1 of 13

BEARING CAPACITY OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SAND BED ON

PROBLEMATIC SOIL

P. Rajashekar Reddy*
G. V. N. Reddy and E. Saibaba Reddy
JNTU Hyderabad, India

ABSTRACT
The paper presents analysis to find out the bearing capacity of strip footing resting on geosynthetic (geogrid/geotextile)
reinforced sand bed overlying non-homogeneous clay. The model considered for the study consists of sand bed overlying
soft non-homogeneous clay, whose undrained shear strength increases linearly with depth. As most naturally deposited
clays have induced non-homogeneity, thereby effective stress and hence the undrained shear strength increases with depth.
A single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement is placed in the sand bed to study the effect of reinforcement. To arrive at the
ultimate bearing capacity of the double layered foundation system, Meyerhof’s punching mode of failure for footings on
dense sand (with/without reinforcement) overlying soft non-homogeneous clay is extended to include the non-homogeneity
of soft clay, shear resistance of sand fill and axial resistance of the reinforcement. Analytical solutions are developed for
strip footings supported on geotextile/geogrid reinforced sand beds. The predicted bearing capacity values are found to
compare well with some of the available experimental values. A parametric study quantifies the effect of various parameters
on the bearing capacity.
Keywords: Reinforced sand Bed, non-homogeneous clay, normalised bearing capacity, undrained shear strength

1. INDRODUCTION Figure 1. Variation of undrained strength vs depth pro-

files: (a) Freshly deposited and consolidated clay, (b)
Due to the growing needs of present society and urbaniza-
tion, usage of problematic soils which were considered un-
suitable for construction are inevitable. Generally, for foun- c0 c0
dations on clayey soil, part of the weak soil is replaced by
c c c
enough thickness of sand fill or increase the width of the
foundation or combination of two. Alternatively, part of
weak soil is replaced with geosynthetic reinforced sand bed
which will increase the bearing capacity and distribute the 1 1
1
pressure over wide area beneath the sand bed, thus reduces k k
the required sand bed thickness with same effectiveness. k
Geosynthetic reinforcement inclusion improves the me-
chanical properties of soil and resist the applied tensile Z Z Z
stresses by mobilizing tensile forces within them. a) b) c)

Most of the available solutions for bearing capacity consid-
ered the subsoil clay as homogeneous. In realty, it shows
undrained shear strength(c) increasing linearly with depth.
Whereas, Bujang [1995] presented field data of soft clay
soil which shows increase in undrained shear strength with
depth, which contemplate increment of shear strength with
depth. Davis and Booker exhibited that for fresh deposits
the actual variation of shear strength is approximately lin-
ear [Figure 1a], whereas for aged normally consolidated de-
posit, over the full depth it may develop larger shear
strength [Figure 1b]. For normally consolidated clay, it may
develop constant shear strength in the crust, where as in re-
maining depth shear strength increases linearly with depth.
[Figure 1c].
Aged normally consolidated clay deposit (c) Normally
consolidated clay deposit with crust (after Davis and
Booker, 1973
Despite these variations in strength, many of the bearing
capacity solutions for footings supported on soft soil con-
sidered, the soil to be homogeneous neglecting the nature
induced non-homogeneity. Consideration of non-homoge-
neity of clay is closer to reality and provides reasonable es-
timate of bearing capacity of foundations supporting on it.
For the bearing capacity of rough and strip footings, Davis
and Booker [1973] presented plasticity solutions and stated
that as the degree of non-homogeneity increases, conven-
tional (upper bound) solutions becomes less accurate.
Punching shear failure mode was proposed by Meyerhof
 2 of 13

[1974] for strip footing supporting on dense sand bed over- 3. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
lying homogeneous clay layer. Plasticity theory was used 3.1 BEARING CAPACITY OF CLAYEY SOIL:
by Tani & Craig [1995] to find out the influence of linearly
increasing undrained shear strength with depth, under both The ultimate bearing capacity, quc, of a strip footing sup-
plane strain and axisymmetric conditions on the bearing ca- ported on the surface of the clay whose undrained shear
pacity of shallow foundations. Contributions of membrane strength linearly increases with depth is
action of reinforcement, shear layer effect and stress distri- 1
𝑞𝑢𝑐 = 𝐹[𝑐0 𝑁𝑐 + 𝑘𝐵] (1)
bution through sand layer on the bearing capacity of strip 4
footing resting on homogeneous clay was considered by Where,
Rethalia & Verma [2009] and Shiv Shankar et.al [1993].
Rajalakshmi et.al [2012] proposed a method to estimate F= f(kB/c0) is surface correction factor suggested by Davis
bearing capacity of strip footing supporting on geosynthetic and Booker 1973. In the present study footing is assumed
reinforced sand bed, considering linearly increasing un- as rough base.
drained strength with depth. Above (1) for footings with rough base becomes
This paper presents a method to estimate the bearing capac- kB
quc = F[Nc + ]c0 (2)
ity of strip footing supporting on geosynthetic (geogrid/ge- 4c0
otextile) reinforced sand bed overlying soft non-homoge- After normalizing the above with c0 it becomes
neous clay (shear strength linearly increases with depth).
The proposed model considers non-homogeneity of clay kB
quc ∗ = F[Nc + ] (3)
4c0
and the effect of passive resistance i.e., ability of geogrids
to interlock mechanically with the sand particles in the fill,
in addition to the effect of frictional resistance of reinforce- 3.2 BEARING CAPACITY OF SAND BED ON
ment considering axial pullout of reinforcement. CLAY SOIL:
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND For embedded strip footing of width, B, placed at a depth
FORMULATION D from NGL and supported on a thin dense sand bed of
thickness, H overlying on a clay layer whose undrained
Figure 2. Definition sketch of footing on geosynthetic re- shear strength is c0, Meyerhof proposed punching shear
quf mode of failure. A total passive resistance of pp acts at an
angle of δ with horizontal or vertical plane through the edge
of footing. General shear failure in thick sand layer and
GL Strip footing GL punching shear failure through dense sand are the possible
τ failure modes.
τ B H
u ` Sand bed (ϕ, γ) Shear stresses are developed on either side of the sand col-
` ` L
c0 r umn, as the footing punches through the sand layer into the
0 c soft clay. For a strip footing supporting on dense sand bed
Geosynthetic reinforcement (ϕr)
overlying soft clay, ultimate bearing capacity is
1
γH2 2D
k Soft non-homogeneous clay (c, ϕu =0) qu = cNc + (1 + ) k s tanϕ + γD (4)
B H
Z

Rigid Base
inforced sand bed over soft non-homogeneous clay
Fig 2 shows a strip footing of width, B, resting on top of a
sand bed of thickness, H, overlying non-homogeneous clay
deposit considering increase of undrained shear strength, c,
linearly with depth.
A single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement of length, Lr
is placed with in the sand bed at a distance u from the bot-
tom of footing. The angle of internal friction and unit
weight of the sand are ϕ and γ respectively. While ϕr is the
Figure 3. Bearing capacity of sand bed overlying clay
friction angle between the reinforcement and sand. T GSY is
(Meyerhof, 1974)
the mobilized axial tension in the reinforcement.
Maximum value is restricted to ultimate bearing capacity
of sand bed as
qu = γDNq + 0.5γBNγ (5)
 3 of 13

Where kB γH2 γH
qGTX = F[Nc + ]c0 + k s tanϕ + tanϕr (Lr − B)
4c0 B B
ks = Punching shear co-efficient (11)
Nq, Nγ = Bearing capacity factors. Where,
The ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing supporting qGTX = Ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing resting on
on sand bed, the footing depth, D is equal to zero and (4) geotextile reinforced sand bed over non-homogeneous
becomes clay.
γH2
qu = cNc + k s tanϕ (6)
B
quf
For a double layer soil bearing capacity of strip footing rest-
ing on top of dense sand bed overlying non-homogeneous
clay, considering (2) and (6), results
kB γH2
qus = F[Nc + ]c0 + k s tanϕ (7)
4c0 B
TGTX H B 𝜏 TGTX

On normalizing the above (7) by undrained shear strength

of clay, c0, reduces to,
kB γB H 2 quf
qus ∗ = F [Nc + ] + ( ) ( ) k s tanϕ (8)
4c0 c0 B

Where, (a)

qus* = qus/c0 γH
qus = It is the combination of strength of bottom non – ho-
*

mogeneous clay and top sand bed.

γB/c0 = Sand bed density gradient TGTX

H/B = Normalised sand bed thickness

(Lr-B)/2
3.3 BOND RESISTANCE OF GEOTEXTILE
REINFORCEMENT DUE TO AXIAL (b)
PULLOUT:
Figure 4. Stresses on (a) Reinforced sand column and (b)
Due to the punching of the strip footing through the sand geotextile reinforcement embedded in sand bed
bed into the soft non- homogeneous clay, stresses are de-
veloped in the sand bed and in geosynthetic reinforcement. (Rajyalakshmi, 2012)
Tensile force developed in the geotextile reinforcement On normalizing the above (11) by undrained shear strength
layer placed in the sand bed due to interface shear re- of clay, it can be written as
sistance for an effective length of (Lr-B) beyond the edges
of footing of width, B (Figure 4) has been determined. kB γB H 2
qGTX ∗ = F [Nc + ] + ( ) ( ) k s tan∅ +
4c0 c0 B
The axial force developed in the reinforcement, TGTX, con- γB H L
( ) ( ) tanϕr ( r − 1) (12)
sidering the unit width of footing, B is c0 B B

γH Lr −B
Where,
TGTX = 2 tanϕr ( ) (9) qGTX* = Normalised bearing capacity for double layer sys-
B 2
tem combined with in-situ clay and geotextile reinforced
Where, sand bed considering axial resistance of reinforcement to
ϕr= Interface bond resistance between sand and geotextile. pull-out.

3.4 BOND RESISTANCE OF GEOGRID

The bearing capacity of double layer system consisting of REINFORCEMENT DUE TO AXIAL PULL-
reinforced sand bed and non-homogeneous clay consider- OUT:
ing increase in strength with depth is determined by adding
(7) and (9) as Figure 5 depicts the passive and frictional resistances de-
veloped in the geogrid reinforcement placed in the sand bed
kB γH2
qGTX = F[Nc + ]c0 + K s tanϕ + TGTX (10) due to the application of footing load at the verge of punch-
4c0 B
ing failure.
 4 of 13

Where,
σn = Normal stress
ϕr = Angle of skin friction between soil and geogrid
 = Shear stress acting at interface of reinforcement and
sand.
αs = Fraction of geogrid solid surface area.
L
PB = ( r )αB σb t (15)
S

Where,
S = Geogrid bearing members spacing.
Lr/S = Number of geogrid members.
αB = The fraction of total frontal area available for bearing.
t = Transversal rib thickness
σb = The effective bearing stress on geogrid bearing mem-
bers
The ratio σb/σn depends only on angle of shearing resistance
as defined by (Jewell et. al [5])
π
σb π ϕ
= e(( 2 +ϕ)tanϕ tan⁡( + ) (16)
σn 4 2

If the shear stress applied is distributed uniformly along the

whole surface of reinforcement, pull out resistance of ge-
ogrid can be calculated as
L
PGGR = 2αS Lr σn tanϕr + ( r )αB σb t (17)
S

3.5 BEARING CAPACITY OF GEOGRID

REINFORCED SAND BED ON NON-
HOMOGENEOUS CLAY:
Figure 5. Mobilization of frictional and passive resistance
due to axial pull-out for geogrid Bearing capacity of geogrid reinforced sand bed on non-
homogeneous clay layer can be estimated by adding the
The interaction mechanism which affects the pull-out bearing capacities of 2-layer system consisting of sand bed
mechanism of geogrid placed in the sand bed is due to pas- overlying soft non- homogeneous clay, (whose undrained
sive resistance mobilized in the bearing members placed in shear strength increases with depth) and the mobilized pull-
the transverse direction to the pull-out. Considering differ- out force in the geogrid reinforced layer due to bearing and
ent interaction mechanisms, the pull-out mechanism of ge- frictional resistance beyond the edge of the footing using
ogrid can be found out as (17) is represented as
PGGR = PS + PB (13) kB γH2
qGGR = F[Nc + ]c0 + k s tanϕ + PGGR (18)
4c0 B
Where,
kB γH2
PGGR = Pull-out resistance of geogrid qGGR = F[Nc + ]c0 + k s tanϕ + 2αS Lr σn tanϕr +
4c0 B
Lr
( )αB σb t (19)
S
PS = Friction component of pull-out resistance Where,
PB = Bearing component of pull-out resistance
AGGR = Wr Lr = surface area of geogrid.
For geogrid of Length, Lr and unit width, Wr, the frictional
component of geogrid is
PS = 2αS Lr τ = 2αS Lr σn tanϕr (14)
 5 of 13

qGGR = Ultimate bearing capacity of geogrid reinforced Figure 6. Variation of normalized bearing capacity with
sand bed overlying non-homogeneous clay whose strength non-homogeneity of clay, kB/c0
increases with depth.
On normalization of (19) with undrained shear strength of 5.2 EFFECT OF SAND BED DENSITY GRADI-
clay, c0, reduces to
20
∗ kB γB H 2
qGGR = F [Nc + ] + ( ) ( ) k s tanϕ +
4c0 c0 B Non homogeneous clay layer
γB H L
αS ( ) ( ) tanϕr ( r − 1) +
c B
0 B
π
Lr γB H 1 (( )+ϕ)tanϕ π ϕ
αB ( )( )( )( S )e 2 tan⁡( + )
B c0 B 4 2

quc*
t

(20) 10 Homogeneous clay layer

qGGR*=qGGR/c0
qGGR*=Normalised bearing capacity, of double layer system
with geogrid reinforcement in sandy layer over non-homo-
geneous clay.
4. BEARING CAPACITY RATIO’S (BCR):
BCRrcg= (qGGR*/quc*) is the ratio of normalised bearing ca- 0
pacities of geogrid reinforced sand bed overlying non-ho- 0 12 24
mogeneous clay to non-homogeneous clay alone. Improve- kB/c0
ment in bearing capacity of double layer due to axial ENT, ΓB/C0:
pullout in geogrid reinforcement will be known.
The effect of kB/c0, cohesion gradient on non-dimensional
The bearing capacity of strip footing on geotextile/ geogrid parameter, qus*, for γB/c0=5, 15 and 35, for ϕ=35˚ and
reinforced sand bed depends on H/B and ϕ related to sand H/B=0.5 is illustrated in Figure 7. This figure exhibit in-
layer, γB/c0, related to unit weight of sand bed, γ, footing creases in qus*, non- linearly with kB/c0 due to increase in
width, undrained shear strength of non-homogeneous clay undrained shear strength of clay layer with depth. Due to
c0 , at the base of footing, ϕr interface angle of shearing re- significant increase surface correction factor, F, kB/c0 be-
sistance of geosynthetic reinforcement with sand and (Lr- tween 0 to 4 as suggested by Davis and Booker (1973).
B) length of reinforcement beyond edges of footing for ax-
ial pull out in the reinforcement. The bearing capacity of
strip footing resting on non-homogeneous clay depends on 28
cohesion gradient, kB/c0 where k is normalised rate of in- φ = 35˚
crease of undrained shear strength of clay with depth. H/B = 0.5
γB/c0= 35
Following range of parameters are examined for parametric
study H/B (0 to 0.5), γB/c0 (5 to 35) and kB/c0 (0 to 24).
Parametric study has been carried out for Lr/B (2 to 4) and 15
qus*

ϕr/ϕ of 0.67, 0.75 &1.

5
17
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 EFFECT OF NON-HOMOGENEITY,
KB/C0:
The effect of cohesive gradient, kB/c0 on normalized bear-
ing capacity of non-homogeneous clay, quc* for homogene-
ous and non- homogeneous clay layers are shown in Figure
6. This figure reveals that quc*, normalized bearing capacity 6
of non-homogeneous clay increases with depth, as dis- 0 12 24
cussed by Davis and Booker [3] and Bujang [2] and is kB/c0
shown in Figure 1, whereas for homogeneous clay quc* is
constant with depth. quc* values for homogeneous clay is
constant at a value of 5.14 whereas for non- homogeneous Figure 7. qus* versus kB/c0-Effect of γB/c0
clay, it increases from 5.14 to 19.6 with increase in kB/c0 There is a sharp increase in qus* due to significant increase
from 0 to 24. in surface correction factor, F between 0 to 4.
 6 of 13

For γB/c0=5, kB/c0 equal to 4 and 24, qus* is 10.49 and 20.49 Figure 9. Normalised bearing capacities versus kB/c0 for
respectively. There is a considerable effect of kB/c0 and different improvement techniques on homogeneous and
γB/c0 on qus* indicating higher qus* values with increase in
36
γB/c0 i.e., for dense sand bed and relatively wider footing. a- Geogrid reinforced
b-Geo textile reinforced (a)
c-Sand bed on clay
5.3 EFFECT OF GEOSYNTHETIC d- Clay alone

quc*/ qus* / qGTX*/ qGGR*

REINFORCEMENT:
φ = 35˚, φr/φ= 0.75,
Variation of normalized bearing capacity values of geogrid γB/c0= 5, Lr/B= 3 (b)
or geotextile reinforced sand bed overlying non-homogene- (c)
ous clay layer, with kB/c0 for γB/c0= 5, 15 & 35, ϕ=35˚, 20 (a)
ϕr/ϕ=0.75, Lr/B= 3.0, H/B= 0.5 are presented in Figure 8. (d)
*
Normalized bearing capacity values, qGTX or in- qGGR*
creases non -linearly with increase in kB/c0 due to increase
in contribution of non- homogeneity of clay layer towards (b)
the bearing strength of the footing. Bearing capacity in-
creases due to significant contribution of passive resistance (c)
of geogrid reinforcement, (qGGR*) than the geotextile rein- (d)
4
forcement, qGTX*. 0 12 24
120 kB/c0
γB/c0= 35
nonhomogeneous clayey soil.
φ = 35˚ Geogrid For γB/c0=5 at kB/c0=4, qGGR*, Normalised bearing capaci-
Geotextile ties of geogrid reinforced sand bed overlying clay system is
H/B = 0.5
Le/B= 3 1.75 times more than geotextile reinforced sand system.
qGTX*/ qGGR*

φr/φ= 0.75
5.5 EFFECT OF ANGLE OF SHEARING
64 RESISTANCE, Φ:
15
35 Figure 10. qus* versus kB/c0 -Effect of
26
H/B = 0.5 φ= 40˚
5 15 γB/c0= 15
5 35˚
8
30˚
0 12 24
qus*

kB/c0
Figure 8. qGTX*/ qGGR* versus kB/c0- Effect of γB/c0
5.4 EFFECT OF VARIOUS IMPROVEMENT
TECHNIQUES:
Variation of normalized bearing capacities, quc*/ qus* /
qGTX*/ qGGR* with kB/c0, the normalized rate of increase of
undrained shear strength of soft clay, for various ground
improvement techniques on non - homogeneous and homo-
geneous clay deposits are depicted in Figure 9. With in-
crease in kB/c0 from 0 to 24, normalized bearing capacity
of geotextile reinforced sand bed overlying clay system in-
crease (qGTX*) from 8.8 to 23.3 and for geogrid reinforced
sand system, qGGR* increases from 18.7 to 33.1 Whereas
normalized bearing values of 5.14, 6.42, 8.89, 18.72 are ob-
served for clay, sand bed overlying clay, sand bed rein-
forced with geotextile and sand bed reinforced with geogrid
systems respectively.
16
6
0 12 24
kB/c0
Variation of normalized bearing capacity (qus*), of sand bed
overlying clay with cohesion gradient, kB/c0, for different
values of angle of shearing resistances, for H/B= 0.5,
γB/c0= 15 is shown in Figure 10. qus* with kB/c0 increase
for different values of angle of shearing resistance, ϕ due to
increase in mobilization of bond resistance along the sur-
face of reinforcement.
 7 of 13

24 18
kB/c0 = 4 H/B = 0.5 kB/c0 =4
H/B=0.5 ϕ= 40˚ Lr/B= 3
ϕr/ϕ= 0.75
8
qus*

ϕ= 40˚
ϕ= 30˚ 12
17
35˚ 9.5

BCRrcg
4
30˚
8
12
10
5 20 35
γB/c 1
0 5 20 35
Figure 11. qus* versus γB/c0- Effect of ϕ γB/c0
The variation of normalized bearing capacity value of sand 5.7 EFFECT OF INTERFACE ANGLE OF
bed overlying clay bed with sand bed density gradient, SHEARING RESISTANCE, ΦR/Φ:
γB/c0 for different values of ϕ=30˚, 35˚ & 40˚ are depicted
in Figure 11 for kB/c0= 4 and H/B=0.5. qus* increase line-
arly with γB/c0 from 10.23 to 13.95 with increase in γB/c0
from 5 to 35, for ϕ equal to 30˚. Normalized bearing capac- 62
ity, qus* increases with increase in ϕ due to increase in sand 0.75 0.67
bed density or increase in width of footings. Angle of shear- ϕr/ϕ = 1.0
ing resistance, ϕ effect on qus* is considerable.
qus* /qGGR*

ϕ = 35˚
γB/c0= 15
5.6 VARIATION OF BCRrcg WITH γB/c0 – H/B = 0.5
EFFECT OF kB/c0 Lr/B= 3
35 qus*
Variation of bearing capacity ratio of geogrid reinforced
sand bed overlying non-homogeneous clay, BCRrcg, with
qGGR*
sand bed density gradient γB/c0, for different kB/c0 values
are illustrated in Figure 12 for H/B= 0.5, ϕr/ϕ =0.75,
Lr/B=3, ϕ=30˚ & 40˚.
BCRrcg increases linearly with γB/c0, higher values of
γB/c0 indicates denser sand bed/relatively wider footing.
BCRrcg decreases from 7.71 to 5.49 with increase in kB/c0 8
from 4 to 12. For a value of angle of shearing resistance of 0 12 24
sand, ϕ, the value of BCRrcg decreases with increase non-
homogeneity of clay layer which is represented by kB/c0.
kB/c0

Figure 13. qGGR* versus kB/c0 - Effect of ϕr/ϕ

There is a significant effect of non-homogeneity, kB/c0 of

clay layer on the BCR values.

To study the variation of normalized bearing capacities

Figure 12. BCRrcg versus γB/c0 - Effect of ϕ with kB/c0 for sand bed overlying clay (qus*) and geogrid
reinforced sand bed overlying clay represented by (q GGR*)
for different values of ϕr/ϕ are presented in Figure 13 for
ϕ=35˚, γB/c0= 15, H/B= 0.5 and Lr/B=3. qus* or qGGR* in-

creases non-linearly with kB/c0 and observed significant in-
crease with increase in kB/c0 from 0 to 4 due to sharp in-
crease in surface correction factor, thereafter it is increasing
linearly due to increase in both axial tension in the rein-
forcement due to passive resistance of geogrid and un-
drained shear strength of clay with depth.
For ϕr/ϕ equal to 0.67, qGGR*
values are 45.04, 49.11 and
59.51 at kB/c0 equal to 0, 4 and 24 respectively. There is a
significant effect of parameter kB/c0 on qGGR* whereas the
effect of parameter ϕr/ϕ on qGGR* is marginal.
5.8 EFFECT OF LENGTH OF
REINFORCEMENT, LR/B:
15
ϕ = 35˚
Lr/B=4
kB/c0 = 4
H/B=0.53
ϕr/ϕ =0.75
3
BCRrcg
8 2
1 Analysis of bearing capacity of strip footing resting on ge-
5 20 35
γB/c0
Figure 14. BCRrcg versus γB/c0 - Effect of Lr/B
To study the variation of γB/c0 on the bearing capacity ra-
tio, BCRrcg, of the geogrid reinforced sand bed overlying
clay to that of footing on clay alone, for different values of
Lr/B= 2,3& 4 are depicted in Figure14 for ϕ=35˚, kB/c0= 4,
H/B= 0.5 and ϕr/ϕ= 0.95 for Lr/B=2, BCRrcg increases lin-
early from 2.02 to 7.93 with increase in γB/c0 from 5 to 35.
Increased bearing capacity values are demonstrated by
denser sand bed and /or wider footings.
Length (Lr-B/2) of the reinforcement beyond the edge of
the footing is effective in contributing passive resistance
i.e., shear stresses development over the surface of the re-
inforcement contributes to the enhancement of bearing ca-
pacity.
5.9 VALIDATION OF RESULTS:
Table 1. Comparison of Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR) of
present study with available literature
8 of 13
Results of Pre-
S.
sent Study for
N Authors BCR
corresponding
o
properties
R Shivshankar et.
1 1.9 1.38
al. (1993)
Rethaliya R.P and
2 1.31 1.18
Verma (2009)
Rajyalakshmi et.
3 1.82 1.82
al. (2011)
J.P. Love et.al.
4 2.91 2.39
(1987)
J.P. Love et.al.
5 3.27 2.96
(1987)
Arghadeep Biswas
6 5.34 5.27
et. al. (2015)
The bearing capacity ratio of reinforced sand bed on soft
clay of the present study is obtained by incorporating re-
spective properties (subsoil, sand bed and reinforcement
etc.) used by various researches. The predicted BCR values
obtained using the present study were compared with the
available literature and found reasonable as shown in Ta-
ble1.
6. CONCLUSIONS
osynthetic reinforced sand bed over soft non- homogeneous
clay whose undrained cohesion increases linearly with
depth is compared with bearing capacity of sand bed on
non-homogeneous clay. Extension of Meyerhof’s punching
shear failure model for foundations resting on dense sand
bed over homogeneous clay deposit is incorporated to in-
clude the effects of non- homogeneity of clay. Contribu-
tions of sand bed density, γB/c0, non-homogeneity of clay,
kB/c0 on normalised bearing capacity factors, bearing ca-
pacity ratios are quantified in parametric study. The pre-
dicted bearing capacity ratios (BCR) are found to agree
closely with some of the experimental BCR values, thereby
providing validity of the proposed theory,
 Normalized bearing capacity considering non-homo-
geneity of clay, quc* increases from 5.14 to 19.60 with
increase in kB/c0 from 0 to 24 whereas for homogene-
ous clay it is constant at a value of 5.14.
 Normalised bearing capacity factor, qus* for γB/c0= 35
is 1.55 times more than that of qus* for γB/c0= 5 at
kB/c0=4 due to relatively wider footings or dense sand
bed.
 Normalised bearing capacity values of geogrid rein-
forced sand bed overlying soft non- homogeneous
 9 of 13

clay(qGGR*), are 1.75 times more than normalised bear- Skempton A W (1951). The Bearing Capacity of Clays.
ing capacity values of sand bed over non-homogene- Proceeding Building Research Congress, 1, 180- 189
ous clay (qus*) for γB/c0=5 and kB/c0=4, due to the pas-
sive resistance mobilised perpendicular to the direction Tani K, Craig W H (1995). Bearing capacity of circular
of axial force and frictional resistance developed be- foundations on soft clay of strength increasing with depth.
tween soil and geogrid surface. Soils and foundations, ISSN 0038-0806, 35(4), 21-35.
 With increase in bond/ interface resistance between ge-
Terzaghi K (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, John
osynthetic reinforcement and sand, ϕr, the normalised Wiley and sons, New York
bearing capacity improves marginally.
Vesic A S (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow
REFERENCES foundations. Journal of soil mechanics & foundation divi-
sion, 99 (1):45-73
Arghadeep Biswas, Asfaque Md Ansari, Sujit Kumar
Dash, A Murali Krishna (2015). Behaviour of Geogrid
Reinforced Foundation Systems supported on Clay sub-
grades of Different Strengths. Int.J. of Geosynth. and
Ground Eng. 1:20 DOI 10.1007/s40891-015-0023-5

Bujang B K H (1995). Stability of embankment son soft

ground- lessons from failures. Petanika J. Sci & Technol
3(1):123-139

Davis E H, Booker J R (1973). The effect of increasing

strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. Ge-
otechnique, 23(4):551-563

Davis E H, Booker J R (1985). The effect of increasing

strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays.
Golden Jubilee of the International Society for Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering: Commemorative
Volume. Barton, ACT: Institute of Engineers, Australia,
185-197

Jewel R A (1990). Reinforcement bond capacity. Geotech-

nique 40(3): 513-518

Love J P, Burd H J, Milligan, G W E, Houlsby, G T

(1987). Analytical and Model Studies of Reinforcement of
a Layer of Granular Fill on Soft Clay Subgrade. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 24(4):611-622

Meyerhof G (1974). Ultimate bearing capacity of footings

on sand layer overlying ground. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal,11(2):223-229

Rajyalakshmi K, Madhav M R, Ramu K (2012). Bearing

capacity of foundations on geosynthetic reinforced founda-
tion beds on soft non-homogeneous ground. Indian Journal
of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement, 1(1):11-19
Rethaliya RP, Verma A K (2009). Strip footing on Sand
overlying soft clay with geotextile interface. Indian ge-
otechnical journal 39(3):271- 287

Shivshankar R, Madhav M R, Miura N (1993). Rein-

forced granular beds overlying soft clay. Proceeding 11th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical conference, Singapore: 409-
414