ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand

over a soft clay slope
Mostafa A. El Sawwaf
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt
Received 1 March 2006; received in revised form 15 June 2006; accepted 24 June 2006
Available online 1 September 2006

Abstract

The potential benefits of reinforcing a replaced layer of sand constructed on near a slope crest was studied. Model tests were carried
out using model footing of 75 mm width and geogrids. Several parameters including the depth of replaced sand layer and the location of
footing relative to the slope crest were studied. Particular emphasis is paid on the reinforcement configurations including number of
layers, spacing, layer length and depth to ground surface. A series of finite element analyses were performed on a prototype slope using
two-dimensional plane strain model using the computer code Plaxis. The soil was represented by non-linear hardening soil model, which
is an elasto-plastic hyperbolic stress–strain model while reinforcement was represented by elastic elements. A close agreement between the
experimental and numerical results is observed. Test results indicate that the inclusion of geogrid layers in the replaced sand not only
significantly improves the footing performance but also leads to great reduction in the depth of reinforced sand layer required to achieve
the allowable settlement. However, the efficiency of the sand–geogrid system increases with increasing number of geogrid layers and layer
length. Based on the theoretical and experimental results, critical values of the geogrid parameters for maximum reinforcing effects are
established.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bearing capacity; Strip footing; Reinforced sand slope; Geogrid reinforcement; Soft clay; Finite element analysis

1. Introduction chemical grouting, using soil reinforcement, or installing

The subject of reinforcing soil beneath footings has
gained considerable attention in the past few years (e.g.
Dash et al., 2003; Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003; Ghosh
et al., 2005; Bera et al., 2005; Patra et al., 2005, 2006). This
paper is interested in the many situations where footings
are constructed on/or adjacent to soft clay sloping surfaces
such as footings for bridge abutments on sloping embank-
ments. In these case, two major problems arise; the low
bearing capacity of soft clay and the potential failure of the
slope itself. Therefore, over some years, the subject of
stabilizing earth slope has become one of the most
interesting areas for scientific research and several techni-
ques have been suggested to improve the stability of earth
slope and hence improve the bearing capacity. Typical
examples include modifying the slope surface geometry,
Tel.: +20 2 106814464.
E-mail address: Mos_sawaf@hotmail.com.
continuous or discrete retaining structures such as walls or
piles.
Several case studies described the successful use of
geogrids to reinforce a weak subgrade such as variable soft
clay (Samtani and Sonpal, 1989; Tsukada et al., 1993;
Tensar International, 1995; Alawaji, 2001; British Rail
Research, 1998; Otani et al., 1998; Maharaj, 2003; Dash
et al., 2003; Yetimoglu et al., 2005). Tsukada et al. (1993)
investigated the use of geogrids for roadway foundation
and reported that settlement response and pressure
distributions were directly related to the thickness and
configuration of the geogrid-reinforced foundation. Ala-
waji (2001) discussed the effects of reinforcing sand pad
over collapsible soil and reported that successive reduction
in collapse settlement up to 75% was obtained. British Rail
Research (1998) has demonstrated that geogrid inserted in
the ballast where tracks lie over soft ground can help
extend maintenance intervals. Otani et al. (1998) and
Maharaj (2003) studied the behavior of strip footing

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.06.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60 51

constructed on reinforced clay. Settlement was found to be 1-Manual winch

reduced with the increase in reinforcement size, stiffness 2-Raining box
3-Hydraulic jack
and number of layers. The load carrying capacity of a 2
4-Proving ring
footing has been found to increase more on soil in which 5-Model footing
reinforcements are provided at closer spacing. Dash et al. 6-Dial gauges
7-Geogrid reinforcement
(2003) performed model tests in the laboratory to study the 8-Sand
response of reinforcing granular fill overlying soft clay beds 9-Soft clay
and showed that substantial improvements in the load 10-Test tank 3
11-Loading frame
carrying capacity and reduction in surface heaving of the

225.0
4
1
foundation bed were obtained. Yetimoglu et al. (2005)
6 5
performed Laboratory California Bearing Ratio on sand

fills reinforced with randomly distributed discrete fibers
overlying soft clay and reported that adding fiber inclu-
sions in sand fill resulted in an appreciable increase in the
peak piston load. Although, these investigations have
demonstrated that both the ultimate bearing capacity and
the settlement characteristics of the foundation can be
significantly improved using soil reinforcement, it should
be mentioned that the aim of this reinforcement is not to
eliminate the settlement, as this is not possible, but rather
limiting the settlement to values that could be tolerated by
the structure.
A conventional solution to improve the bearing capacity
of soft clay slope is to remove part of the existing weak soil
and to replace it by granular soil (partial replacement). The
depth of replaced fill depends on the required bearing
capacity and the allowable settlement. Sometimes this
technique leads to great heights of soil replacement and
hence excessive cost. As a cost-effective alternative to this
solution, geosynthetic reinforcement can be provided in the
sand fill layer. Although, several studies reported the
behavior of footing constructed on stabilized sandy slope
(Huang et al., 1994; Yoo, 2001; El Sawwaf, 2005), the
behavior of such footing on a reinforced soil slopes
constructed on soft or yielding foundations has not been
investigated. Many questions still remain as to the overall
behavior of the footing and slope and vertical and
horizontal deformations of soils. Therefore, the object of
this paper is to address the aspect of both the bearing
capacity improvement (BCI) and settlement reduction
through using both soil replacement and optimum soil
reinforcement. The aim is to study the relationships
between the footing response and the variable parameters
including replaced sand depth, relative density of sand,
location of the footing relative to slope crest and
geosynthetic configurations.
2. Laboratory model tests
2.1. Model box
800
50.0cm
7
8
60 9 60
10
11
Lab ground
10.0
Dimensions are in centimeters
10.0
125.0
Fig. 1. Schematic view of the experimental apparatus.
These columns are firmly fixed in two horizontal steel
beams, which are firmly clamped in the laboratory ground
using four pins. The glass side allows the sample to be seen
during preparation and sand particle deformations to be
observed during testing. The tank box was built sufficiently
rigid to maintain plane strain conditions by minimizing the
out of plane displacement. To ensure the rigidity of the
tank, the back wall of the tank was braced on the outer
surface with two steel beams fitted horizontally at equal
spacing. The inside walls of the tank are polished smooth
to reduce friction with the sand as much as possible by
attaching fiber glass onto the inside walls.
The loading system consists of a hand-operated hydrau-
lic jack and pre-calibrated load ring. Since the sand raining
technique was used to deposit the sand inside the tank, the
beam was designed to swing about one end. Therefore, the
beam can be swung out during sand deposition and
returned back to the original loading position, when sand
set up is completed. The sand-raining box was made from
wood and is 0.85  0.48 m in plan and 0.10 m depth. The
sand particles were rained from the box through a square
grid of holes (4 mm diameter and 20 mm spacing) in the
base plate. The height of sand raining, measured from the
bottom of the box to sand surface in the tank, is adjusted
up or down by using a manual winch.

The main elements of the laboratory apparatus are a
tank, a horizontal steel beam over the tank, and a sand-
raining box. The test box, having inside dimensions of
1.00  0.50 m in plan and 0.5 m in depth is made from steel
with the front wall made of 20 mm thickness glass and is
supported directly on two steel columns as shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Model footing
A model strip footing made of steel with a hole at its top
center to accommodate a ball bearing was used. The
footing was 498 mm in length, 75 mm in width and 20 mm
in thickness. The footing was positioned on the sand bed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
52 M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60
with the length of the footing running the full width of the
tank. The length of the footing was made almost equal to
the width of the tank in order to maintain plane strain
conditions. The two ends of the footing plate were polished
smooth to minimize the end friction effects. A rough base
condition was achieved by fixing a thin layer of sand onto
the base of the model footing with epoxy glue. The load is
transferred to the footing through a bearing ball as shown
in Fig. 1. Such an arrangement produced a hinge, which
allowed the footing to rotate freely as it approached failure
and eliminated any potential moment transfer from the
loading fixture.
2.3. Test material
2.3.1. Soft clay
The cohesive soil used in the model tests was locally
available. The soil was identified as CL according to unified
classification system. A series of undrained triaxial
compression tests on cylindrical sample of clay with
different confining pressures were performed along with
the consistency tests. For the model tests, soil particles
passing through B.S. sieve No. 36 was kept in an oven for
24 h. A specific quantity of water was added to the soil to
achieve a 32% water content. The soil was thoroughly
mixed and placed by hand into the model box to the
required geometry of the slope. Then the soil was
consolidated by adding vertical pressure on the top surface
of clay. Finally, soil was unloaded for 24 h before
depositing sand and geogrid reinforcement and carrying
out the test. A series of direct shear tests on clay specimens
with different normal stresses gave an internal friction
angle of 51. The properties of this soil are given in Table 1.
2.3.2. Sand
The sand used in this research is medium to coarse,
washed, dried and sorted by particle size. It is composed of
rounded to sub-rounded particles. The specific gravity of
the soil particles was determined by the gas jar method.
Three tests were carried out producing an average value of
2.654. The maximum and the minimum dry unit weights of
the sand were found to be 19.95 and 16.34 kN/m3 and the
corresponding values of the minimum and the maximum
void ratios are 0.305 and 0.593, respectively. The particle
Table 1
Properties of cohesive soil
Liquid limit (%)
Plastic limit (%)
Shrinkage limit (%)
Plasticity index (%)
Optimum moisture content (%)
Average moisture content during testing (%)
Consistency index
Dry unit weight of soil during testing (kN/m3)
Undrained cohesion (kN/m2)
Angle of internal friction (deg.)
size distribution was determined using the dry sieving
method and the results are shown in Fig. 2. The effective
size (D10), the mean particle size (D50), uniformity
coefficient (Cu), and coefficient of curvature (Cc) for the
sand were 0.15 mm, 0.50 mm, 4.07 and 0.77, respectively.
Sand beds were placed in 25 mm thick layers by a raining
technique in which sand is allowed to rain through air at a
controlled discharge rate and height of fall of 55 cm to give
uniform densities. The relative density achieved during the
tests was monitored by collecting samples in small cans of
known volume placed at three different locations in the test
tank. The raining technique adopted in this study provided
a uniform relative density of approximately 80% with a
unit weight of 19.10 kN/m3. No particle segregation was
noticed during raining and uniformity tests showed that the
obtained relative densities from the three samples did not
depend on the location of the mold. A series of direct shear
tests were performed on specimens prepared by dry
tamping at the same relative density of the sand and the
estimated internal friction angle was 431.
2.3.3. Geogrid reinforcement
Tenax TT Samp with peak tensile strength of 45 kN/m
was used as reinforcing material for the model tests. These
geogrids, were manufactured by extruding and mono-
directional drawing of high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
grids. Typical physical and technical properties of the grids
were obtained from manufacturer’s data sheet and are
given in Table 2.
2.4. The experimental setup and test program
An experimental program was carried out to investigate
the partial replacement of soft clay slope and to evaluate
the effects of reinforcing the replaced pad of sand on the
bearing capacity of a strip footing adjacent to the slope
crest. A 425 mm in height soil model slopes samples were
constructed in layers with the bed level and slope observed
through the front glass wall. The soil was set up to form a
slope of 3 (H): 2 (V). Initially beds of soft clay layer were
100
90
80
70
percent finer, %
60
50
39 40
21
30
13
18 20
17 10
31
0
0.44
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
15.84
25 Grain size, mm
5
Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of the sand.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60 53

placed followed by depositing of sand by raining technique.
In the reinforced tests, layers of geogrid were placed in the
sand at predetermined depths during preparing the ground
slope. The inner faces of the tank were marked at 25 mm
intervals to facilitate accurate preparation of the sand bed
in layers. On reaching the reinforcement level, a geogrid
layer was placed and a layer of sand is rained and so on.
One to four geogrid layers with width equal to the full
width of the tank were placed with different lengths and
spacing. The preparation of the sand bed above the geogrid
cell was continued in layers up to the level required for a
particular depth of embedment. Great care was given to
level the slope face using special rulers so that the relative
density of the top surface was not affected. The footing was
placed at desired position and the load was applied
incrementally by the hydraulic jack until reaching failure.
Each load increment was maintained constant until the
footing settlement had stabilized. This settlement was
measured using two 0.001 mm accuracy dial gauges, placed
on opposite sides across the center of the footing.
Many model tests in two different test programs were
carried out. Initially, the response of the model footing
supported on the unreinforced replaced sand layer of
different heights overlying soft clay slope was determined.
Then, six series of tests were performed to study the
inclusion effect of the geogrid layers on the footing
behavior. Tests were conducted to find out the best
location, length and configuration of the geogrid layers
that give the maximum improvement in footing response.
Each series was carried out to study the effect of one
parameter while the other variables were kept constant.
The varied conditions include the depth of replaced sand
layer (d), horizontal distance between footing and the slope
crest (b), number of geogrid layers (N), length of geogrid
layers (L), and vertical spacing between layers (x). Table 3
and Fig. 3 summarize all the tests programs with varied
parameters used. Several tests were repeated at least twice
to verify the repeatability and the consistency of the test
data. The same pattern of load-settlement relationship with
difference of the ultimate load values less than 1.5% were
obtained. The difference was considered to be small and
neglected.
3. Prototype study
3.1. Finite element analysis
A series of two-dimensional finite element analyses
(FEA) on a prototype footing-slope system was performed
in order to verify the laboratory model tests results and
understand the deformations trends within the soil mass.
The analysis was performed using the finite element
program Plaxis software package (professional version 8,
Bringkgreve and Vermeer, 1998). Plaxis is capable of
handling a wide range of geotechnical problems such as
deep excavations, tunnels, and earth structures such as
retaining walls and slopes. Prototype slopes were assumed
to rest on a yielding foundation and to extend laterally to a
distance of 1.5 times the slope height (H) from the toe of
b B

Table 2
Engineering properties of geogrid u
x
x d
Structure Mono-oriented geogrids L
Aperture shape Oval apertures
Aperture size (mm  mm) (13/20)  220
Weight (g/m2) 300.00 Hs
Polymer type HDPE 0.5B Xs Soft clay
Tensile strength at 2% strain (kN/m) 11
Tensile strength at 5% strain (kN/m) 25
0.5B
Peak tensile strength (kN/m) 45
Yield point elongation (%) 11.5
Long term design strength (N/m) 21.2 Fig. 3. Geometric parameters of reinforced sand slope overlying soft clay
model.

Table 3
Model tests program

Series Constant parameters Variable parameters

1 Tests on non-reinforced slope, b/B ¼ 0 d/B ¼ 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3

2 b/B ¼ 0, d/B ¼ 1.5, N ¼ 1, L/B ¼ 5 u/B ¼ 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25
3 b/B ¼ 0, d/B ¼ 1.5, N ¼ 2, u/B ¼ 0.25, L/B ¼ 5 x/B ¼ 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0
4 b/B ¼ 0, d/B ¼ 1.5, N ¼ 3, u/B ¼ 0.25, x/B ¼ 0.4 L/B ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
5 b/B ¼ 0, d/B ¼ 1.5, u/B ¼ 0.25, x/B ¼ 0.4, L/B ¼ 6 N ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4
6 Tests on non-reinforced slope, d/B ¼ 1.5 b/B ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3,4
7 d/B ¼ 1.5, N ¼ 3, u/B ¼ 0.25, x/B ¼ 0.4, L/B ¼ 5 b/B ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3,4

Note: See Fig. 3 for definition of the variable.

Footing width (B) is always constant ¼ 75 mm.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
54 M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60
the slope. The geometry of the prototype footing-slope
system was assumed to be 10 times the laboratory model
(the footing width B ¼ 0.75 m and thickness, t ¼ 0.2 m, soil
height (sand layer and soft clay layer) ¼ 4.25 m. The same
inclination of model test slopes, 3 (H): 2 (V), and the
material of geogrid, sand and soft clay were used in the
prototype study. The software allows the automatic
generation of six or fifteen node triangle plane strain
elements for the soil, and three or five node beam elements
for the footing while three or five node elastic elements
were used for the geotextile elements.
3.2. Finite element modeling
The non-linear behavior of sand was modeled using
hardening soil model, which is an elastoplastic hyperbolic
stress–strain model, formulated in the framework of
friction hardening plasticity. The foundation was treated
as elastic beam elements based on Mindlin’s beam theory
with significant flexural rigidity (EI) and normal stiffness
(EA). A basic feature of the hyperbolic model is the stress
dependency of soil stiffness. The interaction between the
geogrid and soil is modeled at both sides by means of
interface elements, which allow for the specification of a
reduced wall friction compared to the friction of the soil.
The limiting state of stress are
described by means of the
secant Young’s modulus E ref 50 , tangent stiffness modulus


for primary compression E ref oed , Poisson’s ratio (u),
effective cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (f), angle
of dilatancy (c), failure ratio (Rf) and interface reduction
factor (Rint).
A refined mesh was adopted to minimize the effect of
mesh dependency on the finite element modeling of cases
involving changes in the number, length, and the location
of geogrid layers. In the finite element modeling, as the
slope surface is not horizontal, the initial stress condition
of the slope was established first by applying the gravity
force due to soil in steps with the geogrid reinforcements in
The Footing
The geogrid
The interface
Fig. 4. Prototype slope geometry, generated mesh, and boundary conditions.
place. A prescribed footing load was then applied in
increments (load control method) accompanied by iterative
analysis up to failure. The modeled boundary conditions
were assumed such that the vertical boundaries are free
vertically and constrained horizontally while the bottom
horizontal boundary is fully fixed. The software allows the
automatic generation of six node triangle plane strain
elements for the soil, and three node beam elements for the
footing and the geogrid. The number of element used in
reinforced tests are 213 element while in unreinforced tests
the number is 160. The analyzed prototype slope geometry,
generated mesh, and the boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 4.
An internal
angle of friction and secant Young’s
modulus E ref50 representing dense sand conditions derived
from a series of drained triaxial compression tests were
used for the sand. A value of 25 kN/m2 to the undrained
cohesion (c) for the soft clay derived from undrained
triaxial compression tests was used. The hyperbolic
parameters for the sand and clay were taken from database
provided by the software manual as shown in Table 4.
4. Results and discussion
A total of 32 model tests were carried out on model
plane strain footing supported on sand pads overlying soft
clay ground slope. The effect of geogrid parameters on the
ultimate load and displacement were obtained and
discussed. An additional numerical study on the effect of
reinforcing the sand pad on the behavior of a prototype
footing was carried out using the finite element model.
4.1. Bearing capacity behavior
The BCI of the footing on the reinforced replaced sand is
represented using a non-dimensional factor, called BCI
factor. This factor is defined as the ratio of the footing
ultimate pressure with the slope reinforced (qu reinforced) to
A A
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60 55

Table 4
Hardening soil-footing model parameters used in the finite element analysis

Parameter Dense sand Soft clay Footing Geogrid

Primary loading stiffness E 50 (kN/m2)
ref 40 000 1000 — —
Cohesion (c) (kN/m2) 0.00 25 — —
Friction angle (f) 40.00 5 — —
Dilatancy angle (c) 10.00 0.0 — —
Soil unit weight (g) (kN/m3) 18.90 15.84 — —
Poisson’s ratio (u) 0.3 0.33 — —
Failure ratio (Rf) 0.90 0.9 — —
Interface reduction factor (Rint) 0.80 0.5 — —
EA of the footing (kN/m) — — 5 000 000 —
EI of the footing (kN m2/m) — — 8500 —
EA of the geogrid (kN/m) — — — 2000

the footing ultimate pressure in tests without slope q, kPa

reinforcement (qu). The footing settlement (S) is also 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
expressed in non-dimensional form in terms of the footing b/B = 0
width (B) as the ratio (S/B, %). The ultimate bearing
2 d/B = 0.5
capacities for the both the model and prototype footing are d/B = 1.0
determined from the load–displacement curves as the d/B = 1.5
pronounced peaks, after which the footing collapses and 4
d/B = 2.0
the load decreases. In curves which did not exhibit a d/B = 3.0
definite failure point, the ultimate load is taken as the point 6
S/B, %

at which the slope of the load-settlement curve first reach

zero or steady minimum value (Vesic, 1973). The measured 8
bearing load of the model footing when located on non-
reinforced and reinforced replaced sand layer of depth 10
1.5B with horizontal ground surface and overlying soft
clay are 24 and 38N, respectively. The corresponding 12
theoretical bearing loads obtained from the FEA are 210
and 320N. 14
Typical variations of bearing capacity pressure (q) with
settlement ratios (S/B) for small-scale model and prototype Fig. 5. Variations of q with S/B for model slope with different depths of
replaced sand.
footing for different depths (d/B) of unreinforced replaced
sand are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In this series, all the tests
were performed on the footing placed at slope crest while
the depth of the sand layer was varied. The figures clearly q, kPa
show that partial replacement of soft clay much improves 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
both the initial stiffness (initial slope of the load-settlement 0
b/B = 0.0
curves) and the bearing load at the same settlement level. d/B = 0.5
Also, the figure demonstrates that as the thickness of sand 1 d/B = 1.0
layer increases, the mode of failure changes from punching d/B = 1.5
d/B = 2.0
shear failure (at d/B ¼ 0.5) to the general shear failure in 2 d/B = 3.0
which a pronounced peak can be seen, after which the load
comes down. Both figures confirm the significant increase
S/B, %

in the bearing capacity of the footing with the increase of 3

replaced sand thickness. For example, partial replacement
of soft clay with a layer of sand of thickness equal to 3B 4
cause an improvement in measured bearing capacity as
high as four times more than that when the sand is of 5
thickness ¼ 0.5B. The measured and calculated ultimate
loads for footing supported on both reinforced and non-
reinforced slopes for the different studied parameters are 6
given in Tables 5–7. These results are discussed in the Fig. 6. Variations of q with S/B for prototype slope with different depths
following sections. of replaced sand.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
56 M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60

Table 5
Results of footings located near to reinforced slopes (series 2 and 3)

Test results u/B x/B

0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0

q (kPa) model 16.75 17.5 17.25 16.5 16.45 20.57 21.9 19.5 18.5
q (kPa) FEA 128 130 129 126 125 154 158 149 141

Table 6
Results of footings located near to reinforced slopes (series 4)

Test results L/B

0 2 3 4 5 6

q (kPa) model 12 16 19 21.5 23 23.40

q (kPa) FEA 93 120 144 162 171 173

Table 7
Results of footings located at different locations (series 6 and 7)

Test results Non-reinforced Reinforced

b/B b/B

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

q (kPa) model 12.0 14.5 18 21 22 23.0 26 30.5 35 36.5

q (kPa) FEA 93 130 168 197 204 171 221 263 301 308

4.1.1. Effect of number of geogrid layers BCI

Two series of studies were carried out in order to study 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
the effect of varying the number of geogrid layers on the 0
footing-slope performance. In these series, a depth of
2
replaced sand of 1.5B along with geogrid length, location,
and spacing, was kept constant but the number of geogrid 4
layers was varied. Typical variations of BCI measured from
model tests and q obtained from numerical analysis against 6
settlement ratios (S/B) for a footing located at the slope
S/B, %

crest are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Also, 8

b/B = 0,
included in the figure for comparison is the footing
d/B=1.5, L/B=5.0
behavior when placed on the replaced sand without 10 u/B=0.25, x/B=0.4
reinforcement. The figures clearly show that the general No reinforcement
12
trends of FEA shown in Fig. 8 agree fairly well with those N=1
of the model slope in Fig. 7. For the same displacement N=2
14
ratio, the figure demonstrates that the inclusion of geogrid N=3
layers resulted in an increase in the load capacity of N=4
16
the model footing. Also, for the same footing load, the
settlement ratio decrease significantly with increasing the Fig. 7. Variations of BCI with S/B for model slope for different N.
number of geogrid layers.
This increase in footing ultimate load can be attributed
to reinforcement mechanism which derived from the the spreading of slope and lateral deformations of sand
passive earth resistance, interlocking in front of the particles. The mobilized tension in the reinforcement
transverse members, and adhesion between the long- enables the geogrid to resist the imposed horizontal shear
itudinal/transverse geogrid members and the sand. The stresses built up in the soil mass beneath the loaded area
mobilized passive earth resistance of soil column confined and transfer them to adjacent stable layers of soils leading
in the geogrid apertures along with the interlocking limit to a wider and deeper failure zone. Therefore, sand
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60 57

q, kPa there are an optimum number of reinforcement layers after

0 50 100 150 200 250 which the gain in bearing capacity is not significant. This is
0
consistent with previous studies of strip or square plate
over entirely dry sand (Omar et al., 1993; Das et al., 1994)
2 which demonstrated that there are an optimum number of
geogrid layers after which the BCI remain constant. Also,
test results shown in Fig. 5 and Table 5 demonstrate that
4 reinforcing a replaced sand layer of thickness 1.5B using
S/B, %

three layers of geogrid could bring out an improvement in

bearing capacity greater than that obtained using replaced
6
b/B = 0.0 sand of thickness 3B without reinforcement.
No reinforcement
N=1 4.1.2. Effect of geogrid layer length
8
N=2
N=3 In order to determine how far to extend the geogrid
N=4 layers into the soil mass to provide an adequate anchorage
10 length for each geogrid layer, five tests were carried out to
Fig. 8. Variations of q with S/B for prototype slope for different N. study the effect of varying the layer length on the footing
behavior. Fig. 10 shows the variations of BCI with the
geogrid length for both prototype and model slope-footing
2.25
system. The BCI increases with increasing geogrid length.
This increase in the ultimate bearing capacity with
2 increasing layer length is significant until a value of
(L/B ¼ 5) beyond which further increase in layer length
1.75
of geogrid does not show significant contribution in
increasing the ultimate load of the footing. This is
BCI

consistent with the recommended lengths of geogrid

1.5 reported by Yoo (2001) who showed that BCI of reinforced
d /B = 1.5, u/B=0.25
x /B=0.4, L /B=6.0 sandy slop loaded with strip footing 1.5B away of the slope
1.25 crest remains constant for length ratios 45.5.
Model
FEA
This behavior illustrates that sufficient anchorage
lengths must be provided to maximize the reinforcing
1 effect through full mobilization of pullout capacity of the
0 1 2 3 4 5
N
reinforcements. With short layers of geogrid, the anchorage
length of geogrid in sand is insufficient and the mobilized
Fig. 9. Variations of BCI with number of geogrid layer, N. lateral resistance by passive resistance, interlocking and
friction in the stable mass of soil is less than the transferred
pad–geogrid interaction not only result in increasing the horizontal shear stresses and the geogrid layers will move
bearing capacity due to developed longer failure surface down with the soil movement underneath the footing.
but also results in widening the contact area between sand
and soft clay. As a result, the developed acting net stress 2.25
due to footing load decreased leading to decreasing the
consolidation settlement of soft clay.
Fig. 9 presents comparisons of the variations of the 2
calculated and measured BCI for a footing located at the
slope crest for varying values of N. Although, the BCI
1.75
obtained from the FEA appears to be smaller than that for
BCI

the model slope, the general trends of the manner in which

BCI varies with the number of geogrid are in good 1.5
agreement with those from the model tests. The BCI d/B = 1.5, u/B = 0.25
increases with the increase of N for the two series. x/B = 0.4, N = 3
However, the rate of increase in BCI decreases with 1.25 FEA
increasing number of geogrid layers until N ¼ 3 after model
which the rate of load improvement become much less. For
practical reasons, no tests were carried out using more than 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
four geogrid layers due to the limited depth of the replaced
L /B
sand fill. However, the figure demonstrates that for the
thickness of replaced sand and reinforcement conditions, Fig. 10. Variations of BCI with geogrid layer length L/B.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
58 M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60
For longer layers, sufficient anchorage length mobilizes
larger lateral resistance than that built up underneath the
footing and therefore with footing settlement the geogrid
will not move down with supporting soil but mobilize
greater resistance up to maximum pullout capacity of
geogrid layer after which the system fails.
4.1.3. Effect of footing location relative to slope crest
In order to study the effect of the proximity of a footing
to the slope crest (b/B), two series of tests were carried out
on strip footing resting on replaced sand fill overlying soft
clay slopes. While the first was carried out on non-
reinforced replaced sand fill, the second was carried out on
3-layer of geogrid-reinforced sand. Fig. 11 shows the
variation of the BCI against the b/B ratios, for both model
and prototype results. The curves clearly show good
agreement in the general trend of behavior of both the
experimental and numerical analysis. It can be seen that,
while the bearing capacity load significantly decrease as the
footing location moves closer to the slope crest, the effect
of soil reinforcement on the bearing capacity significantly
increase. Also, the figure clearly shows that maximum
benefit of slope geogrid reinforcement is obtained when
footing is placed at slope crest. The same trend can be
observed for both model and prototype slopes. As the
footing location moves away from crest, the rate of
decrease in BCI of the footing become less until a value
of about b/B ¼ 2.5 after which the change can be
considered insignificant. This change in bearing capacity
of the footing with its location relative to slope crest can be
attributed to soil passive resistance from the slope side and
reinforcement effect. When, the footing is placed far away
of the slope, the passive resistance from the slope side to
the failure wedge under the footing increases. Also, using
geogrid reinforcement decreases lateral displacements and
results in wider and deeper failure zone as discusses in
previous sections, leading to increasing the bearing
capacity load.
2
1.8
1.6
BCI
1.4
N = 3, u/B=0.25
x/B=0.4, L/B=5.0
1.2 model
FEA
1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
b/B
Fig. 11. Variations of BCI with footing location b/B.
4.1.4. Effect of depth to top layer
The effect of depth of the geogrid layer to the ground
surface u/B is studied using only one layer of geogrid
placed in dense sand at different depths of ground surface.
Five tests were carried out on model footing along with five
studies on prototype footing using FEA. Fig. 12 shows the
variation of the BCI of the footing against the normalized
depth u/B for both model and prototype footing. Both
graphs clearly show that the BCI initially increases with
increasing the depth until it attains a maximum value after
which the BCI comes down with increasing the depth of
geogrid layer. The maximum improvement was obtained at
depth ratio of u/B ¼ 0.6 for both model and FEA,
respectively. A similar trend was observed for level sand
ground by Das et al. (1994). Also, the variation of BCI with
u/B reported by Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) and
Yoo (2001) for reinforced sand slope are similar to that
obtained from the present investigation. It was confirmed
that there exist a critical value for u/B at which maximum
gain in bearing capacity was obtained. The reported values
varied between 1.0 and 0.5 according to slope geometry,
soil condition and number of geogrid layers. This can be
explained as follows; at shallow depths under the footing,
both the vertical and horizontal soil displacements are
greater. Maximum benefits could be obtained when soil
reinforcement are placed at these depths where mobilized
lateral resistances for soil lateral displacements are max-
imum. When the depth of geogrid layer increases, both
lateral and vertical soil displacements in the zone between
the footing and the geogrid layer increase and hence the
bearing capacity decreases.
4.1.5. Effect of vertical spacing of the geogrid
Two series of studies were performed on both model and
prototype footing located at the slope crest of replaced
sand layer overlying soft clay ground slope with all
parameters kept constant but vertical spacing between
layers was varied. Two geogrid layers were used with
1.5
1.4
1.3
BCI
1.2 b/B = 0,
N = 1, d /B = 1.5
x /B=0.4, L/B=5.0
1.1
Model
FEA
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
u/B
Fig. 12. Variations of BCI with depth of geogrid layer u/B.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60
vertical spacing values of x/B ¼ 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0
were studied. The variation of BCI with normalized layer
spacing x/B is shown in Fig. 13. The curves clearly show
that there is an optimum value of x/B for which maximum
benefit of the geogrid reinforcements is derived. The BCI
increases with x/B up to approximately a maximum value
of 0.5B after which it decreases. A similar trend was
reported for entirely sand slope by Yoo (2001), showing a
critical value of x/B ¼ 0.7.
4.2. Displacement vectors
Fig. 14 presents the failure pattern and deformed mesh
for a footing placed at the crest of both the non-reinforced
and three-geogrid layers reinforced slope, respectively. The
figure clearly shows the tendency of the footing rotation
toward the slope face on reinforced test while in tests on
non-reinforced slope, the footing tend to fail by punching
shear failure. Typical plots of the displacement vectors
obtained from the FEA are also presented. Comparing the
plastic flow between these two cases, it can be observed that
2 use a prototype geogrid of lowest allowable stress
1.75
BCI
1.5
b/B = 0,
d/B = 1.5, u /B = 0.25
1.25 N=2, L /B=5.0
Model
FEA
1 general trends of both model and prototype study indicated
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
x/B
Fig. 13. Variations of BCI with normalized geogrid layers spacing x/B.
(A)
Fig. 14. Failure pattern and displacement vectors plot for prototype slope: (A) non-reinforced slope and (B) reinforced slope.
59
displacement vectors at failure for non-reinforced slope are
concentrated underneath the footing toward the slope face
while for the reinforced slope, the displacement vectors are
widely distributed underneath the footing for greater width
and depth than that in the non-reinforced case. It is clear
that the geogrid layers prevent the soil particles from
lateral movement toward the slope face and pushes them
downward for greater depth and hence spreads the footing
load wider and deeper into the soil, which in turn meant a
longer failure surface and greater bearing capacity.
4.3. Scale effects
The model footing adopted in laboratory study is
reduced to a certain scale while the used sand, clay and
geogrids were the same in the model and the prototype
analysis. Therefore, model footing or the soil, may not play
the same role as in the prototype and it might cause some
influence on the experimental results which is called scale
effects (Vesic, 1973; Ovesen, 1979). These differences occur
primarily because of the differences in stress level between
the model tests and the field tests. Also, it was preferred to
(standard one) rather than to use some sort of hand-made
geotextile (unknown one) for similitude. Therefore, due to
scale effects and the use of prototype geogrid in the model
tests, the results of model footing may be influenced.
It was illustrated in a previous section that, the main
object of this research is to see the reflection of soil
reinforcement in the footing response, and not to have
precise comparison between the model and prototype
results as this can only be achieved by conducting a
centrifuge study. Therefore, it was the target to have insight
into the significant trends of soil reinforcement on the
footing response both experimentally and numerically. The
the benefits can be obtained when using geogrid to
reinforce replaced sand layer over soft clay slopes on the
behavior of a footing, and provide a useful basis for further
(B)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
60 M.A. El Sawwaf / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 50–60
research using full-scale tests or centrifugal model tests
leading to an increased understanding of the real behavior
and accurate design in application of soil reinforcement.
5. Conclusions
The bearing capacity behavior of a strip footing resting
on replaced sand layer (partially replaced) constructed on a
soft clay slope was investigated. Also, the effect of
inclusion of geogrid reinforcement on the footing response
was studied both experimentally and theoretically. Wide
ranges of boundary conditions including the depth of sand
layer, footing location, and the geogrid parameters were
considered. Based on the results from this investigation, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Soil improvement of soft clay ground slope by partial
replacement with sand layer significantly increases the
load bearing capacity of a footing placed on/near to the
crest of sloping ground.
(2) The inclusion of soil reinforcement not only improves
the footing behavior but also leads to significant
reduction of the depth of replaced sand layer over the
soft clay for the same footing settlement, at the same
load levels.
(3) The effect of geogrid reinforcements on the footing
performance is dependent on the footing location
relative to slope crest. In terms of BCI, geogrid is
most effective when the footing is placed on the slope
crest rather than any distance away from the slope
crest.
(4) For a footing located at slope crest resting on 1.5B
thicknesses of replaced sand, an adequate anchorage
length for each geogrid layer should be provided along
with an optimum number of geogrid layers should be
used. The length should be greater than or equal to
(L/B ¼ 5) five times the footing width and the
recommended number of geogrid layers is 3.
(5) For the studied slope geometry and conditions, the
maximum benefit of geogrid reinforcements is depen-
dent on reinforcement configuration. For optimum
response, the recommended depth of reinforcing
geogrid (u/B) and geogrid spacing (x/B) are 0.6 and
0.5 of the footing width.
(6) A close agreement between the experimental and
numerical results on general trend of behavior and
the critical values of the geogrid parameters is
observed. In all cases, the BCI calculated from the
FEA for prototype scale appears to be smaller than
that obtained from the model slope results.
References
Alawaji, H., 2001. Settlement and bearing capacity of geogrid-reinforced
sand over collapsible soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, 75–88.
Bera, A.K., Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., 2005. Regression model for bearing
capacity of a square footing on reinforced pond ash. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 23 (2), 261–286.
Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N., 2003. 241 Experimental and numerical
investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring
footings on reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (4),
241–256.
Bringkgreve, R., Vermeer, P., 1998. PLAXIS-Finite Element Code for Soil
and Rock Analysis. Version 7 Plaxis B.V., The Netherlands.
British Rail Research, 1998. Supporting roll—geogrids provide a solution
to railway track ballast problems on soft and variable subgrades.
Ground Engineering 31 (3), 24–27.
Das, B., Khing, K., Shin, E., Puri, V., Yen, S., 1994. Comparison of
bearing capacity of strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand and
clay. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Morgantown,
WA, USA, pp. 1331–1336.
Dash, S., Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T., 2003. Model studies on circular footing
supported on geocell reinforced sand underlain by soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (4), 197–219.
El Sawwaf, M., 2005. Strip footing behavior on pile and sheet pile-
stabilized sand slope. Journal of Geotechnology and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering 131 (6), 705–715.
Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K., 2005. Bearing capacity of square
footing on pond ash reinforced with jute-geotextile. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 23 (2), 144–173.
Huang, C., Tatsuoka, F., Sato, Y., 1994. Failure mechanisms of reinforced
sand slopes loaded with a footing. Soils and Foundations 24 (2), 27–40.
Maharaj, D., 2003. Nonlinear finite element analysis of strip footing on
reinforced clay. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 8,
Bundle (C).
Omar, M., Das, B., Puri, V., Yen, S., 1993. Ultimate bearing capacity of
shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 30, 545–549.
Otani, J., Ochiai, H., Yamamoto, K., 1998. Bearing capacity analysis of
reinforced foundations on cohesive soil. Geotextile and Geomem-
branes 16, 195–206.
Ovesen, N.K., 1979. The use of physical models in design: the scaling law
relationship. In: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 318–323.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Atalar, C., 2005. Bearing capacity of embedded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 23 (5), 454–462.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Bhoi, M., Shin, E.C., 2006. Eccentrically loaded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 24 (4), 254–259.
Samtani, N., Sonpal, R., 1989. Laboratory tests of strip footing on
reinforced cohesive soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering—ASCE
15 (9), 1326–1330.
Selvadurai, A., Gnanendran, C., 1989. An experimental study of a footing
located on a sloped fill: influence of a soil reinforcement layer.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (3), 467–473.
Tensar International, 1995. Tensar geogrid reinforced sub-bases—case
studies. New Wellington Street, Blackburn BR2 4PJ, England.
Tsukada, Y., Isoda, T., Yamanouchi, T., 1993. Geogrid subgrade
reinforcement and deep foundation. In: Raymond, Giroud (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Geosynthetics Case Histories. ISSMFE, Committee
TC9, pp. 158–159.
Vesic, A., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division—ASCE 94 (SM3),
661–688.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O., 2005. A study on bearing capacity of
randomly distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2), 174–183.
Yoo, C., 2001. Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behavior of
strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 19, 279–298.