LARGE MODEL SPREAD FOOTING LOAD TESTS ON GEOSYNTHETIC

REINFORCED SOIL FOUNDATIONS

By Michael T. Adams· and James G. Collin,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The potential benefits of geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations are investigated using large-scale
model footing load tests. A total of 34 load tests were performed to evaluate the effects of single and multiple
layers of geosynthetic reinforcement placed below shallow spread footings. Two different geosynthetics are
evaluated: a stiff biaxial geogrid and a geocell. Parameters of the testing program include the number of rein-
forcement layers, spacing between reinforcement layers, the depth to the first reinforcement layer, plan area of
the reinforcement, the type of reinforcement, and soil density. Test results indicate that the use of geosynthetic
reinforced soil foundations may increase the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow spread footings by a factor of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.5.

INTRODUCTION It is believed that the information presented in this paper

will offer practitioners a better understanding of the mecha-
The use of geosynthetics in civil engineering applications is nisms of RSF. Results indicate considerable performance im-
increasing annually. One new application, the construction of provements in the case of a poorly graded sand fill.
a reinforced soil foundation (RSF) to support a shallow spread
footing, has considerable potential as a cost-effective alter- TESTING PROGRAM
native to conventional methods of support. In this technique,
one or more layers of a geosynthetic reinforcement and con- All tests were performed in a test pit constructed at T-
trolled fill material are placed beneath the footing to create a FHRC. The pit is a reinforced concrete box 5.4 m wide by
composite material with improved performance characteristics 6.9 m long by 6 m deep. Precast, steel reinforced, concrete
(Fig. 1). During the last decade, RSF has received considerable footings were used for all load tests. Square footings were
attention from the academic community (Milligan and Love selected to minimize the dimensional effects (strip and rectan-
1984; Guido et al. 1987; Huang and Tatsuoka 1990; Omar et gular footings). The footing sizes selected for evaluation were
al. 1994; Yetimoglu et al. 1994; Chadbourne 1994; and Espi- 0.3 X 0.3,0.46 X 0.46,0.61 X 0.61, and 0.91 X 0.91 m. The
noza and Bray 1995). Most of these studies have been con- footings were loaded with a hydraulic ram jacked against a
ducted using small-scale tests to evaluate the potential benefits reaction frame.
of a reinforced soil mass below shallow foundations. To date, five RSF test series have been performed at T-
These earlier small-scale tests qualitatively demonstrated FHRC. A test series is defined as excavating the test pit and
that a geosynthetic reinforcement placed below a footing can then replacing the sand in 0.3 m compacted lifts to a specified
increase both the ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bear- sand density. All experiments performed in anyone particular
ing stress at a given settlement; however, because of the var- test pit fill are included as a test series.
ious difficulties in accurately modeling full-scale behavior
with small-scale laboratory models, practitioners have not been Material Properties
quick to adopt this emerging technology.
In the present investigation, the model spread footings are Cohesionless Soil
one to two orders of magnitude larger than those used to eval-
Fine concrete mortar sand was used in all of the experi-
uate the performance in earlier investigations. This large-scale
ments. The sand is classified as a poorly graded sand (SP) by
testing was performed at the Federal Highway Administra-
tion's (FHWA) Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center the Uniform Soil Classification System and consists of suban-
gular to angular particles with a D so of 0.25 and a uniformly
(T-FHRC), located in McLean, Va. The research included load
coefficient (C u ) of 1.7. Fig. 2 shows the grain-size distribution
testing large model spread footings on geosynthetic RSFs.
for the sand. The maximum dry unit weight as determined
Thirty-four load tests were conducted on RSFs consisting of
using a vibrating plate (ASTM D4253-91) is 16.7 kN/m3 • The
one to three layers of geosynthetic reinforcement. 0.30, 0.46,
minimum dry density is 13.8 kN/m3 (ASTM D4254-91).
0.61, and 0.91 m square footings were loaded to failure. Thick-
ness of the RSF with respect to the width of the footing varied
from 0.25 to 1.5. Primary objectives of these experiments were Geosynthetic Reinforcement
to evaluate the performance of geosynthetic RSF with respect Two types of geosynthetic were used as reinforcement for
to bearing capacity and settlement; examine the effects of the the testing program. Four of the five RSF test series were
spacing, area, and number of reinforcement layers; and ob- performed with a punched/drawn polypropylene biaxial geo-
serve influences of different sand densities within the rein-
forced soil mass on the performance of RSFs. -B-

IRes. Engr., Fed. Hwy. Admin., Turner-Fairbank Hwy. Res. Ctr., Mc-
Lean, VA 22101-2296.
'Prin., The Collin Group Ltd., 11 Plantation Court, North Bethesda, n=1
MD 20852.
Note. Discussion open until June I, 1997. To extend the closing date n=2
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and n=3
possible publication on March 29, 1996. This paper is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123, No.1,
January, 1997. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/97/0001-0066-0072/$4.00 +
$.50 per page. Paper No. 12978. FIG. 1. Spread Footing on Reinforced Soli Foundation

66/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1997

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 100%
difference in performance between the geogrid and geocell re-
90% inforcement. To compare performance, a comparable amount
f',
of geogrid and geocell material based on cost of geosynthetic
.
80%
per square meter of RSF was used in these tests.
.~
70% 1\
...
~ \ Phase I

~
.
.E
60%

50% 1\ Series 1 consisted of testing 0.30, 0.46, 0.61, and 0.91 m

E 40% \ square footings on the surface of sand placed at a dry density
~ \ of 14.9 kN/m3 • Fig. 3 shows the layout of the footings in the
l:: 30°./0
~ test pit for series 1- 3. It was possible to test two footings of
20% each size in the test pit during any series, except for the 0.91
10% \ m footing. Only one test with the 0.91 m footing was per-
formed during any test series. The series 1 tests were to be
~
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0% the control (nonreinforced) tests with which to compare the

10 0.1 0.01 RSF tests in series 2 and 3.
Grain Size (mm)
Series 2 was the same as series 1 except that the footings
FIG. 2. Grain-Size Distribution-Mortar Sand were founded on three layers of biaxial geogrid. The geogrid
was positioned 150, 300, and 450 mm below the bottom of
grid. The aperture size of the geogrid was 25 X 30 mm. The the footings. The geogrid used for the testing program is man-
ultimate strength of the grid per ASTM D4595 is 34 kN/m. ufac.tured in roll widths of 4 m. The entire plan area of the
At 5% strain the tensile strength is 20 kN/m in the machine test pit was covered with grid at each layer. This required two
direction and 25 kN/m in the cross machine direction. pieces of grid at each reinforcement layer to cover the pit. One
The second geosynthetic selected for the study was a geo- piece of grid for each layer was cut in half. To minimize the
cell. The geocell is manufactured from extruded high-density effects of grid overlap, the two sheets used in each layer were
polyethylene sheets 1.25 mm thick. The sheets are cut into Series 1: Control
strips 200 mm wide and ultrasonically welded together into a
honeycomb pattern. The minimum weld seam strength is 2,000
N. Cell dimensions when expanded are 200 by 244 mm.

Test-Series Descriptions
•• •• Series 2: Layers

• ~""
B=O.46m B-O.61m
Before discussing the experimental program, definition of a .. '.'
~
5.5m .. '.'.'.
few key terms is required: Z(n) is defined as the depth from the B=O.30m B=:O.30m

•
ground surface to reinforcement layer n; B is the width of the

•
B::::().91

spread footing; and the thickness of the RSF expressed in Series 3: Geocell
terms of a z/B ratio is the depth of the reinforcement layer to B=<l.46
B=O.61m
the width of the footing (Fig. 1).
The research was conducted in two phases. Phase I is com- 7.0m
prised of the first three test series. The primary purposes of
Plan View
Phase I were to evaluate the effects of different reinforcement
spacing with respect to footing size (z/B) and to quantify the FIG. 3. Test-Pit Footing layout-Plan-View Series 1-3 .

TABLE 1. Phase I Summary

Reinforcement Bearing Capacity
Test B n=1 n=2 n=3 Area quo Tangent
identification (m) z,IB z"IB ~/B (m 2 ) (kPa) intersect siB = 0.50% siB = 1% siB = 3%
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 )
(a) 'Y(dry) = 14.8 kN/m 3
1195 0.31 - - - - 247 1 1 1 1
15395 0.46 - - - - 245 1 1 1 1
2295 0.61 - - - - 269 1 1 1 1
3195 0.91 - - - - 283 1 1 1 1
(b) 'Y(dry) = 14.8 kN/m 3

1194T 0.31 0.5 1 1.5 continuous 554 2.24 0.67 0.96 1.95
1294T 0.31 0.5 1 1.5 continuous 528 2.13 0.76 1.02 1.92
15194T 0.46 0.33 0.66 1 continuous 558 2.28 1.20 1.68 2.41
15294T 0.46 0.33 0.66 1 continuous 639 2.61 1.37 1.98 2.52
2194T 0.61 0.25 0.5 0.75 continuous - - 1.84 2.03 2.05
2294T 0.61 0.25 0.5 0.75 continuous 664 2.47 1.24 1.63 2.32
3194T 0.91 0.17 0.34 0.5 continuotls 542 1.92 1.84 2.27 2.36
(c) 'Y(dry) = 14.8 kN/m3
12950 0.31 0.66 - - continuous 302 1.22 0.68 0.73 1.08
151950 0.46 0.44 - - continuous 358 1.64 1.15 1.23 1.37
152950 0.46 0.44 - - continuous 307 1.25 1.04 1.1 1.27
22950 0.61 0.32 - - continuous 320 1.18 0.96 1.07 1.17
23950 0.61 0.32 - - continuous 275 1.02 1.19 1.17 1.19
31950 0.91 0.22 - - continuous 318 1.12 0.56 0.87 1.19

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING I JANUARY 1997 I 67

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 overlapped 0.6 m and staggered so that all the overlaps were 0.61 m. The depth of the reinforcement beneath the footing z
not on top of each other. A 50 mm layer of sand was placed was either 150 or 225 mm. The in-place dry density of the
between the overlap to ensure full contact with sand and to soil was approximately 14.7 kN/m3 • The layout of the precast
limit slipping between the layers. The layout of the footings footings and geogrid for the five load tests in series 4 are
within the test pit was essentially identical to that of series 1 shown in Fig. 4.
(Fig. 3). The in-place dry density of the sand for series 2 tests Series 5 was the first test series in which the sand was com-
was 14.8 kN/m3 • pacted to 14.5 kN/m3 , significantly less than the 14.8 kN/m3
Series 3 was identical to series 2 except that a different type
of geosynthetic reinforcement was used in the RSF. The re-
inforcement used for this series was a geocell. Each geocell
.- . . -. - -. oiol-,;;i;il.::...-----------...--,-- .60m
was expanded to an area of 2.75 X 3.4 m; four geocells were
used to cover the area of the test pit prior to placing the last
0.3 m of fill. It was necessary to stake the geocell material to
the ground to maintain its shape prior to backfilling. During
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the last 0.3 m lift, after the geocell was stretched into position, 5.5m • Spread Footina;
sand was spread to fill each cell. A 100 mm thick layer of ~ Reinforcement

sand was placed between the footings and the top of the geo-
cell. The dry density of the foundation soil was 14.8 kN/m3 •
It should be noted that it was difficult to achieve the target
density in the last lift because of the difficulty in compacting I.I0m
the sand in the cells. The layout of the 0.30, 0.46, 0.61, and
0.91 m footings within the test pit was identical to series 1 -'--------'--~~-.....j~-~-!-.....j---l~
.60m .90m-
and 2. Table 1 summarizes the phase I testing program. fo--------7.0m------~

FIG. 4. "At.t-Plt Footing layout-Plan-View Serle. 4

Phase II
Phase IT test (series 4, 5, and 6) were designed to examine .30m
the effects of 1 versus 2 reinforcement layers; the spacing re-
lationship between the top reinforcement layer and the bottom
of the spread footing; plan area of reinforcement; and sand
density of the RSF. The 0.61 m square spread footing was
selected for all phase IT experiments because of the relatively 5.5m
large number of tests that could be performed in the pit with-
out significant interference between adjacent footings and the
TLZO
pit walls. The sand density in each of test series 4, 5, and 6
was slightly modified to evaluate the effect on the performance
of the RSF. Each test series is briefly described. i
C ootrol

Series 4 was conducted to evaluate the effects of different I

1.10m
zlB ratios and the influence of the area of the reinforcement
layer beneath the spread footing on footing performance.
Three different areas of geogrid reinforcement (1.2 X 1.2, 1.8 -2.10m·
-7.0m-------
X 1.8, and 2.4 X 2.4 m) were centered either 0.25B or 0.375B
beneath the bottom of the footing. The width of footing B was FIG. 5. Te.t-Plt Footing layout-Plan-View Serle. 5-6

TABLE 2. Phase II Summary

Reinforcement Bearing Capacity
Test B n=1 n=2 n=3 Area qu~ Tangent
identification (m) z l lB ~/B z31B (m2 ) (kPa) intersect sIB =0.50% sIB =
1% sIB =
3%
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 )
(a) '(dry) = 14.7 kN/m'
SD11(con...n 0.61 - - - - 160 1.00 1.00 1 1
TLl46 0.61 0.25 - - 1.2 X 1.2 250 1.56 1.08 1.29 1.63
TL149 0.61 0.38 - - 1.2 X 1.2 260 1.63 1.19 1.36 1.63
TL166 0.61 0.25 - - 1.8 X 1.8 253 1.58 0.95 1.22 1.53
TL169 0.61 0.38 - - 1.8 X 1.8 302 1.89 0.92 1.23 1.71
TL186 0.61 0.25 - - 2.4 X 2.4 249 1.56 1.09 1.4 1.61
(b) '(dry) = 14.5 kN/m'
TL20(conb'Ol) 0.61 - - - - 180 1.00 1.00 1 1
TL286 0.61 0.25 - - 2.4 X 2.4 208 1.16 1.3 1.26 1.25
TL2461 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 1.2 X 1.2 264 1.47 1.42 1.43 1.51
TL2661 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 1.8 X 1.8 195 1.08 1.42 1.23 1.13
TL2861 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 2.4 X 2.4 215 1.19 1.20 1.15 1.15
(c) '(dry) = 14.2 kN/m'
TL30(......,) 0.61 - - - - 93 1.00 1.00 1 1
TL386 0.61 0.25 - - 2.4 X 2.4 127 1.37 1.38 1.42 1.45
TL3461 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 1.2 X 1.2 157 1.69 0.67 0.75 1.05
TL3661 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 1.8 X 1.8 117 1.26 1.07 1.05 1.14
TL3861 0.61 0.25 0.5 - 2.4 X 2.4 112 1.20 0.76 0.86 1.01

681 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING I JANUARY 1997

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 density used in phase 1. Five tests were performed in the series, TEST RESULTS
three of which were conducted with two layers of grid cen-
tered 150 and 300 mm (or 0.25B and O.5B) beneath the foot- Ultimate bearing capacity (quit) as used herein is defined as
ing. One test was conducted with only one layer of grid lo- the tangent intersection between the initial, stiff, straighter por-
cated 150 mm (O.5B) beneath the footing. A control test with tion of the load settlement curve and the steeper, straight por-
no geogrid reinforcement was also conducted. The test pit lay- tion of the curve, as shown in Fig. 6. For some tests the de-
out is shown in Fig. 5. termination of quit was difficult to evaluate because there was
Series 6 was identical to series 5 with the exception that the not a sharp change in the shape of the curve (e.g., Fig. 6, test
in-place density of the sand was reduced from 14.5 to 14.2 15294T). The ultimate bearing capacity in this case was con-
kN/m3 • Table 2 summarizes all of the variables in the phase
servatively taken as the intersection of the two straight por-
II tests. tions of the curve, even though a plunging failure was not
reached. To quantify or compare the performance between
each test, the bearing-capacity ratio (BCR) was calculated.
Test Setup and Procedures BCR is defined as the bearing capacity of a footing placed on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RSF divided by the bearing capacity of the same footing with-

Pit Preparation out the geosynthetic reinforcement. For cohesionless soils al-
lowable settlement and not ultimate bearing capacity often
At the beginning of each test series, the test pit was exca- governs design. The bearing capacity of the RSFs at 0.5, 1.0,
vated to a depth of 4B beneath the largest footing to be tested and 3.0% strain [defined as settlement (s) divided by footing
in the series. This depth was chosen based on Boussinesq width (B), siB] are also compared to the bearing capacity of
stress-distribution theory. Using this theory, the stress below a the same footing without the geosynthetic reinforcement (Le.,
footing dissipates to effectively zero at a depth of about 3B BCRCe%)'
below the footing. Earlier footing load tests at T-FHRC in-
strumented with telltales to measure vertical soil strain also Phase I
showed that there was no measurable vertical strain below a
depth of 2B. Therefore, using an excavation depth of 4B The results of phase I are graphically shown in Figs. 6-12.
should assure that the results are not influenced by previous Figs. 6-8 combine the load-settlement curves according to
tests. After excavation, the sand was carefully replaced with a individual footing size for test series 1, 2, and 3. Fig. 6 shows
backhoe in 300 mm lifts. During each lift, the sand was raked that the ultimate bearing capacity of the 0.46 m square control
level and then compacted with a vibrating plate tamper. To footing, series 1 (without reinforcement), was 245 kPa. The
maintain a consistent in-place density throughout the test pit, ultimate bearing capacity of the series 2 0.46 m footing with
the same compactive effort was used on each lift. In-place three layers of reinforcement was 664 kPa. This corresponds
density was measured using a nuclear density gauge according to a BCR of 2.63. Note that the test for the second 0.46 m
to ASTM 02922-91. Direct transmission measurements were footing for series 2 was terminated prior to reaching the ulti-
taken at a depth of 200 mm in the 300 mm lifts. Five density mate bearing capacity due to a problem in the test setup. The
readings were performed on each lift to ensure a consistent geocell, series 3, experiments were compared to the control
density. After completion of the backfilling operation, the sand results in series 1, as were the three layer geogrid results from
was carefully leveled in the areas directly beneath the footings. series 2. The average ultimate bearing capacity of the two 0.46
This was to ensure that the surface footings had full contact " r l q ' - n (Id'a)
with the sand and that the load applied to the footing was

r.. ~~i~;:::::==1 . . . _.. .

0 JOO 20t 300 400 500 100
normal. 0
-5 :-::,53!15(CO._)
..... 151!I5G(~
·JO
Test Setup and Instrumentation .... 152!I5G (e-Jl)

The precast concrete footings were placed at predetermined I .:11

·15 ..... 15INT(
..... 152NT(
rId)
rid)
.:16
locations in the test pit. The reaction frame and reference
beams were set into place over the pit. Load was applied with J .JO

035
a hydraulic jack and maintained manually with a hand pump.
-40
Load was measured with a load cell and strain indicator box.
~
A rocker plate and ball joint were fitted to the load cell. The
load cells were calibrated to within 0.03% of their rated ca- FIG. 6. SearIng Pressure versus Settlement Curve. for 0.46 m
pacity. Footing Serle. 1-3
Four linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) mea- ..,..,P.....,. (kP.)
sured settlements on the comers of the footings. Settlement o ~ ~ 300 400 500 400 ~ 100 ~

data were recorded using a data-acquisition system. The o,...~t::'""""' ..................-++_-+-+-..........................,...................................._.........,

LVDTs were calibrated to a precision of 0.025 mm. .....11!15

.... :1395 (Coatrol)
..... 11!I5G (e-Jl)
·10
..... :I395G (e-Jl)
Test Procedure .... 2JNT (GeatrId)
·J5 .... UNT (GeatrId)

The load was applied incrementally. Load was increased 1.:11

from increment to increment only when there was no signifi-
cant change (<0.075 mm) in settlement between any two time
intervals. Each load increment was maintained manually. The
I~ -30

data-acquisition system recorded settlement at 1, 3, 5, 7, 15,

20, 25, and 30 min intervals from the start of each load in-
crement. Each load increment was held for a minimum of 5
min. After each series was completed, the sand was carefully
excavated and the geosynthetic reinforcement visually in- FIG. 7. SearIng Pres.ure versus Settlement Curve. for 0.61 m
spected. Footing Serle. 1-3

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1997/69

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 ..... "-""!'Pal
m footings for series 3 is 298 kPa, which corresponds to a UIO :100 300 400 toO
BCR of 1.27.
Fig. 8 shows the test results for the 0.91 m square footing.
Again, the shape of the curves for the control, geocell, and the .:10
three layers of geogrid are similar to the tests on the 0.46 and
0.61 m footings. At low strains, however, the geocell has a
lower bearing capacity than the control footing. Only after
approximately 150 rom of settlement did the bearing capacity
_1-
_1:I95G
__ lItHe

__ ZlHG
.... 2295G
of the footing reinforced with the geocell exceed the control. _Z395G
~3195G
The BCR for the geocell is 1.12. Due to load-capacity limi-
tations of the reaction frame, it was not possible to completely
fail the 0.91 m square footing on the three layer geogrid RSF.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o 100 700 FIG. 11. Bearing Pressure versus Settlement Curves for All
o ~~~--+--+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+--+--1 Footings for series 3
-10
3.00 -~- ---- III [email protected]%

·10

2.50
1 • [email protected]·"
o [email protected]/.
-30 -0-_

. __ ~_ .
_ 3195 (CoIlIruI)
_31!I5G (e-u)
-0- 3194T (Geap1d)
~
.~
..
2.00

1.Sll
rj
@
ei
.70 '" 1.00

-80
0.50
-90

FIG. 8. Bearing Pressure versus Settlement Curves for 0.91 m 0.00

Footing Series 1-3 1194T 1294T tS194T lS294T 2194T 2294T 3194T
Tat"

FIG. 12. 'Rtst series 2-Bearlng-Capaclty Ratio Baaed on 0.5,

1.0, and 3.0% settlements

However, the ultimate bearing capacity may be visually esti-

-:10
-0-11"
mated from the curve to be approximately 542 kPa. Using this
_ I_
_ 22"
value, BCR for the three-layer case is 1.92.
.... 23H Figs. 6, 7, and 8 show the beneficial effects of the geogrid
..... 31" RSF by the change in the shape of the load-settlement curve.
The mode of failure is different than that for the nonreinforced
footings. The slope of the load-settlement curves for the series
1 unreinforced (control) footings changed dramatically at the
ultimate bearing capacity and became very steep. Failure oc-
curred suddenly with only a small increase in load; classic soil
mechanics describes this as general shear failure. The perfor-
mance of the series 2, three-layer geogrid RSF results in load-
FIG. 9. Bearing Pressure versus settlement Curves for All settlement curves that are much flatter than the control footings
Footings for Series 1 at failure. The curve is rounded, and the mode of failure can
- .... P.-..... (kP.) be described as local shear failure. In all cases, the three-layer
0 ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 700 _ _ geogrid RSF performed better than the geocell RSF.
0 This may be due to the fact that the mechanism governing
the interaction between the reinforcement and the soil is dif-
-5
_lI94T ferent between the geogrid and the geocell. The geocell pro-
_1194T
-10 _15194T
vides confinement of the sand placed within the open three-
_151lNT dimensional cellular system. This confinement is achieved
-IS _lllNT through hoop stress in the individual cells of the geocell. Geo-
i' _l194T grids provide confinement and reinforcement by a transfer of

I
-10 _3194T
stress between the soil and the geogrid through both friction
·15 and passive resistance.
Other possible reasons for the difference in performance be-
-30 tween geosynthetics are the reinforced soil composite was
thicker for the geogrid RSF than for the geocell RSF, and it
·35
was difficult to compact the sand within the geocells so the
-40 as-placed density may have been less than 14.8 kN/m3 •
Figs. 9, 10, and 11 are the load-settlement curves for all the
~
tests performed in series 1,2, and 3, respectively. Fig. 9 is the
FIG. 10. Bearing Pressure versus Settlement Curves for All summary plot for the nonreinforced footing load tests (con-
Footings for Series 2 trol). The ultimate bearing capacity of the 0.3,0.46,0.61, and
70 I JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING I JANUARY 1997

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 0.91 m square footing range from 235 to 283 kPa, with an the effects of reinforcement area. A control test without rein-
average of 256 kPa. Fig. 10 is a series 2 summary plot- forcement was not performed in series 4. However, for com-
shown are load-settlement curves for the 0.30,0.46,0.61, and parison, the results of an unreinforced 0.61 m footing test,
0.91 m square footings on the three-layer RSF. Depth to the performed during a different test series, in the mortar sand at
reinforcement layers Zm, Z(2), and Z(3) equal 150, 300, and 460 a density of 14.7 kN/m3 was used in the calculation of series
mm, respectively. Thickness of RSF ranged from 0.5B for the 4 BCRs, and is included in Fig. 13.
0.91 m footing to 1.5B for 0.30 m footing. Figs. 9 and 10 The results clearly show that performance was improved
clearly demonstrate the excellent reproducibility of the load with one layer of reinforcement. The shape of the individual
tests as the band of all the curves in each series of tests is load-settlement curves for this test series are fairly similar to
relatively narrow. the curves for the three layers of geogrid. However, the initial
The geogrid RSFs tested in phase 1 of this research program part of test series 4 curves are not quite as flat as the curves
improved the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation sys- for the three layers of reinforcement. It would appear that the
tem by approximately 230% (i.e., 1.92 s BCR s 2.63). This bearing capacity of the footings tested using one layer of geo-
improvement in ultimate bearing capacity occurred at settle- grid is not sensitive to depth of reinforcement, for a dB rang-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ments between 10 and 20 mm. Depending on the application, ing between 0.25 and 0.375. Furthermore, the bearing capacity
this amount of settlement may be unacceptable. The allowable is not sensitive to the variation in plan area of the reinforce-
bearing capacity was, therefore, considered to detennine if the ment. TL169, the 1.8 X 1.8 m sheet at 0.375B, performed best
RSF provides improved performance at small settlements (sIB in terms of ultimate capacity even though one would expect
= 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0%). Fig. 12 shows the results for the phase TL189, the 2.4 X 2.4 m sheet, to have the greatest ultimate
1, series 2 tests. At small normalized settlements (sIB) of 0.5%, capacity because of its greater area.
the BCR increases with footing size. For the 0.3 m footing, The BCR for the six tests in series 4 ranged from 1.56 to
the average BCR.o.,'lI> is 0.71. The average BCR.o.,'lI> for the 1.89. This close band indicates that the bearing capacity is
0.46,0.61, and 0.91 m square footings is 1.28, 1.54, and 1.84, relatively insensitive to the parameters evaluated. The differ-
respectively. An explanation for this phenomena may be that ences in performance between individual load tests in test se-
the dB ratios for the reinforcement decrease as the footing ries 4 are probably within the reproducibility of the test.
size increases. In the case of the 0.91 m footing, the three Fig. 14 is a plot of the load-settlement curves for series 5.
layers of reinforcement were all within O.5B of the bottom of This was the first test series to evaluate the effect of soil den-
the footing. As the footing load was applied, the geogrid re- sity on the bearing-capacity relationships observed in test se-
inforcement was immediately mobilized to reduce lateral soil ries 1-4. The parameters for test series 5 were the soil density,
strain. BCRs at 1.0 and 3.0% strain for the larger footing show 14.5 kN/m3, the number of layers of reinforcement (0, I, and
an improvement greater than 2.0 in many cases. The 0.3 m 2), and the plan area of the reinforcement (1.2 X 1.2, 1.8 X
footing, however, does not show any substantial improvement 1.8, and 2.4 X 2.4 m). It is interesting to note that the test
until a strain of 3.0%. This may be due to the fact that the with one layer of reinforcement placed at a dB of 0.25 per-
depth to the first layer of reinforcement is too deep (O.5B). formed as well as two of the tests with two layers of rein-
Lateral soil shear is believed to have occurred above the first forcement. The load-settlement curves for tests TL286,
layer of reinforcement, and not until substantial settlement oc- TL266 I, and TL2861 are very similar, as are the BCRs for
curred was the reinforcement mobilized. these tests (1.16, 1.13, and 1.19). A higher BCR (1.47) for
In the series 2 tests, it was observed that when the geogrid TL2461 is possibly due to a higher in-place density of the soil
was centered underneath the spread footing, rotation of the within the RSF under this footing.
footing during loading was reduced; the four comers of the The BCRs for series 5 are generally less than the BCRs in
footing settled uniformly. The footings located in the comers series 4. This reduction in the improvement (benefit) of the
of the test pit when loaded to failure, however, rotated. These reinforced footing is believed to be a function of the in-place
spread footings were not centered on RSF, and pullout of the density of the foundation soil. For less dense soils, more soil
reinforcement may have occurred. strain is required before the beneficial effects of the geogrid
can be mobilized. This trend is also evident in series 6.
Phase II Fig. 15 shows the results of test series 6. This test series
Fig. 13 shows the results of series 4. Test series 4 evaluated was identical to series 5, except the in-place density of the
the performance of a 0.61 m footing on one layer of geogrid foundation soil was reduced to 14.1 kN/m 3 • Because of this
at a depth (z) below the bottom of the footing of 150 or 225 reduction in density, the control for series 6 was half the ca-
mm, which corresponds to a dB ratio of 0.25-0.375. Discrete pacity of the control in series 5; yet the BCRs for series 6 are
sizes of reinforcement were also used in this series to establish slightly higher than for series 5. In this case, the method of
_riqS_~.) Bearlq P....are (kPa)
_ w _ _
m
~
~
~
~
~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
-<>- TUO (Coatrol)
...... 8»11 (Coo1roI) -10 ...... TU86
-20 ~TL1'"
..... TL149 -<>- TU461
... TLI66
-20 __ TU661
~TL1" 'i __ TU861
..... TLII9 .! -30

-70
I -40

-50

-a
·70
FIG. 13. Bearing Pressure versus Settlement Curves for 0.61 FIG. 14. Bearing Pressure ver.us Settlement Curve. for 0.61
m Footings serle. 4 m Footing. series 5

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1997/71

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.

 Bearlq Su- (!<pa)
0 100 158 200
tween 0.25 and 1.5. The results clearly demonstrate that geo-
258 300
0
synthetic reinforcement can substantially increase the ultimate
·10
bearing capacity of shallow spread footings on sand. The im-
__ TL30 (COIItroI)
provement, quantified as the BCR, can be significant for three
·20 ..... 11.386 layers of grid (BCR > 2.6). The BCR at 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0%
·30 -0- TL3461
settlement (siB) was also increased when the depth to the top
'i ... TI.3661
.! -40 layer of reinforcement was less than 0.5B. The maximum im-
... 11.3861
i -58 provement in bearing capacity at low strains (siB = 0.5%) oc-
j -M
·70
curs when the depth to the top layer of reinforcement is within
a depth of 0.25B from the bottom of the footing.
-80
This improved performance can be attributed to an increase
in shear strength in the reinforced soil mass from the inclusion
·90
of the geosynthetic reinforcement. The soil-geosynthetic sys-
·100 tem forms a composite material that inhibits development of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi on 05/21/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 15. Bearing Pressure versus settlement Curves for 0.61 the soil-failure wedge beneath shallow spread footings.
m Footings Series 6 For one layer of reinforcement there appears to be an im-
provement in performance if the sand within the RSF is com-
using the tangent intersect to evaluate the performance is prob- pacted to a high relative density so that stress transfer to the
ably misleading. Perhaps another method of determining the reinforcement occurs before large soil strains occur. Addition-
ultimate bearing capacity would have been more appropriate ally, the spread footings tested on a RSF were less likely to
for the case where allowable settlement controls performance. experience a general shear, plunging failure, provided the first
For loose soils within the reinforced soil mass, the effects layer of reinforcement was placed within OAB beneath the
of the reinforcement are minimized because relatively large base of the footing.
strains are required to mobilize the reinforcement. Also, large Three layers of geogrid reinforcement substantially outper-
settlements can occur above the reinforcement. This phenom- forms one or two layers of reinforcement with BCRs of ap-
enon is shown in Fig. 15 at settlements less than 20-25 mm; proximately 2.5 versus 1.6. This improvement is probably a
the load-settlement curves for the reinforced footings have the function of the thickness of the RSF below the footing, z/B
same slope as the control test. The reinforcement is mobilized ratio. The three-layer grid case had a z/B between 0.5, and 1.5;
only after approximately 25 mm of footing settlement. The the one- and two-layer grid cases had a z/B between 0.25 and
curves for the four load tests with reinforcement are again very 0.5.
similar in shape and appear to be relatively insensitive to the Future research should further investigate the effects of the
parameters evaluated. The BCR for the four different rein- thickness of the reinforced soil mass below the footing as a
forcement cases evaluated ranged from 1.11 to 1.68. Table 2 function of footing width. Different soils should be evaluated
lists the BCR for all the load tests in the phase II test program. to see if the trends observed in the mortar sand tests in this
Table 2 lists the BCR at siB of 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0%. The RSF program apply to other soils.
at these low strain levels did not improve the performance of The effects of a two-layer system (Le., loose soil beneath a
the shallow foundation. This confirms the previously stated RSF constructed with a dense fill material) may show even
observation that if the RSF is composed of soil in a loose state, larger BCRs than observed here. More large model testing on
large deformations of the footing are required to mobilize the RSF in different ground scenarios will improve the under-
beneficial effects of the reinforcement. standing of the mechanism of reinforcement, which will hope-
fully lead to the development of a rational design methodology
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH PROGRAM for this very promising new technology.
While this is certainly the biggest large-scale load test pro- APPEN~~ REFERENCES
gram on geosynthetic reinforced spread footings to date, there
are several limitations that should be mentioned. First, the tests Chadbourne, W. (1994). "An investigation into the performance of shal-
low spread footings in reinforced cohesionless soil," MS thesis, Tufts
were conducted on only one soil type at different densities. Univ., Medford, Mass.
The results observed from this test program may be different Espinoza, R. D., and Bray, J. D. (1995). "An integrated approach to
for other soils. Only two types of geosynthetic reinforcement evaluating single layer reinforced soils." Geosynthetics Int., 2(4),
were evaluated; the results are therefore specific to the rein- 723-739.
forcements tested. Other geosynthetics may perform very dif- Guido, V. A., Knueppel, J. D., and Sweeny, M. A. (1986). "Plate load
ferently. Footing sizes of up to 0.91 m were tested with depth tests on geogrid-reinforced earth slabs." Proc.. of Geosynthetics '87,
IFAI, St. Paul, Minn., 216-225.
of reinforcement to footing width ratios varying from 0.25 to Huang, C. C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990). "Bearing capacity of reinforced
1.5. The trends observed for these conditions should be veri- horizontal sandy ground." Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 9,
fied for larger footings. Additionally, only surface footings 51-82.
were tested. The effect of footing embedment should also be Milligan, G. W. E., and Love, J. P. (1984). "Model testing of geogrids
included. under an aggregate layer in soft ground." Proc., Symp. on Polymer
Grid Reinforcement in Civ. Engrg., ICI. London, England, 4.2.1-
4.2.11.
CONCLUSIONS Omar. M. T., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K., Yen, S. C., and Cook, E. E. (1994).
Thirty-four large model load tests were conducted to eval- "Bearing capacity of foundations on geogrid-reinforced sand." Proc.•
Xl/Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg., Vol. 3, A. A. Balkema,
uate the potential benefits of geosynthetic-reinforced spread Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1279-1282.
footings. One to three layers of geogrid reinforcement or one Yetimoglo, T., Wu, J. T. H., and Saglamer, A. (1994). "Bearing capacity
layer of geocell was placed beneath the 0.30, 0.46, 0.61, and of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. " J. Geotech.
0.91 m square footings. The reinforcement z/B ratios were be- Engrg., ASCE, 120(12), 2083-2099.

72/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1997

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997.123:66-72.