ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Technical note

Eccentrically loaded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand

C.R. Patraa, B.M. Dasb,, M. Bhoia, E.C. Shinc
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela 769008, India
b
College of Engineering and Computer Science, California State University, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Incheon, Incheon Metropolitan City 402-749, Republic of Korea
Received 20 August 2005; received in revised form 16 December 2005; accepted 17 December 2005
Available online 21 February 2006

Abstract

Results are presented for laboratory model tests conducted to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of an eccentrically loaded strip
foundation supported by geogrid-reinforced sand. Only one type of sand at one relative density of compaction and one type of geogrid
were used for the tests. The depth of the foundation was varied from zero to B (width of foundation). Based on the laboratory test results,
an empirical relationship called reduction factor has been suggested that correlates the ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity of an
eccentrically loaded foundation with that for a foundation where the load is applied centrally.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Eccentric loading; Geogrid; Sand; Strip foundation; Ultimate bearing capacity

1. Introduction 2. Eccentrically loaded strip foundation on unreinforced

sand
During the last two decades, the results of a number of
studies have been published relating to the ultimate bearing Meyerhof (1953) proposed a semi-empirical procedure to
capacity of shallow foundations supported by multi- estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow
layered geogrid-reinforced sand. The results were mostly foundation subjected to eccentric load that is generally
obtained from small-scale laboratory model tests (Omar referred to as the equivalent area method. According to
et al., 1993; Yetimoglu et al., 1994; Das and Omar, 1994; this method, the average ultimate bearing capacity, qu(e), of
Khing et al., 1993; Adams and Collin, 1977). Most of the a strip foundation on unreinforced sand is given as
experimental studies cited above were conducted for
  0
surface foundation condition (i.e., depth of foundation, Qu 1 0 B
Df ¼ 0). Shin and Das (2000) provided the results of a quðeÞ ¼ ¼ qN q F qd þ gB N g F gd , (1)
B 2 B
limited number of laboratory model studies for the
ultimate bearing capacity of strip foundations with Df/B
(B ¼ width of foundation) greater than zero. None of the where qu(e) is the ultimate bearing capacity with load
published studies, however, address the effect of load eccentricity e, Qu is the ultimate load per unit length of
eccentricity on the ultimate bearing capacity. The purpose foundation, q ¼ gDf , g is the unit weight of soil, Df is the
of this paper is to report some recent laboratory bearing depth of foundation, B is the width of foundation;
capacity test results on eccentrically loaded strip founda- B0 ¼ B
2e, e is the load eccentricity, Nq, Ng are the
tions with Df/B varying from zero to one. bearing capacity factors, depth factors, Fqd ¼ Fgd (Meyer-
hof, 1963) ¼ 1+0.1(Df/B)tan(45+j0 /2) and j0 is the
friction angle of sand.
Prakash and Saran (1971) provided a comprehensive
mathematical formulation to estimate the ultimate bearing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 916 278 6127; fax: +1 916 278 5949. capacity of a rough strip foundation under eccentric
E-mail address: [email protected] (B.M. Das). loading. According to this theory for a strip foundation

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.12.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.R. Patra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259 255

Nomenclature qu(e), qu(e ¼ 0) ultimate bearing capacity on unreinforced

sand, respectively, with load eccentricity, e, and
B foundation width e¼0
B0 ¼ B ¼ 2e effective foundation width quR(e), quR ultimate bearing capacity on reinforced
Df depth of foundation sand, respectively, with load eccentricity, e,
d depth of reinforcement measured from the and e ¼ 0
bottom of the foundation QuR load per unit length (reinforced sand)
d f ¼ d þ Df Qu ultimate load per unit length (unreinforced
e eccentricity sand)
Fqd, Fgd depth factors RK, RKR reduction factor for unreinforced and rein-
h distance between two consecutive geogrid forced case, respectively
layers u distance between the bottom of the foundation
K a constant and the first geogrid layer
N number of goegrid layers a, a1, a2, a3 constants
Nq, Nq(e), Ng, Ng(e) bearing capacity factors g unit weight of sand
q ¼ gDf j0 drained friction angle of sand

on sand, Table 1
Variations of a and K (Eq. (4))
1
quðeÞ ¼ qN qðeÞ þ gBN gðeÞ , (2)
2 Df/B a K
where Nq(e) and Ng(e) are the bearing capacity factors ¼ 0 1.862 0.73
f(j0 ,e/B). 0.25 1.811 0.785
The above equation does not include the depth factors as 0.5 1.754 0.80
shown in Eq. (1). 1.0 1.820 0.888
Purkayastha and Char (1977) carried out stability
analysis of an eccentrically loaded strip foundation on
sand using the method of slices proposed by Janbu (1957).
Based on this study, they proposed that
quðeÞ
¼ 1
RK , (3)
quðe¼0Þ
where
 e K
RK ¼ reduction factor ¼ a . (4)
B
Based on a statistical analysis, it was also shown that B
and j0 have no influence on RK. The variations of a and K
determined by this study are summarized in Table 1. The
magnitude of a decreases with the increase in Df/B up to a
minimum at Df =B ¼ 0:5, and increases thereafter. From
this table, it can be seen that the average values of a and K
are, respectively, 1.81 and 0.8. For Df =B ¼ 0 and e/Bo0.2,
this solution provides practically the same results as the Fig. 1. Assumed failure mode under a centrally loaded surface strip
equivalent area method suggested by Meyerhof (1953). foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.

3. Foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand

soil block is formed under the foundation, and this block
A reliable procedure for estimating the ultimate bearing behaves as if it were an embedded foundation. Based on
capacity under centric loading for a strip foundation this observation, the failure mode is shown in Fig. 1. In this
supported by geogrid-reinforced sand is yet to be devel- figure, QuR is the ultimate load per unit length of the
oped. Takemura et al. (1992) conducted several centrifuge foundation. Thus, the ultimate bearing capacity without
tests for surface foundation to determine the ultimate depth factor can conservatively be given as
bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-
reinforced sand. Based on the model tests they concluded 1
quR ¼ dgN g þ gBN g , (5)
that, just before the load intensity reached its peak, a rigid 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
256 C.R. Patra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259

Table 2
Physical properties of the geogrid

Parameters Quantity

Structure Punctured sheet drawn

Polymer PP/DHPE copolymer
Junction method Unitized
Aperture size (MD/XMD) 25.4 mm/33.02 mm
Rib thickness 0.762 mm
Junction thickness 2.79 mm
Tensile modulus at 2% elongation (MD) 204.3 kN/m
Tensile modulus at 2% elongation (XMD) 291.9 kN/m
Junction strength (MD) 11.2 kN/m
Junction strength (XMD) 18.4 kN/m

Fig. 2. Assumed failure mode under an eccentrically loaded strip edges of the model were polished to reduce friction as much
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. as possible. The sides of the box were heavily braced to
avoid lateral yielding. Locally available sand dried in an
where quR is the ultimate bearing capacity on geogrid- oven was used for the present model tests. The sand used
reinforced sand, b is the width of geogrid layer and d is for the tests had 100% passing 0.7 mm size sieve and 0%
the depth of reinforcement below the bottom of the passing 0.3 mm size sieve. It had an effective size (D10) of
foundation. 0.41 mm and a uniformity coefficient (Cu) of 1.4. For all
The reinforcement depth below the bottom of the tests, the average unit weight and the relative density of
foundation can be expressed as compaction were kept at 14.81 kN/m3 and 72%, respec-
tively. The average peak friction angle j0 of the sand at the
d ¼ u þ ðN
1Þh, (6)
test conditions as determined from direct shear tests was
where u is the depth of first layer of geogrid from the 42.41. Tensar biaxial geogrid (BX1100) was used for the
bottom of the foundation, h is the distance between present tests. The physical properties of the geogrid are
consecutive layers of reinforcement; N is the number of given in Table 2.
geogrid layers. In conducting a model test, sand was placed in lifts of
Assuming the failure mechanism under centric load as 25 mm in the test box. For each lift, the amount of soil
shown in Fig. 1 to be correct, it appears that the ultimate required to produce the desired unit weight was weighed
bearing capacity due to eccentric loading (Fig. 2) may be and compacted using a flat-bottomed wooden block.
expressed in a form similar to Eq. (3). Or, Geogrid layers were placed in the sand at desired values
quRðeÞ of u/B and h/B. The model foundation was placed on the
¼ 1
RKR , (7) surface as well as at desired depths below the surface of the
quR
sand bed. Centric or eccentric load to the model founda-
where quR(e) is the ultimate bearing capacity due to tion was applied through an electrically operated hydraulic
eccentric loading, RKR is the reduction factor for geogrid- jack. Two dial gauges having 0.01 mm accuracy placed on
reinforced sand. either side of the model foundation recorded the settlement
In Fig. 2, QuR(e) is the ultimate load per unit length of the of the foundation. Load was applied in small increments,
foundation with a load eccentricity e, and Df is the depth of and the resulting deformations recorded so that the entire
the foundation. The reduction factor may be expressed as load-settlement curve could be obtained. Since the length
 a2  
df e a3 of the model foundation was approximately the same as the
RKR ¼ a1 , (8) width of the test box, it can be assumed that an
B B
approximate plane strain condition did exist during the
where a1, a2, and a3 are constants, and d f ¼ Df þ d. tests.
For the present test program, the following parameters
4. Laboratory model tests were adopted for the geogrid reinforcement layers:
u=B ¼ 0:35, h=B ¼ 0:25, b=B ¼ 5. The sequence of the
The model foundation used for this study had a width of model tests is given in Table 3.
80 mm and a length of 360 mm. It was made out of a mild
steel plate with a thickness of 25 mm. The bottom of the 5. Model test results
model foundation was made rough by coating it with glue
and then rolling it over sand. Bearing capacity tests were For any given test, at any time during the test, the load
conducted in a box measuring 0.8 m (length)  0.365 m per unit area on the model foundation [qR or qR(e)] can be
(width)  0.7 m (depth). The inside walls of the box and the given as Q/A (Q ¼ load on the foundation, A ¼ area of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.R. Patra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259 257

Table 3
Sequence of model tests

Test no. Df/B N df/B e/B

1–3 0 2, 3, 4 0.6, 0.85, 1.1 0

4–6 0 2, 3, 4 0.6, 0.85, 1.1 0.05
7–9 0 2, 3, 4 0.6, 0.85, 1.1 0.10
10–12 0 2, 3, 4 0.6, 0.85, 1.1 0.15
13–15 0.5 2, 3, 4 1.1, 1.35, 1.6 0
16–18 0.5 2, 3, 4 1.1, 1.35, 1.6 0.05
19–21 0.5 2, 3, 4 1.1, 1.35, 1.6 0.10
22–24 0.5 2, 3, 4 1.1, 1.35, 1.6 0.15
25–27 1.0 2, 3, 4 1.6, 1.85, 2.1 0
28–30 1.0 2, 3, 4 1.6, 1.85, 2.1 0.05
31–33 1.0 2, 3, 4 1.6, 1.85, 2.1 0.10
34–36 1.0 2, 3, 4 1.6, 1.85, 2.1 0.15

Note: u=B ¼ 0:35, h=B ¼ 0:25 and b=B ¼ 5 for all tests on reinforced sand.

Fig. 3. Plot of load per unit area versus settlement—Df =B ¼ 1 (tests

31–33).

foundation). Fig. 3 shows typical plots of load per unit area

qR(e) versus foundation settlement (tests 31 through 33)
obtained from the model test program. The plots were
typical local shear types of failure, such as those described
by Vesic (1973). The ultimate bearing capacities determined
from the load–displacement plots are shown in Fig. 4. It
needs to be pointed out that the values of tensile strength
and stiffness were not scaled down to be consistent with
geometric scaling. As expected for any given Df/B (or df/B),
the magnitudes of quR(e) decreased with the increase in e/B.
Also, for any given Df/B and e/B, the ultimate bearing
capacity increased with the increase in df/B.
According to Eq. (8), the reduction factor
Fig. 4. Variation of quR(e) with e/B and df/B—(a) Df =B ¼ 0 (tests 1
 e  a3 through 12); (b) Df =B ¼ 0:5 (tests 13 through 24); (c) Df =B ¼ 1:0 (tests 25
RKR / . (9) through 36).
B
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
258 C.R. Patra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259

Using the experimental ultimate bearing capacities quR(e) about 1.21. Thus
shown in Fig. 4, the reduction factors were calculated,  e 1:21
RKR / . (10)
and these are shown in Figs. 5(a), (b), and (c). From B
these figures it can be seen that for any given Df/B and Again, Fig. 6 shows the plots of RKR versus df/B for
df/B, the plot of RKR versus e/B is approximately a e=B ¼ 0:05, 0.10 and 0.15. Although there is some scatter
straight line in a log–log plot. The average value of a3 is as expected, the slope of the average lines for all e/B values
(i.e., a2 is approximately equal to
0.12). Thus
 
0:12  
df e 1:21
RKR ¼ a1 , (11)
B B
or,
RKR
a1 ¼ . (12)
ðd f =BÞ
0:12
ðe=BÞ1:21
Using the average lines for each e/B shown in Fig. 6, the
magnitudes of a1 were calculated. These deduced values of
a1 are plotted against the corresponding e/B in Fig. 7. The

Fig. 6. Plot of RKR versus df/B for e=B ¼ 0:05, 0.10 and 0.15.

Fig. 5. Plot of RKR versus e/B: (a) Df =B ¼ 0; (b) Df =B ¼ 0:5; and (c)
Df =B ¼ 1:0. Fig. 7. Plot of a1 versus e/B.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.R. Patra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 254–259 259

average value of a1 from this plot is about 4.97. Thus Das, B.M., Omar, M.T., 1994. The effects of foundation width on model
 
0:12   tests for the bearing capacity of sand with geogrid reinforcement.
df e 1:21
RKR  4:97 . (13) Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 12 (2), 133–141.
B B Janbu, N., 1957. Earth pressure and bearing capacity calculations by
generalized procedure of slices. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
It needs to be pointed out that the present tests were International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
conducted with one model footing and one type of sand. gineering, vol. 2. London. pp. 207–212.
The existence of possible scale effects by changing the width Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.E., Yen, S.C., 1993. The
of the foundation has not been verified. This may lead to bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.
changes in the magnitudes of the constants a1, a2 and a3. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12 (4), 351–361.
Meyerhof, G.G., 1953. The bearing capacity of footing under eccentric
and inclined loads. In: Proceedings of the Third International
6. Conclusions Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1.
Zurich. pp. 440–444.
A limited number of laboratory model test results for the Meyerhof, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded strip foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1 (1), 16–26.
foundations supported by sand reinforced with multi-layers Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Yen, S.C., 1993. Ultimate bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement.
of geogrid has been presented. The eccentricity ratio (e/B) Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30 (3), 545–549.
was varied from zero to 0.15 along with the foundation Prakash, S., Saran, S., 1971. Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded
embedment ratio (Df/B) from zero to one. Based on the footing. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
model test results, the following conclusions can be drawn: ASCE 97 (1), 95–117.
Purkayastha, R.D., Char, R.A.N., 1977. Stability analysis for eccentrically
loaded footings. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
(1) For similar reinforcement conditions, the ratio of the
ASCE 103 (6), 647–651.
ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded Shin, E.C., Das, B.M., 2000. Experimental study of bearing capacity of a
foundations to that loaded centrally can be related by strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics Interna-
a reduction factor. tional 7 (1), 59–71.
(2) The reduction factor is a function of df/B and e/B. Takemura, J., Okamura, M., Susmasa, N., Kimura, T., 1992. Bearing
capacities and performance of sand reinforced with geogrids. In:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Pressure
Practice, vol. 1. Fukuoka, Balkema, pp. 695–700.
Vesic, A.S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads on shallow foundations.
References Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE
99 (1), 45–73.
Adams, M.T., Collin, J.C., 1977. Large model spread footing load tests on Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J.T.H., Saglamer, A., 1994. Bearing capacity of
geogrid-reinforced soil foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Journal of the
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 123 (1), 66–72. Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 120 (12), 2083–2089.