capacity ratio. All the
tests were repeated twice to check the variation in quality
parameters and to adopt the most valuable result. For the
first three tests, the size of reinforcement was fixed as 1.5B,
and for the rest of the three tests, the reinforcement size was
fixed as 4.5B. Though the inclusion of tensile reinforcement
improved the value of BCR, but due to the increase in the
width of the reinforcement from 1.5B to 4.5B, the bearing
capacity was increased from 8 to 13%. Thenceforth, increas-
ing the width of geogrid had significant effect in increasing
the bearing capacity of the footing. For the geogrid BX-40,
the bearing capacity for 1.5B reinforcement width was lesser
than unreinforced soil sample; this may be due the lesser
frictional interaction between soil grains and the geogrid rib
surface which leads to the pull out failure of geogrid. Similar
test results have also been reported by various researchers
[89–92]. But for the geogrid BX-60 and BX-80, there was
an improvement in bearing capacity of silty clay soil for
reinforcement of size 1.5B than unreinforced sample. Except
for BX-40; there was no sufficient effect on bearing capacity

13
 80 Page 8 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80

Load (kPa) Load (kPa)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
0 0

Unreinforced Unreinforced
5 5
Tsr0.15 Tsr0.15
10 Tsr0.3 Tsr0.3
10
Tsr0.375 Tsr0.375
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
35
35
40
40
45

(a) (b)

Load (kPa)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
0
Unreinforced
5 Tsr= 0.15
Tsr=0.3
10
Tsr=0.375
Settlement (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

40

45
(c)

Fig. 4  Pressure–settlement curves for model plate load tests with single layer of geogrid: a Geogrid BX-40, b Geogrid BX-60, c Geogrid BX-80

due to the increasing in ultimate tensile strength of reinforce- the no. of geogrid layers from 1 to 4. It was also observed
ment. The results of the model tests are shown in Fig. 8. that the improvement in BCR was negligible when the value
of N was thenceforth increased. It was also estimated from
Variation in bearing capacity ratio (BCR) the graph that rate of increment for BCR was in a decreas-
and settlement reduction factor (SRF) on varying ing order with a maximum value, when the value of N was
the no. of reinforcing layers (N) increased from 1 to 2 and minimum value, when the value
of N further increased from 3 to 4. The vertical displace-
A series of 12 model plate load tests were performed to ment of footing was also improved up to a large extent due
explore the effect of variance of no. of layers (N) on bearing to increase in the no. of layers of geogrid of varying tensile
capacity ratio and settlement reduction factor of silty clay strength. The typical response of SRF with N is shown in
under square footing. The investigated results of bearing Fig. 10. It can be seen that the SRF was increased from 14
capacity response of BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80 at differ- to 42% though the rate of increment was almost similar as
ent settlement ratios are shown in Fig. 9a–c, respectively. shown by BCR. All the layers were laid at equidistant from
It can be estimated that the BCR has increased from 9 to each other, i.e. the value of h was kept constant as 6 cm
66% for geogrid of different tensile strengths during varying with total depth of reinforcing layers of 1.25B. The influence

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 9 of 17 80

Load (kPa) end conditions. Different end conditions were created by

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 using three different layouts of geogrid layers, viz. planar
0
layout, wave layout and looped layout, as shown in Fig. 3a–c.
Unreinforced
5 BX-40
The number of horizontal geogrid layers (N) was kept con-
BX-60 stant in all the layouts.
BX-80
10 In case of planar layout, all the geogrid layers were laid
Settlement (mm)

in horizontal layers with free ends, as shown in Fig. 3a.

15 The BCR and SRF were improved due to the membrane
effect and confinement effect provided by the geogrid [17,
20
87]. This may be attributed due the fact that the soil grains
around the reinforcement surface are restricted to move lat-
25
erally due to the frictional interaction and bearing resistance
30 with the surface of reinforcement and the lateral sides of
geogrid ribs, respectively. Similar studies in the literature
35 have reported significant improvement in the bearing capac-
ity and reduction in settlement when the geogrid reinforce-
ment was used in layers in the soil bed [97–100]. However,
Fig. 5  Pressure–settlement curves for geogrid with TSR = 0.31,
in case of planar layout with free end geogrid layers, the
b = 90 cm and N = 4
central part of soil sandwiched between footing and geogrid
layer in the top spacing and also between two geogrid lay-
Load (kPa) ers may not play their role in the improvement in BCR and
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 SRF because of the inadequate restriction against the lateral
0
deformation. That may decrease the efficiency of geogrid
Unreinforced
Looped BX-40 layers. It was also noticed from various tests that the slip of
5
Looped BX-60 geogrid occurs in planar layouts at large plastic deforma-
Looped BX-80
10 tions, i.e. beyond the ultimate deformation of 25 mm. Thus,
Wave BX-40
Settlement (mm)

Wave BX-60 geosynthetic reinforcement with wrap-around ends has been

15 Wave BX-80 recently investigated to improve the effectiveness of rein-
forced foundation [101].
20 In case of wave layout, a single geogrid layer was laid
with one end wrapped so restricting its lateral slip in the
25
direction of the foundation settlement (plastic deformation)
as shown in Fig. 3b. The length of the layer is calculated as:
30

LW = 4HL + 3WL (4)

35
Fig. 6  Pressure–settlement curves for geogrid with varying end con-
ditions
depth was found to be equal to 1.5B, i.e. 30 cm. The influ-
ence depth is defined as the total depth below footing after
which the influence of reinforcing layers on BCR was neg-
ligible. This was found in good agreement with the findings
of various researchers [93–96].
Variation in BCR and SRF with varying end
conditions
The model plate load tests were performed on different
grades of geogrid in plane strain conditions to study the vari-
ation in bearing capacity and plastic deformation of footing
in terms of BCR and SRF, respectively, due to the varying
where LW is the total length of geogrid layer laid in wave
layout, HL is the length of horizontal part of geogrid and
WL is the length of the wraps. In this pattern, one side of the
geogrid is wrapped around the soil layer and the height of
the wrap was equal to the distance between the two geogrid
layers. The BCR and SRF were increased from 30 to 50%
and 31–45%, respectively, as shown in Fig. 11a, b and 12.
Besides the reinforcing effect provided by the horizontal
part, the more lateral confinement was provided by the
wraps. During the vertical pressure from the plate loads,
the elastic deformation will occur in the horizontal geogrid
layers, which tend to move vertically downwards. As the lay-
ers are fixed with each other through the wraps around, the
wrap ends will also try to move towards the footing because
of the resultant pull. Thus, the soil was provided with the
additional confinement effects from the wraps around. This
process was a kind of wrapping geogrid around the soil

13
 80 Page 10 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80

1.4 1.4
s/B=5% s/B=10%
BX-40 BX-40
BX-60 BX-60
BCR 1.2 BX-80 1.2 BX-80

1.0 1.0

BCR
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

TSR TSR

(a) (b)

1.4
Ultimate
BX-40
BX-60
1.2 BX-80

1.0
BCR

0.8

0.6

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

TSR
(c)

Fig. 7  BCR versus TSR for one layer of reinforcement (b = 60 cm): a s/B = 5% for BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80, b s/B = 10% for BX-40, BX-60 and
BX-80, c s/B = ultimate for BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80

layers by hand pull only thus providing a small amount of
prestress to the geogrid layers also. So the whole system was
acting as a single monolithic structure. This helped in reduc-
ing the plastic deformation at small settlements.
The looped layout of geogrid was also investigated in
this study. Two layers of geogrid were laid with both ends
wrapped and connected thus restricting lateral slip on both
sides as shown in Fig. 3c. The length of each layer is cal-
culated as:
LL = 2HL + 2WL
where LL is the total length of geogrid layer laid in looped
layout, HL is the length of horizontal part of geogrid and
WL is the length of the wraps. An additional confinement
is provided to the soil layer due to the wraps on both sides
of the geogrid. The BCR and SRF were improved from 35
to 55% and 33–50%, respectively, as shown in Figs. 11a, b
and 12. Similar results were reported by various researchers
[e.g. 102, 103].
The looped layout was more efficient than the other two
layouts due to more restriction to the lateral deformation
of the sandwiched soil. The ends of the two geogrid layers
were tied by sewing technique, and a special thread was
used. The thread had the non-elongating property against
the pull tensile pull. From Figs. 11 and 12, it is seen that
BCR & SRF are marginally improve compared to wave-
(5) layout geogrid reinforcement. Figure 13 shows that there
was sudden drop down of heaving due to the reinforcement
slip occurring at large plastic deformations for planar and
wave layout but was much improved in case of looped
layout. Makker et al. [104] have reported that BCR and
SRF can be further improved by using three-dimensional

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 11 of 17 80

Load (kPa) Load (kPa)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0 0
BX-40 BX-60
5
Unreinforced 5 Unreinforced
b = 30cm b=30cm
10
b = 90cm 10 b=90cm
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)
15
15
20
20
25
25
30

35 30

40 35

45 40
(a) (b)

Load (kPa)
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250
0
BX-80
5 Unreinforced
b=30cm
10 b=90cm
Settlement (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

40

(c)

Fig. 8  Pressure–settlement curves for geogrid at TSR = 0.31: a Geogrid BX-40 with b = 30 and 90, b Geogrid BX-60 with b = 30 and 90, c
Geogrid BX-80 with b = 30 and 90

geogrid reinforcement. Similar results of deformative
behaviour have been reported by Moraci and Cardile [58].
Stress distribution in reinforced silty clay for varying
end conditions of reinforcement
Several model plate load tests were performed to observe the
stress distribution in silty clay with and without inclusion
of tensile reinforcement under different end conditions. The
four pressure gauges were placed at a depth of 300 mm from
the top surface which is actually an interface between a top
stiff layer and bottom soft layer. The pressure cell KDJ-500
was placed at the centre of the footing at depth 300 mm from
top surface, and the other three pressure gauges were placed
at 230 mm, 240 mm and 350 mm centre to centre distance
from KDJ-500 (which is placed at centre). The attenuation
of vertical stresses along the centreline of footing at depth
300 mm due to the inclusion of geogrid in silty clay is shown
in Fig. 14. The vertical stresses were reduced from 5 to 20%
in the reinforced silty clay than unreinforced silty clay. The
surcharge pressure induced by soil was not included. Though
the reduction in vertical stress was small in amount, this
could play a vital role in reducing the soil consolidation
deformation of the footing. The vertical stress distribution
for various end conditions at different distances from the
centreline of footing for applied pressure 750 kPa is shown
in Fig. 15a–c and for applied pressure 1250 kPa is shown
in Fig. 16a–c. Among different grades of geogrids used, the

13
 80 Page 12 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80

1.75 1.75
s/B=5 % s/B=10 %
BX-40 BX-40
1.50 BX-60 1.50 BX-60
BX-80 BX-80

1.25 1.25
BCR

BCR
1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Number of layers (T) Number of layers (T)
(a) (b)
1.75
Ultimate
BX-40
1.50 BX-60
BX-80

1.25
BCR

1.00

0.75

0.50
0 1 2 3 4
Number of layers (T)
(c)

Fig. 9  BCR versus no. of layers (N) with TSR = 0.31, h = 6.2 mm: a s/B = 5%, geogrid = BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80, b s/B = 10%,
geogrid = BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80, c s/B = ultimate, geogrid = BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80

geogrid BX-80 performed much better in reducing the stress

42
concentrations under the footing and also away from the
footing. The peak stress value for BX-80 in the looped layout
was smaller than the similar grade of geogrid used in other
35
two layouts, i.e. planar and wave layouts at similar applied
pressure. This suggests that the more uniform distribution
28
of stress occurred using high tensile reinforcement in looped
layout. Thus, using stiffer geogrid in looped layout helped in
SRF

21
distributing the stress to a wider area which in turn reduces
the plastic deformation under the footing. This study is in
14 TSR= 0.31,h = 6.2
BX-40
a good agreement with the observations reported by Gabr
BX-60 et al. [105], Kumar et al. [106] and Cicek et al. [107]. Their
7 BX-80 investigations suggested that stiffer geogrid performed in a
more significant reduction in stresses at centre than other
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 less stiff geogrid. They also found that the improvement in
N stress distributions is more relevant to the stiffness of rein-
forcement. They said the more tension membrane effect in
Fig. 10  SRF versus no. of layers (N) with TSR = 0.31 and h = 6.2 mm stiffer geogrid helped more in the reduction in peak vertical
for geogrid BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80 stresses.

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 13 of 17 80

1.8 1.8

BX-40 BX-60 BX-80 BX-40 BX-60 BX-80

1.5 1.5

1.2 1.2

BCR
BCR

0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.0 0.0
Planar Wave Looped Planar Wave Looped

Type of layout Type of layout

(a) (b)

Fig. 11  BCR versus type of layout with TSR = 0.31, N = 4 and h = 6.2 mm: a s/B = 10%, b s/B = ultimate

2.5
BX-80
Planar
50 BX-40 BX-60 BX-80 2.0 Wave
Looped

40 1.5
Heaving (mm)

30
SRF (%)

1.0

20
0.5

10
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 Pressure (kPa)
Planar Wave Looped
Types of layouts
Fig. 13  Heaving of soil versus applied pressure for different geogrid
layouts
Fig. 12  SRF versus type of layout with TSR = 0.31, N = 4 and
h = 6.2 mm for geogrid BX-40, BX-60 and BX-80
From the findings of the present study, the following con-
clusions can be made:

Conclusions 1. The bearing capacity of the geogrid reinforced clay was

The model plate load tests under static loading were per-
formed on both unreinforced and reinforced clay bed in
plane strain condition. The relative increase in bearing
capacity was calculated in terms of BCR and the relative
reduction in settlement was measured in terms of SRF.
increased from 20% for low tensile strength geogrid in
planar layout up to 55% for high tensile strength geogrid
in looped layout with wraps on both sides.
2. The settlement reduction factor was increased from 22%
for low tensile strength geogrid in planar layout up to
40% for high tensile strength geogrid in looped layout.

13
 80 Page 14 of 17 Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80

1000 400

Unreinforced BX-40 BX-60 BX-80

350
800 BX-40
300 Type TSR N
Unreinforced ..... .....
250 Planar 0.31 4

Stress (kPa)
600
Stress (kPa)

Wave 0.31 4
Looped 0.31 4
200

400 150

100
200
50

0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Planar Wave Looped
Distance from the centre of footing (cm)
Types of layouts (a)

Fig. 14  Stress along the centre line of footing at a depth 300 mm ver- 400
sus types of layouts of geogrid
350
BX-60
Type TSR N
300
Unreinforced ..... .....
Planar 0.31 4
3. The attenuation of the vertical stress along the centre 250 Wave 0.31 4
Stress (kPa)

Looped 0.31 4
line of footing was more pronounced in high tensile
200
geogrid BX-80 than low tensile geogrid BX-40. Up to
20% reduction in vertical stress was observed in looped 150
BX-80 reinforced system than unreinforced soil.
100
4. The other parameters investigated were top spacing ratio
(TSR), width of reinforcement (b), no of layers (N), lay- 50
out of reinforcement. The optimum value for TSR was
0
0.31 and was independent on tensile modulus of geogrid. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
The optimum width up to 4.5B was effective beyond Distance from the centre of footing (cm)
which there was no scope of improvement in BCR or
(b)
SRF. The BCR and SRF were increased by increasing
the value of N up to 3 or 4, there was no improvement in 450
BCR by increasing the value of N beyond 4.
5. The failure pattern observed in all the tests was punch-
375
ing shear failure. There was no effect of tensile modulus BX-80
Type TSR N
of reinforcement on failure pattern, i.e. from using less Unreinforced ..... .....
300
stiffer geogrid (BX-40) up to more stiffer geogrid (BX- Planar 0.31 4
Stress (kPa)

Wave 0.31 4
80), the pattern of failure observed from load–settlement Looped 0.31 4
225
curve was common.
6. Among the three layouts of geogrid used, i.e. planar lay-
150
out, wave layout and looped layout, the looped layout
was more efficient. There was more reduction in lateral
slip of geogrid layer towards the centre within reinforce- 75

ment bed in case of looped layout. In looped layout, the

soil layer was sandwiched in between the two geogrid 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
layers; therefore, the soil grains were restricted from
Distance from the centre of footing (cm)
moving laterally under vertical loads, thus increasing
the soil bearing capacity. (c)

Fig. 15  Stress distribution along the centre line of the footing at a

depth of 300 mm (1.5B) below the footing, applied footing pressure
q = 750 kPa: a Geogrid BX-40, b Geogrid BX-60, c Geogrid BX-80

13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80 Page 15 of 17 80

900 Acknowledgements Authors are thankful to the Department of Civil

Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar, for providing
necessary facilities to carry out this research work. The authors also
750 BX-40 want to express their deepest appreciation to the institute administration
Type TSR N
for their kind support.
Unreinforced ..... .....
600 Planar 0.31 4
Wave 0.31 4
Compliance with ethical standards
Stress (kPa)

Looped 0.31 4
450
Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
300

150

References
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Holtz WG (1954) Engineering properties of expansive clays.
Distance from the centre of the footing (cm) Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 121:641–677
(a) 2. Raison CA (ed) (2004) Ground and soil improvement. Thomas
Telford, London
3. Mir BA (2015) Some studies on the effect of fly ash and lime on
900
physical and mechanical properties of expansive clay. Int J Civ
Eng 13(3):203–212
750 BX-60 4. Broms BB (1979) Problems and solutions to constructions in soft
Type TSR N clay. In: Proceedings of 6th Asian Regional Conference SMFE,
Unreinforced ..... ..... Singapore, vol 2, pp 3–38
600 Planar 0.31 4 5. Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement-state of the art report. In:
Wave 0.31 4
Proceedings of 11th international conference on SMFE, vol 4,
Stress (kPa)

Looped 0.31 4
450 pp 509–565
6. Chai J, Carter JP (2011) Deformation analysis in soft ground
improvement, vol 18. Springer, Berlin
300 7. Juneja A, Mir BA (2012) Behaviour of clay reinforced by sand
compaction pile with smear. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv
165(2):111–124
150
8. Vidal H (1969) The principle of reinforced earth. Highway Res
Rec 282:1–16
0 9. Ochiai H (2001) Landmarks in earth reinforcement: proceedings
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 of the international symposium on earth reinforcement: Fukuoka,
Kyushu, Japan, 14–16 November 2001, vol 1. Taylor & Francis
Distance from the centre of footing (cm)
US
(b) 10. Guido VA (1987) Plate loading tests on geogrid-reinforced earth
slab. In: Geosynthetic’87 Conference, pp 216–225
900 11. Adams MT, Collin JG (1997) Large model spread footing load
tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123(1):66–72
750 BX-80 12. DeMerchant MR, Valsangkar AJ, Schriver AB (2002) Plate load
Type TSR N tests on geogrid-reinforced expanded shale lightweight aggre-
600
Unreinforced .... .... gate. Geotext Geomembr 20(3):173–190
Planar 0.31 4
13. Basudhar PK, Saha S, Deb K (2007) Circular footings rest-
Wave 0.31 4
Stress(kPa)

Looped 0.31 4 ing on geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Geotext Geomembr

450 25(6):377–384
14. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q, Sharma R, Zhang X (2008) Large-
scale model footing tests on geogrid-reinforced foundation and
300
marginal embankment soils. Geotech Test J 31(5):413–423
15. Prasad BD, Hariprasad C, Umashankar B (2016) Load-settlement
150 response of square footing on geogrid reinforced layered granular
beds. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(4):36
16. Mir BA, Ashraf S (2018) Evaluation of load–settlement behav-
0 iour of square model footings resting on geogrid reinforced gran-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ular soils. In: International Congress and Exhibition” Sustainable
Distance from the centre of footing (cm) Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology”.
(c) Springer, Cham, pp 103–126
17. Binquet J, Lee KL (1975) Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 101(ASCE# 11792
Fig. 16  Stress distribution along the centre line of the footing at a Proceeding)
depth of 300 mm (1.5B) below the footing, applied footing pressure
q = 1250 kPa: a Geogrid BX-40, b Geogrid BX-60, c Geogrid BX-80

13
80 Page 16 of 17
18. McGown A, Andrawes KZ, Al-Hasani MM (1978) Effect of
inclusion properties on the behaviour of sand. Geotechnique
28(3):327–346
19. Rao GV (1996) Geosynthetics in the Indian environment. Indian
Geotech J 26(1):94
20. Sarant S (2005) Engineering aspects of reinforced soil. Indian
Geotech J 35:1
21. Shukla SK, Yin JH (2006) Fundamentals of geosynthetic engi-
neering-Chapter 4. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, London, UK.
ISBN10 0-415-39444-9, 117
22. Mir BA (2014) Geosynthetics applications in highway construc-
tion in J&K: sustainable infrastructure development. i-Manager’s
J Struct Eng 3(3):1
23. Shukla SK (2017) An introduction to geosynthetic engineering.
CRC Press, Boca Raton
24. Sridharan A, Srinivasa Murthy BR, Vasudevan A (1989) Model
tests on reinforced soil mattress on soft soil. In: Congrès intrna-
tional de mécanique des sols et des travaux de fondations, vol 12,
pp 1765–1768
25. Murthy BRS, Sridharan A, Singh HR (1993) Analysis of rein-
forced soil beds. Indian Geotech J 23(4):447–458
26. Leu W, Tasa L (2001) Applications of geotextiles, geogrids, and
geocells in Northern Minnesota. In: Geosynthetics Conference
2001, pp 809–821
27. Shukla SK, Shukla SK (eds) (2002) Geosynthetics and their
applications. Thomas Telford, London, p 430
28. Zhang J, Hurta G (2008) Comparison of geotextile and geogrid
reinforcement on unpaved road. In: GeoCongress 2008: geosus-
tainability and geohazard mitigation, pp 530–537
29. Kate JM, Venkatappa Rao G, Tyagi SK (1988) Evaluation of
soil-reinforcement friction. Indian Geotech J 18(2):153–160
30. Lopes ML (2002) Soil–geosynthetic interaction. In: Geosynthet-
ics and their applications. Thomas Telford Publishing, pp 55–79
31. Moraci N, Cardile G, Gioffrè D, Mandaglio MC, Calvarano LS,
Carbone L (2014) Soil geosynthetic interaction: design param-
eters from experimental and theoretical analysis. Transp Infra-
struct Geotechnol 1(2):165–227
32. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2016) Experimental investigation
of interface behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosyn-
thetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(1):4
33. Jewell R, Milligan G, Sarsby RW, Dubois D (1985) Interaction
between soil and geogrids. Polymer grid reinforcement: proceedings
of a conference sponsored by the Science and Engineering Research
Council and Netlon Ltd and held in London, 22–23 March 1984
34. Palmeira EM (2009) Soil–geosynthetic interaction: modelling
and analysis. Geotext Geomembr 27(5):368–390
35. Abdi MR, Mirzaeifar H (2017) Experimental and PIV evalua-
tion of grain size and distribution on soil–geogrid interactions in
pullout test. Soils Found 57(6):1045–1058
36. Mir BA, Shah R (2018) How stiffness of reinforcement affects the
type of major reinforcement force developed at various orienta-
tions in reinforced sand?. In: International Congress and Exhibi-
tion “Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure
Geotechnology”. Springer, Cham, pp 137–151
37. Khing KH, Das BM, Puri VK, Cook EE, Yen SC (1993) The
bearing-capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced
sand. Geotext Geomembr 12(4):351–361
38. Otani J, Ochiai H, Yamamoto K (1998) Bearing capacity analysis
of reinforced foundations on cohesive soil. Geotext Geomembr
16(4):195–206
39. Dash SK, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2004) Performance
of different geosynthetic reinforcement materials in sand founda-
tions. Geosynth Int 11(1):35–42
40. Demir A, Yildiz A, Laman M, Ornek M (2014) Experimental
and numerical analyses of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced
granular fill underlain by soft clay. Acta Geotech 9(4):711–723
13
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80
41. Chakraborty M, Kumar J (2014) Bearing capacity of circu-
lar foundations reinforced with geogrid sheets. Soils Found
54(4):820–832
42. Mir BA, Basit M (2019) Experimental study of behaviour of
geosynthetic reinforced two layer foundation system. In: Pro-
ceedings of 16th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering (16ARC), Taipei, Taiwan, Paper
ID: IGS-015, pp 1–4
43. Samtani NC, Sonpal RC (1989) Laboratory tests of strip footing
on reinforced cohesive soil. J Geotech Eng 115(9):1326–1330
44. Mandal JN, Sah HS (1992) Bearing capacity tests on geogrid-
reinforced clay. Geotext Geomembr 11(3):327–333
45. Alawaji HA (2001) Settlement and bearing capacity of geogrid-
reinforced sand over collapsible soil. Geotext Geomembr
19(2):75–88
46. Samadhiya N, Maheshwari P, Zsaki A, Basu P, Kundu A (2009)
Strengthening of clay by geogrid reinforced granular pile. Int J
Geotech Eng 3(3):377–386
47. Abdelhadi M (2013) Improving the bearing capacity of brown
clay by using geogrid. Contemp Eng Sci 6:213–223
48. Kolay PK, Kumar S, Tiwari D (2013) Improvement of bearing
capacity of shallow foundation on geogrid reinforced silty clay
and sand. J Constr Eng 2013:1–10
49. Ingold TS (1983) A laboratory investigation of grid reinforce-
ments in clay. Geotech Test J 6(3):112–119
50. Ramaswamy SD, Purushothaman P (1992) Model footings of
geogrid reinforced clay. In: Proceedings of the Indian Geotechni-
cal Conference on Geotechnique Today, vol 1, pp 183–186
51. Shin EC, Das BM, Puri VK, Yen SC, Cook EE (1993) Bearing
capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced clay. Geotech
Test J 16(4):534–541
52. Aran S (2006) Base reinforcement with biaxial geogrid: long-
term performance. Transp Res Rec 1975(1):114–123
53. Cicek E, Guler E, Yetimoglu T (2019) Effects of the first rein-
forcement depth on different types of geosynthetics. Sci Iran
26(1):167–177
54. Wayne MH, Han J, Akins K (1998) The design of geosynthetic
reinforced foundations. In: Geosynthetics in foundation rein-
forcement and erosion control systems. ASCE, pp 1–18
55. Patra CR, Das BM, Atalar C (2005) Bearing capacity of embed-
ded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotext
Geomembr 23(5):454–462
56. Das BM, Omar MT (1994) The effects of foundation width on
model tests for the bearing capacity of sand with geogrid rein-
forcement. Geotech Geol Eng 12(2):133–141
57. Cicek E, Guler E, Yetimoglu T (2015) Effect of reinforcement
length for different geosynthetic reinforcements on strip footing
on sand soil. Soils Found 55(4):661–677
58. Moraci N, Cardile G (2012) Deformative behaviour of different
geogrids embedded in a granular soil under monotonic and cyclic
pullout loads. Geotext Geomembr 32:104–110
59. Mandal JN, Manjunath VR (1995) Bearing capacity of strip foot-
ing resting on reinforced sand subgrades. Constr Build Mater
9(1):35–38
60. Huang CC, Hong LL (2000) Ultimate bearing capacity and set-
tlement of footings on reinforced sandy ground. Soils Found
40(5):65–73
61. Dash SK, Sireesh S, Sitharam TG (2003) Behaviour of geocell-
reinforced sand beds under circular footing. Proc Inst Civ Eng
Ground Improv 7(3):111–115
62. Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square
footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr
27(4):281–294
63. Sahu R, Patra CR, Das BM, Sivakugan N (2016) Bearing capac-
ity of shallow strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand sub-
jected to inclined load. Int J Geotech Eng 10(2):183–189
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions (2021) 6:80
64. Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Effect of reinforcement form
on the bearing capacity of square footings on sand. Geotext
Geomembr 27(6):409–422
65. Kazi M, Shukla SK, Habibi D (2016) Behaviour of an embedded
footing on geotextile-reinforced sand. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground
Improv 169(2):120–133
66. Benmebarek S, Djeridi S, Benmebarek N, Belounar L (2018)
Improvement of bearing capacity of strip footing on reinforced
sand. Int J Geotech Eng 12(6):537–545
67. Simac MR (1990) Connections for geogrid systems. Geotext
Geomembr 9(4–6):537–546
68. Shahin HM, Nakai T, Morikawa Y, Masuda S, Mio S, Sugiy-
ama H (2013) Bearing capacity of reinforced ground consid-
ering fixity conditions of geosynthetics. In: Proceedings of the
international symposium on advances in foundation engineering,
Singapore, pp 5–6
69. IS: 1498 (1970) Classification and identification of soils for
general engineering purposes. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi
70. IS: 2720-Part 1 (1980) Indian Standard Code for preparation of
soil samples. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
71. IS: 2720-Part 3(1) (1980) Method of test for soils: determina-
tion of specific gravity of fine grained soils. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
72. IS: 2720-Part 4 (1985) Method of test for soils: determination of
grain size distribution. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
73. IS: 2720-Part 7 (1980) Method of test for soils: determination
of water content-dry density relation using light compaction.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
74. IS: 2720-Part 5 (1985) Method of test for soils: determination of
Atterberg limits. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
75. IS: 2720-Part 6 (1972) Method of test for soils: determination of
shrinkage factors. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
76. IS: 2720-Part 40 (1977/2002) Method of test for soils: determina-
tion of free swell index for fine grained soils. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
77. IS 2720-10 (1973) Methods of test for soils, Part 10: determina-
tion of shear strength parameter by unconfined compression test.
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
78. IS 2720-13 (1986) Methods of test for soils, part 13: determina-
tion of shear strength parameter by direct shear test. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi
79. IS: 1888 (1982) Method of test for soils: determination of bearing
capacity of soils by plate load test. Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi
80. Milligan GWE, Fannin RJ, Farrar DM (1986) Model and full-
scale tests of granular layers reinforced with a geogrid. In: Pro-
ceedings of third international conference on geotextiles, vol 1,
pp 61–66
81. Kurian NP, Beena KS, Kumar RK (1997) Settlement of
reinforced sand in foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
123(9):818–827
82. Gupta R, Trivedi A (2009) Bearing capacity and settlement of
footing resting on confined loose silty sands. Electron J Geotech
Eng 14:1–14
83. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q, Sharma R (2013) An experimental
evaluation of the behavior of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced
sand. Soils Found 53(2):335–348
84. Chen Q, Abu-Farsakh MY, Sharma R, Zhang X (2007) Labora-
tory investigation of behavior of foundations on geosynthetic-
reinforced clayey soil. Transp Res Rec 2004(1):28–38
85. Akinmusuru JO, Akinbolade JA (1981). Stability of loaded foot-
ings on reinforced soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 107(ASCE
16320 Proceeding)
86. Singh HR (1988) Bearing capacity of reinforced soil beds. Ph.D.
thesis (Doctoral dissertation, Indian Institute of Science)
View publication stats
Page 17 of 17 80
87. Binquet J, Lee KL (1975) Bearing capacity analysis of rein-
forced earth slabs. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 101(ASCE# 11793
Proceeding)
88. Aria S, Shukla SK, Mohyeddin A (2017) Optimum burial depth
of geosynthetic reinforcement within sand bed based on numeri-
cal investigation. Int J Geotech Eng
89. Garg KG, Saran S (1990) Evaluation of soil-reinforcement inter-
face friction. In: Proc. Indian geotechnical conference, Bom-
bay, pp 27–31
90. Kumar A, Saran S (2000) Soil-reinforcement friction and tensile
strength of geogrid. In: Proceedings of All India Workshop on
Ground Improvement, Kurukshetra, pp 103–109
91. Chen Q (2007) An experimental study on characteristics and
behavior of reinforced soil foundation
92. Nakai T, Shahin HM, Zhang F, Hinokio M, Kikumoto M, Yonaha
S, Nishio A (2010) Bearing capacity of reinforced foundation
subjected to pull-out loading in 2D and 3D conditions. Geotext
Geomembr 28(3):268–280
93. Guido VA, Chang DK, Sweeney MA (1986) Comparison of
geogrid and geotextile reinforced earth slabs. Can Geotech J
23(4):435–440
94. Puri VK, Hsiao JK, Chai JA (2005) Effect of vertical reinforce-
ment on ultimate bearing capacity of sand subgrades. Electron J
Geotech Eng G 10
95. Jha JN (2007) Effect of vertical reinforcement on bearing capac-
ity of footing on sand. Indian Geotech J 37(1):64–78
96. Shahin HM, Nakai T, Morikawa Y, Masuda S, Mio S (2017)
Effective use of geosynthetics to increase bearing capacity of
shallow foundations. Can Geotech J 54(12):1647–1658
97. Omar MT, Das BM, Yen SC, Puri VK, Cook EE (1993) Ulti-
mate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Geotech Test J 16(2):246–252
98. Omar MT, Das BM, Puri VK, Yen SC (1993) Ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforce-
ment. Can Geotech J 30(3):545–549
99. Das BM, Shin EC (1999) Bearing capacity of strip footing
on geogrid reinforced sand. In: Proceedings of the 11th Asian
Regional conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engi-
neering, Hong, Rotterdam, pp 189–192
100. Chen Q, Abu-Farsakh M (2015) Ultimate bearing capacity analy-
sis of strip footings on reinforced soil foundation. Soils Found
55(1):74–85
101. Aria S, Kumar Shukla S, Mohyeddin A (2019) Numerical inves-
tigation of wraparound geotextile reinforcement technique for
strengthening foundation soil. Int J Geomech 19(4):04019003
102. Kazi M, Shukla SK, Habibi D (2015) Behavior of embedded strip
footing on sand bed reinforced with multilayer geotextile with
wraparound ends. Int J Geotech Eng 9(5):437–452
103. Kazi M, Shukla SK, Habibi D (2015) An improved method to
increase the load-bearing capacity of strip footing resting on
geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Indian Geotech J 45(1):98–109
104. Makkar FM, Chandrakaran S, Sankar N (2017) Behaviour of
model square footing resting on sand reinforced with three-
dimensional geogrid. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 3(1):3
105. Gabr MA, Dodson R, Collin JG (1998) A study of stress distribu-
tion in geogrid-reinforced sand. In: Geosynthetics in foundation
reinforcement and erosion control systems. ASCE, pp 62–76
106. Kumar A, Walia BS, Saran S (2005) Pressure–settlement char-
acteristics of rectangular footings on reinforced sand. Geotech
Geol Eng 23(4):469–481
107. Cicek E, Guler E, Yetimoglu T (2014) Comparison of measured
and theoretical pressure distribution below strip footings on sand
soil. Int J Geomech 14(5):06014009
13