Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No.

2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

Frictional Pullout Resistance and Settlement Criteria of

Reinforced soil system
Hayder.M.Mekkiyah (B.sc-Msc) Civil Engineer
The University of Baghdad
College of Engineering,

Abstract

An analytical approach, adopted to find the frictional pullout resistance and

settlement of foundations resting on reinforced soil based on the test results of circular
footing and site data from plate bearing tests (PLT) for in-situ testing of (PLT) with a
diameter of ( 0.75m) , is summarized. The soil was reinforced using biaxial geomesh. The
settlement was determined by considering the compatibility of strain (settlement) between
soil and reinforcement element underneath the foundation. Empirical equations were used
to estimate the settlement either from the superstructure loads or from in-situ plate load
tests on the reinforced soil system, while the frictional pullout resistance of reinforcement
calculated and compared with test results based on the new empirical equation. The study
concerned two different types of geomesh(CE111 and CE121). It was found that initial
horizontal and vertical movement of the reinforcement is needed to mobilize the reinforcing
strength. Further, the initial settlement at small loads could be avoided when the
reinforcement was placed closer to the base of the footing (U<< B/2) and there was an
improvement in the bearing capacity value of the footing. When the reinforcement is placed
away from the base of the footing, the initial settlement decreased with a slight
improvement in the bearing capacity compared with that of un-reinforced soil. Non-
dimensional factors were developed for the settlement and frictional pullout resistance
based on the experimental site test results.

‫الخـالصـــــــة‬
‫أقترح في هذه الدراسة تحليل لحساب قوة مقاومةة السةحب لرةرا ا التسةليا أسةلل األسة المسةلحة تراييةا ولةذل‬
‫( للحوصةا لديةدة للحةل تحميةل‬PLT) ‫الهيوط المتوقع مينيةا للةا الترةارب المختيريةة ونتةا فحةل تحميةل الصةليحة‬
)‫حيث تم تسليا الترية يواسطة قطع(ريلة‬، ‫ متر‬. ,57‫الصليحة ينل مواصلا نموذج الموديل المختيري ولصليحة قطر‬
.‫ لان ميدأ التحليل قد استند إلا التوافق في االنلعال الحاصل تح األس للل من التريةة وقطةع التسةليا‬.‫تسليا يالستيلية‬
‫أن المعادال التطييقيةة المقترحةة هةي لحسةاب الهيةوط تحة هةذا النةو األسة سةوا يسةيب أحمةال المنرةو أو مةن فحةل‬
‫ اسةتخدم نةولين مةن رةرا ا‬،‫ في حين قوة مقاومة السحب لررا ا التسليا تم اقتراحها في معةادال أياةا‬،‫تحميل الصليحة‬
‫ فاليد مةن ورةود‬،‫ أفقية) تح األس المسلحة تراييا‬/‫ لوحظ من أرل الحصول للا حرلة(رأسية‬.‫التسليا في هذه الدراسة‬
‫وألثر من ذل أن هذا الهيوط األولي يملةن ترنيةع لنةدما تواةع‬،‫أحمال ألير من تل المقارنة ياألس غير المسلحة تراييا‬
‫هذه الررا ا قريية من األس حيث لان تحسن فةي سةعة التحمةل لهةذه األسة ولةذل لقةرب رةرا ا التسةليا مةن األسةا‬
‫معامال اليعديةة اقترحة لحسةاب مقاومةة السةحب لرةرا ا‬. ‫ويقل هذا التحسن لنةد واةع هةذه الرةرا ا يعيةدة مةن األسة‬
.‫التسليا ولذل الهيوط المتوقع تح هذه األس من النتا الحقلية‬

71
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

1. Introduction
Reinforced earth technique is one of the most promising materials that have emerged in
the last 30 years from intensive research that has been carried out into alternative construction
materials. Reinforced earth technique is not new, the earliest remaining examples of soil
reinforcement are ziggurat of ancient city of Dur-Krigatzu in Iraq (6000 B.C.), and the Great
Wall of China. It is also known that Romans have used earth reinforcement technique (Ignold
1982) [1].

Binquet and Lee (1975 a&b), investigated the mode of failures below the strip footing and a
new analysis method using limit equilibrium method were reported in order to calculate the
bearing capacity below the strip footing., the shear bands developed beneath the footing with
small strains outside the active zone[2].

Akinmuusru and Akibolade(1981) investigated laboratory test on square footing resting on

reinforced sand; reinforced by rope of fiber material, the study showed that bearing capacity
ratio (BCR) increased with increasing number of reinforcement layers up to three layers after
that little gain in the value of (BCR) were obtained[3].

Sulaiman (1991) investigated the interface between two adjacent footings resting on
reinforced sand , the results showed that plain sand both bearing capacity and settlement of
adjacent footings are increased when the space separating them was small, the highest
improvement was recorded at single layer of reinforcement found to be (1.172)for square
footing and (2.5) for strip footing[4].

Mekkiyah,H.,M. (1993), studied the behavior of reinforced sand using circular model footing
subjected to cyclic loading the results have been shown that the bearing capacity increase with
increasing number of reinforcing layers and with decreasing the depth of top most
reinforcement layer. Also, the application of varying amplitude on reinforced sand causes a
stiffening effect on soil dynamic parameters which depends significantly on the load
sequence adopted, while the bearing capacity increased up to three after such cyclic
loading[5].

Mekkiyah,H.,M. (2003) investigated the comparisons between the bearing capacities using
the dimensionless factors for Circular Footings under static loadings. Non-dimensional factors
are adopted (I,Jand M) which were found useful in estimation such comparison. The bearing
capacity increased up to 3 rapidly when the value of U is close to the footing base [Top most
reinforcement layer depth below the footing] Maximum improvement happened when the
umber of layers increased up to 3[6].

Mekkiyah,H.,M. (2007), investigated to calculate the modulus of elasticity of reinforced soils

and the settlement from empirical equations, it was founded that the modulus of elasticity can
be increased by a range of an average of six time the value of unreinforced soil and the
settlement reduced in values compared from different site tests results[7].

Further, there are a limited number of studies in the literature on the possibility of using
analytical developed equations to estimate the frictional pullout resistance of reinforcement
bellows the footing and its settlement. This paper reports the initial Findings of such a study

71
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

and attempts to provide a relatively simple approach to estimate the frictional pullout
resistance and settlement of reinforced soil system.

2. ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

The use of reinforcement (Geosynthetics) to improve the bearing capacity of footings and to
reduce settlement has been proven to be cost-effective for foundation system. A reinforced
soil-foundation system consists of one or more layers of geosynthetics and a control soil
placed below the footing. The reinforcement is usually placed horizontally. However, there
are cases in which vertical or sloped reinforcement may be used below the footing. Further,
the reinforcement placed within the tensile arc of strain field causes realignment of the strain
field which improves performance in both stiffness and load carrying capacity (Jones 1985)
[8]. The ideal reinforcement pattern for the direction of the principal tensile strain is shown in
Figures (1) and (2). As shown in these figures, the ideal pattern has a reinforcement placed
horizontally below the footing and becomes progressively more vertical further from the
footing (Bassat and Last 1978) [9].

Figure (1) Zero extension characteristics for dilating soil (After Bassat and
Last, 1978) [9].
.

71
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

Figure (2) Different reinforcement orientations below the footing (After Bassat
and Last, 1978) [9].
.
The calculation of footing immediate settlement for different soil types are estimated on the
basis of elasticity, provided that the elastic properties of the soil (modulus of elasticity E, and
Poisson's ratio) are known. These two parameters can be evaluated in the lab from soil
samples obtained during site investigation processes for cohesive soils. However, for granular
soils, it is much more difficult, if not impossible in most cases. The in-situ testing on granular
soils may not accurately give these soil properties which are needed for the calculation of
settlement. In the case of reinforced soil systems, it seems to be difficult to use traditional
investigation methods such as borings, or to use other traditional techniques such as pressure
meter tests or cone penetrometer tests. Such methods and techniques require drilling to
various depths which will deform the reinforcement mesh below the footing. Plate bearing
test on reinforced foundation systems resting on homogeneous sand to a sufficient depth, on
the other hand, can be used as an economical alternative. From the plate bearing tests data
which can be used to estimate the overall modulus of the soil which provides a representative
parameter for use in conventional settlement estimation.

The improvement in the modulus of subgrade reaction from different studies and site data as a
result of reinforcement is in the range of 2 to 10 times that of unreinforced soils. It was
assumed that the modulus of elasticity of reinforced soil (ER) will be increased by the same
ratio (i.e., ER=(2-10)ES), where ES is modulus of elasticity for unreinforced soil and ER can be
estimated from equations (1)[ Mekkiyah(2007) ] [7].

ER = (FI) * Ksun * B (1- 2 ) -------------------(1)

Where:
ER: Modulus of elasticity for reinforced soil.
FI: Improvement factor (FI = 2 and 10 for 1 and 3 reinforcement layers respectively)
Ksun: The subgrade reaction value of unreinforced soil.
B: Footing width (for an equivalent square).
: Passion's ratio (recommended ranges are between 0.28 and 0.34 for 3 and 1
reinforcement layers respectively).

While the settlement below a reinforced soil system can be estimated from equation (2)
[Mekkiyah (2007)] [7]; which should be used with the following limitations in mind:
 Best estimation for base contact pressure (q) should be used.
 For the circular footing it is better to convert the footing width to equivalent square.
 The sand layer depth can cause settlement to a depth of Z= 1.5 to 2 times B or to a depth
where a hard stratum is encountered below the base.

q B
---------------------------- (2)  FlP  0.8
ER
Where:
: Footing and/or plate settlement (cm).  FlP
q: Load from (superstructure) on footing and/or plate(Kg/cm2).
B: Footing width (an equivalent square) (cm).

02
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

When the previous limitations are considered, the settlement estimated from the above
equation gives good correlation with the test results. Another method of analysis was
proposed for settlement estimation by adopting a non-dimensional factor for any size of
footing or plate bearing dimensions. The value of  factor that will provide a settlement of 25
mm is used in equation (3) [ Mekkiyah(2007) ] [7]:
2 P
-------------------------- (3)  F 
BP / BF 
Where:
: Footing settlement (mm)  F
: Settlement from footing and/or plate bearing test (mm)  P
 : Non dimensional factor as shown in Figures (6-13) [Mekkiyah (2007)] [7].
Bp: plate size (m).
Bf: footing size (m).
By using the plate load-settlement curve for δF of 25mm, the value of the corresponding
bearing pressure can be found from the curve of the computed value of δp from equation (3).
This bearing pressure is the safe pressure for a given permissible settlement ( δF ) which can
not make any distortion for the reinforcement in the site area from the plate bearing test, or
one can run a reverse calculation to find out the safe pressure for the settlement criterion. If
the footing is allowed to settle for (50 mm) then the value of () obtained from Figs. 6-13
should be increased by 20-25%.

3. YIELD CRITERION IN REINFORCED FOUNDATION

SYSTEMS
The yield stress is defined when permanent deformation initiates. The yield stress which is a
boundary to separate the elastic and plastic deformation for soils is usually not clearly defined
and is not a constant value. The locus of the stress at which a soil yields is called yield
surface. The stresses smaller than yield stresses cause the soil to respond elastically, and
stresses larger than yield stresses cause the soil to respond in an elastoplatic way. The yield
stress for soil continuously increases or decreases as the soil hardens or softens. The load
settlement curves for reinforced soil systems were found to be elastic when the reinforcement
is placed close to the base of the footing (i.e., U ≤ B/2). The previous studies verify this
behavior, and higher yield stresses were obtained at failure due to reinforcement location in
this zone (when U is smaller than or equal to B) which is due to the inclusion of additional
confining stresses in the soil. The additional confining stresses are the result of the placement
of the reinforcement in the soil. The failure criterion in the medium dense reinforced sand
have been defined as the bearing capacity at which the settlement is twice the settlement at
60-75% of the safe bearing pressure for the case of U ≤ B/2 (Fig. 3), Further, the failure
criterion in the medium dense reinforced sand has been defined as the bearing capacity at
which the settlement is twice the settlement at 80-90% of the safe bearing pressure for the
case of U≥ B (Fig. 4). From the tests results it was found that 1 is clearly smaller than 2,
which clearly shows the benefit of reinforcement inclusion in the zone of tension arc, where
the zone of high tensile stresses exists. Figure (5) shows the general load settlement trends for
both cases.
Additionally, the footing on a reinforced foundation system is more likely to experience a
gradual failure curve than a plunging failure. This clearly shows that the settlement is highly

07
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

reduced when reinforcement is placed closer to the base of footing, while it is improved in a
lesser degree when reinforcement is placed further from the footing (Figures 3 and 4).

The value of p obtained from equation (3) represents the value 21 and /or 22 in figures (3)
and (4) in order to verify the safe pressure in the proposed yield failure criterion for reinforced
footing systems. The plate load tests should not be used to determine the ultimate bearing
pressure of footings resting on sandy soils because scale effects in such a case give
misleading results.

Figure (3) Safe bearing capacity (qs) for the settlement criterion of circular
footing resting on reinforced subgrads (U ≤ B/2) [Mekkiyah (2007)] [7].

Figure( 4 ) Safe pressure (qs) for the settlement criterion of circular footing
resting on reinforced subgrads (U ≥ B )[ Mekkiyah(2007) ] [7].

00
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

Figure (5) Safe bearing capacity (qs) for the settlement criterion for RFS
(U≤ B/2 and U≥ B) reinforced subgrads) [Mekkiyah (2007)] [7].

It was also noted that, when the reinforcement was placed in the zone of maximum soil shear,
it acted to significantly inhibit the development of a classical bearing failure. The results in
the next figures (6-13) [ Mekkiyah(2007) ] [7]. Clearly demonstrate that reinforcement below
the shallow footing on sand can reduce the amount of the settlement, especially differential
settlement under the four corners of footings. Footings resting on unreinforced sandy soil
settled unevenly, while footings on reinforced soil settled evenly with no tipping of any
corners during the observation for the settlement values at the corners after ending the plate
bearing test.

10

8 Two Layers
Three Layers
 (10 )

6
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (6)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/6) CE111.

10
Two Layers
8
Three Layers
 (10 )
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (7)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/3) CE111.

02
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

10
Two Layers
8
Three Layers

 (10 )
6

-1
4

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (8)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/2) CE111.

10

8 Two Layers

Three Layers
 (10 )

6
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (9)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B) CE111.

10

8 Two Layers

Three Layers
 (10 )

6
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (10)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/6) CE121.

02
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

10

8 Two Layers

Three Layers

 (10 )
6

-1
4

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (11)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/3) CE121.

10
Two Layers
8
Three Layers
 (10 )

6
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (12)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B/2) CE121.

10
Two Layers
8
Three Layers
 (10 )

6
-1

2 One Layer

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(Bp/Bf)

Figure (13)  - (Bp/Bf) relationships for (U=B) CE121.

4. MODIFIED DESIGN METHOD FOR THE BEARING

CAPACITY OF SURFACE FOOTING

Based on the test values of bearing capacity of strip footings resting on reinforced sand
proposed by Binquet and Lee (1975) [2], new relationships were developed in this study to
obtain the frictional pullout resistance of model circular footings resting on reinforced sand.
The dimensionless factors proposed by Binquet and Lee (I, J, and M in Fig 14) were modified
to new dimensionless factors for circular footings. It is noted that the output of applying the
modified equations gives higher values of bearing capacity for circular footings unless a

02
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

reduction factor ( and/or ) is applied to get values closer to the actual bearing capacity as
obtained from the model tests. This reduction factor was developed from the data analysis of
test results using a computer program. The output of the analysis is shown in Figs. (15) and
(16). The figures show the relationship between 1 and 2 with U/D for different number of
layers. Further, additional tests were performed at U/D of 1/3 to get the experimental bearing
capacity of the circular footing resting on one, two, and three layers of reinforcement. The
resulted values of bearing capacity from the tests compared well with the values obtained
from the modified equations after using the reduction factors. If the reduction factor is not
applied, the newly proposed equations for circular footings will give values of bearing
capacity that are discordant with the actual expected values of bearing capacity (Fig.(17)
Shows these differences).

 xz  xz-max (I) x

z
z x

J M  z = 0.01q
Xo x
Lo

Figure (14) Stress Distribution Below the Circular Footing [Mekkiyah(2003)]

[6].

4-1 The Modified Equations

The modified equations developed for surface circular footings on reinforced sands are [
Mekkiyah(2003) ] [6]:

………………………….(4)

 xo 
   z ( z / a ) dx 
1 0  xzmax
TD( Z , N )  D H q  q0 
N q q 
 
 

 Lo 
   z ( z / a ) dx 
 xo 
Tf  2 f ( LDR)  D 1   q   L0  X 0 z  ………………………… (5)
q
 
 

Where: TD(Z,N) is the developed reinforcement stress in any layer of reinforcement and
depth, Tf is the frictional pullout resistance of the reinforcement layer, D is the diameter of
circular footing, a is the radius of footing, X0 is the distance from the center line of footing to

02
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

the location of maximum shear stress (Lambe and Whitman, 1979) [10], L0 is the distance
from the center line of footing to the location when σz is equal to 0.01q , σz(z/a) is the
vertical stress in soil at any depth (z) and distance away from centerline, f is the soil layer
coefficient of friction which is defined as (tan (f)/FS), f is the soil-layer friction angle, FS is
the factor of safety for the layer pullout, LDR is the linear density ratio for the reinforcement,
H is vertical spacing between reinforcement layers τ xz(max) is the maximum shear stress
in soil at depth z and distance away from the centerline of the footing, , |1-|is the reduction
factor ( and/or 2) in Equations 4 and 5 and the absolute value of the reduction factor .
qo is the bearing capacity of circular footing on unreinforced soil, q is the bearing capacity of
circular footing on reinforced soil, and  is the soil density (kg/cm3).It is important to
mention that the vertical spacing between reinforcement layers (H) was not tested at values
larger one third of the size of the footing. Further, the number of reinforcement layers was
limited between 1 and 3 and the size of the footing (D). The soil layer coefficient of friction
(f) was calculated using a factor of safety of 3. The results reported in this study are based on
the given limits only and the effect of changing the limit of any variable on the results should
be examined by running new tests with the new limits. Intensive calculations were done to
calculate the stress below circular footings (vertical stress and the location of maximum shear
stresses are as defined in Fig. 14). The results are presented in Figs 18, 19, and 20 where
numerical integration were carried out using 1/3 Simpson rule for the zones (J and M).

4-2 Comments on the Method Proposed by Binquet and Lee

The following points include some comments on the method proposed by Binquet and Lee:
4-2-1 Effect Number of Layers

Binquet and Lee (1975) [2] assumed that:

TD(Z,N) = TD(Z,N=1)/N ……………….. (6)

Where the developed tension force in the reinforcement elements per layer varies inversely
with the number of layers (N). For example, TD in both cases A and B (Fig. 21) are the same
based on the assumption of Binquet and Lee. However, in reality TD is not the same for cases
A and B because of the difference in U value, where H1 is constant for both cases.

1.2
N=1 N=2 N=3

0.8
U/D

0.4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure (15) U/D Versus Reduction Factor ( 1 ) for Netlon
CE111[Mekkiyah(2003)] [6].

01
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822
1.2
N=1 N=2

0.8

U/D
N=3
0.4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2


Figure (16) U/D versus Reduction Factor ( 2) for Netlon CE121
[Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].

4-2-2 Effect of Tensile Strength

Tensile strength of reinforcing element has no effect in the equation of Binqunt and Lee as
shown in Fig.21 for both cases C and D, the bearing capacity calculated by the equations of
Binquet and Lee is the same. However, it is expected that the bearing capacity will be
different in each case because the tensile strength of the reinforcement used in C is different
than that used in D. As a result the reduction factor adopted (1 and/or 2) take into
consideration the effect of U on the bearing capacity of circular footing in addition to the
reinforcement strength which is reflected finally on the value of TD.
D D D

U=D/3 U=D/3 U=D/3

qExp= 0.5 qExp= 0.58 qExp= 0.66

qmod-Equ= 0.58 qmod-Equ= 0.54 qmod-Equ= 0.62
qB&L= 0.27 qB&L= 0.66 qB&L= 1.22
1= 0.48 1= 0.98 1= 1.33

The units of qEXP, qmod-equ, and qB&L are kg/cm2

qExp: expected bearing capacity from test results.
qmod-Equ: expected bearing capacity by the modefied equation.
qB&L: expected bearing capacity as suggested by Binquet and
Lee along with dimensionless factors I, J, and M.

Figure (17) Comparisons between the Bearing Capacities Using the New
Dimensionless Factors for Circular Footings I, J, and M [Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].

6
xo/a, U=D/6 Lo/a
5 xo/a, U=D/2
xo/a, U=D
Lo/a or Xo/a

4 Lo/a, U=D/6
Lo/a, U=D/2 Xo/a
3 Lo/a, U=D
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
z/a

01
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

Figure 18 (Z/a)-(Lo/a) or (Xo/a) Relationship [Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].

1
Dimensionless Factors (J or M)x1/a

xo J, U=D/6
  z (Z / a)dx
J, U=D/2
0.8 J, U=D
J 0 M, U=D/6
q M, U=D/2
M, U=D
0.6
Lo

 z ( Z / a )dx
0.4 M 
xo

q
0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
z/a

Figure (19) (Z/a)-J or M Relationship for the Effect of Vertical Stress

[Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].

0.4
 xz m ax
Dimensionless Factor I

I, U=D/6
0.3 I  I, U=D/2
q I, U=D
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4
z/a

Figure (20) (Z/a)-I Relationship for the Location of Maximum Shear Stress
[Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].

D D

TD1 U=D/2 U=D

TD1
H1 H1
TD2 TD2
H1 H1
TD3 TD3
Case A Case B
D
D

TD1 U=D/2
TD1 U=D/2
H1
TD2 01 H1
H1 TD2
TD3 H1
TD3
Case C Case D
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

Figure (21) Developed Stress (TD) in the Reinforcement layers Under the
Footing Based on the Method of Binquet and Lee [Mekkiyah (2003)] [6].
5. Conclusions

The following main conclusions are drawn from the test results.
 The depth of top most reinforcement layer is found to be more effective when it is
located near the base of the footing and the bearing capacity increased up to 3 rapidly
when the value of U (top most reinforcement layer) is close to the size of the base of the
footing, and the number of layers of reinforcement is three.
 It is found that bearing capacity increased when the number of layer increased up to 3,
after that there is little improvement in the bearing capacity.
 The settlement is smaller when a stiff geo-grid is used below the footing. (i.e. high
pullout tensile resistance to carry the loads).
 The failure criterion in the medium dense reinforced sand have been defined as safe
bearing capacity at which settlement is twice the settlement at 60%-75% of qs for the
case of (U≤B/2), while the reinforced layer at depth of (U≥B), the failure criterion can be
defined also near to that of un-reinforced and medium sand at 80%-90% percentage of qs.
This amount of reduction in settlement are shown from that the value of 1<<2.
 The safe bearing pressure for footing rest on reinforced soil can be estimated with (Fs=3)
from equation (2) after getting (p) from equation (3); in condition that a plate load test
should be achieved.

 The new modified equations are derived from the equations of Binquet and Lee (1975)
[2] for strip footings were modified as follows: First, the dimensionless parameters (I, J,
and M) were developed based on elasticity theory of stress below circular footings.
Second, the reduction factor (1 and/or 2) was introduced to reflect the effect of the
depth of top most reinforcement layer along with the tensile strength of reinforcement.
Further, two types of figures (Figs. 15 and 16) were introduced to reflect the effect of the
pullout tensile strength of reinforcement on the value of reduction factor. The resulted
values of bearing capacity from the tests compared well with the values obtained from
the modified equations after using the reduction factors.

6. References

1. Ingold, T. S. (1982). “Reinforce Earth”; published by Thomas Telford ltd,

London, England.

22
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, June (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

2. Binquet, F. J., and Lee, K. L. (1975a&b). “Bearing Capacity of Reinforced

Earth Slabs” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 101, No.
GT12, PP. 1241-1255 and PP. 1257-1275.

3. Akinmusuru, J.o., and Akibolade, J. A. (1981). “Stability of Loaded footing of

Reinforced soil”, ASCE Journal of geotechnical engineering, vol. 107, No.
GT6, PP. 819-829.

4. Sulaiman, R.M.,(1991);"Interference Between Adjacent Footing on

Reinforced Earth"; M.sc thesis, University of Mousel.

5. Mekkiyah,H.M. (1993). " Improvement of Soil by Reinforcement to

Withstand Varying Amplitude Cyclic Loading". M,sc. Thesis, University of
Baghdad, Iraq.

6. Mekkiyah,H.M. (2003)." Static Bearing Capacity of Surface Circular Footing

Resting on Reinforced Sand" .12 th panamerican conference on soil
Mechanics and geotechnical Eng. USA,2003.

7. Mekkiyah,H.M. (2007)."Settlement Reduction Underneath Surface Circular

Footing Resting on Reinforced Sand" .Eng. College Journal, number 4,
vol.13, dec.2007.

8. Jones, Colin JFP. (1985). "Earth Reinforcement and Soil Structures".

Butterworth and Co. (Publishers)Ltd.

9. Bassat, R.H. and Last, N.C. (1978). "Reinforced Earth Below Footing and
Embankments", ASCE Proc. Conf. Pittsburgh.

10. Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. U. (1979). ”Soil Mechanics”; John Wiley
and Sons. Inc.

27