International Journal of Geomechanics

Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid

Reinforced Two Layer Sands
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: GMENG-4990R1
Full Title: Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid Reinforced Two
Layer Sands
Article Type: Technical Note
Abstract: The lower bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements is used to quantitatively
estimate the pseudo static bearing capacity of rough strip footing placed on geogrid
reinforced sandy soil. The objective of this study is to show how the bearing capacity of
rough strip footing will be improved in seismic prone areas by (i) laying a stronger soil
layer beneath the foundation and (ii) inserting geogrid reinforcement layers in the soil
stratum. Both the soil mass and the foundation are subjected to horizontal and vertical
seismic acceleration. Solutions are obtained for different combinations of (a) geometrical
parameters (e.g. size of reinforcement, depth of reinforcement, top (dense) layer
thickness), (b) sand properties, and (c) seismic loadings. The optimum width and the
critical depth of the reinforcement corresponding to different soil conditions and seismic
loadings are presented in the article. It is observed that when seismic loads are applied,
the reinforcements are to be placed at shallow depth for ensuring maximum benefit. The
failure patterns are also drawn for few cases.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;revised_manuscript_2.docx

1 Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid

2 Reinforced Two Layer Sands

3 Prateek Kumara and Manash Chakrabortyb*

a
4 M Tech. Student, Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi-221005
b
5 Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi-221005

6 *manashchakra.civ@itbhu.ac.in (Corresponding Author)

7

9 Abstract: The lower bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements is used to

10 quantitatively estimate the pseudo static bearing capacity of rough strip footing placed on geogrid

11 reinforced sandy soil. The objective of this study is to show how the bearing capacity of rough

12 strip footing will be improved in seismic prone areas by (i) laying a stronger soil layer beneath the

13 foundation and (ii) inserting geogrid reinforcement layers in the soil stratum. Both the soil mass

14 and the foundation are subjected to horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration. Solutions are

15 obtained for different combinations of (a) geometrical parameters (e.g. size of reinforcement, depth

16 of reinforcement, top (dense) layer thickness), (b) sand properties, and (c) seismic loadings. The

17 optimum width and the critical depth of the reinforcement corresponding to different soil

18 conditions and seismic loadings are presented in the article. It is observed that when seismic loads

19 are applied, the reinforcements are to be placed at shallow depth for ensuring maximum benefit.

20 The failure patterns are also drawn for few cases.

21 Author keywords: Bearing Capacity, Limit Analysis, Reinforcement, Strip Foundation, Seismic,

22 Sand.

23

24 Introduction
25 The bearing capacity of foundations are significantly reduced by the seismic forces. An extensive

26 study is reported in the literature (Meyerhof 1951, 1953; Sarma and Iossifelis 1990; Budhu and

27 Al-Karni 1993; Richards et al. 1993; Dormieux and Pecker 1995; Soubra 1997; Choudhury and

28 Rao 2005; Kumar and Rao 2002; Ghosh 2008; Shafiee and Jahanandish 2010; Saha and Ghosh

29 2015, 2017; Cascone and Casablanca 2016; Pain et al. 2016; Jadar and Ghosh 2017) for estimating

30 the reduction in bearing capacity of strip footing due to seismic acceleration. This reduction in

31 bearing capacity possesses a severe problem to the foundation designers. One of the most

32 convenient methods to overcome this problem is to improve the bearing capacity of the strip

33 footing by placing a dense sand layer over the existing weaker layer. This improvement depends

34 on the strength and the thickness of the top dense layer. Further improvement in the bearing

35 capacity can be achieved by reinforcing the soil. A number of researchers studied the bearing

36 capacity of strip footing placed on reinforced sand layers through (a) experimental (Huang and

37 Tatsuoka 1990; Khing et al. 1993; Omar et al. 1993; Das and Omar 1994; Yetimoglu et al. 1994;

38 Adams and Collin 1997; Dash et al. 2001; Shin et al. 2002; Patra et al. 2005; Abu-Farsakh et al.

39 2013; Kazi et al. 2015; Infante et al. 2016; Prasad et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2019), (b) numerical

40 (Yetimoglu et al. 1994; Kotake et al. 2001; Michalowski 2004; Abu-Farsakh et al. 2007; Ghazavi

41 and Lavasan 2008; Kumar and Sahoo 2013; Chakraborty and Kumar 2014a; Kazi et al. 2015; Sahu

42 et al. 2017; Shahin et al. 2017) and (c) analytical (Chen and Abu-Farsakh 2015) approaches. Those

43 studies were mostly focused on determining the improvement in bearing capacity due to the

44 placement of different sized reinforcements at various depths. It is noteworthy that most of these

45 works are limited to static case only.

46 This motivates the authors to quantitatively estimate the combined benefits of the

47 reinforcement and the dense sand layer in improving the bearing capacity of strip footing subjected
48 to seismic forces. In this article, seismic loads are accounted by considering the pseudo-static

49 approach. The numerical solutions are obtained by employing lower bound limit theorem. The

50 obtained results are further verified with the solutions available in the literature.

51

52 Problem Statement and Domain

53 A rigid strip footing of width, b, is rested over two layered sand subjected to pseudo static forces.

54 The angle of internal friction of the top and the bottom layers are 1 and 2, respectively; where,

55 12. The thickness of the top dense layer is t. The ground surface is considered to be horizontal

56 and having zero surcharge. The soil in each layer is considered to be homogenous, isotropic,

57 perfectly plastic and governed by the Mohr Coulomb failure criterion and an associated flow rule.

58 The footing is assumed to be perfectly rough i.e. the friction angle has been completely mobilized

59 along the soil foundation interface. The soil is reinforced by a single layer of reinforcement strip

60 of width l and placed at a depth s below the foundation. It is intended to prepare a design chart for

61 the practicing engineers to choose the top layer thickness and the size and position of the

62 reinforcement corresponding to various seismic conditions.

63 Due to the asymmetric nature of seismic failure surface, complete soil domain has been

64 considered in the present analysis. The domain has been kept sufficiently large so that the failure

65 surface is well contained within the domain. The width and depth of the soil domain has been

66 chosen as 30b and 7.5b, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the problem statement and the considered

67 domain.

68

69 Analysis
70 The collapse load for the present plane strain problem is determined by using the lower

71 bound formulation (as illustrated by Sloan 1988) and, by employing the second-order cone

72 programming (as proposed by Makrodimopoulos and Martin 2006; Krabbenhøft et al. 2007). Non-

73 uniform mesh with three-noded triangular elements are used to discretize the entire stress domain.

74 The size of the elements is gradually reduced towards the footing edge. The stress components

75 (xx,yy, and xy), associated with each node, are assumed to vary linearly throughout the element.

76 Each node pertains to a specific element only, and hence, the same coordinate can be shared by

77 more than one node. The magnitude of the total collapse load, obtained by integrating the stresses

78 along the soil footing interface, is maximized with respect to the following linear and non-linear

79 constraints:

80 (a) Statical admissibility criteria:

81 (i) Equilibrium conditions in the entire domain:

 xx  xy  yy  xy
82   kh ;   (1  kv ) (1)
x y y x

83 where, (i) xx, yy are the normal stresses in x and y direction, respectively and xy

84 is the shear stress in xy plane, (ii) kh and kv are the horizontal and vertical seismic

85 acceleration coefficients, respectively, and, (iii)  is the unit weight of the soil mass.

86 In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the pseudo-static method of analysis,

87 the effect of time and phase difference and the primary and shear waves passing

88 through the soil medium are not duly considered, and, hence, in this analysis

89 approach, the dynamic nature of earthquake loading is considered in a very

90 approximate way.

91 (ii) Conditions along the stress discontinuity line (as shown in Fig. 1b):
 92  n1   n 2 ,  t1   t 2 ;  n3   n 4 ,  t 3   t 4 (2)

93 where,ni and ti are the normal and shear stresses at node, i. By imposing these

94 constraints, statical stress discontinuities are permitted along all the interfaces of

95 different elements; it implies that although the stress state components are

96 discontinuous, however, the normal and the shear stresses remain to be continuous

97 along the interface between any two elements.

98 (iii) Conditions along the stress boundary line:  n    0

99 (iv) Yield condition throughout the domain:


( xx   yy )2  4 xy2  2c cos    xx   yy  sin  
2
100 (3)

101 (b) Footing roughness condition:  t   n tan  ; here,  (roughness/friction angle between the

102 soil-footing interface) varies between 0 (i.e. perfectly smooth) and  (i.e. perfectly rough). It

103 is worth noting, that the magnitude of  , as observed from different shearing test apparatus

104 (e.g. direct/simple shear), depends on surface roughness, surface waviness, mean sand

105 diameter, particle geometry, relative density etc. (Han et. al. 2018; Nardelli et. al. 2019). The

106  / ratio for the sand and concrete (rough) interface, as reported by Potyondyc (1961), equals

107 to 0.90 and 0.98 for saturated and dry conditions, respectively.

108 (c) Conditions to incorporate the inclusion of reinforcement (as shown in Fig. 1): Following

109 Chakraborty and Kumar (2014a), no explicit element is used for modelling the reinforcement;

110 only the shear stress continuity (as mentioned in Eq. 2) is relaxed on the edges of the elements

111 lying above and below the reinforcement layer.

112  nu   nl ,  tu   tl (4)
113 The conditions in Eq.(4) are based on the assumptions that the reinforcements are perfectly flexible

114 but impart enough resistance against axial tension. Considering the flexibility and the tensile

115 strength of the geogrid sheets, it can be inferred, that the present solutions are more applicable for

116 geogrid layers. In the present analysis, only the ultimate limit state can be dealt with. The

117 serviceability limit state cannot be accounted in the present work, and hence, the stiffness

118 parameters (in terms of Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio) of either the reinforcement sheet or

119 soil mass cannot be incorporated in the analysis. The present analysis is, therefore, solely based on

120 the shear strength parameters of (a) soils, and (b) soil-reinforcement interface.

121 Following the idea of Makrodimopoulos and Martin (2006) and Krabbenhøft et al. (2007) the

122 inequality constraint in Eq. (3) is expressed as a set of second-order constraints at each node and

123 can be presented as:

124  xx   yy  sin   1  2c cos  ;  xx   yy   2  0 ; 2 xy  3  0 (5)

Here, the vector   1  2 3  satisfy 22  32  1 and thus represents the second order
T
125

126 cone. The construction of the global vectors and matrices are detailed in the work of Tang et al.

127 (2014) and hence, for the sake of brevity they are not repeated here. The final form of the

128 optimization problem can be expressed as follows:

129 Maximize: {g}T{}Subjected to:A] {}= {B} (6)

130 where, (i) {g} is the known global vector of the objective function

131 (ii) {} is the unknown global vector of the nodal stresses

132 (iii) A] is the known global matrix of all the constraints, and,

133 (iv) {B} is the known global right hand-side vector of all constraints.
134 Following Tang et al. (2014), the conic optimization was performed in MATLAB by using

135 MOSEK (Version 9.0.87) optimization toolbox. According to the limiting theorems, the lower and

136 upper bound solutions bracket the actual collapse load from both the extremities. The lower bound

137 analysis always generates smaller solutions than the true collapse load, and hence, the computed

138 bearing capacity, in the present article, are safe in contrast to the unsafe solutions provided by the

139 upper bound technique.

140

141 Results

142 The lower bound results are presented in the form of bearing capacity factor, N(=Qu/(0.5B)) and

143 efficiency factors (and ). It is to be clearly noted that in the present analysis due to the

144 assumption of cohesionless medium and zero surcharging, the bearing capacity is governed solely

145 by Ncomponent. For a certain soil profile (i.e. constant ,  and t/b) and specific seismic

146 conditions, the simulations are carried out continuously by varying the depth (s/b) and width (l/b)

147 of the geogrid layers. This exercise is repeatedly carried out by changing the soil strength

148 parameters, top layer thickness and seismic coefficients. The range of t/b has been chosen between

149 0.25 and 4. From the literature (Omar et al. 1993; Abu-Farsakh et al. 2007) it is evident that beyond

150 this depth, there is no further improvement in bearing capacity. Suitable choice of pseudo-static

151 coefficients is the most vital, and the most difficult aspects in seismic stability analysis. Terzaghi

152 (1950) originally suggested the use of kh=0.1 for “severe” earthquake, kh=0.2 for “violent,

153 destructive” earthquakes and kh=0.5 for “catastrophic” earthquakes. In this article, the magnitude

154 of kh and kv have been varied within a very wide range (kh =0-0.6, and kv=0-0.2) in order to account

155 various seismic conditions. From the work of Richards et al. (1990, 1993), it can be concluded that

156 the strength of the cohesionless soil (i.e. internal friction angle) should always be greater than tan-
 1
157 (kh/(1-kv)). This constraint is imposed to avoid the plastic flow of the material which is termed as

158 “shear fluidization” by Richards et al. (1990). Table 1 shows the minimum value of which is

159 required to ensure stability for different combinations of kh and kv. In the present analysis, the

160 drained friction angle of the bottom layer is considered to be 25, 28 and 33. This layer is

161 strengthened by placing stronger soil (= 40 or 45) and a single layer of geogrid reinforcement

162 in order to withstand the seismic loadings. The programs are run for different combinations of (i)

163 material strength parameters (, ) (ii) geometrical parameters (t/b, s/b and l/b) and (iii) seismic

164 loading parameters (kh and kv). A total number of 13230 programs were run for the analysis.

165 Fig. 2 shows the variation of Nwith l/b corresponding to different combinations of , ,

166 s/b, t/b, kh and kv. This figure suggests that N increases with increase in l/b up to an optimum

167 value (denoted as lopt/b) beyond which there is no appreciable increment in N. The magnitude of

168 lopt/b depends highly on s/b and seismic loadings. If the reinforcement is placed at shallow depth,

169 and the seismic forces are highly dominant, the increase in N with l/b, however small may be,

170 continues to occur even when l/b>10. In the present article, the authors have considered lopt/b on

171 the basis of the following expression:

N  N
 2%
@ current l / b @ previous l / b
172 (7)
N @ current l / b

173 The analysis shows that when the reinforcement is placed at shallow depth (s/b<0.5) the value of

174 lopt/b is significantly larger for seismic case in comparison to its static counterpart.

175 It is also observed that N increases with increase in s/b up to a certain magnitude; beyond

176 this specific s/b, the magnitude of Nstarts to decrease. This particular s/b is termed as critical s/b

177 and denoted as scr/b. The magnitude of scr/b depends on the top layer thickness and seismic

178 conditions. Fig. 3 shows the variation of scr/b with t/b for  =45 and =33. It is observed that
179 the value of scr/b initially increases and then decreases to a constant value. The peak point position

180 of scr/b shifts towards smaller t/b with increases in kh. The numerical solutions further indicate that

181 within the zone of ground surface and scr/b, as the depth of the reinforcement increases the required

182 width of the reinforcement strip for imparting the maximum benefits become higher.

183 For a particular combination of and t/b there is a maximum value of N (referred as

184 Nmax) which is obtained when the geogrid is placed at its critical depth (scr/b) and its width is equal

185 to lopt/b. Corresponding to different soil profile, Tables 2 and 3 provide the value of Nmax and its

186 corresponding scr/b and lopt/b for kv = 0 and kv = 0.2, respectively. As expected, the value of Nmax

187 increases with the thickness of top dense layer. This increment seems to take place up to a certain

188 t/b; beyond this t/b there is hardly any change in Nmax. The reported data indicate that the seismic

189 loadings impact significantly the value of Nmax. The table also indicates the efficiency factor

190 1which is defined as the ratio of the seismic bearing capacities of footing placed over reinforced

191 soil to that of its unreinforced counterpart. These tables can be used as design guidelines for

192 choosing the width and the position of the reinforced layers in order to achieve the maximum

193 benefit of the inclusion of stronger layer and the reinforced sheet. For severe seismic forces, the

194 analysis does not converge when the footing was lying over the weaker stratum alone. The analysis

195 begins to converge with the placing of the stronger layer, although the obtained N is practically

196 very small. The insertion of geogrid strip further improves the bearing capacity.

197 Table 4 displays the magnitude of the efficiency factors2 and 3; here, 2 indicates the

198 effect of placing the stronger layer and 3 indicates the combined effect of including the top dense

199 layer and the reinforcement sheet below the strip footing which otherwise was resting on the

200 homogenous loose sand. For computing 3, the size and the position of the reinforcement are

201 considered as scr/b and lopt/b (as reported in Tables 2 and 3). The magnitude of 2 and3 increases
202 with increase in (i) t/b, (ii)  and (iii) kh. It can be inferred that placing of dense sand layer and

203 inclusion of geogrid sheet in the seismic prone area improve the bearing capacity of strip footing

204 enormously.

205

206 Failure surface

207 The lower bound limit analysis provides the state of stress at every node of triangular element at

208 the incipient state of failure. The directions of the positive normal and shear stresses are indicated

209 in Fig. 1(a). Based on the magnitude of the stress state, a/d ratio is computed at each node; where,

210 a and d indicate the diameter of the Mohr circle representing the current and failure stress state,

211 respectively. Fig. 4 displays the pictorial representation of the parameters a and d. At any arbitrary

212 node, for the given stress state, the magnitude of a and d are calculated as follows:

    yy 
2

a   xx    xy
2
213 (8a)
 2 

2
     yy
  
d    xx   c cot   sin 
2
214 (8b)
 
 2  


215 After obtaining the a/d ratio at each node, the failure pattern of the soil domain at the limit state

216 can be drawn. As a/d approaches 1, the node will be on the verge of plastic shear failure. On the

217 other hand, if a/d<1, the node will be in a non-plastic state. Figs. 5-8 present the failure surface for

218 different material, geometrical, and, loading configurations.

219 Fig.5 shows the failure surfaces for the static cases where a particular-sized reinforcement

220 (l/b=2) is placed in a certain soil layer configuration ( =40,  =25, t/b=1). This figure shows

221 the effect of changing the depth of the reinforcement (s/b) from the ground surface. The dark zone

222 indicates the plastic failure state. Failure surface seems to develop symmetrically along the center
223 line of the footing. The failure surfaces give an impression that the extent of the failure zone

224 increases up to a certain magnitude of s/b beyond which the size of the failure surface decreases.

225 This observation is consistent with the existence of scr/b, as discussed before. A triangular elastic

226 wedge is observed to form just below the footing. Additional patches of elastic zones are also

227 formed near the ground surface and either side of the reinforcements.

228 Fig. 6 depicts the failure surface by changing the width of the reinforcement. From this

229 figure, it can be inferred that if all other input parameters (material properties, loading conditions

230 and depth of the reinforcement) remains to be the same, the width of the reinforcement does not

231 impact much on the size of the failure zone. However, as l/b increases the size of the additional

232 elastic zones near the reinforcement edges tend to grow.

233 Fig. 7 shows the impact of the top layer thickness on formation of the failure surface. As

234 the thickness of the top soil layer increases, the overall size and the horizontal extent of the failure

235 zone also increases. Beyond a certain thickness (topt/b), the failure zone seems to be confined solely

236 within the top layer and hence, the bearing capacity would not be influenced by the bottom layer.

237 This is consistent with the numerical solutions as presented in Tables 2-4. The magnitude of this

238 specific thickness depends highly on the strength properties of the top and the bottom layers as

239 well as the kh value. Table 5 depicts the value of topt/b corresponding to various configuration of

240 soil layers and different seismic conditions. With the increase in kh, kv, and , topt/b decreases

241 continuously; on the contrary, as there is an improvement in the strength of the top layer, the

242 magnitude of topt/b decreases. Similar to the observation of Merifield et al. (1999), the local elastic

243 zone near the ground surface seems to develop, as the thickness of the top layer increases.

244 Fig. 8 displays the effect of seismic forces on the development of the failure zones. The

245 failure surface which is symmetric about the center line of footing for static case becomes
246 asymmetric as the seismic forces are applied. The failure surface develops in the direction of

247 seismic force and grows in size with the increase in seismic acceleration intensity. Failure surface

248 also starts to develop on the other side of the footing edge when the magnitude of kh and kv are

249 very high (e.g. kh= kv=0.4).

250

251 Comparisons

252 The verifications of the proposed design charts are carried out by comparing the present results

253 with the available solutions in the literature. Table 5 shows the comparison of the seismic bearing

254 capacity for strip footing placed on two different homogenous sands, namely, =30 and 45. The

255 present solutions are compared with the (i) upper bound solutions of Dormieux and Pecker (1995),

256 Soubra (1997) and Ghosh (2008); (ii) limit equilibrium solutions of Sarma and Iossifelis (1990)

257 and Choudhury and Rao (2005); (iii) finite element solutions of Shafiee and Jahanandish (2010);

258 and (iv) stress characteristics’ solutions obtained by Kumar and Rao (2002) and Cascone and

259 Casablanca (2019). The present solutions are in close agreement with the numerical solutions of

260 Shafiee and Jahanandish (2010). Due to the lower bound nature of the analysis, the computed

261 numerical results are smaller than all the previously reported upper bound solutions. Although the

262 difference between the present solution and limit equilibrium solution (Sarma and Iossifelis 1990;

263 Choudhury and Rao 2005) is noticeable but the trend of the curve is similar.

264 Table 6 presents the comparison of the obtained lower bound solution with the (i)

265 experimental solution of Hanna (1981), (ii) analytical solution of Farah (2004), and, (iii) numerical

266 solution of Khatri et al. (2017). The comparison is done for two layered unreinforced sands, where

267 the friction angle of the top and the bottom layers are 47.7º and 34º, respectively. The deviation

268 between the present and Khatri et al. (2017)’s lower bound solutions can be attributed to the fact
269 that the size of the domain and the number of elements considered in both the analysis are not the

270 same. For the present case, the obtained solutions appear to be smaller than the experimental and

271 the analytical solutions up to t/b=0.5; for t/b1, the present analysis overestimate the load carrying

272 capacity. This overestimation may be due to the assumption of associativity in the present analysis.

273 Corresponding to three different s/b (= 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2), the ultimate bearing capacity (qu)

274 obtained from the present analysis for homogenous sands of 31 are 49.5, 56, and 44 kPa,

275 respectively; whereas, through the experimental observation, Xu et. al. (2019) reported that the

276 magnitude of qu for the same reinforced soil equals to 56.7, 69.9, and, 50.0kPa, respectively. A

277 further comparison of the non-seismic bearing capacity of strip foundation placed over

278 homogenous reinforced sand of friction angle equals to 30, 35 and 40 are displayed in Table 7.

279 The efficiency factors obtained in the present analysis are compared with the upper bound

280 solutions obtained by Michalowski (2004) and Kumar and Sahoo (2013) and lower bound

281 solutions of Chakraborty and Kumar (2014a). The present solutions match quite well with these

282 reported data. The magnitude of scr/b in the homogenous sandy soil varies within 0.5b-1.0b. This

283 is consistent with the experimental findings of Yetimoglu et al. (1994), Adams and Collin (1997)

284 Shin et al. (2002), Abu-Farsakh et al. (2013).

285

286 Conclusions

287 This article quantitatively presents how the load carrying capacity of the strip footing resting over

288 weaker stratum can be improved by placing a stronger layer of sand and inserting a single layer of

289 geogrid reinforcement beneath the footing. The analysis clearly shows that there is a tremendous

290 improvement in the load carrying capacity of soil due to the combined effect of denser layer and

291 the geogrid, especially in the seismic prone area. The entire analysis was performed by using lower
292 bound limit theorem in conjunction with finite elements and non-linear optimization. The proposed

293 design charts would be useful in selecting the thickness of top dense layer, the size and the position

294 of the single layer geogrid strip, so that the maximum benefit is achieved.

295

296 Data Availability

297 Some codes generated and used during the study are confidential in nature and may only be

298 provided with restrictions. Files for imposing the equality and inequality constraints can be

299 provided on requests. The entire program file containing the mesh generation, insertion of

300 reinforcements and failure contours can partially be provided.

301

302 Acknowledgement

303 The corresponding author acknowledges the support of “Department of Science and Technology

304 (DST), Government of India” under grant number DST/INSPIRE/04/2016/001692.

305

306 References

307 Abu-Farsakh, M., Q. Chen, and R. Sharma. 2013. “An experimental evaluation of the behavior

308 of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced sand.” Soils Found. 53(2): 335–348.

309 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2013.01.001.

310 Abu-Farsakh, M. Y., J. Gu, G. Voyiadjis, and M. Tao. 2007. “Numerical parametric study of

311 strip footing on reinforced embankment soils.” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board

312 2004(1): 132–140. https://doi.org/10.3141/2004-14.

313 Adams, M. T., and J. G. Collin. 1997. “Large model spread footing load tests on geosynthetic

314 reinforced soil foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 123(1): 66–72.

315 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(66).

316 Boushehrian, J. H., and N. Hataf. 2003. “Experimental and numerical investigation of the

317 bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand.” Geotext.

318 Geomembranes 21(4): 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(03)00029-3.

319 Budhu, M., and A. Al-Karni. 1993. “Seismic bearing capacity of soils.” Géotechnique 43(1):

320 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.181.

321 Cascone, E., and O. Casablanca. 2016. “Static and seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip

322 footings.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 84(1): 204–223.

323 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2016.02.010.

324 Chakraborty, D., and J. Kumar. 2014a. “Bearing capacity of strip foundations in reinforced

325 soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 14(1): 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-

326 5622.0000275

327 Chakraborty, M., and J. Kumar. 2014b. “Bearing capacity of circular foundations reinforced with

328 geogrid sheets.” Soils Found. 54(4): 820–832.

329 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2014.06.013

330 Chen, Q., and M. Abu-Farsakh. 2015. “Ultimate bearing capacity analysis of strip footings on

331 reinforced soil foundation.” Soils Found. 55(1): 74–85.

332 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2014.12.006.

333 Choudhury, D., and K. S. S. Rao. 2005. “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings.”

334 Geotech. Geol. Eng. 23, 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-004-9519-9.

335 Das, B. M., and M. T. Omar. 1994. “The effects of foundation width on model tests for the

336 bearing capacity of sand with geogrid reinforcement.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 12(2): 133–141.

337 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00429771

338 Dash, S. K., N. Krishnaswamy, and K. Rajagopal. 2001. “Bearing capacity of strip footings

339 supported on geocell-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 19(4): 235–256.

340 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00006-1

341 Dormieux·, L., and A. Pecker. 1995. “Seismic bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless

342 soil.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121(3):300-303.

343 Farah, C. A., 2004. “Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on layered soils.” M.Sc.

344 thesis, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia Univ., Quebec

345 Ghazavi, M., and A. A. Lavasan. 2008. “Interference effect of shallow foundations constructed

346 on sand reinforced with geosynthetics.” Geotext. Geomembranes 26(5): 404–415.

347 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2008.02.003

348 Ghosh, P., 2008. “Upper bound solutions of bearing capacity of strip footing by pseudo-dynamic

349 approach.” Acta Geotech. 3(2): 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-008-0058-z.

350 Han, F., E. Ganju, R. Salgado, and M. Prezzi. 2018. “Effects of Interface Roughness, Particle

351 Geometry, and Gradation on the Sand–Steel Interface Friction Angle.” J. Geotech.

352 Geoenviron. Eng., 144(12): 04018096. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943- 5606.0001990

353 Hanna, A. M., 1981. “Foundations on strong sand over lying weak sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg.

354 Div. 107(7): 915–927.

355 Huang, C. C., and F. Tatsuoka. 1990. “Bearing capacity of reinforced horizontal sandy ground.”

356 Geotext. Geomembranes 9, 51–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(90)90005-W.

357 Infante D. U., G. A. Martinez, P. Arrúa, and M. Eberhardt, 2016. “Behavior of geogrid

358 reinforced sand under vertical load.” Int. J. Geomate. 10(21): 1862–1868.

359 Jadar, C. M., and S. Ghosh. 2017. “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing using

360 horizontal slice method.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 11, 38–50.

361 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2016.1183074.

362 Kazi, M., S. K. Shukla, and D. Habibi. 2015. “An Improved Method to Increase the Load-

363 Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing Resting on Geotextile-Reinforced Sand Bed.” Indian

364 Geotech. J. 45(1): 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-014-0111-9.

365 Khatri, V. N., J. Kumar, and S. Akhtar. 2017. “Bearing capacity of foundations with inclusion of

366 dense sand layer over loose sand strata.” Int. J. Geomech. 17(10): 06017018.

367 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000980.

368 Khing, K. H., B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, E. E. Cook, and S. C. Yen. 1993. “The bearing-capacity of

369 a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 12(4): 351–361.

370 https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(93)90009-D.

371 Kotake, N., F. Tatsuoka, T. Tanaka, M. S. A. Siddiquee, and C. C. Huang. 2001. “FEM

372 Simulation of the Bearing Capacity of Level Reinforced Sand Ground Subjected to Footing

373 Load.” Geosynth. Int. 8(6): 501–549. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.8.0205.

374 Kumar, J., and V. B. K. M. Rao. 2002. “Seismic bearing capacity factors for spread

375 foundations.” Géotechnique 52(2): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.2.79.

376 Kumar, J., and J. P. Sahoo. 2013. “Bearing capacity of strip foundations reinforced with geogrid

377 sheets by using upper bound finite-element limit analysis.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods

378 Geomech. 37(18): 3258–3277. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2189.

379 Makrodimopoulos, A., and C. M. Martin. 2006. “Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-

380 frictional materials using second-order cone programming.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.

381 66(4): 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1567.

382 Merifield, R. S., S. W. Sloan, and H. S. Yu. 1999. “Rigorous plasticity solutions for the bearing

383 capacity of two-layered clays.” Géotechnique 49(4): 471–490.

384 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.4.471.

385 Meyerhof, G. G., 1951. “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foudations.” Géotechnique 2(4):

386 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301.

387 Meyerhof, G. G., 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and inclined loads.

388 Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. SMFE 1, 440–445.

389 Michalowski, R. L., 2004. “Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils.” J. Geotech.

390 Geoenvironmental Eng. 130(4): 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-

391 0241(2004)130:4(381).

392 Nardelli, A., P. P. Cacciari, M. M.Futai. 2019. Sand–concrete interface response: The role of

393 surface texture and confinement conditions. Soils Foundn.

394 doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2019.05.013

395 Omar, M. T., B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, and S. C. Yen. 1993. “Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

396 foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement.” Can. Geotech. J. 30(3): 545–549.

397 https://doi.org/10.1139/t93-046.

398 Pane, V., A. Vecchietti, and M. Cecconi. 2016. “A numerical study on the seismic bearing

399 capacity of shallow foundations.” Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14(11): 2931–2958.

400 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9937-0.
401 Patra, C. R., B. M. Das, and C. Atalar. 2005. “Bearing capacity of embedded strip foundation on

402 geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 23(5): 454–462.

403 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2005.02.001.

404 Prasad, B. D., C. Hariprasad, and B. Umashankar. 2016. “Load-Settlement Response of Square

405 Footing on Geogrid Reinforced Layered Granular Beds.” Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 2(4): 36.

406 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0070-6.

407 Potyondyc, J. G. 1961. “Skin friction between various soils and construction materials.”

408 Geotechnique. 11(4): 339–355.

409 Richards, R., D. G. Elms, and M. Budhu. 1993. “Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of

410 foundations.” J. Geotech. Eng. 119(4): 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

411 9410(1993)119:4(662).

412 Richards, R., D. G. Elms, and M. Budhu. 1990. “Dynamic fluidization of soils.” J. Geotech. Eng.

413 116(5): 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:5(740).

414 Saha, A., and S. Ghosh. 2017. “Modified pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity analysis of shallow

415 strip footing considering total seismic wave.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 1–9.

416 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1405542.

417 Saha, A., and S. Ghosh. 2015. “Pseudo-dynamic analysis for bearing capacity of foundation

418 resting on c –Φ soil.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 9(4): 379–387.

419 https://doi.org/10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000081.

420 Sahu, R., C. R. Patra, N. Sivakugan, and B. M. Das. 2017. “Use of ANN and neuro fuzzy model

421 to predict bearing capacity factor of strip footing resting on reinforced sand and subjected to

422 inclined loading.” Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 3(3): 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-

423 0102-x.
424 Sarma, S. K., and I.S. Iossifelis. 1990. “Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow strip

425 footings.” Géotechnique 40(2): 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.2.265.

426 Shafiee, A., and M. Jahanandish. 2010. Seismic bearing capacity factors for strip footings. 5th

427 Natl. Congr. Civ. Eng. Ferdowsi Univ. Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

428 Shahin, H. M., T. Nakai, Y. Morikawa, S. Masuda, and S. Mio. 2017. “Effective use of

429 geosynthetics to increase bearing capacity of shallow foundations.” Can. Geotech. J. 54(12):

430 1647–1658. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0505.

431 Shin, E. C., B. M. Das, E. S. Lee, and C. Atalar. 2002. “Bearing capacity of strip foundation on

432 geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 20(2): 169–180.

433 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015059427487.

434 Sloan, S. W., 1988. “Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear programming.”

435 Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 12, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610120105.

436 Soubra, A. H., 1997. “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings in seismic conditions.”

437 Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Geotech. Eng. 125, 230–241.

438 https://doi.org/10.1680/igeng.1997.29659.

439 Xu, C., C. Liang, and P. Shen. 2019. “Experimental and theoretical studies on the ultimate

440 bearing capacity of geogrid-reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembranes 47(3): 417–428.

441 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2019.01.003.

442 Yetimoglu, T., J. T. H. Wu, and A. Saglamer. 1994. “Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on

443 geogrid‐ reinforced sand.” J. Geotech. Eng. 120(12): 2083–2099.

444 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2083).

445
446 Table 1. The minimum values of  (min) for avoiding plastic flow (Richard et. al. 1990).
kh kv min
0.0 0.0 0.00
0.2 0.0 11.31
0.2 0.2 14.04
0.4 0.0 21.80
0.4 0.2 26.57
0.6 0.0 30.93
0.6 0.2 36.87
447 
448
449 Table 2. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected
450 to constant kv (=0.0) and different kh.
kh=0
___________ _____________________ kh=0.2
____________________ kh=0.4
__________________ kh=0.6
___________________
  t/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b
0.25 18.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 10.0 1.8 0.4 3.0 2.9 1.7 0.3 1.5    
0.50 29.1 1.6 0.6 3.0 16.4 1.7 0.4 3.0 6.3 1.6 0.4 3.0    
1.00 62.5 1.8 0.9 4.0 34.2 1.7 0.9 2.0 13.7 1.3 0.4 1.5    
   
25°

1.50 77.5 1.4 1.3 3.0 43.5 1.3 0.4 1.5 22.3 2.0 0.3 1.5
2.00 96.6 1.3 0.7 1.5 59.9 1.8 0.4 1.5 24.5 2.2 0.3 1.5    
2.50 122.8 1.6 0.5 1.5 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 4.0
3.00 130.7 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 23.8 2.1 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
4.00 130.8 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.7 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.1 2.2 0.3 4.0 5.9 2.3 0.2 3.0
0.25 26.6 1.5 0.4 1.5 14.4 1.8 0.4 3.0 4.8 1.8 0.3 3.0    
0.50 39.4 1.6 0.6 1.5 21.8 1.8 0.4 3.0 9.0 1.7 0.4 4.0    
1.00 75.9 1.8 0.9 3.0 37.9 1.6 0.6 4.0 16.1 1.5 0.3 1.5    

40°
28°

1.50 85.6 1.4 0.7 1.5 50.0 1.5 0.4 1.5 24.4 2.2 0.3 3.0 5.8 0.2 2.0
2.00 107.2 1.4 0.5 1.5 65.3 1.9 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 5.0
2.50 128.1 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 3.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
3.00 133.6 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.9 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
4.00 134.0 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.9 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 4.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
0.25 53.5 1.7 0.5 1.5 26.6 1.9 0.4 1.5 9.7 2.0 0.3 1.5 2.2 1.8 0.2 5.0
0.50 66.3 1.7 0.6 1.5 35.1 1.9 0.4 3.0 13.7 1.8 0.4 1.5 3.9 1.6 0.2 1.5
1.00 93.0 1.6 0.7 1.5 49.5 1.7 0.5 1.5 20.2 1.8 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
33°

1.50 107.7 1.5 0.6 1.5 59.6 1.7 0.4 1.5 24.4 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.5
2.00 125.6 1.7 0.5 1.5 68.4 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.3 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 5.0
2.50 128.4 1.7 0.5 1.0 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.7 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
3.00 133.2 1.8 0.5 1.5 68.5 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 2.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
4.00 134.7 1.7 0.5 1.0 69.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 24.8 2.2 0.3 1.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 3.0
0.25 20.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 11.2 1.7 0.4 3.0 3.4 1.6 0.3 1.5    
0.50 35.0 1.5 0.7 3.0 20.0 1.7 0.6 4.0 7.9 1.5 0.4 3.0    
1.00 82.1 1.8 0.9 4.0 50.2 1.8 0.9 4.0 22.7 1.5 0.9 3.0    
   
25°

1.50 119.2 1.6 1.3 3.0 84.8 1.7 1.3 3.0 33.7 1.2 0.4 1.5
2.00 147.5 1.3 1.3 2.0 96.7 1.3 0.7 2.0 51.6 1.7 0.4 1.0    
2.50 189.9 1.2 1.3 1.5 128.8 1.5 0.6 1.5 65.7 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 1.5
3.00 239.5 1.2 0.8 1.5 159.4 1.8 0.5 1.5 65.9 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.8 2.3 0.3 1.0
4.00 294.7 1.4 0.6 1.5 166.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.9 2.3 0.3 1.5
0.25 30.9 1.6 0.5 1.5 16.2 1.7 0.4 3.0 5.5 1.7 0.3 1.5    
0.50 48.7 1.6 0.7 1.5 26.9 1.7 0.6 4.0 11.2 1.6 0.4 3.0    
1.00 102.2 1.8 0.9 3.0 63.6 1.9 0.9 4.0 29.2 1.6 0.9 3.0 0.2  0.3 5.0
45°
28°

1.50 141.3 1.5 1.3 3.0 88.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 39.9 1.3 0.4 1.5 14.4 1.8 0.2 1.5
2.00 173.7 1.3 1.3 2.0 110.9 1.3 0.7 1.5 58.7 2.0 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 3.0
2.50 215.4 1.2 1.0 1.5 144.6 1.6 0.6 1.5 68.2 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.2 0.3 2.0
3.00 272.3 1.4 0.6 1.0 165.8 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.2 0.4 2.0 18.8 2.3 0.3 2.0
4.00 298.6 1.5 0.5 1.5 167.8 1.9 0.5 2.0 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.9 2.3 0.3 1.5
0.25 62.0 1.7 0.6 2.0 30.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 11.0 1.8 0.3 1.5 2.7 1.5 0.2 3.0
0.50 84.4 1.7 0.7 1.5 45.7 1.8 0.6 1.5 19.2 1.8 0.4 3.0 6.6 1.5 0.4 1.5
1.00 141.0 1.7 0.9 2.0 92.3 2.0 0.9 3.0 33.5 1.4 0.6 1.5 14.1 1.7 0.3 1.5
33°

1.50 183.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 109.7 1.5 0.7 2.0 50.9 1.7 0.4 1.5 18.6 2.3 0.3 1.0
2.00 213.1 1.2 1.0 5.0 139.7 1.6 0.6 5.0 66.7 2.2 0.4 1.5 18.6 2.3 0.3 1.0
2.50 266.3 1.4 0.6 1.5 166.1 1.9 0.5 1.5 67.1 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.7 2.3 0.3 1.0
3.00 297.8 1.5 0.5 1.0 166.2 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.3 2.3 0.4 1.5 18.8 2.3 0.3 1.5
4.00 298.7 1.5 0.5 1.0 168.2 1.9 0.5 1.5 68.6 2.3 0.4 3.0 18.9 2.3 0.3 2.0
451
452
453 Table 3. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata subjected
454 to constant kv (=0.2) and different kh.
455

_____________ kh=0.2
________________________ kh =0.4
________________________ kh=0.6
________________________
  t/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b N 1 scr/b lopt/b
0.25 7.4 1.7 0.3 3.0 0.0  0.2 5.0    
0.50 13.4 1.7 0.4 3.0 0.0  0.2 5.0    
1.00 27.1 1.6 0.7 3.0 5.5 1.1 0.1 0.5    
1.50 37.5 1.4 0.4 1.5 12.0 2.1 0.3 1.5    
25°

2.00 51.7 1.9 0.4 1.5 11.8 2.1 0.3 1.5    

2.50 55.5 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.4 2.0 0.3 2.0    
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5    
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 3.0 12.0 2.1 0.3 5.0    
0.25 11.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 2.0 1.5 0.2 0.5    
0.50 17.9 1.8 0.4 3.0 4.8 1.5 0.3 3.0    
1.00 30.7 1.5 0.5 1.5 10.2 1.8 0.3 1.0    
1.50 42.7 1.6 0.4 1.5 11.8 2.1 0.3 1.5    
40°

28°

2.00 55.3 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.4 2.2 0.3 5.0    

2.50 55.0 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.5    
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.0    
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 1.5 12.1 2.1 0.3 5.0 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.5
0.25 21.1 1.9 0.4 1.5 4.6 1.8 0.2 5.0    
0.50 28.9 1.9 0.4 3.0 8.0 1.7 0.3 1.5    
1.00 39.1 1.6 0.4 1.5 11.7 2.1 0.3 1.5    
1.50 50.0 1.9 0.4 1.5 11.3 2.0 0.3 1.5    
33°

2.00 55.6 2.1 0.4 1.5 11.9 2.1 0.3 5.0    

2.50 55.6 2.1 0.4 2.0 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.5
3.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 3.0 11.9 2.1 0.3 1.5 0.7 2.3 0.1 1.5
4.00 55.7 2.1 0.4 2.0 12.1 2.2 0.3 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.5
0.25 9.1 1.8 0.4 1.5        
0.50 16.5 1.6 0.6 3.0        
1.00 42.0 1.7 0.9 3.0 9.8 1.2 0.9 0.5    
1.50 68.5 1.6 1.3 3.0 21.0 1.3 0.3 1.5    
25°

2.00 82.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 35.3 2.2 0.3 1.5    

2.50 111.0 1.6 0.5 1.5 37.1 2.3 0.3 1.5    
3.00 135.1 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.4 2.3 0.3 1.5    
4.00 140.1 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 5.0 5.9 2.4 0.2 1.0
0.25 13.2 1.8 0.4 1.5 2.6 1.5 0.3 1.5    
0.50 22.4 1.7 0.6 1.5 6.2 1.4 0.4 3.0    
1.00 53.3 1.8 0.9 4.0 16.3 1.3 0.9 2.0    
1.50 70.0 1.4 0.9 2.0 27.7 1.7 0.3 1.5    
45°

28°

2.00 94.0 1.4 0.6 1.5 37.3 2.3 0.3 1.5    

2.50 124.3 1.8 0.5 1.5 37.2 2.3 0.3 1.5    
3.00 140.3 2.1 0.4 2.0 37.4 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.0
4.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 5.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.0
0.25 24.6 1.8 0.4 1.5 6.2 1.8 0.3 3.0    
0.50 37.4 1.8 0.6 1.5 11.8 1.7 0.4 4.0    
1.00 72.8 1.9 0.8 3.0 22.2 1.4 0.4 1.5    
1.50 90.5 1.5 0.6 3.0 34.8 2.2 0.3 1.5 3.0 1.5 0.1 1.0
33°

2.00 117.0 1.7 0.5 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.0
2.50 138.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 3.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.5
3.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 1.5 6.0 2.5 0.2 1.5
4.00 140.3 2.0 0.4 1.5 37.6 2.3 0.3 2.0 6.0 2.4 0.2 1.5
456
457 Table 4. The variation of 2 and 3 corresponding to different seismic coefficients.
kv=0.0
_______________________________________________________________________ kv=0.2
_____________________
_____________ kh=0.0
_____________________ kh=0.2
____________________ kh=0.4
________________________ kh=0.2
_____________________
 t/b 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
0.25 2.1 (2.3) 3.1 (3.4) 2.3 (2.7) 4.1 (4.6) 6.5 (8.1) 10.9 (12.6) 2.5 (3.0) 4.3 (5.2)
0.50 3.1 (3.8) 4.8 (5.8) 3.9 (4.9) 6.6 (8.1) 15.0 (19.8) 23.3 (29.1) 4.6 (5.8) 7.7 (9.5)
1.00 5.8 (7.6) 10.4 (13.7) 8.3 (11.2) 13.9 (20.4) 39.3 (54.9) 50.4 (83.6) 10.1 (13.9) 15.7 (24.2)
1.50 9.1 (12.8) 12.9 (19.8) 13.8 (20.1) 17.7 (34.4) 41.2 (105.2) 82.5 (124.4) 15.2 (25.1) 21.6 (39.6)
25°

2.00 12.0 (19.1) 16.1 (24.5) 13.8 (31.1) 24.3 (39.3) 41.0 (111.1) 87.8 (190.4) 15.4 (38.7) 29.9 (47.8)
2.50 12.4 (27.1) 20.4 (31.6) 13.8 (35.7) 27.8 (52.3) 41.1 (110.5) 88.8 (243.3) 15.4 (39.9) 32.1 (64.1)
3.00 12.7 (32.4) 21.7 (39.8) 13.8 (35.7) 28.1 (64.8) 41.1 (111.1) 90.3 (246.1) 15.4 (39.6) 32.3 (78.0)
4.00 12.7 (33.9) 21.7 (49.0) 13.8 (35.9) 28.1 (67.7) 41.0 (110.5) 91.1 (251.9) 15.4 (39.6) 32.3 (80.9)
0.25 1.8 (2.0) 2.7 (3.1) 2.0 (2.3) 3.6 (4.0) 3.6 (4.5) 6.6 (7.6) 2.0 (2.4) 3.6 (4.3)
0.50 2.5 (3.1) 4.0 (5.0) 3.1 (3.9) 5.4 (6.7) 7.2 (9.7) 12.4 (15.5) 3.3 (4.2) 5.8 (7.2)
1.00 4.3 (5.8) 7.7 (10.4) 5.9 (8.3) 9.4 (15.8) 15.3 (24.8) 22.2 (40.4) 6.6 (9.4) 9.9 (17.2)
1.50 6.4 (9.4) 8.7 (14.4) 8.5 (14.3) 12.4 (21.8) 15.4 (41.2) 33.7 (55.1) 8.6 (16.3) 13.8 (22.6)
28°

2.00 8.0 (13.7) 10.9 (17.7) 8.4 (21.4) 16.2 (27.5) 15.5 (41.3) 34.1 (81.1) 8.6 (22.0) 17.9 (30.4)
2.50 7.6 (18.7) 13.3 (22.0) 8.5 (21.9) 17.1 (35.9) 15.4 (41.3) 33.5 (94.3) 8.6 (22.1) 17.8 (40.2)
3.00 7.6 (19.7) 13.5 (27.8) 8.5 (21.8) 17.1 (41.2) 15.4 (41.6) 33.5 (93.4) 8.6 (22.2) 18.0 (45.5)
4.00 7.5 (19.7) 13.5 (30.5) 8.5 (21.9) 17.1 (41.6) 15.4 (41.6) 34.3 (94.2) 8.6 (22.3) 18.0 (45.5)
0.25 1.7 (1.7) 53.5 (2.9) 1.9 (1.7) 26.6 (3.0) 2.0 (2.7) 9.7 (4.8) 1.8 (1.8) 2.2 (3.2)
0.25 1.5 (2.3) 2.5 (4.0) 1.4 (2.5) 2.7 (4.6) 2.1 (4.7) 4.2 (8.4) 1.5 (2.7) 2.8 (4.9)
0.50 1.9 (4.0) 3.1 (6.6) 1.9 (4.6) 3.5 (9.3) 3.3 (10.2) 6.0 (14.7) 2.0 (5.1) 3.8 (9.6)
1.00 2.7 (5.9) 4.4 (8.7) 3.0 (7.3) 5.0 (11.0) 4.9 (13.1) 8.8 (22.2) 3.3 (8.2) 5.2 (11.9)
33°

1.50 3.5 (8.1) 5.1 (10.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.0 (14.0) 4.8 (13.1) 10.6 (29.2) 3.5 (9.0) 6.6 (15.4)
2.00 3.5 (9.2) 5.9 (12.6) 3.4 (8.9) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.6 (29.8) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.2)
2.50 3.5 (9.4) 6.1 (14.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.6 (29.6) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.4)
3.00 3.5 (9.5) 6.2 (14.0) 3.4 (8.8) 6.9 (16.7) 4.9 (13.1) 10.9 (30.0) 3.5 (9.0) 7.3 (18.5)
458 Note: (1) The values within and outside the parenthesis indicate the efficiency factor for 1 equals to 45 and 40, respectively.
459 (2) 2 is the ratio of the bearing capacities of the unreinforced two layered systems and unreinforced homogenous (weak) soil.
460 (3) 3 is the ratio of the bearing capacities of the reinforced two layered systems and unreinforced homogenous (weak) soil.
461 The reinforcements are considered to be placed at scr/b and having width of lopt/b.
462 Table 5. The values of topt/b corresponding to different combinations of soil layers and
463 seismic loadings.
kv=0.0 kv=0.2
 
kh topt/b kh topt/b
0.0 3.0 0.0 -
25° 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.5
0.4 2.0 0.4 1.5
0.0 3.0 0.0 -
40° 28° 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.0
0.4 1.5 0.4 1.4
0.0 2.7 0.0 -
33° 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.8
0.4 1.3 0.4 1.0
0.0 4.2 0.0 -
25° 0.2 4.0 0.2 4.0
0.4 3.6 0.4 2.5
0.0 4.1 0.0 -
45° 28° 0.2 3.7 0.2 3.0
0.4 2.5 0.4 2.0
0.0 3.4 0.0 -
33° 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.6
0.4 2.3 0.4 1.6
464

465
466 Table 6. A comparison of the present solutions with those available in literature for homogenous unreinforced sand of =30 and 45
467 subjected to different horizontal seismic accelerations (i.e. kv=0).
468
kh Present Ghosh Dormieux Soubra Choudhury Sarma and Shafiee and E. Cascone and Kumar and
Solution (2008)a & Pecker (1997)a and Rao Iossifelis Jahanandish O. Casablanca Rao (2002)d
_____ (LB)
___________ _____ (1995)a
_________ ____________ (2005)b
____________ (1990)b
______________ (2015)c
____________ (2016)d
_____________ ____________
0.0 13.9 (197.7) 36.3 22.7 25.0 31.5 19.0 (268.6) 24.0 (348.8) 15.7 14.7 (234.3) 7.6 (122.1)
0.1 9.7 (140.8) 20.3 - 15.6 18.9 8.1 (101.58) 16.2 (211.4) 7.9 13.4 (221.9) 6.9 (104.5)
0.2 6.0 (87.8) 11.1 7.1 8.9 10.3 3.8 (45.9) 9.5 (129.7) 5.7 12.0 (209.1) 4.7 (78.0)
0.3 3.2 (52.7) 5.3 - 4.5 4.9 1.8 (17.7) 4.7 (73.1) 2.7 10.9 (195.6) 2.5 (47.0)
0.4 1.4 (30.0) 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.9 0.7 (7.8) 2.2 (43.2) 1.3 8.8 (181.5) 1.0 (27.3)
469 Note: The numerical solutions within and outside the parenthesis are reported for =45 and 30, respectively.
470 a
Upper bound solution using the rigid block method. Soubra (1997) computed the solutions by considering two different mechanisms.
471 b
Limit Equilibrium Solutions.
472 c
Displacement based Finite Element Method.
473 d
Method of stress characteristics.
474 Table 7. A comparison of bearing capacity in the form of N (Qu/(0.5bfor unreinforced
475 two layered sands (1=47.7º, 2=34º, 16.33 kN/m3 and 2=13.78kN/m3).
476
t/b Present Khatri et. al. (2017) Hanna Farah
a b
Solution
______ _______ LB
___________________ UB (1981) (2004)
_______ ______
0.00 5.5 6.0 6.2 9.4 10.2
0.25 9.5 9.6 10.0 11.8 12.9
0.50 14.6 15.4 16.0 15.6 17.4
1.00 26.0 27.2 28.3 22.5 25.3
1.50 39.1 41.6 43.5 33.5 38.6
2.00 55.9 54.2 56.9 44.5 50.7
477 Note: LB and UB denotes lower bound and upper bound solution, respectively.
478 a
Experimental Solutions.
479 b
Analytical Solutions.
480
481 Table 8. A comparison of efficiency factor for homogenous soil and different s/b ratio with kh= kv=0.0.

___ =30
 =35
 =40

s/b Present Kumar Michalowski Chakraborty Present Kumar Chakraborty Present Kumar Michalowski Chakraborty
Solution and Sahoo (2004)b and Kumar Solution and Sahoo and Kumar Solution and Sahoo (2004)b and Kumar
___ ________ (2013)a
________ ___________ (2014a)c
_______ ______ (2013)a
________ (2014a)c
__________ ______ (2013)a
________ ___________ (2014a)c
___________
0.2 1.46 1.47 1.37 1.42 1.40 1.49 1.40 1.35 1.51 1.42 1.36
0.4 1.42 1.68 1.60 1.38 1.78 1.74 1.66 1.75 1.81 1.63 1.65
0.6 1.06 1.09 1.56 1.03 1.27 1.44 1.20 1.64 1.95 1.81 1.73
0.8 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.12 1.44 1.91 1.14
1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.15 1.48 1.00
482 Note: The efficiency factor is defined as the ratio of the bearing capacities of the reinforced and unreinforced soil.
483 a
Finite element upper bound solutions (linearizing Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion).
484 b
Upper bound solutions using rigid block mechanism.
485 c
Lower Bound solutions in combination with finite elements.
486
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 1.pdf

Qu kv
 ≤(ccot−n)tan  =n = 0
kh
s b
y
Layer 1: 1 kv t
l
Layer 2: 2 kh D
x

Nodal Stresses (LB): x, y and xy

L
2
3
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 2.pdf

(a) kh=0.0, kv=0.0, 1=40 and 2=25 (b) kh=0.2, kv=0.0, 1=40 and 2=25 (c) kh=0.2, kv=0.2, 1=40 and 2=25

4
(d) kh=0.0, kv=0.0, 1=45 and 2=25 (e) kh=0.2, kv=0.0, 1=45 and 2=25 (f) kh=0.2, kv=0.2, 1=45 and 2=25

5
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 3.pdf

6
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 4.pdf

  xx −  yy 
2

a=  +  xy
2

 2 
2
   xx +  yy 
Shear Stress ()

d = −   + c cot   sin 
2

(+ve)
  2  
d
(y,xy)

a
 c

Normal Stress (n)

(-ve)

Mohr circle of stress for

(x,xy) an arbitrary point drawn at
Current stress state
 + y  Failure stress state
− x 
 2 

7
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 5.pdf

10

11
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 6.pdf

12

13

14
15
16
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 7.pdf

17

18

19
20
 Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure 8.pdf

21

22

23

24
25
Figure Captions list

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Problem domain and boundary conditions

Fig. 2. The variation of N with l/b corresponding to different s/b and t/b having

1=40,2=25 with (a) kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (b) kh=0.2, kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.2, kv=0.2; and 1=45,

2=25 with (d) kh=0.0, kv=0.0; (e) kh=0.2, kv=0.0; and (f) kh=0.2, kv=0.2.

Fig. 3. The variation of scr/b with t/b for 1=45 and 2=33.

Fig. 4. Pictorial representation of Mohr stress circles corresponding to current and failure

state.

Fig. 5. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, t/b=1, l/b=2 with s/b equals

to: (a) 0.15, (b) 0.60, and (c) 1.20.

Fig. 6. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1 with l/b equals

to: (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 3.0.

Fig. 7. Failure patterns in non-seismic zone for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, l/b=1 and t/b equals

to : (a) 0.5, (b) 1, and (c) 4.

Fig. 8. Failure patterns for =40, =25, s/b=0.3, t/b=1, l/b =2 with (a) kh= kv=0.0; (b)

kh=0.2, kv=0.0; (c) kh=0.4, kv=0.0; and (d) kh=0.4, kv=0.2.

List of Tables

Table 1. The minimum values of  (min) for avoiding plastic flow (Richard et. al. 1990).

Table 2. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata

subjected to constant kv (=0.0) different kh.

Table 3. The values of scr/b, lopt/b and corresponding N and 1 for different soil strata

subjected to constant kv (=0.2) different kh.

Table 4. The variation of 2 and 3 corresponding to different seismic coefficients.

Table 5. The values of topt/b corresponding to different combinations of soil layers and

seismic loadings.

Table 6. A comparison of the present solutions with those available in literature for

homogenous unreinforced sand of =30 and 45 subjected to different horizontal

seismic accelerations (i.e. kv=0).

Table 7. A comparison of bearing capacity in the form of N (=Qu/(0.5b ))for unreinforced

two layered sands (1=47.7º, 2=34º, =16.33 kN/m3and 2=13.78kN/m3).

Table 8. A comparison of efficiency factor for homogenous soil and different s/b ratio with

kh= kv=0.0.
 Click here to access/download;Response to Reviewers Comments;Response Sheet.pdf

Manuscript ID# GMENG-4990

Manuscript Title: Seismic Bearing Capacity of Rough Strip Footing Placed Over Geogrid
Reinforced Two Layer Sands

Authors: Prateek Kumar and Manash Chakraborty

General Response: The authors are very much grateful to the editor and the reviewers for their
valuable comments and suggestions. The itemized responses to the reviewer’s queries are written
below. The text has been modified accordingly. The major changes in the article have been
highlighted by using red colour.

A/E:

# Please clarify you mean a "strip" of geogrid in the plane strain direction. The term "layer" is
more common than strip in the geosynthetics literature.

Authors’ Response: The authors agree to the fact that in the context of geosynthetics, the term
"layer" is more common than strip. The authors have incorporated the suggestion in the entire
revised text.

# Carefully consider the points raised by the two reveiwers. If you do not agree with a comment
carefully explain why.

Reviewer #1: Reviewer 1

The topic of this technical note is interesting and the originality and scientific contribution is
acknowledged. However, some sections should be rephrased to improve the readability.

Authors’ Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for suggesting the corrections. The
authors have incorporated the changes and have duly revised the text.
1) In Section "Failure surface", the text at lines 178 - 186 is rather difficult to follow.

Authors’ Response: The lines are rephrased. An additional figure (Fig. 4) is enclosed for further
clarification.

Please refer to line no. 207-218:

The lower bound limit analysis provides the state of stress at every node of triangular element at
the incipient state of failure. The directions of the positive normal and shear stresses are
indicated in Fig. 1(a). Based on the magnitude of the stress state, a/d ratio is computed at each
node; where, a and d indicate the diameter of the Mohr circle representing the current and failure
stress state, respectively. Fig. 4 displays the pictorial representation of the parameters a and d. At
any arbitrary node, for the given stress state, the magnitude of a and d are calculated as follows:
  xx −  yy 
2

a=  +  xy
2
(8a)
 2 
2
   xx +  yy  
d = −   + c cot   sin 
2
(8b)
  2  
After obtaining the a/d ratio at each node, the failure pattern of the soil domain at the limit state
can be drawn. As a/d approaches 1, the node will be on the verge of plastic shear failure. On the
other hand, if a/d<1, the node will be in a non-plastic state. Figs. 5-8 present the failure surface
for different material, geometrical, and, loading configurations.

2) More details on finite elements analyses are also needed and the numerical results plotted in
Figure 4, 5, 6, 7 should be presented and discussed in more detail.

Authors’ Response: The authors have further elaborated the analysis procedure in the text.

Please refer to line no. 72-77:

Non-uniform mesh with three-noded triangular elements are used to discretize the entire stress
domain. The size of the elements is gradually reduced towards the footing edge. The stress
components (xx, yy, and xy), associated with each node, are assumed to vary linearly
throughout the element. Each node pertains to a specific element only, and hence, the same
coordinate can be shared by more than one node.

Please refer to line no. 93-97:

By imposing these constraints, statical stress discontinuities are permitted along all the interfaces
of different elements; it implies that although the stress state components are discontinuous,
however, the normal and the shear stresses remain to be continuous along the interface between
any two elements.

Please refer to line no. 215-245 for the detailed discussion on Figs. 5-8.

3) The calculation procedure for the ratio a/d needs to be clarified.

Authors’ Response: The formulae for calculating the parameters a and d are mentioned in Fig.
4.

Please refer to line no. 209-214:

Based on the magnitude of the stress state, a/d ratio is computed at each node; where, a and d
indicate the diameter of the Mohr circle representing the current and failure stress state,
respectively. Fig. 4 displays the pictorial representation of the parameters a and d. At any
arbitrary node, for the given stress state, the magnitude of a and d are calculated as follows:
  xx −  yy 
2

a=  +  xy
2
(8a)
 2 
2
   xx +  yy  
d = −   + c cot   sin 
2
(8b)
  2  

4) English style and grammar should be carefully revised.

Authors’ Response: The authors have revised the manuscript and have done the necessary
corrections.

Reviewer #1: Reviewer 1

1. Authors are requested to focus on the novelty of the work. Please clarify the novelty of the
work.

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 42-48:

Those studies were mostly focused on determining the improvement in bearing capacity due to
the placement of different sized reinforcements at various depths. It is noteworthy that most of
these works are limited to static case only.
This motivates the authors to quantitatively estimate the combined benefits of the reinforcement
and the dense sand layer in improving the bearing capacity of strip footing subjected to seismic
forces.

2. There are many grammatical corrections. The authors should check the manuscript again for
grammar.

Authors’ Response: The authors have checked the manuscript and have incorporated the
necessary corrections.

3. The authors used lower bound limit analysis to find the load carrying capacity of strip footing.
Why the authors did not apply upper bound limit analysis theorem?

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 135-139:

According to the limiting theorems, the lower and upper bound solutions bracket the actual
collapse load from both the extremities. The lower bound analysis always generates smaller
solutions than the true collapse load, and hence, the computed bearing capacity, in the present
article, are safe in contrast to the unsafe solutions provided by the upper bound technique.

4. In Fig.6 it is mensioned “ Beyond a certain thickness, the failure zone seems to be confined
solely within the top layer and hence the bearing capacity would not be influenced by bottom
layer”.What is the critical thickness of top layer by which this statement can be valid for
different types of soil?

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 237-242:

This is consistent with the numerical solutions, as presented in Tables 2-4. The magnitude of this
specific thickness depends highly on the strength properties of the top and the bottom layers as
well as the kh value. Table 5 depicts the value of topt/b corresponding to various configuration of
soil layers and different seismic conditions. With the increase in kh, kv, and , topt/b decreases
continuously; on the contrary, as there is an improvement in the strength of the top layer, the
magnitude of topt/b decreases.

5. In Fig.3 has shown the variation of scr/b with t/b for 1=45 and 2=33. In this Fig. the
authors have shown the variation for kh=0.6. It is possible to get the failure surface for kh=0.6 in
experimentally?
Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 150-155.

Suitable choice of pseudo-static coefficients is the most vital, and the most difficult aspects in
seismic stability analysis. Terzaghi (1950) originally suggested the use of kh=0.1 for “severe”
earthquake, kh=0.2 for “violent, destructive” earthquakes and kh=0.5 for “catastrophic”
earthquakes. In this article, the magnitude of kh and kv have been varied within a very wide range
(kh =0-0.6, and kv=0-0.2) in order to account various seismic conditions.

6. The authors are requested to show more comparison with experimental studies.

Authors’ Response:

Please refer to line no. 273-276:

Corresponding to three different s/b (= 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2), the ultimate bearing capacity (qu)
obtained from the present analysis for homogenous sands of =31 are 49.5, 56, and 44 kPa,
respectively; whereas, through the experimental observation, Xu et. al. (2019) reported that the
magnitude of qu for the same reinforced soil equals to 56.7, 69.9, and, 50.0kPa, respectively.

Please refer to line no. 282-284:

The magnitude of scr/b in the homogenous sandy soil varies within 0.5b-1.0b. This is consistent
with the experimental findings of Yetimoglu et al. (1994), Adams and Collin (1997) Shin et al.
(2002), Abu-Farsakh et al. (2013).

7. Why the authors used Pseudo-static approach? Pseudo-dynamic and Modified Pseudo-
dynamic methods are already available. Pseudo-static method is more primative comparing with
Pseudo-dynamic method.

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 86-90:

In this context, it is worth mentioning that in the pseudo-static method of analysis, the effect of
time and phase difference and the primary and shear waves passing through the soil medium are
not duly considered, and, hence, in this analysis approach, the dynamic nature of earthquake
loading is considered in a very approximate way.

8. In line no.87 it is mentioned “Footing roughness”. How to identify the roughness condition?

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 101-107:

 (b) Footing roughness condition:  t   n tan  ; here,  (roughness/friction angle between
the soil-footing interface) varies between 0 (i.e. perfectly smooth) and  (i.e. perfectly
rough). It is worth noting, that the magnitude of  , as observed from different shearing test
apparatus (e.g. direct / simple shear), depends on surface roughness, surface waviness, mean
sand diameter, particle geometry, relative density etc. (Han et. al. 2018; Nardelli et. al.
2019). The  / ratio for the sand and concrete (rough) interface, as reported by Potyondyc
(1961), equals to 0.90 and 0.98 for saturated and dry conditions, respectively.

9. What are the geogrid propertied has taken in present analysis. It is not mentioned anywhere.

Authors’ Response: Please refer to line no. 113-120:

The conditions in Eq.(4) are based on the assumptions that the reinforcements are perfectly
flexible but impart enough resistance against axial tension. Considering the flexibility and the
tensile strength of the geogrid sheets, it can be inferred, that the present solutions are more
applicable for geogrid layers. In the present analysis, only the ultimate limit state can be dealt
with. The serviceability limit state cannot be accounted in the present work, and hence, the
stiffness parameters (in terms of Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio) of either the reinforcement
sheet or soil mass cannot be incorporated in the analysis. The present analysis is, therefore,
solely based on the shear strength parameters of (a) soils, and (b) soil-reinforcement interface.