TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's

FHWA/LA.08/424 Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
May 2008
Use of Reinforced Soil Foundation (RSF) to 6. Performing Organization Code
Support Shallow Foundation
LTRC Number: 04-2GT
State Project Number: 736-99-1242
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E., and
424
Qiming Chen, Ph.D.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Louisiana Transportation Research Center
4101 Gourrier Avenue 11. Contract or Grant No.

Baton Rouge, LA 70808 04-2GT

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Louisiana Transportation Research Center Summary Report
4101 Gourrier Avenue March 2004 – December 2007
Baton Rouge, LA 70808 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract

This research study investigates the potential benefits of using reinforced soil foundations to improve the bearing
capacity and reduce the settlement of shallow foundations on soils. To implement this objective, a total of 117
tests, including 38 laboratory model tests on silty clay embankment soil, 51 laboratory model tests on sand, 22
laboratory model tests on Kentucky crushed limestone, and 6 large-scale field tests on silty clay embankment soil
were performed at the Louisiana Transportation Research Center to study the behavior of reinforced soil
foundations. The influences of the different variables and parameters contributing to the improved performance of
reinforced soil foundation were examined in these tests. In addition, an instrumentation program with pressure
cells and strain gauges was designed to investigate the stress distribution in soil mass with and without
reinforcement and the strain distribution along the reinforcement. The test results showed that the inclusion of
reinforcement can significantly improve the soil’s bearing capacity and reduce the footing settlement. The
geogrids with higher tensile modulus performed better than geogrids with lower tensile modulus. The strain
developed along the reinforcement is directly related to the settlement, and, therefore, higher tension would be
developed for geogrid with higher modulus under the same footing settlement. The test results also showed that
the inclusion of reinforcement will redistribute the applied load to a wider area, thus minimizing stress
concentration and achieving a more uniform stress distribution. The redistribution of stresses below the reinforced
zone will result in reducing the consolidation settlement of the underlying weak, clayey, soil which is directly
related to the induced stress. Insignificant strain measured in the geogrid beyond its effective length of 4.0 ~ 6.0B
indicated that the geogrid beyond this length provides a negligible extra reinforcement effect.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Reinforced soil foundation, Geosynthetics, Unrestricted. This document is available through
Laboratory model test, Large-scale test, Soil, the National Technical Information Service,
Bearing capacity ratio, Settlement reduction factor, Springfield, VA 21161.
Instrumentation, Vertical stress, Strain.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 55
 
 Use of Reinforced Soil Foundation (RSF) to Support Shallow Foundation

Summary Report

by
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E.
Qiming Chen, Ph.D.

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

4101 Gourrier Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808

LTRC Project No. 04-2GT

State Project No. 736-99-1242

conducted for

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

Louisiana Transportation Research Center

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author/principal investigator who is
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development or the Louisiana Transportation Research Center. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

November 2008
 
 IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT

An experimental testing program including four series of small-scale and large-scale model
footing tests was conducted to investigate the benefits of reinforcing soil foundation (RSF)
and to study the influence of different design parameters on the improved performance of
reinforced soil foundation. The test results clearly demonstrated that the use of
reinforcements can significantly increase the bearing capacity of soil foundations and reduce
footing settlement.

Analyses of the test results enabled us to derive/modify analytical design procedures for
reinforced soil foundations that include the effects of different design variables needed for
implementation. The authors recommended a step-by-step procedure for designing RSF. The
RSF can be implemented in many geotechnical engineering applications, such as foundations
for earth-retaining structures, working platforms for embankment construction, working
platforms over soft subgrades for pavement applications, reinforced-soil pile-support caps,
reinforced-soil abutments, and foundations for residential and commercial buildings.

One potential implementation is the use of RSF in the design of approach slab for highway
engineering applications to minimize the resulting differential settlements. Since the state of
Louisiana is renowned for its weak, natural soil formations, the common result of excessive
differential settlement of the concrete approach slab currently creates one of the major
highway maintenance problems. To solve this problem, the Louisiana Quality Initiative
(LQI) study recommended changing the design of approach slabs by increasing its rigidity.
As a result, the slab and traffic loads will be carried by the two ends of the slab rather than
distributed over the length of the slab. Accordingly, a strip footing will be needed at the far
end of the approach slab away from the bridge. To increase the soil’s bearing capacity and
minimize settlement due to concentration load, the soil underneath the strip footing will be
reinforced. Implementation of this research project can lead to a better design of approach
slabs with improved performance and significant savings due to expected reduced
maintenance and better rideability.

iii
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IMPLEMENTATION STATEMENT ..................................................................................... iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................v 
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii 
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix 
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 
OBJECTIVE ..............................................................................................................................3 
SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................5 
RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................7 
Properties of Tested Materials ...................................................................................... 7 
Soils ................................................................................................................... 7 
Reinforcement .................................................................................................... 8 
Testing Program ............................................................................................................ 8 
Small-Scale Laboratory Tests ............................................................................ 8 
Large-Scale Field Tests ...................................................................................... 9 
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS..................................................................................................11 
Effect of Reinforcement Top Spacing ........................................................................ 12 
Effect of Number of Reinforcement Layers ............................................................... 13 
Effect of Vertical Spacing of Reinforcement Layers .................................................. 13 
Effect of Tensile Modulus/Type of Reinforcement .................................................... 14 
Vertical Stress Distribution for Reinforced Soils ....................................................... 17 
Strain Distribution along Reinforcement .................................................................... 19 
STABILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL FOUNDATIONS ................................21 
Analytical Solution for Reinforced Silty Clay Soil .................................................... 21 
Analytical Solution for Reinforced Sand Soil ............................................................ 23 
Analytical Solution for Reinforced Crushed Limestone ............................................. 25 
Tensile Force in Reinforcement .................................................................................. 26 
Reinforced Silty Clay ....................................................................................... 26 
Reinforced Sand ............................................................................................... 27 
Reinforced Crushed Limestone ........................................................................ 29 
Verification of Analytical Model ................................................................................ 30 
CALCULATION EXAMPLE .................................................................................................33 
Example 1: Reinforced Sand ...................................................................................... 33 
Example 2: Reinforced Silty Clay .............................................................................. 35 
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................37 
RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................39 
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................41 

v
 
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Properties of sandy soil ................................................................................................ 7 

Table 2 Properties of silty clay/embankment soil ..................................................................... 7 
Table 3 Properties of Kentucky crushed limestone .................................................................. 8 
Table 4 Properties of reinforcements ........................................................................................ 8 
Table 5 Recommended design parameters for reinforcement layout ..................................... 39 

vii
 
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Laboratory test set up and instrumentation system .................................................... 9 

Figure 2 Field test set up and instrumentation system ............................................................ 10 
Figure 3 Definitions of BCR and SRF .................................................................................... 11 
Figure 4 Geosynthetic reinforced soil foundation .................................................................. 12 
Figure 5 BCR versus u/B for one layer of reinforcement of BasXgrid11 .............................. 12 
Figure 6 BCR versus N and d/B .............................................................................................. 13 
Figure 7 BCR versus h/B ratio ................................................................................................ 14 
Figure 8 BCR versus type of reinforcement ........................................................................... 16 
Figure 9 BCR versus settlement ratio (s/B) (Df /B = 1.0) ....................................................... 17 
Figure 10 SRF versus applied footing pressure (q) ................................................................ 17 
Figure 11 Stress distributions along the center line of footing at a depth of 1.67B below the
footing .................................................................................................................... 18 
Figure 12 Strain distributions along the center line of BX6100geogrid ................................. 19 
Figure 13 Failure mode of silty clay ....................................................................................... 22 
Figure 14 Coefficients of punching shear resistance under vertical load ............................... 23 
Figure 15 Failure mode of sand .............................................................................................. 24 
Figure 16 Failure mode of reinforced crushed limestone ....................................................... 25 
Figure 17 Simplified strain distribution along the reinforcement ........................................... 27 
Figure 18 Simplified distribution of vertical settlement in sand............................................. 27 
Figure 19 Strain influence factor distribution diagrams (after Schmertmann et al., 1978) ... 28 
Figure 20 Simplified shape of reinforcement in crushed limestone ....................................... 29 
Figure 21 BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced silty clay with BasXgrid11 geogrid 31 
Figure 22 BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced sand with BasXgrid11 geogrid ....... 31 
Figure 23 BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced crushed limestone ........................... 32 

ix
 
 INTRODUCTION

The presence of a weak soil (clay) supporting structural foundations (footings) results in low
load bearing capacity and excessive settlements, which can cause structural damage,
reduction in durability, and/or deterioration in performance level. Conventional treatment
methods were to replace part of the weak cohesive soil with an adequately thick layer of
stronger granular fill, increase the dimensions of the footing, or a combination of both
methods. However, an alternative and more economical solution is the use of geosynthetics
to reinforce soils, which can be done by either reinforcing cohesive soil directly or replacing
the poor soils with stronger granular fill in combination with the inclusion of geosynthetics.
The resulting composite zone (reinforced soil mass) will improve the load carrying capacity
of the footing and provide better pressure distribution on top of the underlying weak soils,
hence reducing the associated settlements.

One potential application is the use of reinforced soil foundations (RSF) in the design of
approach slabs for highway engineering applications to minimize the resulting differential
settlements immediately under the approach slab bearing location. Excessive differential
settlement of the concrete approach slab currently causes a significant bridge “bump”
problem, resulting in uncomfortable rides and frequent repairs. Methods to prevent the bump
from developing have involved the improvement of the natural soil under the embankment,
the use of selected embankments, and the use of piles with decreasing lengths supporting the
approach slab. One proposed solution is to use a rigid approach slab and transfer the traffic
loads to the two ends of the slab. Accordingly, a shallow foundation is needed at the end of
the approach slab far from the bridge to carry that part of load. To achieve better bearing
capacity and/or to prevent excessive settlement, the soil underneath the footing needs to be
reinforced; the designer will still need to consider roadway embankment settlement in the
design.

The benefits of the inclusion of reinforcements within soil mass to increase the bearing
capacity and reduce the settlement of soil foundation have been widely recognized. Many
hypotheses have been postulated about the failure mode of RSF. However, the failure
mechanism of reinforcement is still not fully understood in RSF as compared to other
reinforced soil applications. Therefore, it is important to investigate the reinforcement
mechanism of reinforcing soils for foundation applications.

1
 
 OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this research study is to investigate the potential benefits of using
reinforced soil foundations to improve the bearing capacity and to reduce the settlement of
shallow foundations on soils. These include: (1) examining the influences of different
variables and parameters contributing to the improved performance of RSF, (2) investigating
the stress distribution in soil mass with and without reinforcement and the strain distribution
along reinforcements, (3) understanding the failure mechanism of reinforced soil, (4)
developing regression models to estimate the bearing capacity of RSFs, and (5) conducting
stability analysis of reinforced soil foundations and developing a step-by-step procedure for
the design of reinforced soil foundations.

3
 
 SCOPE

This research project included conducting small-scale laboratory model footing tests on silty
clay soil, sandy soil, and crushed limestone, in addition to large-scale field tests on silty clay
soil. The model footings used in the laboratory tests were 1 in. thick steel plates with
dimensions of 6 in. × 6 in. and 6 in. × 10 in. The model footing used in the field tests was 8
in. thick, reinforced precast concrete block with dimensions of 1.5 ft. × 1.5 ft. The
experimental study also includes investigating the stress distribution in the soil mass with and
without reinforcement and the strain distribution along the reinforcement. Based on the
results of this study, existing analytical solutions were examined, and new methods based on
limit equilibrium analysis were proposed to calculate the bearing capacity of RSF for
different soil types.

5
 
 RESEARCH APPROACH

The testing program included conducting both small-scale and large-scale model footing tests
on three soil types (sand, silty clay, and crushed limestone) to investigate the influence of
different parameters involved in the design of RSF. The experimental study also includes the
investigation of the stress distribution in the soil mass with/without reinforcement and the
strain distribution along the reinforcement. A brief description of the testing program will be
presented here. Full details of the testing program can be found in the final report
(FHWA/LA08/423).

Properties of Tested Materials

Soils
Three different soil types were used in this study, sand, silty clay, and Kentucky crushed
limestone. The properties of these soils are summarized in tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1
Properties of sandy soil
Property Value
Effective particle size (D10) 0.0089 in.
Mean particle size (D50) 0.0177 in.
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 2.07
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.25
Maximum dry density# 101 lb/ft3
Optimum moisture content# 4.8%
USCS SP
AASHTO A-1-b
Friction angle* 44o to 48o

Table 2
Properties of silty clay/embankment soil
Property Value
Liquid limit 31
Plastic index 15
Silt content 72%
clay content 19%
Maximum dry density# 104 lb/ft3
Optimum moisture content# 18.75%
USCS CL
AASHTO A-6
Cohesion intercept* 0.73 psi to 3.57 psi
Friction angle* 25.96 o to 24.13o

7
 Table 3
Properties of Kentucky crushed limestone
Property Value
Effective particle size (D10) 0.0183 in.
Mean particle size (D 50) 0.2189 in.
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 20.26
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.37
#
Maximum dry density 142 lb/ft3
Optimum moisture content# 7.5%
USCS GW
AASHTO A-1-a
Friction angle* 53o
#
Standard Proctor test
* Large-scale direct shear tests on sand at maximum dry density

Reinforcement
Nine types of geosynthetics (eight geogrid types and one geotextile type), one type of steel
wire mesh, and one type of steel bar mesh were used in the present study. The physical and
mechanical properties of these reinforcements as provided by the manufacturers are
summarized in table 4.

Table 4
Properties of reinforcements
Ta, lb/ft Jb, lb/ft Aperture
Reinforcement Polymer Type
MDc CDd MDc CDd Size, in
Mirafi
Polyester 500 500 25000 25000 1.0×1.0
BasXgrid11 geogrid
Tensar BX6100 geogrid Polypropylene 250 350 12500 17500 1.3×1.3
Tensar BX6200 geogrid Polypropylene 375 510 18750 25500 1.3×1.3
Tensar BX1100 geogrid Polypropylene 280 450 14000 22500 1.0×1.3
Tensar BX1200 geogrid Polypropylene 410 620 20500 31000 1.0×1.3
Tensar BX1500 geogrid Polypropylene 580 690 29000 34500 1.0×1.2
Tenax MS330 Geogrid Polypropylene 418 616 20900 30800 1.65×1.96*
Mirafi Miragrid 8XT 0.875×
Polyester 1095 5480 54750 274000
geogrid 1.0
Mirafi HP570 geotextile Polypropylene 960 1320 48000 66000 ≈0
Steel Wire Mesh Stainless Steel 16170 30630 808500 1531500 1.0×2.0
Steel Bar Mesh Steel 66470 66470 3323500 3323500 3.0×3.0
a b
Tensile Strength (at 2% strain), Tensile Modulus (at 2% strain),
c
Machine Direction, dCross Machine Direction, *Single Layer Dimension

Testing Program
Small-Scale Laboratory Tests
The laboratory model footing tests were conducted inside a steel box with dimensions of 5 ft.
(length) × 3 ft. (width) × 3 ft. (height). The model footings used in the tests were 1 in. thick

8 
steel plates with dimensions of 6 in. × 6 in. and 6 in. × 10 in. The soil was compacted inside
the box using an 8 in. × 8 in. plate adapted to a vibratory jack hammer. The nuclear density
gauge and the geogauge stiffness device were used to control the construction of each soil
lift. The footings were loaded with a hydraulic jack against a reaction steel frame. The testing
procedure was performed according to the ASTM D 1196-93, where the load increments
were applied and maintained until the rate of settlement was less than 0.001 in/min for three
consecutive minutes. The load and the corresponding footing settlement for unreinforced and
reinforced soils were measured using a ring load cell and two dial gauges, respectively.

The test sections were instrumented with earth pressure cells (Geokon Model 4800 VW) to
measure the vertical stress distribution in the soil and electrical resistance strain gauges (EP-
08-250BG) to measure the distribution along the reinforcement. Figure 1 shows a complete
test-up, loading and reaction system, and instrumentation system used in the laboratory
model tests.

Reaction Frame

Hydraulic Jack Multiplexer

Dial Gauge Load Cell

Data Logger
Reference Beam

Computer

Figure 1
Laboratory test set up and instrumentation system

Large-Scale Field Tests

A total of six large-scale model footing tests were performed in an outdoor test pit
constructed next to the LTRC building. The test pit has a dimension of 12 ft. (length) × 12 ft.
(width) × 6 ft. (height). The soil was mixed with water using a tiller and compacted in lifts

9
 using a MultiQuip plate compactor and a Wacker-Packer tamper. The nuclear density gauge
and the geogauge stiffness device were used to measure the density and stiffness modulus for
construction control of each lift. The load was applied on the footing by a hydraulic jack
supported against a steel beam-steel piles reaction frame. A load cell was used to measure the
applied load. The settlement was measured using dial gauges mounted on reference beams.
The model footing used in the field tests was 8 in. thick, reinforced concrete block with
dimensions of 1.5 ft. × 1.5 ft. The soil selected for large-scale model tests was the silty clay
soil. The large-scale tests were performed according to the ASTM D 1196-93. A complete
field test set up and instrumentation system is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2
Field test set up and instrumentation system

10 
 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

In this study, two terms were used to evaluate the benefits of using RSF. The bearing
capacity ratio (BCR), which is defined as the ratio of the bearing capacity of the RSF to that
of the un-reinforced and the settlement reduction factor (SRF), which is defined as the ratio
of the settlement of the RSF to that of the unreinforced. Two different types of load-
settlement behavior were observed in the model footing tests. For the first type of load-
settlement curve as show in figure 3a, the failure point is not well defined. The benefits of
using RSF were then evaluated in terms of BCR at a specific settlement (BCRs) and RSF at a
specific surface pressure. Figure 3b depicts the second type of load-settlement curve which
has a well defined failure point. For this type of load-settlement behavior, BCR at a specific
settlement (BCRs), BCR at the ultimate bearing capacity (BCRu) and SRF at a specific
surface pressure were used to evaluate the improved performance of RSF.

Figure 4 depicts a typical geosynthetic RSF with the meaning of geometric parameters used
in the present study. The optimal values for reinforcement layout and the effect of types of
reinforcement and soil are determined based on BCR and SRF. The discussion also includes
stress distribution in soil with/without reinforcement and strain distribution along the
reinforcement.
Applied Pressure Applied Pressure
q qR q qR qu q u(R)
sR
s qu(R)
BCRu= qu
Footing Settlement

Footing Settlement

sR qR
BCRs = q
su
s sR
SRF = s
su(R)
qR
BCRs = q
sR
SRF = s
Unreinforced Reinforced Unreinforced Reinforced
Soil Soil Soil Soil

(a) (b)

Figure 3
Definitions of BCR and SRF

11
 D Footing
B Soil
u
N=1
h
N=2
d h
Geosynthetic
N=3
h
N=4
h
N=5
l
B: Width of footing
D : Depth of footing
u: Top layer spacing
h: Vertical spacing between layers
d: Total depth of reinforcement
N: Number of reinforcement layers
l: Length of reinforcement

Figure 4
Geosynthetic reinforced soil foundation

Effect of Reinforcement Top Spacing

The optimum location of the first reinforcement layer was investigated in the laboratory
model footing tests on silty clay and sand soils reinforced using BasXgrid11 and Miragrid
8XT reinforcements. Figures 5a and 5b (for example) show that the BCRs at different
settlement ratios increase with increasing the top layer spacing ratios (u/B) up to a maximum
value of u/B = 0.33, after which it decreases. The top layer spacing ratio (u/B) is defined as
the ratio of top layer spacing (u) to footing width (B). The optimum location of the top layer
is then estimated to be about 0.33B.
1.20 1.4
s/B=3% s/B=3%
1.15 1.3
s/B=10% Ultimate
1.10 s/B=16% 1.2
BCR

BCR

1.05 1.1

1.00 1.0

0.95 0.9

0.90 0.8
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
u/B u/B

(a) Silty clay soil (b) Sand soil

Figure 5
BCR versus u/B for one layer of reinforcement of BasXgrid11
12 
 Effect of Number of Reinforcement Layers
A series of laboratory model footing tests were conducted on the three soils reinforced with
multiple layers of different types of geosynthetics, placed at a spacing of 0.33B, to
investigate the influence depth of reinforcement (d). The effect of number of reinforcement
layers was also investigated in the large-scale tests using multi-layers of BX6200 geogrid
with a top layer spacing of 0.33B. Figures 6a and 6b present examples of the variations of
BCRs obtained at different settlement ratios with the numbers of reinforcement layers (N),
and hence the reinforcement depth ratios (d/B), for reinforced silty clay and reinforced sand,
respectively. The reinforcement depth ratio is defined as the ratio of the total depth of
reinforcement (d) to footing width (B). As expected, the bearing capacity increased with
increasing number of reinforcement layers. However, the significance of an additional
reinforcement layer decreases with the increase in number of layers. This effect becomes
negligible below the influence depth. The influence depth is the total depth of reinforcement
below which the rate of increase in BCR is negligible with an additional reinforcement layer.
It can be seen from these figures that the BCRs increase with N and d/B and appear to
become almost constant between N=4 (d/B=1.33) and N=5 (d/B=1.67) for geogrid reinforced
silty clay and between N=3 (d/B=1.0) and N=4 (d/B=1.33) for reinforced sand and geotextile
reinforced silty clay. Accordingly, the authors estimated the influence depth to be 1.5B for
geogrid reinforced clay and 1.25 B for reinforced sand and geotextile reinforced clay.

d/B d/B
0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 1.33 1.67 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 1.33
2.0 1.8
s/B=3% s/B=3%
1.8
s/B=10% 1.6
Ultimate
1.6 s/B=16%
BCR
BCR

1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2

1.0 1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4
N N

(a) BX6200 geogrid reinforced silty clay soil (b) BasXgrid11 geogrid reinforced sand soil
Figure 6
BCR versus N and d/B
Effect of Vertical Spacing of Reinforcement Layers
The effect of vertical spacing of reinforcement layers was investigated in the laboratory
model tests using three layers of BX6200 geogrid for silty clay and three layers of
13
 BasXgrid11 geogrid for sand with a top layer spacing of 2 in. (0.33B). The vertical spacing
of reinforcement varied from 0.167B to 0.667B for silty clay and from 0.167B to 0.5B for
sand. Figures 7a and 7b depict the variation in the BCR values obtained for different
settlement ratios as a function of the vertical spacing ratio (h/B), which is defined as the ratio
of the vertical spacing of reinforcement layers (h) to the footing width (B). It is obvious that
the BCR values decrease with increasing vertical spacing of reinforcement layers with a
maximum BCR value at h = 0.167B. The effect of vertical spacing on BCR is not
independent from other parameters. In fact, it is a function of the top layer spacing (u),
number of reinforcement layers (N), and reinforcement modulus. In design practice,
engineers have to balance between using smaller spacing of lower geogrid modulus and
using larger spacing of higher geogrid modulus.
1.8 1.6

1.5
1.6
1.4
BCR
BCR

1.4 1.3
s/B=3%
1.2 s/B=3%
s/B=10%
1.2 Ultimate
s/B=16% 1.1

1.0
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
h/B h/B
(a) Three layers of BX6200 geogrid (b) Three layers of BasXgrid11 geogrid
in silty clay in sand
Figure 7
BCR versus h/B ratio
Effect of Tensile Modulus/Type of Reinforcement
The effect of tensile modulus and type of reinforcement was investigated using both the
laboratory and large-scale model footing tests on the three soil types. Different types of
reinforcement with different tensile modulus were used in these tests as summarized in
table 1. Figure 8a presents the BCRs obtained for silty clay soil reinforced with multiple
layers of BasXgrid11, BX6100 geogrid, BX6200 geogrid, and HP570 geotextile, figure 8b
presents the BCRs obtained for sand soil reinforced with multiple layers of BasXgrid11
geogrid, BX6100 geogrid, HP570 geotextile and HP570/BX6100 composite; and figure 8c
presents the BCRs obtained for crushed limestone reinforced with multiple layers of BX1100
geogrid, BX1200 geogrid, BX1500 geogrid, BasXgrid 11, MS330 geogrid, Steel Wire Mesh
(SWM), and Steel Bar Mesh (SWB). The figures demonstrate that the performance of

14 
reinforced soil improves with increasing geogrid tensile modulus. However, the effect of the
tensile modulus seems to be a function of settlement. The variations of BCRs with settlement
ratios (s/B) for model footing tests on sand reinforced with multiple layers of different types
of reinforcements are presented in figure 9. It can be seen that the BCR generally increases
with the increase of settlement ratio (s/B). The settlement reduction factors (SRF) at different
footing pressures (q) for the model footing tests on silty clay soil reinforced with multiple
layers of BX6200 geogrid (for example) are presented in figure 10. It is obvious that the
inclusion of reinforcement would reduce the immediate settlement significantly. With three
or more layers of reinforcement, the settlement can even be reduced by 50 percent at a
footing pressure of 58 psi. The higher tensile modulus geogrids provide the better reduction
in immediate settlement than the lower tensile modulus geogrids.

15
 3.0 N u h
(in) (in)
2.5 1 2 ...
2 2 2
2.0 3 2 2
4 2 2
5 2 2
BCR

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
BX6100 BX6200 BasXgrid11 HP570
Type of Reinforcement

(a) Silty clay soil (s/B=24%)

3.0 N u h
(in)(in)
2.5 1 2 ...
2 2 2
2.0 3 2 2
4 2 2
BCR

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
BX6100 BasXgrid11 HP570 Composite
Type of Reinforcement
(b) Sand soil (s/B=12%)
3.0
N u h
(in) (in)
2.5
1 2 ...
2 2 2
2.0
3 2 2
BCR

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
BX1100 BX1200 BX1500 BasXgrid11 MS330 SWM SBM
Type of Reinforcement

(c) Crushed limestone s/B = 10%

Figure 8
BCR versus type of reinforcement

16 
 2.8 Type N u h B/L
(in) (in)
BasXgrid11 4 2 2 1
2.4 BasXgrid11 4 2 2 0.6
BX6100 4 2 2 1
BX6100 4 2 2 0.6
2.0 HP570 4 2 2 1
HP570 4 2 2 0.6
BCR

Composite 4 2 2 1
1.6 Composite 4 2 2 0.6

1.2

0.8
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
s/B
Figure 9
BCR versus settlement ratio (s/B) (Df /B = 1.0)

1.6
Type N u h
1.4 (in) (in)
1.2 BX6200 1 2 ...
BX6200 2 2 2
1.0 BX6200 3 2 2
BX6200 4 2 2
SRF

0.8 BX6200 5 2 2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
q (psi)

Figure 10
SRF versus applied footing pressure (q)
Vertical Stress Distribution for Reinforced Soils
Laboratory small-scale and field large-scale model tests were also used to evaluate the stress
distribution in the silty clay and sand soils with and without reinforcement inclusion.
Pressure cells were placed at specified locations/depths for this purpose. Examples of
measured stress distributions along the center line of the footing at a depth of 1.67B below
the footing are shown in figures 11a and 11b for laboratory model footing test and large-scale
field model footing test of reinforced silty clay soil, respectively. It should be noted that the
17
 stresses measured here by the pressure cells are the total vertical stresses induced by the
applied load, not including the stresses induced by the weight of soil. As can be seen from
these figures, the reinforcement resulted in redistribution of the vertical load to a wider area,
thus reducing stress concentration and achieving improved stress distribution. This improved
stress distribution below the influence depth is expected to decrease the total consolidation
settlement of the footing, which is directly related to the induced stresses.

(a) Small-scale laboratory model footing tests

16 Type u h N
(in) (in)
Unreinforced ... ... ...
BX6100 6 8 4
12 BX6200 6 12 3
BX6200 6 8 4
BX6200 6 6 5
BX1500 6 8 4
8 BOUSSINESQ
Stress (psi)

WESTERGAARD

0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-4
Relative Distance From the Center of Footing (x/B)

(b) Large-scale field model footing test

Figure 11
Stress distributions along the center line of footing at a depth of 1.67B below the footing

18 
 Strain Distribution along Reinforcement
The strain distribution along the reinforcement layers due to applied footing load was also
investigated in this study. Some reinforcement layers during laboratory and field model
footing tests were instrumented with strain gauges to measure the strain distribution along the
these reinforcements. The variations of strains along the centerline of BX6100 geogrid
measured at different settlement ratios(s/B) on reinforced silty clay are shown in figures 12a
and 12b for small-scale and large-scale model footing tests, respectively. The measured
tensile strain was maximum at the point beneath the center of the footing and becomes
almost negligible at about 2.0 ~ 3.0B from the center of footing. This indicates that the
geogrid beyond the effective length of le = 4.0 ~ 6.0B results in insignificant mobilized
tensile strength, and thus provides negligible effects on the improved performance of
reinforced soil foundations.

2.0
s/B
1%
1.5 2%
3%
4%
5%
Strain (%)

1.0 6%
8%
10%
12%
0.5 14%
16%

0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.5
Relative Distance From the Center of Footing (x/B)
(a) Small-scale laboratory model footing tests
1.5
s/B
1%
2%
1.0 3%
4%
5%
Strain (%)

6%
7%
0.5 8%
9%
11%
15%
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

-0.5
Relative Distance From the Center of Footing (x/B)
(b) Large-scale field model footing test
Figure 12
Strain distributions along the center line of BX6100geogrid

19
 
 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED SOIL FOUNDATIONS

Based on the literature review and the results of experimental study the five possible failure
modes can be identified for reinforced soil foundations: failure above the top layer of
reinforcement (Binquet and Lee, 1975); failure between reinforcement layers (Wayne et al.,
1998); failure similar to footings on a two layer soil system (strong soil layer over weak soil
layer) (Wayne et al., 1998); bearing failure within the reinforced zone; and partial punching-
shear failure in the reinforced zone. The first two failure modes can be avoided by keeping
the top layer spacing (u) and the vertical spacing between the reinforcement layers (h) small
enough. The results of experimental studies showed that the top layer spacing (u) and the
vertical spacing (h) need to be less than 0.5B to prevent these two failure modes from
occurring, where B is the width of footing. This requirement is not difficult to fulfill in
engineering practice, and therefore, the discussion here will be focused only on the latter
three failure modes. The authors’ observations from this experimental study showed that the
orientation of geosynthetic reinforcements at the ultimate load is close to the horizontal
direction in reinforced, clayey and sandy soil; the “confinement effect” is therefore believed
to be the dominant reinforcing mechanism in reinforced clayey and sandy soils. However, for
reinforced crushed limestone, due to its relatively larger particle sizes, the reinforcement is
believed to move together with the aggregates and therefore the “membrane effect” is
considered the major reinforcing mechanism in reinforced crushed limestone. These two
effects will lead to an increase in the bearing capacity of reinforced soils, and hence the
contribution of reinforcements to the increase in the bearing capacity needs to be included in
the design calculation.

The existing analytical solutions available in literature were first examined by comparing the
predicted bearing capacities from these methods with the measured values from the
small-scale and large-scale model footing tests conducted in this study. The results of
comparison showed that none of the existing methods were able to give a good prediction of
the measured capacities. Most of these solutions overestimate the results of model tests.
Stability analyses of reinforced soil foundations were then performed to develop more
rational analytical models for evaluating the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil
foundations for different soil types.

Analytical Solution for Reinforced Silty Clay Soil

Due to the cohesive nature of silty clay soil, the failure mechanism of footing on a two layer
system (strong soil layer over weak soil layer) controls the performance of reinforced clayey
soils. In this mechanism, a punching shear failure will occur in the reinforced zone, followed
21
 by a general shear failure in the unreinforced zone, as shown in figure 13. This type of failure
mode was first suggested by Meyerhof and Hanna (1978) for stronger soil underlying by
weaker soil. With some modification, Meyerhof and Hanna’s solution can be used to
calculate the bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation (Wayne et al., 1998).

Considering the strip footing case, as shown in figure 13, the forces on the vertical punching
failure surfaces aa’ and bb’ in the upper soil layer include the total passive earth pressure Pp,
inclined at an average angle δ, and adhesive force Ca = cad acting upwards; where ca is the
unit adhesion of soil along two sides and d is the depth of reinforcement. With the inclusion
of reinforcement, an upward shear force FT = ∑(Titan) will be induced by the tension effect
of reinforcement on the vertical failure surface; where Ti is the tensile force in the ith layer of
reinforcement and δ is the mobilized friction angle along two sides. The determination of Ti
will be discussed in subheading, “Tensile Force in Reinforcement.”

B
qu(R)
q q
a b
u Ca Ca
h Reinforcement   d
h Pp a' b' Pp

Figure 13
Failure mode of silty clay

The ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced silty clay soil can be given by modifying
Meyerhof and Hanna’s solution to incorporate the confinement effect of reinforcement as
follows for strip footing on a reinforced silty clay soil:
N
2 Ti tan 
2c a d  2D f  K s tan 
qu ( R )  qu (b )   d 2 1  
  i 1
 d (1)
B  d  B B

where qu(R) is the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation, qu(b) is the ultimate
bearing capacity of the underlying unreinforced soil; γ is the unit weight of soil; B is the
footing width; Df is the embedment depth of the footing; Ks is the punching shear coefficient,

22 
which depends on the friction angle of soil in the reinforced zone and the ultimate bearing
capacity of soil in both the reinforced zone and the underlying unreinforced zone;  is the
friction angle of soil in the reinforced zone; and N is the number of reinforcement layers. The
punching shear coefficient, Ks, can be obtained from figure 14. For uniform soil, i.e., the
same soil in both reinforced and underlying unreinforcecd zone, the unit adhesion, ca, equals
to the soil cohesion, c, and the mobilized friction angle, , equals to the friction angle, .

Similar to equation (1), the formula for ultimate bearing capacity of square footings on a
reinforced silty clay soil can be given as:
N
4 Ti tan 
4c a d  2D f  K s tan 
qu ( R )  qu (b )   2d 2 1  
  i 1
 d (2)
B  d  B B

40

35
q2/q
30 1
Punching Shear Coefficient (K s)

25

20

15 0

10 1
0
0
5
0 0
0
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Angle of Internal Friction (, deg)

Figure 14
Coefficients of punching shear resistance under vertical load
(after Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978)

Analytical Solution for Reinforced Sand Soil

Due to the flowability of sand, the failure of reinforced sand most likely occurs in the
reinforced zone, as shown in figure 15.
23
 To include the contribution of reinforcement, the method of superposition was used and an
additional term, ΔqT, was added to include the effect of tensile force T. The bearing capacity
equation for strip footing on reinforced sand will then be given as follows:
B
qu(R)
q q
a b
u Reinforcement e
h d
h
c
d
f

Figure 15
Failure mode of sand

qu ( R )  qu (UR )  qT  cN c  qN q  0.5BN   qT (3)

where, qu(UR) is the bearing capacity of unreinforced soil foundation, ΔqT is the increased
bearing capacity due to the tensile force of the reinforcement, c is the cohesion of soil, q is
the surcharge load, and Nc, Nq, and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors, which are dependent
on the friction angle of soil .

For the case of strip footing on reinforced sand, the increased bearing capacity, ΔqT, can be
given as:
N
4Ti u  i  1h
q T   (4)
i 1 B2

where, Ti is the tensile force in the ith reinforcement layer, u is the depth of first
reinforcement layer, and h is the reinforcement spacing. The ultimate bearing capacity of the
strip footing on reinforced sand soil can then be given as follows:
N
4Ti u  i  1h
qu ( R )  cN c  qN q  0.5BN    (5)
i 1 B2

Similarly, the ultimate bearing capacity of the square footing on reinforced sand soil can be
given as:
N
12Ti u  i  1hrT
qu ( R )  1.3cN c  qN q  0.4BN    (6)
i 1 B2

24 
where:
 u  i  1h     B   
1  2 tan   for u  i  1h  tan  
 B  4 2  2  4 2
rT   (7)
 1 u  i  1h B   
  for u  i  1h  tan  
 2 2H f 2  4 2

where, Hf is the depth of failure surface and can be evaluated as:

B
Hf  e  4 2  tan 
cos  (8)
2 cos 4   2 

Analytical Solution for Reinforced Crushed Limestone

Based on the test results of this study, the failure mechanism in reinforced crushed limestone
was identified to be as shown in figure 16, i.e., partial punching shear failure in the
reinforced zone followed by a general shear failure below it. As shown in the figure, the
forces on the vertical punching failure surfaces aa’ and bb’ include the total passive earth
pressure Pp, inclined at an average angle δ, and adhesive force Ca = caDP acting upwards;
where DP is the depth of the punching shear failure in the reinforced zone. For crushed
limestone, due to its relatively large particle size, the geogrid reinforcement is believed to
move together with the soil wedge abb’ca’ as shown in figure 16. An upward force along the
failure surfaces will be induced by the tension effect of reinforcement on the failure surfaces.

To estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced crushed limestone, Meyerhof and
Hanna’s solution for footings on a two-layer soil system was modified, and an additional
term ΔqT was added to include the effect of tensile force of reinforcement T.

B
qu(R)
q q
a b
Ca Ca
DP

Reinforcement Pp Pp
d

a' b'

c
d
f

Figure 16
Failure mode of reinforced crushed limestone

25
 For strip footing, the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced crushed limestone can be given
as follows:
2ca DP  2D f  K s tan 
qu ( R )  qu ( g )   DP 2 1  
  DP  qT (9)
B  DP  B

  
2Ti sin  
NP T
qT  2  i  
N
 4 2 (10)
i 1 B i  N P 1 B
where, qu(R) is the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation, qu(g) is the ultimate
bearing capacity of unreinforced soil located in the general shear failure zone, DP is the depth
of the punching shear failure in the reinforced zone= d /4, d is the depth of reinforced zone, Ti
is the tensile force in the ith layer of reinforcement, and Np is the number of reinforcement
layers located in the punching shear failure zone.

Similarly, the ultimate bearing capacity of the square footing on a reinforced crushed
limestone can be evaluated as:
4c a DP  2D f  K s tan 
qu ( R )  qu ( g )   2DP 2 1  
  DP  qT (11)
B  DP  B

       
4Ti sin    B  2u  i  1h  D P  tan   
NP T N  4 2   4 2 
qT  4  i   (12)
i 1 B i  N P 1 B2

Tensile Force in Reinforcement

To calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation using the proposed
analytical solutions, it is critical to find a reasonable procedure to estimate the tensile forces
in the reinforcement layers, Ti.

Reinforced Silty Clay

Based on the strain distribution measured along the reinforcements in reinforced silty clay
soil, it is recommended for design purposes to use maximum mobilized tensile strain values,
max, of 2 percent and 0.5 percent for the points beneath the center of footing for the top and
bottom reinforcement layers, respectively. The corresponding strain for reinforcements
located between the top and bottom layers can be linearly interpolated. A triangular
distribution, as shown in figure 17, is assumed here to describe the approximate strain
distribution along the reinforcement. The tensile force, T, developed at a certain point in
reinforcement can then be evaluated by the following equation:
Ti  J  i (13)
26 
where, J is the tensile modulus of reinforcement, and  is the strain at a certain point in the
reinforcement i.

2
max 2

a 1 1 d Reinforcement

Figure 17
Simplified strain distribution along the reinforcement
Reinforced Sand
The shape of reinforcement (or vertical settlement distribution) in sand soil can be assumed
to follow the simplified form shown in figure 18. The reinforcement beneath the footing is
assumed to move downward uniformly (lines bc). The reinforcement located outside of a
certain boundary (lines a-a’ and d-d’) is considered to have negligible strain.

a' d'

2 2 z
a 1 1 d Reinforcement
Se
b c

Figure 18
Simplified distribution of vertical settlement in sand

To calculate the elastic settlement Se at any depth in sand, we can integrate the strain in sand
below this depth with respect to depth, and the following formula suggested by Schmertmann
et al. (1978) can be applied:


S e  C1C 2 C 3 q  D f  I Ez

(14)
s

D f
C1  1  0.5 (15)
q  D f

 t 
C 2  1  0.2 log  (16)
 0 .1 
C3  1.03  0.03 L B  0.73 (17)

27
 where, C1 is a correction factor for the depth of embedment; C2 is a correction factor for
secondary creep in sand; C3 is a correction factor for the footing shape; q is the surcharge
load; Df is the embedment depth of the footing; I is the strain influence factor; z is the
thickness of subdivided soil layer; Es is the elastic modulus of sand; t is the time since
application of load (yr) (t0.1yr)); and L is the length of footing; B is the width of the
footing. Schmertmann et al. (1978) suggested a practical distribution of strain influence
factor (Iz) along the depth below the footings as shown in figure 19. The peak value of the
strain influence factor Ip is evaluated by the following equation:

q  D f
I p  0.5  0.1 (18)
 vp '

 vp '   D f  B / 2  (square footing) (19)

 vp '   D f  B  (strip footing) (20)

where, q is the bearing pressure of footing.

Strain Influence Factor, I 

0.1 0.2 I p
0

0.5

L/B = 1
zf /B

L/B 10
3

Figure 19
Strain influence factor distribution diagrams (after Schmertmann et al., 1978)

28 
Based on the above assumptions and analysis, the average strain (avg) for a reinforcement
layer at depth z below footing for a given footing settlement can be calculated as:
Lab  Lbc  Lcd  Lad L
 avg   (21)
Lad Lad

L  2 S e2  z 2   z
2
(22)

A triangle distribution, as shown in figure 17 is again assumed here again to describe the
approximate strain distribution along the reinforcement. The tensile force Ti, developed in a
reinforcement layer i, can be evaluated using equation (13).

Reinforced Crushed Limestone

The shape of reinforcement (or vertical settlement distribution) in crushed limestone can be
assumed to follow the simplified form shown in figure 20. The reinforcement in the soil
wedge beneath the footing is assumed to move down uniformly (lines cd). The reinforcement
outside of the wedge is taken as horizontal. The strain of the reinforcement beyond a certain
boundary (lines a-a’ and f-f’) is considered to be insignificant.

a' f'
1 1
2 2 z
a f R einforcem ent
b Se e
c d

Figure 20
Simplified shape of reinforcement in crushed limestone

The magnitude of elastic settlement (Se) in crushed limestone at a certain depth z beneath the
footing can be evaluated using Schmertmann’s method, similar to sand soil. To calculate Se
at any depth, one can integrate the strain below this depth and then apply equation (14).

Based on the above assumptions and analyses, the average strain (avg) in reinforcement at
depth z below the footing for a certain footing settlement can now be calculated as:
Lab  Lbc  Lcd  Lde  Lef  Laf L
 avg   (23)
Laf Laf

29
      
L  2 S e  2 A  2 A sin     2 A  tg    (24)
 4 2  4 2
where:

 0 for z  D P

A   Se for z  D P and S e  z  D P (25)
z  D for z  D P and S e  z  D P
 P

where, Se is the settlement at a depth z beneath the center of footing; z is the depth of
reinforcement = u + (i-1) h.

A triangle distribution, as shown in figure 17 is again assumed to describe the approximate

strain distribution along the reinforcement. The tensile force, Ti, developed in a
reinforcement layer i, can be evaluated using equation (13).

Verification of Analytical Model

The large number of laboratory model tests on reinforced sand and silty clay soils conducted
in this research program provides the experimental data needed to verify/compare the
analytical solutions described herein. The bearing capacity ratio (BCR) is used here to
compare between the results of laboratory model tests and the predicted values from
analytical solutions. The predicted ultimate bearing capacity ratios of the reinforced soils
were calculated based on aforementioned failure modes. The comparison between the results
of laboratory model tests and the predicted values from proposed analytical solution using
equation (2) is presented in figure 21 for BasXgrid 11 geogrid reinforced silty clay soil.
Figures 22 and 23 presents the comparisons for BasXgrid 11 geogrid reinforced sand using
equation (6) and BX1200 geogrid reinforced crushed limestone using equation (11),
respectively. More comparisons can be found in the final report. As indicated in these
figures, the proposed analytical solution provides a good prediction of BCR for the model
footing tests.

30 
 Figure 21
BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced silty clay with BasXgrid11 geogrid

Figure 22
BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced sand with BasXgrid11 geogrid
(Df/B = 0.0)

31
 Figure 23
BCR vs. number of layers (N) for reinforced crushed limestone
with BX1200 geogrid

32 
 CALCULATION EXAMPLE
Example 1: Reinforced Sand

To illustrate the analytical model, example calculations are presented for a case adopted from
model tests presented by Adams and Collin (1997).
The following data are given:
B = 2 ft., Df = 0.0 ft.,  = 92.3 pcf, N = 2, u/B = 0.25, h/B = 0.25, qu = 39.2 psi (unreinforced,
at s/B = 10%), J = 30830 lb/ft (average value in machine and cross-machine direction).
The following data are back-calculated:
 = 37.9º, Es = 511.3 psi

Step 1
Calculating the settlement at the first and second layers of reinforcement:
C1 = 1, C2 = 1, C3 = 1
First Layer (at a depth of z1 = u):

∆z Es z
I I∆z/Es
(in.) (psi) (in.)
6 511.3 9 0.986 0.043
6 511.3 15 1.175 0.051
6 511.3 21 0.961 0.042
6 511.3 27 0.747 0.032
6 511.3 33 0.534 0.023
6 511.3 39 0.320 0.014
6 511.3 45 0.107 0.005
 0.209

I  z
Se1  C1C2C3 q  D f 
Es
 (1)(1)(1)(39.2  0)(0.209)
 2.221 in.

33
 Second Layer (at a depth of z2 = u+h):

∆z Es z
I I∆z/Es
(in.) (psi) (in.l)
6 511.3 15 1.175 0.051
6 511.3 21 0.961 0.042
6 511.3 27 0.747 0.032
6 511.3 33 0.534 0.023
6 511.3 39 0.320 0.014
6 511.3 45 0.107 0.005
 0.166


S e 2  C1C 2 C3 q  D f  I Ez
s
 (1)(1)(1)(39.2  0)(0.166)
 1.768 in.

Step 2
Calculating the tensile forces in the first and second layers of reinforcement:
First Layer:

Lab  Lcd  se21   z1 2  2.2212  6 2  3.734 in.

2 2

Lbc  B  24 in.

Lad  B  z B  24  6  30 in.
Average strain:
Lab  Lbc  Lcd  Lad 3.734  24  3.734  30
 avg    4.88%
Lad 30

 max  2 avg  2  4.88%  9.76%

Strain at the triangle soil wedge faces ac and bc as shown in figure 15:
u u

tan  4   2 2
  max  3.86%
Bu
2
T1  J  30830  3.86%  1192 lb / ft

34 
Second Layer:

Lab  Lcd  se21   z 2 2  1.7682  12 2  6.259 in.

2 2

Lbc  B  24 in.

Lad  B  z B  24  12  36 in.

Lab  Lbc  Lcd  Lad 6.259  24  6.259  36

 avg    1.415%
Lad 36

 max  2 avg  2  1.415%  2.83%

uh uh

tan  4   2 2
  max  1.87%
Bu h
2
T2  J  30830  1.87%  575 .583 lb / ft

Step 3
Calculating the increased bearing capacity ΔqT:
 u  i  1h    
N
12Ti u  i  1h 1  2 tan   
 B  4 2 
q T   2
 15.5 psi
i 1 B

Step 4
Calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced sand:
qu ( R )  qu  qT  1.3cN c  qN q  0.4BN   qT  39.2  15.5  54.7 psi

Example 2: Reinforced Silty Clay

To illustrate the analytical model, example calculations are presented for five layers of
BX6200 geogrid placed at 6 in. spacing.
The following data are given:
B = 18 in., Df = 0.0 in.,  = 110 pcf, N = 5, u/B = 1/3, h/B = 1/3, qu = 130 psi (unreinforced, at
s/B=10%), J = 22130 lb. /ft. (average value in machine and cross-machine direction).
The following data are back-calculated:
c3.63 psi, = 28º

35
 Step 1
The tension developed in the reinforcement at different levels (based on measuring strain):
T1 = 181.6 lb./ft., T2 = 153.5 lb./ft., T3 = 125.4 lb./ft., T4 = 97.3 lb./ft., T5 = 69.2 lb./ft.

Step 2
Calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of the underlying unreinforced silty clay:
N q  14.72 , N c  25.8 , N   16.72 , d  30 in.

 
qb  1.3cN c   d  D f N q  0.4BN   157.5 psi

Step 3
Calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of the reinforced silty clay:
Ks = 4.796, ca = 3.63 psi, = 28º
N
4 Ti tan 
4c a d  2D f  K s tan 
qu  R   qb   2 t d 2 1  
 td  i 1
= 202 psi
B  d  B B

36 
 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The inclusion of reinforcement generally increased the ultimate bearing capacity of soil
and reduced the footing settlement.
(2) The optimum depth of the first reinforcement layer was estimated to be at 0.33B below
footing for all soils tested in this study.
(3) The bearing capacity of reinforced soil increases with increasing number of
reinforcement layers. However, the significance of an additional reinforcement layer
decreases with the increase in number of layers. The reinforcing effect becomes
negligible below the influence depth. The influence depth of reinforced sand was
obtained at approximately 1.25B regardless of the type of reinforcement and footing
embedment depth; while the influence depth of geogrid and geotextile reinforced silty
clay was obtained as about 1.5B and 1.25B, respectively.
(4) The BCR values decrease with increasing the vertical spacing of reinforcement layers.
For the tested soils and geogrid reinforcements, one can realize that the smaller the
spacing, the higher the BCR. In practice, the cost would govern the spacing and require
6 in.  h  18 in. For design purposes, engineers need to balance between reducing
spacing and increasing geogrid tensile modulus. However, the authors believe that an
h/B = 0.33 can be a reasonable value for use in the design of reinforced soil.
(5) Geogrid beyond the effective length (4.0 ~ 6.0B) results in insignificant mobilized tensile
strength and thus provides negligible reinforcement effect.
(6) In general, the performance of reinforced soil improves with increasing the reinforcement
tensile modulus. For a project controlled by settlement criteria, geogrid reinforcement is
generally considered to perform better for soil foundation than geotextile.
(7) The inclusion of reinforcement will redistribute the applied load to a wider area, thus
minimizing stress concentration underneath footing. The redistribution of stresses below
the reinforced zone will result in reducing the total consolidation settlement of the
underlying weak clayey soil which is directly related to the induced stress.
(8) The strain developed along the reinforcement is directly related to the settlement, and
therefore higher tension would be developed for geogrids with higher modulus under the
same footing settlement.
(9) Failure mechanisms were proposed for RSFs of different soil types based on the literature
37
 review and the results of model tests. Stability analyses were then conducted on the
proposed failure mechanisms to evaluate the contribution of reinforcement in terms of the
increase in soils’ bearing capacity, and new models were developed for RSFs of three soil
types. A reasonable estimation of the tensile force along the reinforcement was also
proposed.
(10) The proposed methods provide good predictions of laboratory model test results of this
study. The predicted bearing capacities of reinforced soil foundation by using the
methods of this study are also in good agreement with the field test results of previous
research for reinforced sand and this study for reinforced silty clay.

38 
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on extensive laboratory and field model footing tests, the following step-by-step
procedure is recommended for the design of reinforced soil foundations.
(1) Assume the footing width, B.
(2) Determine the bearing pressure along the bottom of a shallow foundation, q.
(3) Select the geogrid with specific tensile modulus (J), which can be obtained from
geogrid manufactures, and the proper reinforcement layout. Based on the
experimental test results of this study, typical design parameters for reinforcement
layout are recommended in table 5.
(4) Determine the possible failure mode of reinforced soil foundation based on the soil
type in the field.
(5) Determine the tensile forces, Ti, developed in the reinforcement layers using the
methods proposed in this study (refer to section "tensile force in reinforcement”).
(6) Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced soil foundation, qu(UR).
(7) Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation, qu(R) by using
equation (1) or (2) for clay, (5) or (6) for sand, and (9) or (11) for limestone.
(8) Calculate the allowable bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation, qa(R) as
qu( R )
q a( R )  (26)
FS

where, Fs is the factor of safety.

(9) If the allowable bearing capacity of reinforced soil foundation, qa(R), is lower than the
bearing pressure, q, repeat steps (1) through (8) for different reinforcement layout.

Table 5
Recommended design parameters for reinforcement layout
Parameter Typical value Recommended
u/B 0.2 ~ 0.5 1/3
h/B 0.2 ~ 0.5 1/3
d/B 1.3 ~ 1.7 1.5
l/B 4~6 5

39
 
 REFERENCES

1. Adams, M.T., and Collin, J.G., “Large Model Spread Footing Load Tests on
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Foundations.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No.1, 1997, pp. 66-72.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM D 1196-93, Standard Test
Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement
Components for Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements,
Philadelphia, PA. Reapproved 1997, pp.112-113.
3. Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L., “Bearing Capacity Analysis of Reinforced Earth Slabs.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No.GT12, 1975, pp.
1257-1276.
4. Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F., “Bearing Capacity Reinforced Horizontal Sandy
Ground.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9, 1990, pp. 51-82.
5. Huang, C.C., and Menq, F.Y., “Deep-footing and Wide-slab Effects in Reinforced
Sandy Ground.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 123, No.1, 1997, pp. 30-36.
6. Kumar, A., and Saran, S., “Bearing Capacity of Rectangular Footing on Reinforced
Soil.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.21, 2003, pp. 201-224
7. Meyerhof, G.G., and Hanna, A.M., “Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations on
Layered Soils Under Inclined Load.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No.4,
1978, pp. 565-572.
8. Schmertmann, J.H.; Hartman, J.P.; and Brown, P.R., “Improved Strain Influence
Factor Diagrams.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
104, No.GT8, 1978, pp. 1131-1135.
9. Wayne, M.H.; Han, J.; and Akins, K., “The Design of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Foundations.” Proceedings of ASCE’s 1998 Annual Convention & Exposition, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication, 76, 1998, pp. 1-18.
10. Westergaard, H.M., “A Problem of Elasticity Suggested by a Problem in Soil
Mechanics: Soft Material Reinforced by Numerous Strong Horizontal Sheets.”
Contributions to the Mechanics of Solids, Dedicated to Stephen Timoshenko,
Macmillan, New York, 1938, pp 268 – 277.

41