Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Construction Engineering

Volume 2013, Article ID 293809, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/293809

Research Article
Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on
Geogrid Reinforced Silty Clay and Sand

P. K. Kolay, S. Kumar, and D. Tiwari

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 1230 Lincoln Drive, MC 6603,
Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to P. K. Kolay; pkolay@siu.edu

Received 6 December 2012; Revised 12 May 2013; Accepted 26 May 2013

Academic Editor: Mohammed Sonebi

Copyright 2013 P. K. Kolay et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The present study investigates the improvement in the bearing capacity of silty clay soil with thin sand layer on top and placing
geogrids at different depths. Model tests were performed for a rectangular footing resting on top of the soil to establish the load
versus settlement curves of unreinforced and reinforced soil system. The test results focus on the improvement in bearing capacity
of silty clay and sand on unreinforced and reinforced soil system in non-dimensional form, that is, BCR. The results show that
bearing capacity increases significantly with the increased number of geogrid layers. The bearing capacity for the soil increases
with an average of 16.67% using one geogrid layer at interface of soils with / equal to 0.667 and the bearing capacity increases
with an average of 33.33% while using one geogrid in middle of sand layer with / equal to 0.33. The improvement in bearing
capacity for sand underlain silty clay maintaining / and / equal to 0.33; for two, three and four number geogrid layer were
44.44%, 61.11%, 72.22%, respectively. The finding of this research work may be useful to improve the bearing capacity of soil for
shallow foundation and pavement design for similar type of soil available elsewhere.

1. Introduction
The use of geosynthetic materials to improve the bearing
capacity and settlement performance of shallow foundation
has gained attention in the field of geotechnical engineering.
For the last three decades, several studies have been con-
ducted based on the laboratory model and field tests, related
to the beneficial effects of the geosynthetic materials, on the
load bearing capacity of soils in the road pavements, shallow
foundations, and slope stabilizations. The first systematic
study to improve the bearing capacity of strip footing by using
metallic strip was by Binquet and Lee [1, 2]. After Binquet
and Lees work, several studies have been conducted on the
improvement of load bearing capacity of shallow foundations
supported by sand reinforced with various reinforcing mate-
rials such as geogrids [39], geotextile [1012], fibers [13, 14],
metal strips [15, 16], and geocell [17, 18].
Several researches have demonstrated that the ultimate
bearing capacity and the settlement characteristics of the
foundation can be improved by the inclusion of reinforce-
ments in the ground. The findings from several laboratory
model tests and a limited number of field tests have been
reported in the literature [1925] which relates the ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations supported by sand
reinforced with multiple layers of geogrid. Recently, Yin [26]
compiled extensive literature in the handbook of geosynthetic
engineering on reinforced soil for shallow foundation. For
the design of shallow foundations in the field, the settlement
becomes the controlling criteria rather than the bearing
capacity. Hence, it is important to evaluate the improvement
in the bearing capacity of foundations at particular settlement
() level. From the finding of numerous researchers, it can
be concluded that the bearing capacity of soil also changed
with various factors like type of reinforcing materials, number
of reinforcement layers, ratios of different parameters of
reinforcing materials, and foundations such as (footing
width), / (location of the 1st layer of reinforcement to
width of footing), / (vertical spacing between consecutive
geogrid layer to width of footing), / (width of the geogrid
layer to width of footing), / (depth of footing to width
of footing), type of soil, texture, and unit weight or density of
soil, [6, 7].
2 Journal of Construction Engineering
Table 1: Properties of biaxial geogrid used in the present study.
Index property
Aperture size, mm
Minimum rib thickness, mm
Tensile strength @ 2% strain, kN/m
Tensile strength @ 5% strain, kN/m
Ultimate tensile strength, kN/m
Structural integrity
Junction efficiency, (%)
Flexural stiffness, Mg-cm
Aperture stability, m-N/deg
Durability
Resistance to installation damage, %SC/%SW/%GP
Resistance to long-term degradation, %
Resistance to UV degradation, %
Out of several studies, very few studies are available on
the two-layer soils. Generally, all the studies are ultimately
related to improvement in the bearing capacity of soil using
reinforcing materials and related to the effect of various
parameters on bearing capacity. The ratio of improvement in
the bearing capacity can be expressed in a nondimensional
form as bearing capacity ratio (BCR) which is the ratio of
bearing capacity of reinforced soil to bearing capacity of
unreinforced soil. Several studies [5, 6, 26] show the effect of
various parameters (e.g., /, /, /, and /), types of the test. The horizontal and vertical sides of the model tank
geosynthetic materials (e.g., geogrid, geotextiles, and geocell),
effects of footing width (), types of soils, layer of soils, and
so forth. But no studies are available on silty clay soil of
Carbondale, Illinois, related to the improvement in bearing
capacity of rectangular footing by placing sand layer on top of
silty clay soil (i.e., two-layered soil) and geogrid system. Most
of the studies either used sand or clay only and used geogrid
as the reinforcing material. The present study investigates the
bearing capacity of two layers of soil (i.e., a thin sand layer
underlain by silty clay) and also of single-layer silty clay soil
(for comparison purpose) with varying the number of biaxial
geogrid at different layers and by keeping other properties
constant.
2. Experimental Study
2.1. Materials Used. Two types of soils were used to conduct
the experimental study, that is, silty clay soil and sand.
2.2. Silty Clay Soil and Sand. The silty clay soil sample was
collected from New Era Road in Carbondale, Illinois. The
collected soil was sun-dried, pulverized, and passed through
US sieve # 10 (i.e., 2 mm) for different physical, engineering
properties and bearing capacity test. The properties of the
silty clay soil were determined in the laboratory by perform-
ing several tests using respective ASTM standard. A thin layer
of sand was placed on top of silty clay soil (two-layer soil
system) to evaluate the improvement on load bearing capacity
of the silty clay soil.
MD values XMD values
25.00 33.00 25.00 33.00
0.76 0.76
4.10 6.60
8.50 13.40
12.40 19.00
93.00
250,000
0.32
95/93/90
100
100
2.3. Geogrids. Biaxial geogrid was used in the present exper-
imental study. Biaxial geogrid has tensile strength in two
mutually perpendicular directions so that it gives more
strength to the soil. Different properties of the biaxial geogrid
are presented in Table 1.
2.4. Model Test Tank. A model test tank with the dimensions
having length ( ) 762.0 mm, width ( ) 304.8 mm, and
depth ( ) 749.3 mm was designed and fabricated to perform
are stiffened by using steel angle sections at the top, bottom,
and middle of the tank to avoid any lateral yielding during
soil compaction in the tank and also while applying load at
model footing during the experiment. Two side walls of the
tank were made of 25.4 mm thick Plexiglas plates, and the
other two side walls of the tank were made of 12.7 mm thick
Plexiglas plates, and these were also supported by 19.05 mm
wooden plates. The inside walls of the tank were smooth to
reduce the side friction.
2.5. Model Footing. A model footing, with the dimensions of
length () equal to 284.48 mm, width () equal to 114.3 mm,
and thickness () equal to 48.26 mm, was used in the
experimental study. The footing dimensions were selected
based on the model tanks dimension. The model footing was
designed in such a way that its width is less than 6.5 times the
depth of the model tank so that the effect of the load could not
reach the bottom of tank. The bottom surface of the model
footing was made rough by cementing a layer of sand with
epoxy glue to increase the friction between the footing base
and the top soil layer. Also a 12.7 mm thick steel plate was
used at the top of the model footing to reduce bending while
applying the load.
2.6. Laboratory Model Tests. In the present study the silty
clay soil was used at the bottom part of the model tank
overlaid by a small thickness of sand layer at the top.
The criterion of selection of the thickness of the top sand
layer is based on the studies by previous researchers [4].
Journal of Construction Engineering
In the geogrid reinforced model tests, the optimum values
related to the reinforcement arrangement, such as the loca-
tion of the first layer of reinforcement (), the vertical spacing
between consecutive reinforcement layers (), and the length
of each reinforcement layer (), were adopted based on the
model tank size and findings from the previous researchers.
Figure 1 shows the cross sectional view of the model tank
and the model footing with two-layer soil system having
different reinforcement layers. The model rectangular footing
with width () is supported by sand at the top layer and
silty clay soil at the bottom layer reinforced with number
of geogrid layers having a width . The vertical spacing
between consecutive geogrid layers is . The top layer of
geogrid is located at a depth measured from the base
of the model footing. The depth of reinforcement, , below
the bottom of the foundation can be calculated by using the
following:
= + ( 1) . (1)
The magnitude of the bearing capacity ratios (BCR) for a
given rectangular footing, silty clay soil, sand, and geogrid
will depend on different parameters like /, /, /, and
/ ratios. In order to conduct model tests with geogrid
reinforcement in two-layer soil system, that is, silty clay soil
and sand, it is important to decide the magnitude of /
and / to get the improvement of the bearing capacity for
a particular footing. Earlier researchers [10, 13, 14] found
that, for a model footing resting on surface (i.e., = 0)
having multiple layers of reinforcements for given values of
/, /, and /, the magnitude of BCRu (for unreinforced
case) increases with / and attains a maximum value at
(/)cr . If / is greater than (/)cr , the magnitude of BCRu
decreases. By analyzing several test results, Shin et al. [6]
determined that (/)cr for strip footing can vary between
0.25 and 0.5. Similarly, for given /, /, and / values,
the optimum value of / for surface foundation condition to
get the maximum increase in BCRu with using reinforcement
can vary from 6 to 8 for strip foundations [21]. By considering
the previous findings, it was decided to adopt the following
parameters for the present study:
/ = 0.33, 0.67; / = 0.33; / = 6.444,
number of geogrid layers (): 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
length of each reinforcement layer (): 73.66 cm.
3. Methodology
The specific gravity ( ) of silty clay soil and sand sample was
determined by using the ASTM D 854 method. For the sake
of accuracy, the average specific gravity is obtained from the
results of three tests. The standard Proctor compaction test
was conducted as per ASTM D 698 method to determine
the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
(OMC). The particle size distribution of the silty clay soil
and sand samples was obtained by using dry sieve as well
as hydrometer analyses according to ASTM D 422. ASTM
D 4318 method was used to determine the liquid limit and
plastic limit of the silty clay soil, and ASTM D 2166 method
3
B
Section
u = 38.1 mm Sand layer
1
d = 152.4 mm
Dt = 749.3 mm
h = 38.1 mm
2
h Silty clay oil
3
h
N
b
Figure 1: Layout of geogrid spacing in cross section of model tank
and footing.
has been used for the unconfined compression strength
(UCS) test to determine the cohesion () of the silty clay soil.
The maximum index density (i.e., minimum void ratio) and
the minimum index density (i.e., maximum void ratio) of the
sand samples were obtained according to ASTM D 4253 and
ASTM D 4254 methods, respectively. For the minimum index
unit weight, a small funnel was used to pour the sand in mold
from a small height (i.e., 25.4 mm) and for the maximum
index unit weight; the sand was vibrated for 10 minutes.
Direct shear test has been conducted to determine the friction
angle () of the sand sample by using the method mentioned
in ASTM D 3080.
The processed silty clay soil sample was kept in a big
container, and then 19% water (i.e., OMC of the silty clay
soil) was added to the soil and mixed thoroughly to make a
uniform homogeneous mixture. Before running the tests in
the model tank, the moisture content was checked for soil
water mixture. To obtain a uniform density, the silty clay soil
was compacted in 13 layers up to an approximately 673.1 mm
depth of the model test tank. An approximately 12.25 kg flat
round hammer was used to compact the silty clay soil in each
layer.
In the model test tank, the unit weight of the silty
clay soil was 86.8% of the maximum dry unit weight at
its optimum moisture content (OMC). After compaction
of the silty clay soil in the model tank up to 673.1 mm, a
76.2 mm thick sand layer was placed above the compacted
silty clay. For the bearing capacity tests, sand sample was
compacted in two layers with a thickness of 76.2 mm in
each layer. Biaxial geogrid reinforcements were placed at pre-
determined depths below the base of the model footing. The
model footing was placed at the top of sand layer. All tests
were conducted at a constant relative density of sand, ,
equal to 96% of sand and relative compaction of silty clay soil,
that is, 86.8% of the maximum dry unit weight of silty clay.
The load was applied to the model footing by using a manual
hydraulic pump system with a capacity of an approximately
44.48 kN. The loading rate was kept constant in every test.
The load and corresponding foundation settlement were
measured by using a load cell and a dial gauge, respectively.
4 Journal of Construction Engineering

Table 2: Different tests and parameters used in the experimental investigation.

Test no. Test types / / /

1 Silty clay soil only 0 0 0 0
2 Sand only 0 0 0 0
3 Local soil and sand layer 0 0 0 0
4 1 geogrid in the interface of silty clay soil and sand layer 1 0.67 0 6.44
5 1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer in two-layer soil 1 0.33 0 6.44
6 1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer and 1 geogrid in the interface of 2 0.33 0.33 6.44
two soils
7 1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer, 1 in the interface of two soils, 3 0.33 0.33 6.44
and 1 in silty clay soil, respectively
8 1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer, 1 in the interface of two soils, 4 0.33 0.33 6.44
and 1 in silty clay soil, respectively

In the present study, different tests that were conducted for 100
silty clay soil, sand, and two-layer soil system with varying 90
numbers of geogrid layers are presented in Table 2. 80
70
Finer (%) 60
4. Results and Discussion
50
4.1. Physical and Engineering Properties of Silty Clay Soil 40
and Sand. The results of various physical and engineering 30
properties of silty clay and sand are presented here. The
20
results of specific gravity ( ) test for the silty clay and sand
were measured to be 2.67 and 2.64, respectively. 10
The particle size distribution curve for the silty clay 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
soil obtained from sieve analysis and hydrometer tests is Particle size (mm)
presented in Figure 2. From Figure 2, it is clear that 97.9% of
the soil passed through the US sieve # 200. The soil consists Silty clay
of 30% clay-sized particles (<2 m), 67.9% silt-sized particles Sand
(2 m to 75 m), and 2.1% sand-sized particles (75 m to
Figure 2: Particle size distribution curve for the silty clay soil and
2 mm).
sand used in the study.
The liquid limit and the plastic limit for the silty clay soil
sample were measured to be 42% and 19%, respectively. The
particle size distribution of sand sample used in the present 18
study was also presented in Figure 3. Uniformity coefficient
Dry unit weight (kN/m3 )

( ) and coefficient of curvature ( ) calculated to be 1.83 17

and 1.89, respectively, and the effective particle size (10 ) 16
is calculated to be 0.18 mm. Hence, the sand is classified as
15
poorly graded sand (SP) according to unified soil classified
system (USCS). 14
The results of standard Proctor compaction test for silty 13
clay soil is presented in Figure 3. From Figure 3 it is observed
12
that the maximum dry unit weight ( max ) and optimum 5 10 15 20 25 30
moisture content (OMC) of the silty clay soil are 16.73 kN/m3 Moisture content, w (%)
and 19%, respectively.
Figure 3: Standard Proctor compaction curve for the silty clay soil.
The properties of silty clay soil used in the present
study are summarized in the Table 3. The results of uncon-
fined compressive strength (UCS) test are also presented in
Table 3. 4.2. Determination of Ultimate Bearing Capacity. Figure 4
Based on the two UCS tests, the average value of uncon- shows the bearing pressure versus settlement curves obtained
fined compressive strength is equal to 90.32 kN/m2 , and from all the tests conducted in this study. From Figure 4, it
undrained cohesion () is calculated to be 45.16 kN/m2 . The is noticed that no distinctive failure point has been observed
physical and engineering properties of the sand tested are in bearing capacity tests. Several methods are available to
presented in Table 4. estimate the ultimate bearing capacity (UBC, i.e., ) from
Journal of Construction Engineering 5

Table 3: Properties of silty clay soil used in the present study. Bearing pressure (kN/m2 )
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Property Values 0
Specific gravity ( ) 2.67 10

Settlement, s (mm)
Liquid limit (LL), % 42.00 20
30
Plastic limit (PL), % 19.00
40
Plasticity index (PI), % 23.00 50
Maximum dry unit weight (dmax ), kN/m3 16.73 60
Optimum moisture content (OMC), % 19.00 70
Undrained cohesion () from UCS test, kN/m2 45.16 80
USCS classification CL 90

1 geogrid at junction of two soil (u/B = 0.667)

1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer (u/B = 0.333)
Table 4: Properties of sand used in the present study. 2 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
3 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
Property Values 4 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
Specific gravity ( ) 2.64 Silty clay and sand layer
Liquid limit (LL), % N/A Silty clay
Plastic limit (PL), % Nonplastic
Figure 4: Bearing pressure versus settlement curves for all the
Plasticity index (PI), % N/A experimental tests.
Maximum void ratio (max ) 0.675
Minimum void ratio (min ) 0.466
Bearing pressure (kN/m2 )
Relative density ( ) of sand, % 96.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Angle of internal friction (), ( ) 35.40 0
Settlement , s/width, B (%)

Coefficient of uniformity ( ) 1.83 10

Coefficient of curvature ( ) 0.89 20
USCS classification SP 30
40
50
the bearing pressure versus the settlement curve. Each 60
method gives a different value of the ultimate bearing capacity 70
is and it hard to decide which method is more accurate. 80
Currently, four methods are available to estimate the failure
of a shallow foundation, based on load settlement curves, but 1 geogrid at middle of sand layer (u/B = 0.33)
1 geogrid at junction of two soils (u/B = 0.667)
if there is no distinct failure pattern of the foundation/soil
2 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
system available, the values obtained by using different 3 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
methods have the following order [27, 28]: log-log method 4 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
< tangent intersection method (TIM) < 0.1 B method < Silty clay and sand layer
hyperbolic method. Out of all available methods, we used the Silty clay
10% width of footing method (i.e., 0.1 B method), and tangent
intersection method (TIM) to find the ultimate bearing Figure 5: Bearing pressure versus / (%) curves for all the
capacity for each case in our experimental study. experimental tests.

4.3. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Silty Clay Soil. At first, 4.4. Theoretical Ultimate Bearing Capacity. The theoretical
the bearing capacity test was performed on the silty clay soil ultimate bearing capacity for double-layer soil system is
and the settlement () is expressed into a nondimensional calculated by using Meyerhof and Hannas [29] equation as
form by dividing the width of footing (). The bearing follows. They assumed that the top layer is strong sand and
pressure () versus settlement/width ratios (i.e., /) is shown bottom layer is saturated soft clay.
in Figure 5. By analyzing the load settlement curve, no The ultimate bearing capacity for top layer can be calcu-
distinct failure point has been observed for a rectangular lated by using (2)
footing in the silty clay soil. From Figure 5, it can be estimated
that the ultimate bearing capacity ( ) for silty clay soil is = 1 1 1 + 0.51 1 1 . (2)
about 172.37 kN/m2 .
The bearing capacity test conducted on only sand layer The ultimate bearing capacity for bottom layer can be calcu-
compacted at 97% of its maximum density is presented in lated by using the following:
Figure 6. From Figure 6, it can be calculated that the average 0.2
ultimate bearing capacity ( ) of sand is about 174.76 kN/m2 . = (1 + ) 5.142 + 1 ( + ) . (3)

6 Journal of Construction Engineering

Bearing pressure (kN/m2 ) Bearing pressure (kN/m2 )

0 40 80 120 160 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0 0

Settlement, s/width, B (%)

5 5
Settlement, s (mm)

10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25 1 geogrid at junction of two soil (u/B = 0.667)
1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer (u/B = 0.333)
Test 1 2 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
Test 2 3 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
4 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
Figure 6: Bearing pressure versus settlement curves for the sand.
Figure 7: Estimation for ultimate bearing capacity ( ) from bearing
pressure versus / (%), (10% BM).
Hence, the ultimate bearing capacity, , for the double layer
system can be calculated by using the following:
Bearing pressure (kN/m2 )
0.2
= (1 + ) 5.142 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Settlement, s/width, B (%)

2 tan
+ 1 2 (1 + ) (1 + ) + 1
1 1 1 + 0.51 1 1 ,
where c2 is the undrained cohesion for silty clay soil and
is the punching shear coefficient which depends on ratio of
2 /1 where 2 /1 = 2 2 /0.51 1 .
In the present study, the top layer is poorly graded sand
(SP) with an effective particle size (10 ) equal to 0.18 mm.
With an angle of internal friction, = 35 , the bearing
capacity factor, , , , can be obtained as 46.12, 33.30,
and 48.03, respectively. The bottom layer is local silty clay
(CL) with 19% water content and the angle of internal friction,
= 0 . For = 0 the bearing capacity factors can be obtained
as = 5.14, and = 1, = 0.
From (4), the ultimate bearing capacity ( ) for double-
layer soil system can be obtained as 250.59 kN/m2 . Also from
(4), the bearing capacity of the top layer can be calculated
as 43.31 kN/m2 , which is quite low because the model width
of the footing is only 114.3 mm as compared to the real
foundation size.
4.5. Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two-Layered Soil System
Using Geogrid. Five tests were conducted on double- or two-
layer soil system by placing geogrid at different depths from
the base of the footing and also varying the number of geogrid
layers. Figure 4 shows the bearing pressure versus settlement
curves for all tests. There is no distinct failure point observed
on bearing capacity versus settlement curve.
The 10% width of footing method and, tangent inter-
section method are used to estimate the ultimate bearing
capacity for shallow foundation which is shown in Figures 7
and 8, respectively. From Figure 7, it is clear that the bearing
(4) 5
10
15
20
25
1 geogrid at junction of two soil (u/B = 0.667)
1 geogrid at the middle of sand layer (u/B = 0.333)
2 geogrid at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
3 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
4 geogrids at double layer soil system (u/B = 0.33 & h/B = 0.33)
Figure 8: Estimation for ultimate bearing capacity ( ) from
bearing pressure versus / (%), (TIM).
capacity increases with the increase in the number of geogrid
layers. Out of five tests, two tests were conducted by using
one geogrid layer but at various positions, that is, the depth
of geogrid from the base of footing is different. This is the
case of varying / (i.e., depth of first layer of geogrid/width
of footing) ratio by keeping the number of geogrid layer
constant. While in other tests, the / ratio (depth of first
layer of geogrid/width of footing) and / (consecutive
height of two geogrids layers) ratio were kept constant but
varying the number of geogrid layer. 10% (width of footing)
method is used to find out the ultimate bearing capacity for all
these cases. The ultimate bearing capacity values with geogrid
layer can be compared with unreinforced soil condition for
single layer and also for two-layer system. The results of
various tests conducted on two-layer soil system with and
without geogrids are presented in Table 5.
Journal of Construction Engineering 7

Table 5: Ultimate bearing capacities for different tests for two layers under different conditions.

Ultimate bearing Percentage (%) BCR

Test
Different conditions of two-layer soil capacity (kN/m2 ) improvement in BC
no.
10% BM TIM 10% BM TIM 10% BM TIM
1 Two-layer soil 184.34 141.25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
2 1 geogrid in interface of silty clay soil and sand layer 201.10 153.22 9.00 8.49 1.09 1.08
3 1 geogrid at the sand in two-layer condition 229.83 172.37 24.67 22.03 1.24 1.22
1 geogrid in between the sand and 1 geogrid in the
4 248.98 201.10 35.06 42.37 1.35 1.42
junction of two soils
1 geogrid in between the sand, 1 in the junction of
5 277.71 210.67 50.06 49.15 1.50 1.49
two soils, and 1 in silty clay soil, respectively
1 geogrids in between the sand, 1 in the junction of
6 296.86 215.46 61.03 61.03 1.61 1.52
two soils, 2 in silty clay soil, respectively

Table 6: Ultimate bearing capacity comparison for all tests with respect to silty clay soil only (based on 10% footing width method).

Percent (%)
Test no. Ultimate bearing BCR
Test types improvement in
capacity (kN/m2 )
BC
1 Silty clay soil only 172.37 0.00 1.00
2 Silty clay soil and the top layer sand 184.34 7.00 1.07
3 1 geogrid in the interface of silty clay soil and sand layer 201.10 16.67 1.16
4 1 geogrid at the sand in two-layer condition 229.83 33.33 1.33
5 1 geogrid in between the sand and 1 geogrid in the junction of two 1.44
248.98 44.44
soils
6 1 geogrid in between the sand, 1 in the junction of two soils, and 1 in 1.61
277.71 61.11
silty clay soil, respectively
7 1 geogrid in between the sand, 1 in the junction of two soils, 2 in silty 1.72
296.86 72.22
clay soil, respectively

4.6. Improvement in Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Silty Clay
Soil Using Sand and Geogrid. The present experimental study
investigates the effect of reinforcement in the load bearing
capacity of the rectangular footing in silty clay soil. Two tests
were performed without using the geogrid for a comparison
purpose to see the effect of geogrid. The ultimate bearing
capacity obtained from the experimental investigations for
reinforced cases was compared with the ultimate bearing
capacity of the unreinforced case, that is, silty clay soil only.
The bearing capacity of the silty clay soil only is considered
as the reference value to be compared with the bearing
capacities of all other geogrid reinforced soil system. In all
these investigations, only one type of biaxial geogrid was
used. In these tests the / ratio is equal to 0.33 (the depth
of 1st layer of geogrid from the footing to the width of
footing) and / (depth of consecutive layer of geogrid to
the width of footing), ratio remains the same except in one
test where only one geogrid was used at the interface of
sand layer and silty clay soil with / ratio of 0.667. The
results of ultimate bearing capacity based on 10% method,
percentage improvement in bearing capacity with respect to
silty clay soil only, and bearing capacity ratio (BCR) obtained
from all test series are summarized in Table 6. The results
show that for the same quantity settlement the ultimate
carrying capacity increases with the inclusion of sand and
geogrids layers. Sitharam and Sireesh [30] have conducted
bearing capacity test of circular footing on base geogrid with
geocell-reinforced sand overlying soft clay (CL), and they also
observed similar test results. Khing et al. [31] have conducted
model test to determine the bearing capacity of strip footing,
and they found that the maximum bearing capacity increased
when geogrid has been placed at the interface between two
different layers of soil; the present study also observed similar
trend of results. Omar et al. [32] studied the bearing capacity
of strip footing with geogrid-reinforced sand with / and
/ equal to 0.33, and they found that ultimate load per unit
area with 1, 2, 3, and 4 number of geogrid was approximately
150, 200, 300, 315 kN/m2 , respectively. In the present study
with the same / and / ratios, the ultimate bearing
capacity varies from 201.10 to 296.86 kN/m2 with the same
number of geogrids used, when ultimate bearing capacity has
been calculated by using 10% BM method. Kumar et al. [33]
have studied the bearing capacity of strip footing resting on
two-layer sand, and they also found similar trend with the
present study. Demir et al. [34] have conducted model studies
of circular footing resting on soft soil, and they also observed
a similar trend of / (settlement/diameter of the footing)
versus pressure diagram.
As we can see from the result that, when a small thickness
of sand layer is placed on the top of silty clay soil layer,
the bearing capacity increases in small magnitude (i.e., 7%)
because the sand has more strength and slightly more unit
8 Journal of Construction Engineering

Table 7: Comparison of ultimate bearing capacity based on / ratio.

UBC (kN/m2 ) % improvement

No. of geogrids Test types /
10% BM TIM 10% BM TIM
1 1 geogrid in the interface of silty clay soil and sand layer 0.67 248.98 153.22 N/A N/A
1 1 geogrid at the sand in two-layer condition 0.33 229.83 172.37 14.28 12.50

weight as compared to the silty clay soil. After putting the 2

geogrids in the two-layer system the load-carrying capacity
1.8
is significantly increased as compared to the bearing capacity
of silty clay soil and silty clay soil with the top layer of sand; 1.6

hence it can be concluded that the bearing capacity mainly
increased from the geogrid soil interaction. The result proved
that the placement of geogrid also affects the bearing capacity
in the two-layer soil system; that is, / ratio also affects the
bearing capacity.
The experimental study was performed in the two layer
of soil system; that is, a portion of the silty clay soil was
replaced by a 76.2 mm thick layer of sand at the top. Five tests
were performed to evaluate the effect of geogrid layer on the
same kind of soil system. The BCR value is assumed one for
the sand overlying the silty clay soil without using geogrid.
It can be taken as a reference value for the comparison
purpose in the same arrangement; hence, it is possible
to observe the improvement in the bearing capacity after
using the geogrid. The results are also presented in Table 5.
From Table 5 it is concluded that there is a significant
increase in the bearing capacity after increasing the number
of geogrid layers. Therefore, geogrid can be considered as a
good reinforcing material.
Two tests were performed with the same number of
geogrids to evaluate the effect of the distance () between the
base of footing and geogrid, that is, the distance of the 1st
geogrid from the base of the footing. Generally the distance is
expressed in the form of nondimensional unit as /, where
is depth of first layer of geogrid from the base of footing and
is width of footing. The ultimate bearing capacity calculated
based on / ratio is presented in Table 7. In one test the /
was kept 0.33; that is, geogrid was placed at 38.1 mm from
the base of footing and the ultimate bearing capacity of the
footing, supported by the two-layer of soil is measured to be
229.83 kN/m2 . In the other test the / was 0.667; that is,
the geogrid was placed at 76.2 mm from the base of footing
in the two-layer system of soil, and the bearing capacity was
measured to be 248.98 kN/m2 . These results show that, if the
/ increases, the bearing capacity increases. These results
are consistent with other studies which show the effect of /
ratio on the bearing capacity of various footing supported on
different kinds of soils. It has been observed that the bearing
capacity increases as the / ratio increases, and the present
study has also shown the similar trend in case of two-layer
soil system.
Figure 9 shows the effect of number of the geogrid layers
on the two-layer soil system. The ultimate bearing capacity
increases with the increase in the number of geogrid layers.
In the beginning the improvement is more significant as
compared to last stage so that it can be concluded that the top
BCR
1.4
1.2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of geogrid (N)
Figure 9: Bearing capacity ratio (BCR) with the number of geogrids
in two layer soil systems.
layer of geogrid has a more contribution to the improvement
of bearing capacity of silty clay soil. Omar et al. [32] also
observed similar trend with BCR approximately equal to 3.8
and with / equal to 0.33, whereas in present study with
same / ratio BCR is approximately 1.61 with the same
number of geogrid layers.
5. Conclusions
The present study investigates the effect of geogrids on sand
layer underlain by silty clay soil towards the improvement of
bearing capacity of rectangular footing. The silty clay soil and
sand used are classified as CL and SP, respectively, based on
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
A number of model tests were performed to evaluate
the load-carrying capacity of a rectangular model footing
supported on the silty clay soil overlaid with small thickness
of sand and with inclusion of geogrids at different depths
from the base of the footing. Based on the model tests, the
following conclusions are drawn.
(i) The load-carrying capacity of the silty clay soil
obtained from Carbondale, Illinois, increased by 7%
when the top of the silty clay soil was replaced with
76.2 mm thick layer of sand.
(ii) The bearing capacity for the two-layer soil increases
with an average of 16.67% using one geogrid layer at
interface of soil (i.e., silty clay soil and sand) with the
/ equal to 0.667. The bearing capacity for the two-
layer soil increases with an average of 33.33% while
using one geogrid in the middle of sand layer having
the / equal to 0.33.
(iii) The improvement in bearing capacity for double layer
soil maintaining / and / equal to 0.33; for two,
Journal of Construction Engineering
three and four number geogrid layer were 44.44%,
61.11%, 72.22%, respectively.
(iv) Bearing capacity is also dependent on / ratio; that
is, bearing capacity is higher if the / is higher.
Based on the results of this study, it is concluded that the
bearing capacity of the silty clay soil can be improved by using
the geogrid. The finding of this research work may be useful
to improve the strength of soil for foundation and pavement
design for a specific area or similar types of soils available
elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor V. K. Puri
for his guidance on experimentation and critical comments
throughout the study. The authors also would like to thank
Mr. John Hester of Geotech laboratory for fabricating the test
tank and instrumentation.
References
[1] J. Binquet and K. L. Lee, Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol.
101, no. 12, pp. 12411255, 1975.
[2] J. Binquet and K. L. Lee, Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced
earth slabs, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, vol.
101, no. 12, pp. 12571276, 1975.
[3] G. W. E. Milligan, R. J. Fannin, and D. M. Farrar, Model and
full-scale tests on granular layers reinforced with a geogrid, in
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Geotextiles,
vol. 1, pp. 6166, Vienna, Austria, 1986.
[4] K. H. Khing, B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, S. C. Yen, and E. E.
Cook, Foundation on strong sand underlain by weak clay with
geogrid at the interface, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 13,
no. 3, pp. 199206, 1994.
[5] B. M. Das, K. H. Khing, and E. C. Shin, Stabilization of
weak clay with strong sand and geogrid at sand-clay interface,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1611, pp. 5562, 1998.
[6] E. C. Shin, B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, S. C. Yen, and E. E. Cook,
Bearing capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced
clay, Geotechnical Testing Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 535541,
1993.
[7] C. R. Patra, B. M. Das, and C. Atalar, Bearing capacity
of embedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 454462, 2005.
[8] B. R. Phanikumar, R. Prasad, and A. Singh, Compressive load
response of geogrid-reinforced fine, medium and coarse sands,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 183186, 2009.
[9] Y. L. Dong, J. Han, and X.-H. Bai, Bearing capacities of geogrid-
reinforced sand bases under static loading, in Proceedings of
GeoShanghai International Conference: Ground Improvement
and Geosynthetics, pp. 275281, June 2010.
[10] V. A. Guido, D. K. Chang, and M. A. Sweeney, Comparison
of geogrid and geotextile reinforced earth slabs, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 435440, 1986.
[11] J. P. Sakti and B. M. Das, Model tests for strip foundation on
clay reinforced with geotextile layers, Transportation Research
Record, no. 1153, pp. 4045, 1987.
9
[12] P. K. Basudhar, S. Saha, and K. Deb, Circular footings resting on
geotextile-reinforced sand bed, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 377384, 2007.
[13] J. O. Akinmusuru and J. A. Akinbolade, Stability of loaded
footings on reinforced soil, Journal of the Geotechnical Engi-
neering Division, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 819827, 1981.
[14] T. Yetimoglu, M. Inanir, and O. E. Inanir, A study on bearing
capacity of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills
overlying soft clay, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 23, no.
2, pp. 174183, 2005.
[15] R. J. Fragaszy and E. Lawton, Bearing capacity of reinforced
sand subgrades, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 110,
no. 10, pp. 15001507, 1984.
[16] C.-C. Huang and F. Tatsuoka, Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 5182, 1990.
[17] S. K. Dash, N. R. Krishnaswamy, and K. Rajagopal, Bearing
capacity of strip footings supported on geocell-reinforced sand,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 235256, 2001.
[18] S. K. Dash, S. Sireesh, and T. G. Sitharam, Behaviour of
geocell-reinforced sand beds under circular footing, Ground
Improvement, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 111115, 2003.
[19] B. M. Das and M. T. Omar, The effects of foundation width
on model tests for the bearing capacity of sand with geogrid
reinforcement, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 12,
no. 2, pp. 133141, 1994.
[20] T. Yetimoglu, J. T. H. Wu, and A. Saglamer, Bearing capacity
of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 174183, 1994.
[21] K. H. Khing, B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, E. E. Cook, and S. C.
Yen, The bearing-capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-
reinforced sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 351361, 1993.
[22] M. T. Adams and J. G. Collin, Large model spread footing load
tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 123, no. 1,
pp. 6672, 1997.
[23] M. T. Omar, B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, and S. C. Yen, Ultimate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid
reinforcement, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 545549, 1993.
[24] E. C. Shin, B. M. Das, E. S. Lee, and C. Atalar, Bearing capacity
of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand, Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 169180, 2002.
[25] N. C. Samtani and R. C. Sonpal, Laboratory tests of strip
footing on reinforced cohesive soil, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, vol. 115, no. 9, pp. 13261330, 1989.
[26] J. H. Yin, Modelling geosynthetic-reinforced granular fills over
soft soil, Geosynthetics International, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 165185,
1997.
[27] B. A. Cerato, Scale effects of shallow foundation bearing capacity
on granular material [Ph.D. thesis], University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Amherst, Mass, USA, 2005.
[28] A. J. Lutenegger and M. T. Adams, Bearing capacity of footings
on compacted sand, in Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, pp.
12161224, 1998.
[29] G. G. Meyerhof and A. M. Hanna, Ultimate bearing capacity
of foundations on layered soils under inclined load, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 565572, 1978.
10 Journal of Construction Engineering

[30] T. G. Sitharam and S. Sireesh, Effects of geogrid on geocell-

reinforced foundation beds, Geomechanics and Geoengineering:
An International Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 207216, 2006.
[31] K. H. Khing, B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, S. C. Yen, and E. E. Cook,
Strip foundation on sand underlain by soft clay with geogrid
reinforcement, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Offshore
and Polar Engineering Conference, pp. 517521, Singapore, June
1993.
[32] M. T. Omar, B. M. Das, S. C. Yen, V. K. Puri, and E. E.
Cook, Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations on
geogrid-reinforced sand, Geotechnical Testing Journal, vol. 16,
no. 2, pp. 246252, 1993.
[33] A. Kumar, M. L. Ohri, and R. K. Bansal, Bearing capacity tests
of strip footings on reinforced layered soil, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 139150, 2007.
[34] A. Demir, M. Ornek, M. Laman, A. Yildiz, and G. Misir, Model
studies of circular foundations on soft soils, in Proceedings of
the 2nd International Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils, M.
Karstunen and M. Leoni, Eds., pp. 219226, Taylor and Francis,
London, UK, September 2008.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014