International Journal of Physical International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.16.00008
Modelling in Geotechnics
Paper 1600008
Received 22/02/2016 Accepted 06/07/2016
Keywords: geosynthetic applications/models (physical)/
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
shallow foundations
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Behaviour of eccentrically
loaded strip footings
resting on sand
Ahmed M. A. Nasr PhD Waseim R. Azzam PhD
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Department,
Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt (corresponding author: Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
amanasrg@hotmail.com)

This paper presents the results of experimental and numerical studies on the bearing capacity behaviour of an
eccentrically loaded strip footing resting on geosynthetic-reinforced sand. The investigations were carried out by
varying the footing width, load eccentricity, type of reinforcement and the relative density of the sand. Furthermore,
finite-element analysis was conducted to evaluate the benefits of using reinforcement under eccentrically loaded
strip footing. The results indicate that the footing width and load eccentricity have a great effect on the bearing
capacity factor Nγ values. For 1g models, the footing width B would be >110 mm, which is the smallest width of
model foundation that should be used to determine the ultimate bearing capacity. At a load eccentricity (e/B) equal
to 0·1, the ultimate bearing capacity increased by about 38 and 67% when the sand was reinforced with geotextile
and geogrid, respectively. The difference between the ultimate bearing capacities obtained from the experimental
results and numerical analyses varied from 10 to 14%. From prototype-scale numerical results, it was evident that
the geogrid reinforcement increased the ultimate bearing capacity by about 12–24% when the load eccentricity (e/B)
varied from 0·0 to 0·3.

1. Introduction
Foundation is the important part of any structure. A shallow
foundation such as strip footings is widely used in transmitting
loads from the superstructure to the supporting soils. In many
cases, footings are often subjected to eccentric loads. Due
to eccentric loading, the two edges of the footing settle by
different amounts causing the footing to tilt. The amount of
tilt and the pressure at the base depend on the value of the
eccentricity to the footing width ratio. This problem has been
studied in detail by several investigators (Loukidis and
Salgado, 2009; Loukidis et al., 2008; Meyerhof, 1953;
Nawghare et al., 2010; Purkayastha and Char, 1977; Sven
et al., 2012).
Meyerhof (1953) proposed a semi-empirical procedure to esti-
mate the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow foundation
subjected to an eccentric load that is generally referred to as
the equivalent area method. According to this method, the
average ultimate bearing capacity, qu(e), of a strip foundation
on unreinforced sand is given as
1 results of different footings are compared with central and
1: quðeÞ ¼ γB0 Nγ
2
where qu(e) is the ultimate bearing capacity with load eccentri-
city e; γ is the unit weight of soil; B′ = B − 2e, B is the width of
foundation; and Nγ is the bearing capacity factor.
Purkayastha and Char (1977) carried out the stability analysis
of an eccentrically loaded strip foundation on sand using the
method of slices. On the basis of this study, they proposed that
quðeÞ
2: ¼ 1
RK
quðe¼0Þ
where RK is the reduction factor which is equal to α(e/B)K.
Based on a statistical analysis, it can be seen that the average
values of α and K are, respectively, 1·81 and 0·8. For Df/B = 0
and e/B < 0·2, this solution provides practically the same
results as the equivalent area method suggested by Meyerhof
(1953), where Df is the depth of foundation.
Nawghare et al. (2010) investigated the bearing capacity of
eccentrically loaded footings of different sizes and shapes. The
eccentric loading. When the load is applied eccentrically the
bearing capacity decreased according to the shape and size of

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
footing. The finite-element method (FEM) is used by Loukidis
et al. (2008) for the determination of the collapse load of a
rigid strip footing subjected to inclined and eccentric loading.
Two series of analyses were performed, one using an associated
flow rule and another using a non-associated flow rule. The
results state that the limit load value for non-associated flow
rule is 10–30% smaller than that for associated flow. Loukidis
and Salgado (2009) performed finite-element (FE) simulations
of strip and circular footings on sand. On the basis of the
results of this numerical study, FE simulation can be in very
close agreement with bearing capacity results from rigorous
analytical or semi-analytical method such as the method of
characteristics and limit analysis. Sven et al. (2012) conducted
a series of lower-bound calculations based on the FEM to
determine the bearing capacity of a strip foundation subjected
to a vertical, eccentric load on cohesionless soil with varying
surcharges. The results have shown the bearing capacity as a
function of eccentricity and surcharge.
In model tests, the footing width and soil particles should be
modelled in size by a factor of N, where ‘N’ is the scale ratio
of the model to the prototype. However, if the size of the soil
particles is reduced by a factor of N, the model soil will have
very different stress–strain characteristics compared with the
prototype soil. Therefore, often the same soil as in the proto-
type is used, and only the model footings are made smaller
by a factor of N (Okamura et al., 2004). In this case, it is
necessary to investigate how the footing size affects the bearing
capacity of small-scale model tests. Toyosawa et al. (2013)
stated that the ultimate bearing capacity decreased as the
diameter of the circular model footing increased. It is known
that the bearing capacity factor Nγ decreases with an increase
in footing size. The dependency of Nγ on footing width (B)
was found to be primarily due to the fact that the friction
angle (Ø) of the soil mass decreases with an increase in the
confining pressure (Kumar and Khatri, 2008a, 2008b).
Soil reinforcement is used in several studies as a cost-effective
method to increase the ultimate bearing capacity and the allow-
able bearing stress at a given settlement under shallow foun-
dations. Abu-Farsakh et al. (2013) stated that the inclusion of
reinforcement can redistribute the applied footing load to a
more uniform pattern, hence reducing the stress concentration,
which will result in reduced settlement. Erol et al. (2009)
stated that the use of geotextile reinforcement improves load–
displacement performance of eccentrically loaded strip footing
from the settlement perspective. El-Sawwaf (2009) studied nu-
merically and experimentally the ultimate bearing capacity of
eccentrically loaded strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand.
The results have indicated that the efficiency of the sand–geogrid
system is dependent on the load eccentricity ratio and reinforce-
ment parameters. It should be mentioned that the above studies
covered only some of the controlling parameters of the problem.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
From the above literature review, it is clear that no attempt has
yet been made to determine the effects of footing width in the
calculation of the bearing capacity of strip footing under
eccentric load and resting on reinforced sand. Therefore, the
main objective of this study is to provide data about the vari-
ation of footing width and load eccentricity, which can be used
to refine practical bearing capacity formulae. To achieve that
objective, a series of physical model tests and finite-element
analysis (FEA) were conducted to investigate the effects of
footing width (B), load eccentricity (e/B), type of reinforcement
and relative density of the sand (Dr) on the ultimate bearing
capacity and the deformation characteristics of eccentrically
loaded strip footing resting on reinforced sand.
2. Experimental work
2.1 Test tank, model footing and loading system
The model tests were conducted in a steel tank having inside
dimensions of 1000 mm long  500 mm width  1000 mm
height. To satisfy the plane strain conditions (Ko and Davidson,
1973), first, the friction between the soil and the front and back
internal surfaces of the tank should be zero. Balachandran
(1996) stated that the peak friction angle between sand and
treated surfaces decreases by about 65% compared with the case
of untreated surfaces. Therefore, the test tank was polished
smooth to minimise any possible friction between the sides and
the sand. Second, deformation in the longitudinal direction
should be zero. This implies that plane strain models should
have rigid front and back planes. Therefore, the tank was built in
a sufficient rigidity to maintain plane strain conditions. To
ensure rigidity, the vertical edges of the tank were strengthened
by using steel angles at the middle and at the top of the sides. A
raining device consisting of an upper steel box (raining box) was
designed and constructed in the loading frame to obtain the
desired density of sand.
The rigid foundation was modelled by footings made of mild
steel. The model footings having widths of B = 50, 80, 110 and
140 mm. The length of all model foundations was kept at
495 mm. The length of the footing was made almost equal to
the width of the tank in order to maintain plane strain con-
ditions. The thickness for all the sizes of model footings was
25 mm. To make sure that the footing was free to rotate at the
loading point, the vertical load was applied to the footing
through a ball bearing. The ball bearing was set on the short
axis of footings, at distances e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2 and 0·3 from
the centre as shown in Figure 1(a). The base of the model foot-
ing was made rough by cementing a thin layer of sand to it
with epoxy glue.
The load was transferred to the footing using a hydraulic jack
with 20 kN capacity. The load applied through the jack was
recorded with the help of a precalibrated proving ring fitted to
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

Load
e/B = 0·3 Footing
Loading ram
e/B = 0·2 B
Groove U
0·1 Reinforcement
N (number of reinforcing layers) = 1

900 mm
25 mm LR = LT
O
B

B = 50, 80, 110, 140 mm

e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3 Sand
Reinforcement = geotextile, geogrid (one layer)
U/B = 0·5, Dr = 40, 60, 80% 1000 mm
(a) (b)

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of (a) the model strip footing and

(b) test configuration (not to scale)

the piston of the jack. To record the correct settlement of the

footing after the application of load, four sensitive dial gauges Property Value
with a measurement of at least 0·01 mm were used. The dial Effective grain size, D10: mm 0·16
gauges were mounted at the footing corners, and the average Average grain size, D50: mm 0·31
of their readings was taken in the analyses. Uniformity coefficient, Cu 2·43
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0·776
2.2 Sand properties Maximum dry unit weight, γdmax: kN/m3 17·91
Locally available sand dried in an oven was used as the fill Minimum dry unit weight, γdmin: kN/m3 16·60
material for the model tests. The sand had a very low impurity Maximum void ratio, emax 0·605
level with quartz (silicon dioxide) content of 96·5%. The sand Minimum void ratio, emin 0·488
is described as poorly graded sand (SP) according to the Specific gravity, Gs 2·665
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The sand used had Coarse to medium sand: % 34·20
round grains that helped minimise friction between the sand Fine sand: % 64·80
and the tank walls. Some physical properties of the sand are Fines (< 0·075 mm) 1·00
given in Table 1. Classification (USCS) SP
Water content, Wc: % 0·00
Kusakabe (1995) recommended model testing with B/D50 > 100
to avoid the particle size effect. Therefore, B/D50 ratios used in Table 1. Properties of sand used in the model tests
the models ranged from 161 to 451. Furthermore, Amy and
Alan (2007) stated that the model-scale test must be performed
on sand that is looser than the sand underneath a full-scale geotextile and geogrid. Geogrid is slightly stronger than geo-
model. Therefore, for all tests, the average unit weight and rela- textile. To simulate the reinforcement in the model tests, proto-
tive density of the sand were kept at 17·1 kN/m3 and 40%, type reinforcement of the lowest allowable stress was preferred
respectively. According to ASTM D 3080-04 specifications for use. The physical and mechanical properties of the two types
(ASTM, 2010), direct shear box tests were performed on speci- of reinforcement are summarised in Table 2.
mens prepared at the same relative density to evaluate the shear
strength properties. The estimated friction angle (Øsb) was 34·1°. 2.4 Experimental procedure
Furthermore, triaxial compression internal friction angle (Øtr)
At the beginning of testing, the raining device box was posi-
of the sand at Dr = 40% was determined as 35·3°.
tioned directly above the model tank and was followed by
deposition of sand in the 50 mm thick layers by the raining
2.3 Geosynthetic reinforcement technique. The accuracy of the sand placement and consistency
Two commercially available geosynthetic-reinforcement materials of the placement density during raining were checked by plac-
were used as reinforcement underneath the footing: woven ing small cans with known volumes at different locations in the

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

Description Geotextile Geogrid

Composition Polypropylene (woven) polypropylene

Form Needle punched Sheet
Colour Black Black
Mass per surface unit: g/m2 460 210
Thickness: mm 2·0 3·0, at joint
Tensile strength: kN 2·67MD  2·22TD 4·5MD  6·6TD
Elongation at break: % 15 16·0MD  13·0TD
Axial stiffness, EA: kN/m 36 200
Puncture test: kN 0·80 —
Permeability: mm/s 40·51 —
Resistance to chemical agents Excellent Excellent
Soil/reinforcement friction angle (deg), Dr = 40% 30·10 33·90

MD, longitudinal to the role; TD, transverse direction

Table 2. Physical and mechanical properties of reinforcement

Series Type of test Constant parameters Variable parameters

I Unreinforced case Dr = 40%, Df/B = 0·0 B = 50, 80, 110, 140 mm

e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3
II Geogrid reinforcement Dr = 40%, Df/B = 0·0, U/B = 0·5, N = 1 B = 50, 80, 110, 140 mm
e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3
III Geotextile reinforcement Dr = 40%, Df/B = 0·0, U/B = 0·5, N = 1, e/B = 0·1 B = 50, 80, 110, 140 mm
IV Effect of relative density Geogrid, Df/B = 0·0, U/B = 0·5, N = 1, e/B = 0·1 B = 50, 80, 110, 140 mm
Dr = 40, 60, 80%

Table 3. Model test programme

box. On reaching the level of the reinforcement and in all tests,
one reinforcement layer N = 1 (N, number of reinforcement
layers) was placed and the next layer of sand was rained up to
the required level. Great care was given to level the top surface
using special rulers so that the relative density of the top
surface was not affected. The model footing was then placed at
a specific position on the surface of the sand. Finally, centric
or eccentric loads were applied to the model footing through a
manual hydraulic jack. The vertical load was measured by a
precalibrated proving ring. The pressure is applied in small
increments with a uniform rate (about 10 kPa pressure in each
increment) so that the footing penetrated into the test bed at a
constant rate of strain. Then the vertical settlement was calcu-
lated as the average of four dial gauges. In some cases, the tests
were repeated to achieve some degree of confidence in the test
results. Figure 1(b) shows a typical configuration of the model
footing on reinforced sand.
3. Test parameters and programme
The parameters used in the experiments and their values are pre-
sented in Table 3 while a schematic drawing of them is given in
Figures 1(a) and 1(b). Four series of tests were carried out on an
eccentrically loaded model footings supported on both unrein-
forced and geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Initially, the behaviour
of the footing with different widths and eccentricities supported
on unreinforced sand were determined (series I). Then, two
series of tests (II and III) were performed to study the influence
of footing width on eccentrically loaded strip footing resting on
reinforced sand. In reinforced tests, a single layer of reinforced
strip was placed horizontally below the sand surface at a depth
of half the footing width (U/B = 0·5). El-Sawwaf (2009) and
Omar et al. (1993) stated that the optimum embedment depth of
one layer of reinforcement which resulted in the maximum ulti-
mate bearing capacity of the geosynthetic reinforcement was
about 0·50 times the width of the footing. Therefore, this depth

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

180 e/B = 0 180 e/B = 0

Model results Model results
e/B = 0·1 B = 50 mm e/B = 0·1 B = 80 mm
150 e/B = 0·2 Dr = 40% 150 e/B = 0·2 Dr = 40%
e/B = 0·3 e/B = 0·3
Footing stress, q: kPa

Footing stress, q: kPa

120 120
e

90 90
B

60 60

30 30

0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: % Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(a) (b)

180 e/B = 0 180 e/B = 0

Model results Model results
e/B = 0·1 B =110 mm e/B = 0·1 B =140 mm
150 e/B = 0·2 Dr = 40% 150 e/B = 0·2 Dr = 40%
e/B = 0·3 e/B = 0·3
Footing stress, q: kPa

Footing stress, q: kPa

120 120

90 90

60 60

30 30

0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: % Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(c) (d)

Figure 2. Variations of footing stress q with settlement ratio S/B

for different eccentricities (unreinforced case): (a) B = 50 mm;
(b) B = 80 mm; (c) B = 110 mm; and (d) B = 140 mm

was considered as the most effective place and used in all the
experiments. Finally, series IV was conducted to study the effect
of the sand relative density on the behaviour of eccentrically
loaded strip footing on geosynthetic-reinforced sand.
4. Interpretation and discussion of results
Footing pressure–settlement curves from the results of the
experimental model were obtained. In these curves, the footing
settlement (S) is expressed in non-dimensional form in terms
of the footing width (B) as the ratio (S/B, %). Since there was
no definite failure point observed in the pressure–settlement
curves, the ultimate bearing capacity was determined by choos-
ing the footing pressure corresponding to a distinctive marked
change in a settlement; this method is referred to as the
tangent intersection method. Tangent lines were drawn from
the initial and end points of the pressure–settlement curve
and the point of intersection of these tangents was produced
back to the y-axis to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity
(Briaud and Jeanjean, 1994; Lutenegger and Adams, 1998).
An example of such a tangent intersection technique is shown
in Figure 2. Furthermore, from the test results, the reduction
factor RK was calculated at a different load eccentricity based
on Equation 2 (Purkayastha and Char, 1977).
4.1 Behaviour of the strip footing resting on
unreinforced sand
Initially, investigations of the influence of strip footing width
resting on unreinforced sand and loaded with eccentric load were

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

1·0
Physical model results
Model results
B: mm Dr = 40%
0·8

qu (eccentric) /qu (centric)

e/B 50 80 110 140

0·0 quc: kPa 56 71 94 112

que/quc 1·0 1·0 1·0 1·0 0·6
RK 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0
B = 50 mm
Nγ (back calculated) 128 103·1 100 93·6
B = 80 mm
0·1 que: kPa 45 60 83 103 0·4
B = 110 mm
que/quc 0·80 0·85 0·88 0·92 B = 140 mm
RK 0·20 0·15 0·12 0·08 Meyerhof calculated
Nγ (back calculated) 131·6 109·7 110·3 107·6 0·2
0·2 que: kPa 29 41 54 63 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4
que/quc 0·52 0·58 0·57 0·56 Eccentricity/footing width, e/B
RK 0·48 0·42 0·43 0·44
Nγ (back calculated) 113·1 99·9 95·7 87·7 Figure 3. Experimental model results for unreinforced case
0·3 que: kPa 17 23 30 34 against Meyerhof approach
que/quc 0·30 0·32 0·32 0·30
RK 0·70 0·68 0·68 0·70
Nγ (back calculated) 99·4 84·1 79·7 71·0
relationship between load eccentricity e/B and the dimension-
less qu(eccentric)/qu(centric) = que/quc ratios. According to Erol et al.
Table 4. Test results of model footings without reinforcement
(2009), the que/quc ratio can be regarded as a dimensionless
(series I)
factor (< 1·0). If this factor is known, ultimate stress of eccen-
trically loaded footing (que) can be calculated by multiplying
the ultimate stress of centrally loaded footing (quc) by this
conducted to provide the necessary reference data for factor. It is evident from Figure 3 that the results from the
the purpose of comparison (series I). Typical footing stress– experimental model follow the same trend as Meyerhof’s
settlement curves for different e/B ratios and footing widths are approach. However, it is clear that within the core (e/B = 0·1),
presented in Figure 2. A summary of the test results is given in the experimental curves are slightly higher than Meyerhof’s
Table 4. Obviously from Figure 2, the footing stress–settlement curve. On the contrary, outside the core (e/B = 0·2 and 0·3), the
curves indicated the local type of shear failure (no peak point). experimental ratios are slightly smaller than Meyerhof’s curve.
This occurs with a footing resting on a sand of moderate density The reasons for the difference between the experimental curves
(36% < Dr < 70%) (Vesić, 1973). It is noted at failure that a small and Meyerhof’s curve may be due to the change in footing
bulge occurred in the soil surface. The foundation continues to width. The Meyerhof’s curve presented in Figure 3 is limited
sink into the ground, without a sudden failure ever occurring. for B = 50 mm only. At e/B = 0·1 and B = 50 mm, the same
The footings rotated towards the eccentricity side and the results were obtained from the experimental and Meyerhof’s
primary failure surface occurred at the eccentricity side. The methods. Furthermore, Meyerhof’s results were limited for
figure clearly shows that the load eccentricity would drastically equivalent area method (theoretical method), but in the exper-
reduce the performance of the footing by decreasing the bearing iments the results depended on the real behaviour of model
capacity and increasing the settlement of the system. This can be footing and soil. Generally, the experimental results are in
attributed to the formation of failure surface of eccentric footing good agreement with Meyerhof’s approach.
mainly on one side of the footing, contrary to almost symmetri-
cal failure surfaces on both sides of the centric footing. These The bearing capacity factor, Nγ, was back calculated using
results are consistent with the model test results obtained by Erol Equation 1 and tabulated in Table 4. It is clear that the footing
et al. (2009). Not surprisingly, the results indicated that the width B and the load eccentricity have a major influence on
footing width has a major influence on the bearing capacity the bearing capacity factor Nγ. The bearing capacity factor Nγ
of footing. It is clear that the ultimate bearing capacity of footing decreases with the increase of footing width. The decrease in
increases with the foundation width. the bearing capacity factor Nγ with footing width was reduced
when the footing width was >80 mm. The same results were
For comparing the results of the experimental work with concluded by Debarghya and Jyant (2013). At the same time,
Meyerhof’s approach (Equation 1), Figure 3 shows the increasing the load eccentricity e/B (outside the core) decreases

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

180 180
e/B = 0 e/B = 0
e/B = 0·1 Geogrid reinforcement e/B = 0·1 Geogrid reinforcement
150 B = 50 mm 150 B = 80 mm
e/B = 0·2 e/B = 0·2
Footing stress, q: kPa

Footing stress, q: kPa

Dr = 40% Dr = 40%
e/B = 0·3 e/B = 0·3
120 120

90 90

60 60

30 30

0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: % Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(a) (b)

180 180
e/B = 0 Geogrid reinforcement Geogrid reinforcement
e/B = 0·1 B = 110 mm B = 140 mm
150 e/B = 0·2 150 Dr = 40%
Dr = 40%
Footing stress, q: kPa

Footing stress, q: kPa

e/B = 0·3
120 120

90 90

60 60
e/B = 0
e/B = 0·1
30 30 e/B = 0·2
e/B = 0·3
0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: % Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(c) (d)

Figure 4. Variations of footing stress q with settlement ratio S/B

for different eccentricities (geogrid reinforcement): (a) B = 50 mm;
(b) B = 80 mm; (c) B = 110 mm; and (d) B = 140 mm

the bearing capacity factor Nγ. Thus, in order to design a Obviously, geogrid reinforcement improves the footing stress–
footing with eccentric load, it would be necessary to reduce settlement behaviour. In other words, footings supported on
the value of the bearing capacity ratio Nγ, according to the geogrid reinforcement provided considerably higher ultimate
load eccentricity ratio. loads than the corresponding unreinforced case.

From the results presented in Table 5, it is evident that at

4.2 Behaviour of the strip footing resting on
geogrid-reinforced sand
To study the effect of soil reinforcement on the behaviour of
eccentrically loaded strip footing, a series of tests were per-
formed for various footing widths and load eccentricity. The
tests were carried out using one type of reinforcement, geogrid
(series II). The reinforcement parameters were kept constant
(U/B = 0·5, N = 1, LR = LT), where N is the number of reinforce-
ment layer, LR is the length of reinforcement layer and LT is
the length of model tank. Figure 4 shows the behaviour of the
strip footing loaded with an eccentric load due to geogrid re-
inforcement. A summary of the test results is given in Table 5.
B = 110 mm, the ultimate bearing capacity increased by about
26, 30, 50 and 66% at load eccentricity e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2 and
0·3, respectively, relative to unreinforced sand. Furthermore,
geogrid reinforcement is more effective in increasing the ulti-
mate bearing capacity when the footing loaded with eccentric
load outside the core (e > B/6). This can be attributed to the
fact that reinforcement intersects the collapse mechanism
under the footing and mobilised lateral resistance against soil
displacement. Inclusion of reinforcement can redistribute the
applied footing load to a more uniform pattern, hence redu-
cing the stress concentration, which will result in reduced settle-
ment. Furthermore, the mobilised tension in the reinforcement

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

250
Physical model results Model results e/B = 0
Dr = 40%
225 e/B = 0.1
B: mm

Bearing capacity factor, Nγ

e/B = 0.2
e/B = 0.3
e/B 50 80 110 140 200

0·0 quc: kPa 86 96 119 139 175

que/quc 1·0 1·0 1·0 1·0
RK 0·0 0·0 0·0 0·0 150
Nγ (back calculated) 201·0 140·4 126·5 117·0
0·1 quc: kPa 75 84 108 131 125
que/quc 0·87 0·88 0·91 0·94
RK 0·13 0·12 0·09 0·06 100
25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Nγ (back calculated) 219·3 153·5 143·5 136·8
Footing width, B: mm
0·2 quc: kPa 54 65 81 96
que/quc 0·63 0·68 0·68 0·69
RK 0·37 0·32 0·32 0·31 Figure 5. Variations of bearing capacity factor Nγ with footing
Nγ (back calculated) 210·5 158·4 143·5 133·7 width B for geogrid-reinforced sand
0·3 quc: kPa 34 44 50 62
que/quc 0·40 0·46 0·42 0·45
RK 0·60 0·54 0·58 0·55
Figure 5 shows the relationship between Nγ and footing width
Nγ (back calculated) 198·8 160·8 132·9 129·5
B. This figure demonstrates that the test results show a rapid
decrease in Nγ up to B = 110 mm after which there is almost
Table 5. Test results of model footings on geogrid-reinforced
no further tangible decrease in Nγ. The previous results are
sand (series II)
consistent with other results mentioned in the literature
(Amy and Alan, 2007; Vesić, 1973). Then, from the above
results, the footing width B would be >110 mm, which is the
smallest width of model foundation that should be used to
enables the geogrid to resist the imposed horizontal shear stres- determine the ultimate bearing capacity. Figure 5 also clearly
ses built up in the soil mass beneath the loaded area. Thus, the shows that the variations of Nγ values with footing width B
effect of soil reinforcement in increasing the bearing capacity depend on the e/B ratios. For example, at B = 50 mm, the same
under eccentrically loaded footing may result in decreasing the value of Nγ was observed at e/B = 0·0 and e/B = 0·3. This
size of the footing and hence the value of eccentricity leading can be attributed to the great effect of geogrid reinforcement
to better performance and economic design of the footing on the ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded strip
(El-Sawwaf, 2009). footing. It is clear from Tables 4 and 5 that, by using geogrid
reinforcement, the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip
From Table 5, the reduction factor (RK) increases with increas- footing increased by about 54 and 100% at e/B = 0·0 and 0·3,
ing load eccentricity (e/B). It is clear that when the applied respectively. The great increase in ultimate bearing capacity
load is within the core (e/B = 0·1), the footing width has a tan- for the case of e/B = 0·3 can lead to an increase in Nγ value
gible effect on the reduction factor values. By increasing the (using Equation 1). Therefore, it is clear from Figure 5 that
footing width, the reduction factors are decreased. On the con- the curves of Nγ against B can be intersected at different
trary, outside the core (e/B = 0·2 and 0·3), the variation in the e/B ratios according to the increasing rate in ultimate bear-
reduction factor with footing width is very small. Obviously, ing capacity due to the inclusion of geogrid reinforcement in
from the above results, the reduction factor is mainly depen- soil.
dent on the load eccentricity (e/B). The results are in good
agreement with Patra et al. (2006). To study the effect of The back calculated Nγ for geogrid-reinforced sand was always
geogrid reinforcement on the reduction factor values, the greater than the bearing capacity factor Nγ of the same footing
results of RK presented in Tables 4 and 5 were compared. The size of unreinforced sand. This can be attributed to the fact
comparison exhibited that at B = 50 mm, the reduction factor that the mean stress difference between footings of varying
RK in a reinforced case decreased by about 35, 23 and 14% at sizes is related to the critical state concept, which states that
e/B = 0·1, 0·2 and 0·3, respectively, than the unreinforced case. the behaviour of footings is governed by the initial position of
Thereby, geogrid reinforcement plays an important role in void ratio and mean stress relative to the critical state line
improving the behaviour of strip footing under eccentric loads. (Dewaiker and Mohapatro, 2003).

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
4.3 Influence of type of reinforcement
Improvement in the behaviour of strip footing under eccentric
loads due to reinforcement depends on a combination of
material properties of the soil and reinforcement properties. The
type of reinforcement is one of the most important parameters
influencing the performance of reinforced soil. To examine this
effect, two different types of reinforcement, woven geotextile and
geogrid, with varying stiffness and soil/reinforcement friction
angle were used by keeping load eccentricity e/B = 0·1. Figure 6
shows footing stress–settlement curves at different types of
reinforcement. For two types of geosynthetic reinforcement used
in this study, Figure 6 clearly indicates that the performance of
geogrid reinforcement was higher than geotextile reinforcement.
The above results are limited to the two types of reinforcement
selected in this study. As presented in Table 2, the geogrid is
stronger than the geotextile used in this study. The ultimate
bearing capacity increased by about 38 and 67% for the sand
reinforced with geotextile and geogrid, respectively, than for
unreinforced case. The effectiveness of geogrid in improving the
ultimate bearing capacity is attributed to its primary properties
such as axial stiffness and tensile strength. The geotextile is a
continuous sheet of reinforcement, which does not allow signifi-
cant penetration of soil particles through the fabric. Further-
more, the geotextile used in this study was a thin fabric (2·0 mm
thickness) and the geotextile surface roughness was smaller than
sand particles which penetrate from one side of the geogrid to
the other. Therefore, the friction angle between sand and geo-
textile decreased to 30·1° as shown in Table 2. On the other
hand, the geogrid allows the soil particles to penetrate from one
side of the geogrid to the other. The soil goes into a passive state
against the front of the transverse ribs of geogrid and resist
pullout by means of bearing capacity. Thus, the apertures in the
geogrid provide better interlocking with sand particles, assist in
180
Unreinforced
B = 50 mm
Geotextile reinforcement Dr = 40%
150
e/B = 0·1
Geogrid reinforcement
Footing stress, q: kPa
120
90
60
30
0 40
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
Figure 6. Variations of footing stress q with settlement ratio S/B
for reinforced sand
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
creating a soil confinement zone and increase the sand/geogrid
friction angle. Similar findings on other soil–geogrid interaction
problems agree with these observations (Nasr and Nazir, 2013).
4.4 Influence of relative density of sand
In the case of geogrid reinforcement, the variations of the ulti-
mate bearing capacity qUR with footing width B at different
sand densities (40, 60 and 80%) are shown in Figure 7. It is
evident that in any footing width, the relative density of the
sand has a significant effect on the ultimate bearing capacity.
The effect of relative density of the sand on the ultimate
bearing capacity increases with the increase in footing width.
By increasing the relative density of the sand from Dr = 40 to
80%, the ultimate bearing capacity increased by about 29·3%
at footing width B = 50 mm and by 52·7% at B = 140 mm. It
was also observed that the failure mode of the footings tested
varied depending on the relative density of sand and footing
size.
5. FEA
The FEM has been used in numerous studies in the past
to analyse centrally and eccentrically loaded strip footings
on sand (Frydman and Burd, 1997; Loukidis and Salgado,
2009). In this study, a series of two-dimensional (2D) FEAs on
model-scale strip footing were performed to supplement the
results of model laboratory tests. The dimensions of footings
modelled in the FEAs are similar to the dimensions used in
the experimental model. Plane strain elasto-plastic FEAs were
performed using the commercial program Plaxis (professional
versions 7 and 8) (Bringkgreve and Vermeer, 1998). The
program is able to simulate soil, footings and geosynthetic
reinforcement. Plaxis allows the automatic generation of six-
or 15-nodded triangular plane strain elements in the soil,
three- or five-node beam elements for the footing, three- or
240
Geogrid reinforcement
e/B = 0·1
Ultimate stress, qUR: kPa
200
160
120
Dr = 40%
80 Dr = 60%
Dr = 80%
16·0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Footing width, B: mm
Figure 7. Variations of ultimate stress qUR with footing width B at
different relative densities
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

five-node elastic elements to model the geogrid or geotextile
reinforcement. Note that the FE model was assumed to be
constructed using the same materials used in the laboratory
tests.
According to Siddiquee et al. (1999, 2001), the FEA used the
ability of the Plaxis program to generate fine and refine mesh,
especially under the footing width. Then, the particle size
effects can be simulated in the FEAs as a function of the ratio
of the element size to the particle size. The dimensions of the
mesh size were chosen large enough to ensure that the bound-
aries will have no effect on the calculated results (width of
mesh = 15B and height of mesh = 10B). It should be mentioned
here that these boundaries were chosen to be far from the
zone, where the failure mechanism will take place and the
stresses remained unchanged during loading. The analysed
strip footing geometry, geosynthetic reinforcement and the gen-
erated mesh are shown in Figure 8.
5.1 Numerical modelling procedure
In this study, the sand mechanical behaviour is modelled
using the hardening-soil model (i.e. elasto-plastic hyperbolic
model). The hardening-soil model is an advanced model
for simulating the behaviour of different types of soil (Schanz
et al., 1999). The hardening-soil model parameters used in the
FEAs were derived from a series of laboratory tests as shown
in the reduced-scale laboratory model. Eight material par-
ameters were required to specify the soil model in each analysis
(Table 6).
The soil under strip foundations is in a state of plane strain and
the corresponding angle of internal friction has to be determined
by plane strain compression tests at the same density of sand
(Tatsuoka et al., 1991; Wu et al., 2008). Unfortunately, the exper-
imental facilities to determine plane strain friction angle Øps of
the sand are very difficult. Consequently, the plane strain internal
friction angle of sand Øps was taken as 36° using the formula
suggested by Lee (1970) as
3: Øps ¼ 15Øtr
17° for Øtr . 34°
Due to the difficulties in controlling the direction and magni-
tude of failure conditions, the strength anisotropy must be
taking into account in the FEA (Siddiquee et al., 1999, 2001).
Randolph et al. (2004) mention that it is common practice to
take into account strength anisotropy when calculating ulti-
mate capacities. In the active zone underneath the footing, the
soil fails under compression loading, and can be replicated in
the laboratory with a triaxial compression test. At the bottom
of the failure plane, in the radial shear zone, the soil acts in
shear, and can be modelled in the laboratory with direct shear
test. The edge of the failure plane, the passive zone, acts in
extensional failure and can be modelled with triaxial extension
tests. Therefore, in the FEA of this study, it was assumed that
the friction angle obtained as the average of Øtr compression,
Øsb, and Øtr extension (equal to Øps, Kulhawy and Mayne,
1990) be used in the calculations of bearing capacity of strip
footing on sand (Øav ≈ 35°).
The analyses were carried out for draining condition without
pore water pressure and the FE calculations for soil elements
were based on 15-node triangular elements. From Plaxis
manual, to avoid complications during a numerical process,

Y
Interface Plane strain analysis
Load Footing Model scale
Number of elements = 1132
Number of nodes = 9785
Number of stress points = 13737
Reinforcement Prototype scale
Constrained horizontally

Number of elements = 1322

Number of nodes = 11143
Number of stress points = 15864
10 B

15 - node
triangle element

Soil (sand)

X
(X = Y = 0) Fixed boundary
15 B

Figure 8. Mesh used in the FEA

10

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

Parameter Sand Footing Geogrid Geotextile

Material model Hardening-soil model Linear elastic Elastic Elastic

Type of material behaviour Drained Non-porous — —
Primary loading stiffness, Eref
50 : kPa 30 000 — — —
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0·30 0·20 — —
Cohesion, C: kPa 1·00 — — —
Average friction angle, Øav: deg 35 — — —
Dilatancy angle, ψ: deg 6·0 — — —
Interface reduction factor, Rint 0·80 — — —
Failure ratio, Rf 0·90 — — —
Axial stiffness, EA: kN/m — 4 200 000 200 36·0
Flexural stiffness, EI: kPa/m — 14 000 — —

Axial stiffness, EA, for reinforcement calculated at 10% strain

Table 6. Material parameters used in the FEA

enter at least a small value for cohesion (C > 0·2 kPa), but its
effect on the resulting collapse load values is negligible
(<0·1%). Therefore, the cohesion in all calculation process was
taken to be 1·0 kN/m2. Table 6 summarises the hyperbolic
model parameters used in the analysis.
The linear elastic behaviour of the footing was modelled as
plate elements. Plates in the 2D FE model are composed of
beam elements with three degrees of freedom. When 15-node
soil elements are used, each beam element is defined by five
nodes. The beam elements are based on Mindlin’s plate theory
(Bathe, 1982). This theory allows for beam deflections due to
shearing as well as bending. The most important material par-
ameters for modelling of elastic plates are the flexural rigidity
EI and the axial stiffness EA (Table 6). For numerical calcu-
lations, an equivalent thickness of the plate (deq) is calculated
based on the values of its rigidity parameters, EI and EA as
follows
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
EI
4: deq ¼ 12
EA
specified as a material property. No compressive stress was
allowed in the reinforcement.
The interaction among the footing, geosynthetic reinforcement
and the surrounding soil was simulated by the interface
elements located at the contact between any two elements.
The interface elements, which had a zero physical thickness,
were connected to soil elements by five pairs of nodes. The
stiffness matrix of interface elements was obtained using the
Newton–Cotes integration points. According to Schanz et al.
(1999), the interface parameters were simulated in Plaxis by
assigning a suitable value for the strength reduction factor in
the interface compared with the corresponding soil strengths.
All the boundary conditions assumed in the physical model
were simulated in the FE model. Therefore, the displacement
of the left and right vertical sides is constrained in the horizon-
tal direction only (ux = 0·0). The base of the model is con-
strained in all directions (ux = uy = uz = 0·0). The load was
applied on the footing (plate element) by using the point load
option. The point loads are actually line loads in the out-of-
plane direction.

A refined mesh was adopted to minimise the effect of mesh

The geosynthetic reinforcement was modelled using the elastic
geotextile elements in Plaxis 7 and the geogrid elements in
Plaxis 8. Geotextile and geogrid are composed of line elements
with two translational degrees of freedom at each node
(ux, uy). Reinforcement elements were defined by the five-node
line elements of an appropriate axial stiffness value that
conform with the 15-nodded triangular soil elements to either
side. The reinforcement sheets were assumed to have a zero
bending stiffness value EI and an axial stiffness EA that was
dependence on FE modelling. Furthermore, when a refined
mesh was generated, the deformation of the soil at failure can
be accurately measured. The numbers of elements, nodes and
stress points used in reinforced tests are shown in Figure 8.
5.2 FE model-scale results
The results of the FEAs are shown in Figures 9–15. In these
series, all the tests were performed on strip footing placed on
geogrid-reinforced sand, while the load eccentricity and footing

11

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
140
Model test
120 FEA
Footing stress, q: kPa
100
e/B = 0
80
60
e/B = 0·2
40
Unreinforced case
20 B = 80 mm
Dr = 40%
0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(a)
Figure 9. Comparison of results from model tests and FEA:
(a) unreinforced case and (b) geogrid reinforcement
width were varied. From Figure 9 (B = 80 mm, e/B = 0·0, 0·2),
it is evident that the numerical analyses using the FE method
were carried out on a model-scale footing to compare the
results with those from the laboratory tests to demonstrate that
the FEA gives acceptable results. In the numerical analyses,
the ultimate bearing capacity was defined in the same way as
that defined in the physical model tests. The figure confirms
that the numerical method provides a reasonable fit with the
experimental results. Figure 9 demonstrates that the difference
between the ultimate bearing capacities obtained from exper-
imental results and numerical analyses varies from 10 to 14%
(as shown by arrows in the y-axis). A possible reason for the
difference has been hypothesised to be the soil anisotropy
which causes difficulties in controlling the direction and mag-
nitude of failure conditions. Furthermore, the peak value of Ø
is assumed to be mobilised in the failure zone at the ultimate
condition in FEM; however, failure surfaces in real sand beds
(experimental tests) develop progressively.
The variation of qu(eccentric)/qu(centric) at various eccentricities to
footing width ratios (e/B) for different footing widths (B) is
shown in Figure 10. The results obtained from the analyses are
in close agreement with those of the model-scale tests. It is
evident that the FE calculations are fairly accurate for the
computed values of the ultimate bearing capacity. As can be
seen from Figure 10, the qu(eccentric)/qu(centric) ratios of the unre-
inforced cases are smaller than the reinforced cases, specially
when the load is applied outside the core (e/B = 0·2 and 0·3).
For different load eccentricities, Figure 11 shows a typical
deformed FE mesh at ultimate loads for unreinforced and
12
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
140
Model test
120 FEA
e/B = 0
Footing stress, q: kPa
100
e/B = 0·2
80
60
40
Geogrid reinforcement
20 B = 80 mm
Dr = 40%
16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(b)
geogrid reinforced sands. In both cases, it is clear that the fail-
ure is accompanied by tilting of the footing. The figure clearly
shows not only the footing rotation, but also no heaving of
the ground surface was observed at failure in both cases.
Comparing the distorted FE meshes, it can be observed that
the deformations at failure in reinforced cases are decreasing
underneath the footing than the unreinforced cases. This can
be attributed to the increase in soil stiffness under the footing
due to geogrid reinforcement. Obviously, by increasing the
load eccentricity, the geogrid layer resists the soil deformations
which in turn results in a greater bearing capacity. It is evident
that the failure mechanism observed in model tests and the
FEAs was a local shear failure. Therefore, the model test
results and FEAs indicated the perfect plastic or strain harden-
ing behaviour of the backfill. More precisely, in tests with
small eccentricities, the failure mechanism develops on both
sides of the footing. At failure, the foundation continues to
sink into the ground, without a sudden failure ever occurring.
Therefore, a good agreement between model test and FE
results at the same dimensions (footing width) was noted. In
the same manner, Figure 12 compares the vertical strain distri-
bution for unreinforced and geogrid reinforced sands at differ-
ent load eccentricities. It is clear that, in both cases, increasing
the load eccentricity concentrated the vertical strains in the
footing side where the load is applied. It is also noted that the
geogrid reinforcement concentrated the vertical strains in the
sand layer above the reinforcement. Vertical strain values at
failure decreased as the geogrid-reinforced layer was included
in the soil. Furthermore, the reinforcement restricted the distri-
bution of vertical strain downward for greater depth and
width.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

1·0 1·0
B = 50 mm B = 80 mm
Dr = 40% Dr = 40%

0·8 0·8
qu (eccentric)/qu (centric)

qu (eccentric)/qu (centric)
0·6 0·6

Geogrid reinforced Geogrid reinforced

0·4 0·4
Model test Model test
FEA Unreinforced FEA Unreinforced
0·2 0·2
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4
Eccentricity/footing width, e/B Eccentricity/footing width, e/B
(a) (b)

1·0 1·0
B = 110 mm B = 140 mm
Dr = 40% Dr = 40%

0·8 0·8
qu (eccentric)/qu (centric)

qu (eccentric)/qu (centric)

0·6 0·6

Geogrid reinforced Geogrid reinforced

0·4 0·4
Model test Model test
FEA Unreinforced FEA Unreinforced

0·2 0·2
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4
Eccentricity/footing width, e/B Eccentricity/footing width, e/B
(c) (d)

Figure 10. Comparison of the effects of load eccentricity e/B on

que/quc obtained from model tests and analysis: (a) B = 50 mm;
(b) B = 80 mm; (c) B = 110 mm; and (d) B = 140 mm

5.3 FE prototype-scale results
During this investigation, the ability of using the FE program
to solve a prototype scale is highlighted. Therefore, to simulate
the prototype-scale behaviour and study the scaling effects, the
geometry of both strip footing on unreinforced and reinforced
sand was increased 20 times the model-scale dimensions (i.e.
footing width B = 1·0) (Nasr and Nazir, 2013). The prototype
footing, sand and geogrid reinforcement were assumed to be
constructed using the real materials used in the field. For
sandy soil, the hardening-soil model parameters used in the
FEAs were derived from a series of laboratory tests. For rein-
forcement, the physical and mechanical properties of geogrid
reinforcement obtained from the factory producer were used in
the numerical analyses (Table 2). Linear elastic concrete
footing (B = 1·0 m) was used in the numerical analyses. Axial
stiffness EA and flexural stiffness EI for concrete strip footing
were used in the analyses.
In Figure 13, the footing stress–settlement relations are seen
for unreinforced and reinforced cases at different eccentricities.
From prototype-scale results, it is evident that the geogrid
reinforcement increased the ultimate bearing capacity by about
12, 17, 21 and 24% at e/B = 0·0, 0·1, 0·2 and 0·3, respectively,
compared with that of the unreinforced results.
Figure 14 shows the distribution of the normal stresses acting
on the footing base at ultimate load for different load eccentri-
cities. It is evident that, for unreinforced and reinforced sand,
the stress distribution under the footing changes in size and
shape by increasing the load eccentricity. For e/B = 0·3, part of
the footing base has zero contact normal stress. According to
Loukidis et al. (2008), the normal stress distribution has a tail
on the side opposite to the side where the load is applied.
When a layer of geogrid was included in the sand, a reasonable
increase in the normal stress acting on the footing base was

13

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
e/B = 0
e/B = 0·1
e/B = 0·2
e/B = 0·3
(a)
Figure 11. A distorted FE mesh of unreinforced and reinforced
soil with different eccentricities: (a) unreinforced case and
(b) geogrid reinforcement
observed. It is obvious that, at any load eccentricity, the
inclusion of geogrid reinforcement would improve the perform-
ance of the footing by increasing the contact stress.
The tensioned-geogrid mechanism and the prevention of soil
deformation will directly affect the development of horizontal
strains within the reinforcement. Figure 15 presents the profiles
of the horizontal strains computed from the FEAs at different
load eccentricities within the geogrid layer. Figure 15 shows
that, at e/B = 0·0, the maximum strains along the reinforcement
occur directly beneath the centre of the footing and decreases
dramatically as the distance away from the centre of the footing
increases. As expected, Figures 15 demonstrated that the
strains obtained along geogrid reinforcement increases with the
increase in load eccentricity. Furthermore, the points of maxi-
mum strains shifted in the same direction of load eccentricity.
This can be attributed to the fact that larger strains tend to
develop at the points where the failure surface and the geogrid
layer intersect. It is also of interest to note herein that the hori-
zontal strains were vanished within the range 1·5B–2·0B from
the centre of the footing. Although, the geogrid is still under
tension even when the distance is >2·0B from the centre of the
14
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
U/B = 0·5, N = 1
(b)
footing, the values of strains are <0·01% and cannot be shown
in Figure 15. This indicates that the length of the reinforce-
ment layer should be equal to 4·0B for full mobilisation of
reinforcements. The reinforcement beyond the effective length
4·0B results in insignificant mobilised tensile strength, and
thus provides negligible effects on the improved performance
of reinforced soil foundations. The above result is in good
agreement with Huang and Tatsuoka (1990) and Peng Fang
et al. (2008) who stated that by increasing the length of
reinforcement by more than 3·5B, the gain in the bearing capa-
city ratio decreased significantly. It is clear from Figure 15
that, outside the footing width, the results of the FEAs devel-
oped a very small compressive strain in reinforcement at eccen-
tricity outside the core (e/B = 0·3). Experimental results from
other researches (Munir et al., 2010) have shown a similar dis-
tribution of strains in the reinforcement.
6. Conclusions
The behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip footing resting on
the top of geosynthetic-reinforced sand was investigated
through model test studies and 2D non-linear FEAs. The
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

e/B = 0·1 e/B = 0·1

Reinforcement

e/B = 0·2 e/B = 0·2

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Variations of vertical strains in the soil at different

load eccentricities: (a) unreinforced case and (b) geogrid
reinforcement

400 400 FE results

e/B = 0 FE results e/B = 0
Geogrid reinforcement
350 e/B = 0·1 Unreinforced case 350 e/B = 0·1 B = 1·0 m
e/B = 0·2 B = 1·0 m
Dr = 40%
e/B = 0·2 Dr = 40%
300 e/B = 0·3 300 e/B = 0·3
Footing stress, q: kPa

Footing stress, q: kPa

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0 0 2·0 4·0 6·0 8·0 10·0 12·0 14·0 16·0
Settlement/footing width, S/B: % Settlement/footing width, S/B: %
(a) (b)

Figure 13. Variations of footing stress q with settlement ratio S/B

for prototype footing: (a) unreinforced case and (b) geogrid
reinforcement

15

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam

e e
B B

0 0

e/B = 0·2 e/B = 0·3 e/B = 0·3

50 50 e/B = 0·2
e/B = 0·1
100 100

Normal stress: kPa

Normal stress: kPa

e/B = 0·1
150 150

200 e/B = 0 200 e/B = 0

250 250
Unreinforced case Reinforced case
300 B = 1·0 m 300 B = 1·0 m
Dr = 40% Dr = 40%
350 350
–0·5 –0·4 –0·3 –0·2 –0·1 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 –0·5 –0·4 –0·3 –0·2 –0·1 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5

X: m X: m
(a) (b)

Figure 14. Distribution of normal stress acting on the base of

eccentrically loaded strip footings: (a) unreinforced case and
(b) reinforced case

4 e about 26, 30, 50 and 66% at load eccentricity e/B = 0·0,

(a)
B/2 0·1, 0·2 and 0·3, respectively, relative to unreinforced sand.
B = 1·0 m
3
Horizontal strain, εx: %

& The bearing capacity factor Nγ depends greatly on the

e/B = 0
2 width of the footing and decreases rapidly up to
e/B = 0·1
1 e/B = 0·2
e/B = 0·3
0 foundation that should be used to determine the ultimate
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
–1 Distance from footing center: m
–2
Figure 15. Variations of horizontal strains in geogrid
reinforcement at different eccentricities
study primarily aimed at determining the effect of footing size,
load eccentricity and geosynthetic reinforcement on the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of strip footings. On the basis of investi-
gations, the following main conclusions can be drawn.
& For geogrid-reinforced sand, the ultimate bearing capacity
of a strip footing loaded with an eccentric load outside the
core (e > B/6) can be increased significantly. The relative
improvement resulting from geogrid reinforcement
increases with increasing the load eccentricity. At
B = 110 mm, the ultimate bearing capacity increased by
B = 110 mm. For physical model tests, the footing width B
would be >110 mm, which is the smallest width of model
2·5 bearing capacity.
& At a load eccentricity (e/B) equal to 0·1, the ultimate
bearing capacity increases by about 38 and 67% for
the sand reinforced with geotextile and geogrid,
respectively. The failure mode of the footings tested varies
depending on the relative density of the sand and footing
size.
& A close agreement between physical model results and
FEAs of the variation of qu(eccentruic)/qu(centric) with
eccentricities is sufficiently encouraging to warrant their
extension to practical situations at least within the
conditions investigated. The difference between the
ultimate bearing capacities obtained from experimental
results and numerical analyses varied from 10 to 14%.
& In physical model results and FEAs within the conditions
investigated, the performance of geogrid reinforcement in
increasing the ultimate bearing capacity is higher than that
of geotextile reinforcement. The effectiveness of geogrid is
attributed to its primary properties such as axial stiffness
and tensile strength.

16

Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
& The results from the FEM analyses conducted on a
prototype-scale footing confirmed several important
findings such as the stress distribution under the footing
changes in size and shape with increasing the load
eccentricity. Outside the core, part of the footing base
has zero contact normal stress. In case of geogrid
reinforcement, the points of maximum strains in geogrid
shifted in the same direction of load eccentricity.
From prototype-scale numerical results, the geogrid
reinforcement increases the ultimate bearing capacity by
about 12–24% when the load eccentricity (e/B) varies from
0·0 to 0·3.
It should be noted that the results presented in this study are
limited to model-scale footings on one layer of reinforcement
placed at a depth of half the footing width (U/B = 0·5).
Therefore, further tests should be conducted to study the effect
of reinforcement depth and the number of reinforcing layers on
the overall behaviour of footing. Furthermore, further study is
required to ascertain the validity of the findings in this study
using either full-scale model tests or at least larger physical
model tests.
REFERENCES
Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q and Sharma R (2013) An experimental
evaluation of the behavior of footings on geosynthetic-
reinforced sand. Soils and Foundations Journal 53(2):
335–348.
Amy B and Alan J (2007) Scale effects of shallow foundation
bearing capacity on granular material. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133(10):
1192–1202.
ASTM (2010) D 3080-04: Standard test method for direct
shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Balachandran SB (1996) Modeling of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Soil Walls. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Bathe KJ (1982) Finite Element Analysis in Engineering
Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Briaud JL and Jeanjean P (1994) Load settlement curve method
for footings on sand. ASCE Specialty Conference
‘Settlement 94’. Texas A&M University, USA.
Bringkgreve R and Vermeer P (1998) PLAXIS – Finite Element
Code for Soil and Rock Analysis. Version 7. Plaxis B. V.,
Delft, the Netherlands.
Debarghya C and Jyant K (2013) Dependency of Nγ on footing
diameter for circular footing. Soils and Foundations Journal
35(1): 173–180.
Dewaiker DM and Mohapatro BG (2003) Computation of
bearing capacity factor Nγ—Terzaghi’s mechanism.
International Journal of Geomechanics 3(1): 123–128.
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
El-Sawwaf M (2009) Experimental and numerical study of
eccentrically loaded strip footings resting on reinforced
sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 135(10): 1509–1518.
Erol S, Evrim C, Berkan M and Bayram A (2009) Ultimate loads
for eccentrically loaded model shallow strip footings on
geotextile-reinforced sand. Geotextile and Geomembranes
27(3): 176–182.
Frydman S and Burd HJ (1997) Numerical studies of bearing
capacity factor Nγ. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 123(1): 20–29.
Huang CC and Tatsuoka F (1990) Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground. Geotextile and Geomembranes
9(1): 51–82.
Ko H and Davidson W (1973) Bearing capacity of footings in
plane strain. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Engineering ASCE 99(1): 1–23.
Kulhawy FH and Mayne PW (1990) Manual on Estimating Soil
Properties for Foundation Design. Electrical Power
Research Institute (EPRI), Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY, USA, EL-6800, Research Project.
Kumar J and Khatri VN (2008a) Effect of footing width on
bearing capacity factor Nγ for smooth strip footing.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
ASCE 134(9): 1299–1309.
Kumar J and Khatri VN (2008b) Effect of footing width on Nγ.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(12): 1673–1684.
Kusakabe O (1995) Chapter 6: foundations. In Geotechnical
Centrifuge Technology (Taylor RN, (ed.)). Blackie
Academic Professional, London, UK, pp. 118–167.
Lee KL (1970) Comparison of plane strain and triaxial tests on
sand. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Engineering ASCE 96(3): 901–921.
Loukidis D and Salgado R (2009) Bearing capacity of strip and
circular footings in sand using finite elements. Computer
and Geotechnics Journal 36(5): 871–879.
Loukidis D, Chakraborty T and Salgado R (2008) Bearing capacity
of strip footings on purely frictional soil under eccentric
and inclined loads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(6):
768–787.
Lutenegger AJ and Adams MT (1998) Bearing capacity of
footings on compacted sand. Proceeding of 4th International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
St. Louis, MO, USA, pp. 1216–1224.
Meyerhof GG (1953) The bearing capacity of foundations
under eccentric and inclined loads. Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE), Zürich, Switzerland,
vol. 1, pp. 440–445.
Munir D, Murad Y and Louay N (2010) Implementation of a
critical state two-surface model to evaluate the response
of geosynthetic reinforced pavements. International Journal
of Geomechanics 10(5): 202–212.
17
 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
Nasr AM and Nazir A (2013) Effect of geosynthetic
reinforcement in active zone on the behavior of sheet pile
walls. Geotechnical Testing Journal 36(3): 331–344.
Nawghare S, Pathak S and Gawande S (2010) Experimental
investigation of bearing capacity for eccentrically loaded
footing. International Journal of Engineering Science
Technology 2(10): 5257–5264.
Okamura M, Takemura J and Ueno K (2004) Centrifugal model
test – the technology and the applicability. 2. The similarity
of centrifugal model test and the technology – advantage
and disadvantage. Tsuchi-to-Kiso, JGS 52 (10): 37–44
(in Japanese).
Omar MT, Das BM, Puri V and Yen S (1993) Ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid
reinforcement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30(3):
545–549.
Patra CR, Das BM, Bhoi M and Shin EC (2006) Eccentrically
loaded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.
Geotextile and Geomembranes Journal 24(4): 254–259.
Peng Fang L, Siddiquee M and Tatsuoka F (2008) Elasto-
viscoplastic simulation of bearing capacity characteristics
of strip footing on reinforced sand. Geosynthetics in Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Proceedings of the
4th Asian Regional Conference, Shanghai, China. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 305–310.
Purkayastha RD and Char RA (1977) Stability analysis for
eccentrically loaded footings. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering ASCE 103(6): 647–651.
Randolph MF, Jamiolkowski MB and Zdravkovic L (2004) Load
carrying capacity of foundations. In Keynote Presentation
at the A.W. Skempton’s Memorial Conference Imperial
College, pp. 29–31. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
18
Downloaded by [ University of Liverpool] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Behaviour of eccentrically loaded strip
footings resting on sand
Nasr and Azzam
Schanz T, Vermeer PA and Bonnier PG (1999) Formulation
and verification of the hardening-soil model. In: Beyond
2000 in Computational Geotechnics (Brinkgreve RBJ (ed.)).
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 281–290.
Siddiquee MSA, Tanaka T, Tatsuoka F, Tani K and Morimoto T
(1999) Numerical simulation of the bearing capacity of
strip footing on sand. Soils and Foundations Journal 39(4):
93–109.
Siddiquee MSA, Tatsuoka F, Tanaka T et al. (2001) Model tests
and FEM simulation of some factors affecting the bearing
capacity of footing on sand. Soils and Foundations Journal
41(2): 53–76.
Sven K, Lars D and Kristian K (2012) Lower-bound calculations
of the bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings
in cohesionless soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49(3):
298–310.
Tatsuoka F, Okahara M, Tanaka T et al. (1991) Progressive failure
and particle size effect in bearing capacity of a footing on
sand. Proceedings of ASCE Geotechnical Engineering
Congress, Boulder, CO, USA, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, vol. 27, pp. 788–802.
Toyosawa Y, Itoh K, Kikkawa N, Yang J and Liu F (2013)
Influence of model footing diameter and embedded depth
on particle size effect in centrifugal bearing capacity tests.
Soils and Foundations Journal 53(2): 349–356.
Vesić AS (1973) Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow
foundations. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering ASCE 99(1): 45–73.
Wu PK, Matsushima K and Tatsuoka F (2008) Effects of
specimen size and some other factors on the strength and
deformation of granular soil in direct shear tests.
Geotechnical Testing Journal ASTM 31(1): 45–64.
HOW CAN YOU CONTRIBUTE?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
relies entirely on contributions from the civil engineering
profession (and allied disciplines). Information about how
to submit your paper online is available at www.icevirtual
library.com/page/authors, where you will also find
detailed author guidelines.