Soils and Foundations 2014;54(4):820–832

HOSTED BY The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Bearing capacity of circular foundations reinforced with geogrid sheets

Manash Chakraborty, Jyant Kumarn
Indian Institute of Science, Civil Engineering Department, Bangalore, India
Received 2 September 2013; received in revised form 27 March 2014; accepted 21 April 2014
Available online 16 July 2014

Abstract

The ultimate bearing capacity of a circular footing, placed over a soil mass which is reinforced with horizontal layers of circular
reinforcement sheets, has been determined by using the upper bound theorem of the limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and
linear optimization. For performing the analysis, three different soil media have been separately considered, namely, (i) fully granular, (ii)
cohesive frictional, and (iii) fully cohesive with an additional provision to account for an increase of cohesion with depth. The
reinforcement sheets are assumed to be structurally strong to resist axial tension but without having any resistance to bending; such an
approximation usually holds good for geogrid sheets. The shear failure between the reinforcement sheet and adjoining soil mass has been
considered. The increase in the magnitudes of the bearing capacity factors (Nc and Nγ) with an inclusion of the reinforcement has been
computed in terms of the efficiency factors ηc and ηγ. The results have been obtained (i) for different values of ϕ in case of fully granular
(c ¼ 0) and c ϕ soils, and (ii) for different rates (m) at which the cohesion increases with depth for a purely cohesive soil (ϕ ¼ 0○). The
critical positions and corresponding optimum diameter of the reinforcement sheets, for achieving the maximum bearing capacity, have also
been established. The increase in the bearing capacity with an employment of the reinforcement increases continuously with an increase in
ϕ. The improvement in the bearing capacity becomes quite extensive for two layers of the reinforcements as compared to the single layer of
the reinforcement. The results obtained from the study are found to compare well with the available theoretical and experimental data
reported in literature.
& 2014 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bearing capacity; Circular footing; Limit analysis; Finite elements; Plasticity; Reinforcement

1. Introduction medium became especially popular after the pioneering work

Various forms of the reinforcement layers, such as geotex-
tiles, geogrids and galvanized steel strips are often embedded
in weak foundation soils primarily (i) to reduce footing
settlements, and (ii) to increase the ultimate bearing capacity
of foundations. The usage of the reinforcements in a soil
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: manasrcr@civil.iisc.ernet.in (M. Chakraborty),
jkumar@civil.iisc.ernet.in (J. Kumar).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
of Vidal (1966). Subsequently, for assessing the effect of the
reinforcements on load carrying capacity and settlement of the
foundations, a number of researchers have performed extensive
studies by using a series of models tests (Binquet and Lee,
1975; Fragaszy and Lawton, 1984; Guido et al., 1986; Khing
et al., 1993; Omar et al., 1993; Das and Omar, 1994; Adams
and Collin, 1997; Abu-Farsakh et al., 2013) and different
computational approaches (Asaoka et al., 1994; Otani et al.,
1998; Yu and Sloan, 1997; Huang and Hong, 2000; Blatz and
Bathurst, 2003; Michalowski, 2004; Deb et al., 2007;
Chakraborty and Kumar, 2012; Miyata and Bathurst, 2012;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.06.013
0038-0806/& 2014 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
Asakereh et al., 2013; Kumar and Sahoo, 2013). These studies
are generally meant for reinforced strip foundations. In the
recent past, a few experimental and analytical studies have also
been undertaken to examine the behavior of circular footings
placed on reinforced soil media (Boushehrian and Hataf, 2003;
Basudhar et al., 2007; Sireesh et al., 2009; Lovisa et al., 2010;
Chakraborty and Kumar, 2012; Lavasan and Ghazavi, 2012;
Ornek et al., 2012; Demir et al., 2013). Boushehrian and Hataf
(2003) have performed a series of laboratory tests, along with a
numerical analysis, to examine the effect of the depth of the
first layer of the reinforcement, vertical spacing and number of
reinforcement layers on the bearing capacity of foundations.
Basudhar et al. (2007) have conducted an experimental study
for circular footings resting on sand reinforced with geotex-
tiles. Sireesh et al. (2009) have investigated the inclusion of
geocell reinforced sand mattress in a clay medium for a
circular foundation. Lovisa et al. (2010) have experimentally
investigated the potential benefit of prestressing the geotextiles
layer in a reinforced soil circular foundation. Chakraborty and
Kumar (2012), by using the lower bound theorem of the limit
analysis in conjunction with finite elements and linear optimi-
zation, have determined the bearing capacity of a circular
foundation placed over soils which are embedded with a single
layer of horizontal circular reinforcement sheet. Demir et al.
(2013) have carried out experimental and numerical investiga-
tions, by using Plaxis 3D, for determining the bearing capacity
of a circular footing resting over granular fill reinforced with
geogrid sheet overlying natural clay deposit. In the present
research, the bearing capacity of a circular foundation
embedded with single and two horizontal layers of the
reinforcements in the form of circular geogrid sheets, has been
determined by using the upper bound finite elements limit
analysis in combination with linear optimization. The upper
bound formulation, to incorporate the inclusion of the reinfor-
cement sheets in the analysis, has been implemented from the
work of Kumar and Sahoo (2013) for strip foundations on the
basis of finite elements and linear optimization. Similar to the
study of Kumar and Sahoo (2013), the circular reinforcement
sheets in the present analysis are assumed to be structurally
strong to resist axial tension but these reinforcements are
assumed not to have any resistance to bending. The critical
depths of the reinforcement layers, both for single and two
layers of reinforcement sheets have been computed for
different cases. Corresponding to the critical depths of the
reinforcement sheets, the optimum diameter of the circular
reinforcement sheet has also being evaluated. The results
obtained from the analysis have been compared with that
available from literature. The nodal velocity patterns have also
been examined for a few typical cases.
2. Problem statement
A rigid rough circular footing of diameter, d, is placed
over a soil mass reinforced with either a single or a group
of two layers of horizontal circular reinforcement sheets.
The point of the application of the resultant load (Q)
coincides with its axis of the footing. The ground surface is
821
horizontal without any external surcharge pressure. The
soil mass is assumed to be homogenous, isotropic, per-
fectly plastic, and it follows an associated flow rule and the
Mohr–Coulomb's failure criterion; it is known that the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion is generally accepted as a good
approximation for modeling the failure of soils (Abbo and
Sloan, 1995; Davis and Selvadurai, 2002). Fig. 1(a) depicts
the positions of the reinforcements sheets in a soil medium.
The single layer reinforcement sheet is assumed to be
placed at a depth h from the ground surface. In the case of
two layers of reinforcements, the upper sheet is placed at a
depth h1 from ground surface, and the vertical spacing
between the two layers of the reinforcement is equal to h2.
It is required to compute the ultimate bearing capacity of
the foundation due to an inclusion of the reinforcement
sheet(s). It is also intended to determine the critical
positions of reinforcements so that the increase in the
bearing capacity, with the usage of the reinforcements,
becomes always the maximum. Corresponding to the
critical depths, it is also aimed to find the optimum
diameter (Dopt ) of the circular reinforcements.
Three different types of soil media have been separately
considered for doing the analysis, these are: (i) fully granular
soil (c¼ 0), (ii) cohesive frictional soil, and (ii) fully cohesive
soil (ϕ¼ 0○) with an additional provision to account for an
increase in the value of cohesion with depth. Bishop (1966)
found that for saturated normally consolidated and lightly over
consolidated clays, the cohesion of soil mass under undrained
condition increases almost linearly with depth. Therefore, in
the case of a purely cohesive soil (ϕ ¼ 0), the cohesion of soil
mass at any depth (z) below the ground surface is defined by
means of the following expression:
mc0 z
c ¼ c0 þ ð1Þ
d
where (i) c and c0 are the values of soil cohesion at a depth z
and along ground surface, respectively, and (ii) m is a non-
dimensional factor which indirectly defines the rate at which
the cohesion increases with depth.
3. Assumptions and modeling of soil-reinforcement
interference
The reinforcement sheets are assumed to have sufficient
resistance to axial tension without any structural failure
(breakage), but these reinforcements are assumed not to offer
any resistance to bending. It needs to be mentioned that the
reinforcement sheets in the form of geogrids and geotextiles do
not have substantial resistance against bending (Boushehrian
and Hataf, 2003). The tensile resistance of the geogrid sheet
is usually much greater than that of geotextile (Lawson and
Kempton, 1995), the present analysis will, therefore, remain
generally applicable to soils that are reinforced with geo-
grid sheets; it is noted from the available literature that the
axial tensile resistance of the reinforcement sheets varies
approximately between (i) 26 kN/m–105 kN/m for geogrid
sheets (Koerner, 1994; Demir et al., 2013; Chehab et al., 2007,
822 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
(ii) 20 kN/m–40 kN/m for geotextiles (Koerner, 1994; Lovisa
et al., 2010; Fourie and Fabian 1987), and (iii) 930 kN/m–1710
kN/m for galvanized steel sheets with thickness 3 mm (ASTM,
2011). The reinforcement sheets with relatively higher rigidity,
such as galvanized steel sheets/strips, will also offer some
resistance against bending apart from axial tension. Hence, the
present analysis, if extended to foundations with reinforce-
ments in the form of galvanized sheets/strips, would lead to a
rather conservative estimate in finding the improvement of the
bearing capacity. Note that, irrespective of the reinforcement
type, a shear failure can always take place between the
reinforcement sheet and adjoining soil mass. On the other
hand, if the reinforcement sheet is weak in axial tensile, for
instance a geotextile sheet, it will lead to structural failure of
the reinforcements before the commencement of the shear
failure between the reinforcement layer and adjoining soil
mass. In that case, the improvement in the bearing capacity due
to an inclusion of the reinforcements will be smaller than that
predicted from the present analysis.
In the present analysis, the thickness of the reinforcement
sheets is assumed to be negligible. To simulate the reinforce-
ment sheet, a number of additional nodes are chosen in the
radial direction along the position of the reinforcement layer.
For the reinforcement nodes: (i) the velocity (u) along the
radial direction has been specified equal to zero, and (ii) no
constraint has been imposed for the velocity (v) in the vertical
direction. Note that the stretching of the reinforcement, if any,
has been neglected while specifying u ¼ 0 along the reinforce-
ment layer. The velocity jump along the reinforcement sheet–
soil interface is governed by an associated flow rule, that is,
Δv ¼ │Δu│tan ϕ; where (i) Δv is the velocity jump in the
vertical (normal) direction and (ii) Δu denotes the velocity
jump in the radial (tangential) direction. In the present analysis
it has been assumed that (i) the adhesion between the soil
mass and the reinforcement sheet is equal to the magnitude
of the soil cohesion (c) at that level, and (ii) the interface
friction angle between the soil mass and reinforcement sheet is
equal to ϕ.
4. Problem domain and boundary conditions
Owing to the fact that the velocity distribution remains
symmetric about the vertical axis passing through the center of
the footing, only one half of the total domain in an r–z plane
has been employed for carrying out the analysis. The chosen
planar domain and associated velocity conditions along the
boundaries of the domain are shown in Fig. 1(a). The depth
(H) of the domain below the footing and the horizontal extent
(Lg) of the domain from the edge of the footing are chosen in a
way such that (i) the regions of significant velocities are
contained well within the chosen domain and (ii) further
extension in the size of the domain hardly brings any change
in the magnitude of the collapse load. By performing a number
of trials, it was noted that (i) the depth (H) of the domain lies
between 1.8d and 3.8d, and (ii) the horizontal extent (Lg) of the
domain ranges between 3d and 7d. The higher values of Lg and
H need to be chosen for greater values of ϕ; for ϕ¼ 401,
H ¼ 3.8d and Lg ¼ 7d. These chosen values of H and Lg were
found to be generally adequate since the magnitudes of the
nodal velocities become almost equal to zero much before the
chosen domain boundaries. No velocity boundary constraints
were imposed on ground surface. The nodes lying along the
center line of the footing (MO) are restrained to move in the
radial direction (u¼ 0). As H and Lg are chosen to be
extremely large, the vertical and the radial velocities along
the boundaries OR and RP were specified to be zero.
5. Finite element meshes
The chosen domain has been discretized into a number of
three-nodded constant strain triangular elements and each node
remains unique to a particular element. Velocity discontinuities
are permitted along the interfaces of all the adjacent elements.
At each node, there remain two basic unknowns, namely,
horizontal velocity (u) and vertical velocity (v). The velocities
are assumed to vary linearly within each element by using
linear shape functions. Fig. 1(b) indicates the reinforcement
nodes and the kinematic velocity boundary conditions along
the interface of the reinforcement and the adjoining soil mass.
No explicit elements are chosen to model the rigid footing.
The nodes along the footing are restrained to move in the
radial direction (u ¼ 0), and along these nodes, the resultant
velocities are assumed to be vertical and uniform (v ¼ V0);
where V0 is the velocity of footing at collapse. A typical finite
element mesh for ϕ¼ 301 is depicted in Fig. 1(c); where
the parameters E, N and Dc refer to the total number of
(i) elements, (ii) nodes, and (iii) discontinuities, respectively.
6. Analysis
An upper bound axisymmetric finite elements limit analysis
has been used by incorporating the plastic strains both within
elements and along the velocity discontinuities. The axisym-
metric formulation is simply a modification over the plane
strain methodology presented earlier by Sloan (1989) and
Sloan and Kleeman (1995). The present formulation is based
on the application of Haar and von Karman (1909) hypothesis,
that is, the hoop stress (σθ) is kept closer to the minor principal
stress (σ3) in an r–z plane. To obtain an upper bound solution it
is required to construct a velocity field which satisfies (i) the
compatibility condition of plastic strains within each element;
(ii) kinematically admissible velocity discontinuity conditions;
and (iii) the prescribed velocity boundary conditions. After
constructing such a velocity field, the upper bound magnitude
of the collapse load is obtained by equating the rate of the total
work done by the external loads to the total internal power
dissipation. The constraints which arise from the usage of the
velocity discontinuities and the velocity boundary conditions
become exactly the same as that given by Sloan and Kleeman
(1995) and Kumar and Kouzer (2007), and these constraints
are, therefore, not repeated herein. Following Bottero et al.
(1980), the original Mohr–Coulomb yield function is linear-
ized by using a regular yield polygon of p sides. Due to prior
unknown magnitude of σ3, the imposition of the von-Karman
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832 823

condition (σθ ¼ σ3) is not directly possible. Three additional velocity discontinuity lines. The expressions for P1e, P2e and
inequality constraints, that is, (i) σθ Z σr, (ii) σθ Z σz, and (iii) P3d for the present axisymmetric formulation are given herein
σ3f r σθ were imposed; where σ3f represents the minor (mini- P1e ¼ cT1 x1 ; where cT1
mum) compressive normal stress at failure, that is, σ3f ¼ 0.5 ¼ ðγAe =3Þð2πrÞ½ 0 1 0 1 0 1 ð1x6Þ ð5aÞ
(1 sin ϕ)σr þ 0.5(1  sin ϕ)σz þ c cos ϕ. These constraints
restrict the magnitude of σθ within a range of σ3f and the P2e ¼ cT2 x2 ; where cT2
maximum of (σr, σz). This condition generates three additional ¼ 2c cos ϕð2πrÞAe ½ 1 ::: 1 ::: 1 ::: 0 0 0:5 ð1x ðp þ 3ÞÞ
yield functions in addition to the Mohr–Coulomb yield
criterion. Each of this yield function is associated with one ð5bÞ
additional plastic multiplier rate as compared to an equivalent
P3d ¼ cT3 x3 ; where cT3 ¼ ðπr d Ld c=2Þ½ 1 1 1 1 ð1x4Þ and
plane strain problem. Hence, for each element, the total n oT
þ  þ 
number of plastic multiplier rates becomes equal to pþ 3. x3 ¼ u12 u12 u34 u34 ð5cÞ
ð4x1Þ
The accuracy of the solution improves with an increase in the
value of p. However, it was noted that an increase in the value The upper bound limit analysis is finally formulated as a
of p greater than 24 hardly brings any change in the bearing linear programming problem in which the magnitude of
capacity factor upto the second decimal place; hence, in the collapse load (Qu) needs to be minimized subjected to a
present analysis, the value of p was kept equals to 24. As the number of linear equality constraints. The optimization pro-
linearized form of the Mohr–Coulomb yield function is used in blem finally takes the following form:
the present formulation, the first order derivative of the yield Minimize : Q ð6Þ
function with respect to stress variables, which are required
while applying the associated flow rule, become eventually Subjected to:
independent of the stresses. The equality constraints (Eqs. 2–4) A11 X 1  A12 X 2 ¼ B1
which are generated by imposing the associated flow rule
become a little different from that presented earlier by Sloan A21 X 1  A23 X 3 ¼ B2
and Kleeman (1995) and Kumar and Kouzer (2007) for a
A31 X 1 ¼ B3 ; X2 ; X3 Z 0
typical plane strain problem. For the axisymmetric formula-
tion, these constraints take the following form: where (i) X1, X2 and X3 are the global vectors corresponding to
a11 x1  a12 x2 ¼ 0 ð2Þ the local vectors x1, x2 and x3, respectively, and (iii) A11 and
A12 are the global vectors associated with the local coefficient
where matrices a11 and a12; the matrices A21, A23 and A31 become
2 3
z23 0 z31 0 z12 0 exactly the same as provided in Sloan and Kleeman (1995) and
1 60 r 32 0 r13 0 r21 7 Kumar and Kouzer (2007) for the plane strain problem. For
a11 ¼ 4 z12 5
; zij ¼ zi  zj ;
2Ae r132 z23 r13
1
z31 r 21
1
solving the problem, the computer code is written in
0 0 0
3r 3r 3r
ð46Þ MATLAB. In the present analysis, a fully rough interface is
r ji ¼ r j  r i assumed to exist between (i) circular reinforcement sheet and
Ae=area of the triangular element and ris radial distance adjoining soil mass, and (ii) footing surface and underlying
soil medium.
between the axis of symmetry and centroid of the element.
2 3
A1 ::: Ak ::: Ap 1 0  ð1 þ sin φÞ=2
7. Definition of the efficiency factor
6B ::: Bk ::: Bp 0 1  ð1 þ sin φÞ=2 7
a12 ¼4 1 5
C 1 ::: Ck ::: Cp 0 0 0
0 ::: 0 ::: 0 1 1 1 The magnitude of the collapse load (Qu) per unit area of the
ð4ðp þ 3ÞÞ
circular footing, without any surcharge pressure, in the
 T presence of the reinforcement has been expressed by using
x1 ¼ u1 v1 u2 v2 u3 v3 ð6x1Þ
;  1 r x1 r 1
the following standard bearing capacity expression:
ð3Þ Qu
qu ¼ ¼ cN c ηc þ 0:5γdN γ ηγ ð7Þ
and, πðd=2Þ2
n oT
x2 ¼ λ_ 1 ::: λ_ k ::: λ_ p λ_ p þ 1 λ_ p þ 2 λ_ p þ 3 ; x2 Z0 where Nc and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors, in the
ððp þ 3Þx1Þ
absence of any reinforcement, due to the components of soil
ð4Þ
cohesion and unit weight, respectively; for a soil with ϕ=0○
where x1 and x2 are the vectors containing nodal velocities and and m 4 0, c in Eq. (7) refers to the cohesion value at ground
plastic multipliers for an element e. Following Kumar and surface. The factors ηc and ηγ are termed as the efficiency
Kouzer (2007), the objective function (Q) is expressed as: factors due to the components of soil cohesion and unit weight,
Q ¼ ∑Ee¼1 P1e þ ∑Ee¼1 P2e þ ∑D c
j¼1 P3d ; where P1e and P2e repre- respectively; the values of these factors become equal to unity
sent the power dissipation within an element due to body in the absence of any reinforcement. It needs to be mentioned
forces and plastic straining of elements, respectively and P3d that the bearing capacity factors themselves have been
defines the power dissipation due to plastic shearing along the computed by considering the circular shape of the foundation
824 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832

v = V0
d/2 Plan View of the footing
Δv = Δu tan φ
Lg
Rigid Footing Top Soil Nodes
M N P
h h1 Δv

h2 Δu
Line of symmetry

Single Layer of Reinforcement Δv

(r =0)

H Δu
u=0

u=v =0
Double Layer of Reinforcement

z (v) Bottom Soil Nodes

Dia. of reinforcement sheets =D
Reinforcement Nodes
r (u) u =v =0 (u = 0, v = no constraint)
O R

h1
h2
z/d

r/d
(i) Without reinforcement: E = 16000, N = 48024, Dc = 23872
(ii) Single layer of reinforcement: E = 16000, N = 48224, Dc = 23972
(iii) Two layers of reinforcement: E = 16000, N = 48424, Dc = 24072

Fig. 1. (a) Chosen domain and associated boundary conditions, (b) kinematic conditions along reinforcement-soil interface and (c) finite element mesh for
reinforced and unreinforced sand with ϕ ¼301.

and, therefore, no shape factors have been introduced in Eq. 7. principle of superposition results in a conservative estimate,
Note that the bearing capacity factors and corresponding the failure load thus obtained will always be safe (Davis and
efficiency factors have been obtained by considering that the Booker, 1971; Bolton and Lau, 1993; Kumar and Sahoo,
principle of superposition remains applicable. Since the 2013). For computing ηc, the value of γ has been kept equal to
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832 825

Table 1
A comparison of the bearing capacity factors for an unreinforced soil medium.

Bearing ϕ m Present Kumar and Kumar and Kusakabe Martin Houlsby and Cassidy and De Erickson and Lyamin
capacity solution Chakraborty Khatri (2008, et al. (2004, Martin Houlsby Simone Drescher et al. (2007)
factors (2014) 2011) (1986) 2005) (2003) (2002) (1985) (2002) LB UB
a a b c d d d d e f f

Nc 0○ 0 6.16 6.16 6.00 6.31  6.05     

0.5 6.37          
1 7.24 7.22 6.88 7.39  6.95     
101 0 11.26 11.23 10.99  11.09      
201 0 24.32 24.24 23.22  23.67    22.30  
301 0 65.76 65.65 61.48  62.70      
Nγ 301 0 17.75 17.54 14.65  15.54  14.13 15.73  14.10 19.84
351 0 48.55 48.24 39.97  41.97  42.56 42.38 45.0 37.18 52.51
401 0 148.14 147.85 116.20  124.10  129.40 124.46 130.0 106.6 157.2
a
Upper bound limit analysis with finite elements and linear programming by using proposed methodology.
b
Lower bound limit analysis with finite elements and linear programming.
c
Upper bound solution using the rigid block method.
d
Method of stress characteristics.
e
By using FLAC.
f
Three-dimensional numerical limit analysis with finite elements and non-linear programming (LB ¼lower bound, UB ¼upper bound).

zero, on the other hand, for determining ηγ , the value of c is 2.00

Sand
kept equal to zero. c=0,  ≠0 =40°
35°
30°
8. Results and comparison
1.50


Present Upper bound

results
Lower bound results
The computations were carried out for a single as well as for by Chakraborty and
two layers of the reinforcement sheet. The following sections Kumar (2012)

present the bearing capacity components of the circular footing 1.00

resting over unreinforced soil as well as soil medium reinforced 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
h/d
with an inclusion of single and double layer of geogrid sheets.
1.40
c−, Soil
8.1. For an unreinforced soil medium =30°
c≠, =0
20°
10°
Table 1 presents the computed values of Nc and Nγ for a Present Upper
1.20 Bound results
c

rough unreinforced circular foundation. It is observed that the Chakraborty and

bearing capacity factors increase continuously with an increase Kumar, 2012
(Lower Bound)
in the values of both ϕ and m. The values of the factors Nc and
Nγ for different values of ϕ, obtained from the present analysis, 1.00
were compared with (i) the solution of Erickson and Drescher 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
h/d
(2002) based on FLAC, (ii) the solutions on the basis of the
method of the stress characteristics given by De Simone
(1985), Cassidy and Houlsby (2002) and Martin (2004, 1.15
m = 1.0
2005), (iii) the lower and upper bound solutions given by 0.5
Lyamin et al. (2007) based on the three-dimensional finite 1.10 0.0
c

element limit analysis, and (iv) the lower bound limit analysis
with finite elements and linear programming obtained by 1.05 Undrained clay (=0°)
c≠0,  = 0
Kumar and Khatri (2011). Table 1 also provides the compar-
ison of the obtained results with that reported in literature. The 1.00
obtained results appear to be quite convincing as compared to 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
different results from literature. As it was expected, the present h/d
values of the bearing capacity factors are found to be a little Fig. 2. The variation of the efficiency factor with h/d for a single layer of
higher than the solutions obtained by using the method of the reinforcement in (a) sand, (b) c ϕ soil and (c) clay with ϕ ¼0.
826 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832

Table 2
The variation of hcr/d, h1,cr/d, h2,cr/d, Dopt/d and maximum efficiency factors (ηγ and ηc) for different types of soils and comparison with the results of
Chakraborty and Kumar (2012).

Type of soils Layer of reinforcement sheets

Single Double

Present analysis Chakraborty and Kumar (2012)a Present analysis

hcr/d Max. efficiency Dopt/d hcr/d Max. efficiency h1,cr/d h2,cr/d Max. efficiency Dopt/d
factor factor factor

Sand
ϕ
30○ 0.25 1.58 2.00 0.22 1.53 0.20 0.30 2.60 3.20
35○ 0.30 1.72 2.90 0.29 1.64 0.25 0.40 2.97 3.35
40○ 0.40 1.89 3.55 0.36 1.79 0.40 0.45 3.95 3.80

c ϕ soil
ϕ
10○ 0.20 1.15 1.85 0.22 1.12 0.15 0.25 1.31 2.10
20○ 0.30 1.23 2.20 0.29 1.20 0.20 0.35 1.53 2.90
30○ 0.40 1.38 2.55 0.36 1.34 0.35 0.40 1.74 4.00
ϕ ¼01 soil
m
0 0.175 1.11 1.35 0.15 1.07 0.15 0.18 1.22 1.80
0.5 0.150 1.13 1.15   0.10 0.16 1.24 1.60
1 0.100 1.15 1.05   0.05 0.15 1.26 1.40
a
Lower bound limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and linear programming.

stress characteristics. Note that the present Nγ solutions are
found to be slightly lower (better) than the upper bound
solution given by Lyamin et al. (2007) based on the three-
dimensional finite element limit analysis. In Table 1, the
obtained magnitudes of Nc for ϕ ¼ 0○ but with different values
of m, were also compared with (i) the solutions of Khatri and
Kumar (2008), (ii) the solutions of Houlsby and Martin (2003)
based on the method of the stress characteristics, and (iii) the
upper bound solution of Kusakabe et al. (1986) based on rigid
blocks mechanism. The present upper bound values of Nc are
found to be slightly lower than the upper bound solution given by
Kusakabe et al. (1986). Overall, the values of the bearing capacity
factors, Nc and Nγ, computed from the present analysis compare
quite well with the different solutions reported from literature.
8.2. For a reinforced soil medium
For both single and double layers of the reinforcements
sheets, the computations were carried out for (i) three different
values of ϕ, namely, 301, 351 and 401 for computing ηγ,
(ii) three different values of ϕ, namely, 101, 201 and 301 for
determining ηc; and (iii) three different values of m, namely, 0,
0.5 and 1 for computing ηc with ϕ ¼ 0○.
8.2.1. Single layer of reinforcement
Fig. 2(a)–(c) presents the variation of ηγ and ηc with respect
to changes in h/d with an inclusion of the single layer of
reinforcement sheet. Fig. 2(a) and (b) provides the variation of
ηγ and ηc for different values of ϕ, and Fig. 2(c) presents the
variation of ηc for different values of m with ϕ¼ 0. These three
figures give a clear impression that for each case there always
exists a certain critical depth (hcr) of the reinforcement layer
corresponding to which the values of ηγ and ηc become always
the maximum. Beyond this hcr, the confining effect of the
reinforcement sheet does not impart any additional benefit on
the increment of the magnitude of collapse load. The values of
hcr along with corresponding maximum efficiency factors are
exclusively provided in Table 2. It is observed that the value of
hcr increases with an increase in ϕ but reduces with an increase
in m. The peak values of the efficiency factors, associated
with hcr, increase continuously with increases in both ϕ and m.
The critical depth (hcr) of the reinforcement varies between
(i) 0.25d and 0.40d in case of ηγ, (ii) 0.20d and 0.40d in case of
ηc for c  ϕ soil mass, and (iii) 0.10d  0.175d in case of ηc for
ϕ¼ 0. Corresponding to hcr, the maximum values of ηγ and ηc
have been found to vary between (i) 1.58 and 1.89 in the case
of ηγ, (ii) 1.15 and 1.38 in the case of ηc for c ϕ soil mass,
and (iii) 1.11 and 1.15 in the case of ηc for undrained clay.
The magnitude of ηγ remains greater than ηc; this can be
attributed due to an additional effect of the confining (over-
burden) stresses in increasing the shear resistance along the
reinforcement-soil interface. Even in the case of cohesive-
frictional soil, since the unit weight of soil mass is not equal
to zero, while computing the total bearing capacity in the
presence of reinforcements, one needs to use the terms
containing ηγ as well as ηc. Since the factor ηc remains smaller
than ηγ, the ratio of the total bearing capacity with the
reinforcements to that without reinforcements will become
obviously lower for a cohesive-frictional soil than that for a
pure granular soil. It implies the relative advantage of employing
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832 827

1.8

1.4

1.0
0 1 2 3 4
D/d

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
0 1 2 3
D/d

1.18

1.12

1.06

1.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
D/d
Fig. 3. The variation of the efficiency factor with D/d for a single layer of
reinforcement with optimum value of h/d in (a) sand, (b) c ϕ soil and (c) clay
with ϕ ¼0.
the reinforcement in a granular soil as compared to that in a
cohesive soil.
Fig. 2(a) and (b) illustrate the comparison of the present
results with that obtained by Chakraborty and Kumar (2012)
by using the lower bound limit analysis. Note that the present
solution provides a little higher magnitudes of ηγ and ηc as
compared to the corresponding lower bound solution, how-
ever, the difference between the two solutions in all the cases
has been found to be only marginal.
Fig. 3(a)–(c) provides the variation of the efficiency factors
with changes in the diameter (D) of the reinforcement sheets;
these figures have been generated correspond to the critical
position (hcr) of the reinforcement. For different values of ϕ,
Fig. 3(a) provides the variation of ηγ with D/d for a cohesion-
less soil. Fig. 3(b) and (c) presents the variation of ηc with D/d
(i) for different values of ϕ for a cohesive-frictional soil mass,
and (ii) for different values of m with ϕ¼ 0, respectively. It is
observed that the values of ηγ and ηc increase continuously
Fig. 4. For two layers of reinforcements, the variation of ηγ with h2/d for
different values of h1/d in sandy soil with ϕ (a) ϕ ¼301, (b) ϕ ¼351 and
(c) ϕ¼ 401.
with an increase in D/d up to a certain diameter of the
reinforcement sheets, and beyond that there seems to be hardly
any improvement in the bearing capacity with an increase
in D/d; note that the improvement in the bearing capacity
reduces very significantly when the diameter of the reinforce-
ment sheet becomes smaller than that of the footing diameter.
The diameter of the reinforcement sheet beyond which the
increment in the efficiency factor almost ceases is termed as
the optimum extent of the reinforcement sheet; this diameter of
the sheet is referred to as Dopt. It is noted that the value of Dopt
increases continuously with an increase in ϕ but reduces on the
other hand with an increase in m. It needs to be mentioned here
that in all the cases the rate of the increment of the efficiency
factors with an increase in D/d becomes very small for
D/d 41.5; however, for soils with greater values of ϕ, the
improvement in the bearing capacity still continues but at a
much lower rate. The value of Dopt has been found to vary
generally between (i) 2d and 3.55d for fully granular soils,
(ii) 1.85d and 2.55d for c  ϕ soils and (iii) 1.05d and 1.35d for
ϕ¼ 0 soil.
828 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
Fig. 5. For two layers of reinforcements, the variation of ηc with h2/d for
different values of h1/d in c ϕ soil with (a) ϕ¼ 101, (b) ϕ¼ 201 and (c) ϕ¼301.
8.2.2. Two layers of reinforcement
In order to determine the maximum value of ηγ and ηc, for
two layers of reinforcement sheets, a number of independent
computations were performed for various combinations of the
values of h1/d and h2/d. The variation of ηγ and ηc with h1/d
and h2/d for different cases are being presented in Figs. 4–6;
(i) Fig. 4 shows the variation of ηγ with h1/d and h2/d for three
different values of ϕ, namely, 301, 351 and 401, (ii) Fig. 5
illustrates the variation of ηc with h1/d and h2/d for three
different values of ϕ, namely, 101, 201 and 301, and (iii) Fig. 6
presents the variation of ηc with h1/d and h2/d for three
different values of m, namely, 0, 0.5 and 1.0. These figures
were generated by performing extensive computation runs for
several values of h2/d for a certain chosen value of h1/d
constant. In all the cases, it is observed that there exists a
critical value of h1 and h2, namely, h1,cr and h2,cr, correspond-
ing to which the magnitudes of the efficiency factor become
always the maximum. For different types of soil, the maximum
values of ηγ and ηc and corresponding values of h1,cr and h2,cr
have been included in Table 2. It can be noted that in all the
cases, as compared to a single layer of the reinforcement sheet,
the improvement in the values of the bearing capacity factors
Fig. 6. For two layers of reinforcements, the variation of ηc with h2/d for different
values of h1/d in clay with ϕ¼ 0○ for (a) m¼ 0, (b) m¼0.5 and (c) m¼ 1.
becomes significantly higher in the case of two layers of
reinforcement sheets; the difference between the two cases
becomes especially quite predominant when the reinforce-
ments are embedded in frictional soils with relatively higher
values of ϕ. For most of the cases, the values of h1,cr for two
layers of the reinforcement are found to be slightly smaller
than the corresponding values of hcr with a single layer of
reinforcement. Note that in all the cases, both the layers of the
reinforcement have been found to cause a significant effect on
the values of ηγ and ηc. In all the cases, beyond h1,cr and h2,cr,
the values of ηγ and ηc reduce continuously with a further
increase in the values of h1 and h2. Note that for h1 4 h1,cr, the
values of ηγ and ηc reduce quite suddenly, and for which case,
the effect of h2 on the improvement in the bearing capacity has
been found to be only very marginal.
Table 3 shows the comparison of the present results with
that the experimental data reported in literature for circular
model footings placed on sand which is reinforced with
geogrid sheets. The experimental results are due to (i)
Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) with ϕ ¼ 38○ for a single as
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832 829

Table 3
A comparison of the obtained values of ηγ with the experimental work of Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) and Lovisa et al. (2010).

ϕ (○) h/d ηγ ϕ (○) h1/d h2/d ηγ

Single layer of reinforcement Double layers of reinforcement

Present work 38 0.33 1.78 Present work 38 0.33 0.46 2.49
31 0.30 1.62
Boushehrian and Hataf (2003)a 38○ 0.33 1.68 Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) 38 0.33 0.46 1.88
Lovisa et al. (2010)b 31 0.30 1.50
a
By using biaxial geogrid.
b
By using woven geotextile.

greater than the corresponding experimental data; the differ-

ence between the two becomes especially more predominant
for foundations embedded with two layers of reinforcement
sheets. Due to lack of availability of the experimental data, the
comparison of the obtained results with model tests' results
could not be made at present for reinforced earth foundations
either in fully cohesive or in cohesive frictional soils.
Corresponding to the critical positions of the two reinforce-
ments, Fig. 7(a)–(c) presents the variation of the efficiency
factor with D/d for three different cases. Note that in the
present analysis, the diameters of the two layers of the
reinforcements are kept exactly the same. It is observed that
similar to a single layer of reinforcement, the values of the
efficiency factors increase with an increase in the diameter of
the sheet up to a certain extent and thereafter no further
increment in the efficiency factor occurs. The values of Dopt/d
corresponding to the optimum values of h1,cr and h2,cr are
exclusively provided in Table 2. The value of Dopt varies
generally between (i) 3.15D and 3.80D for cohesionless soil,
(ii) 2.10D and 4.10D for c  ϕ soils and (iii) 1.40D and 1.80D
for ϕ ¼ 0 with varying cohesion. It is to be noted that the
values of Dopt/d increase continuously with an increase in ϕ
but reduces with an increase in m. It can also be seen that as
compared to the single layer of the reinforcement, the values
of Dopt/d are found to be greater for two layers of the
reinforcements.

8.3. Nodal velocities patterns

The nodal velocity diagrams illustrate the magnitudes and

Fig. 7. The variation of the efficiency factors with D/d for two reinforcement
layers with optimum values of h1 and h2 in (a) sand, (b) c ϕ soil and (c) clay
with ϕ ¼0.
well as two layers of the reinforcement sheets, and (ii) Lovisa
et al. (2010) with ϕ ¼ 31○ for a single layer of the reinforce-
ment. It can be seen that the results from the present analysis
match reasonably well with the experimental data. Since it is
known that the upper bound solution always provides higher
magnitude of the collapse load than the true value (Sloan and
Kleeman, 1995), in all the cases, the values of ηγ from the
present upper bound analysis have been found to be marginally
the directions of soil movement at various points within soil
mass. Figs. 8–10 depict the nodal velocities without and with
the employment of single and two layers of reinforcement
corresponding to optimum position and optimum diameter of
the reinforcement sheet (s) for different types of soils; (i) Fig. 8
corresponds to a cohesionless soil with ϕ ¼ 30○, (ii) Fig. 9
illustrates the nodal velocities for a cohesive weightless
medium with ϕ¼ 30○, and (iii) Fig. 10 illustrates the nodal
velocities for purely cohesive soil (ϕ ¼ 0○) with m ¼ 0. It can
be noted that as compared to the velocities of the soil particles
just beneath the footing edge, the magnitudes of the velocities
along the ground surface near to the footing edge are found to
be significantly higher. The velocity discontinuities are found
to be prominent near the footing edge and these discontinuities
830 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
Fig. 8. Nodal velocity patterns for sand with ϕ ¼ 301 (a) without any
reinforcement, (b) with a single layer of reinforcement and (c) with two layers
of reinforcement.
gradually diminish continuously away from the footing edge.
The region in which the magnitudes of the velocities becomes
significant than the rest part of the soil domain is termed as the
zone of influence. It is observed from the figures that for all
the cases the extent of the zone of the influence, especially in
the vertical downward direction, becomes significantly greater
for a reinforced soil mass than that compared to unreinforced
soil. It is also observed that the presence of cohesion in c ϕ
soil enhances the size of the zone of influence as compared to
cohesionless soil for the same value of ϕ. The magnitudes of
the velocities surrounding the footing edge are found to be
generally greater for the reinforced soil bed in comparison to
the unreinforced soil mass. It can be noted from Fig. 10 that
the extent of the zone of influence for a purely cohesive soil is
much lower than that in the case of cohesive-frictional and
pure granular soils. Note that a significant amount of soil
movement is being hindered by the inclusion of the reinforce-
ment sheet (s); it is indicated with the formation of white zones
underneath the reinforcement layer. It is observed that the
Fig. 9. Nodal velocity patterns for c ϕ soil with ϕ ¼301 (a) without any
reinforcement, (b) with a single layer of reinforcement and (c) with two layers
of reinforcement.
extent of this white zone, below the reinforcement sheet,
becomes greater below the lower reinforcement sheet as
compared to the upper reinforcement sheet.
9. Remarks
The present study deals only with the ultimate limit state.
The analysis presented in the current research cannot take into
account the serviceability limit state. 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, based on only the
shear strength parameters of (i) soils, and (ii) reinforcement-
soil interface. The settlements of the footings for a given
applied load can be predicted by using the displacement based
elasto-plastic finite element method in which case the complete
constitutional model of the material needs to be incorporated
before arriving at the load-settlement response of the footings
till the ultimate failure. Note that in the elasto-plastic finite
 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
Fig. 10. Nodal velocity patterns for ϕ ¼01 soil (a) without any reinforcement,
(b) with a single layer of reinforcement and (c) with two layers of reinforcement.
element method, one may employ a certain settlement criterion
for computing the bearing capacity. However, in the finite
element limit analysis, no such criterion is needed.
10. Conclusions
The bearing capacity of a rigid circular rough footing placed
over a soil mass reinforced with a single and a group of two
layers of horizontal circular reinforcement sheets has been
computed by using the upper bound finite element limit
analysis in combination with linear optimization. The analysis
is based on the assumption that the reinforcement sheets can
resist axial tension but not the bending moment. The improve-
ment in ultimate bearing capacity is presented in terms of the
efficiency factors ηγ and ηc, which need to be multiplied with
the respective bearing capacity factors Nγ and Nc. The
magnitudes of ηγ and ηc, increase continuously with increases
in the friction angle (ϕ) of the soil mass. The analysis clearly
831
reveals that the inclusion of the reinforcement causes a
significant increase in the bearing capacity especially when
the soil medium is reinforced with two layers of the reinforce-
ment sheets. For all the cases there exists a certain critical
depth of the reinforcement sheet (s) corresponding to which
the magnitudes of ηγ and ηc become always the maximum. The
critical depth and the critical spacing between the upper and
lower layer of reinforcement sheets have been established for
three different types of soil media. The required diameter of
the reinforcement sheet has been found to increase with an
increase in the value of friction angle. It is found that for two
layers of reinforcements embedded in sand, with the value of ϕ
varying between 301 and 451, corresponding to the critical
position of the reinforcement, the optimum diameter of the
circular reinforcement sheets lies within the range of 3.15d–
3.80d. The results available from the analysis have been found
to compare well with different theoretical and experimental
data available from literature.
References
Abbo, A.J., Sloan, S.W., 1995. A smooth hyperbolic approximation to the
M-C yield criterion. Comput. Struct. 54 (3), 427–441.
Abu-Farsakh, M., Chen, Q., Sharma, R., 2013. An experimental evaluation of
the behavior of footings on geosynthetic-reinforced sand. Soils Found.
53 (2), 335–348.
Adams, M.T., Collin, J.G., 1997. Large model spread footing load tests on
geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
123 (1), 66–72.
Asaoka, A., Kodaka, T., Pokhaerl, G., 1994. Stability analysis of reinforced
soil structures using the rigid plastic finite element method. Soils Found.
34 (1), 107–118.
Asakereh, A., Ghazavi, M., Tafreshi, S.N.M., 2013. Cyclic response of footing
on geogrid-reinforced sand with void. Soils Found. 53 (3), 363–374.
A653/A653M, 2011. Standard Specification for Steel Sheet, Zinc-Coated
(Galvanized) or Zinc–Iron Alloy- Coated (Galvannealed) by the Hot-Dip
Process, ASTM.
Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., Deb, K., 2007. Circular footings resting on
geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Geotext. Geomembr. 25, 377–384.
Binquet, J., Lee, K.L., 1975. Bearing capacity tests on reinforced 328 earth
slabs. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (12), 1241–1255.
Bishop, A.W., 1966. The strength of soils as engineering materials. Geotech-
nique 16 (2), 91–130.
Bolton, M.D., Lau, C.K., 1993. Vertical bearing capacity factors for circular
and strip footings on Mohr–Coulomb soil. Can. Geotech. J. 30, 1024–1033.
Bottero, A., Negre, R., Pastor, J., Turgeman, S., 1980. Finite element method
and limit analysis theory for soil mechanics problem. Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 22 (1), 131–149.
Boushehrian, J.H., Hataf, N., 2003. Experimental and numerical investigation
of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced
sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 21, 241–256.
Blatz, J.A., Bathurst, R.J., 2003. Limit equilibrium analysis of reinforced and
unreinforced embankments loaded by a strip footing. Can. Geotech. J. 40
(6), 1084–1092.
Cassidy, M.J., Houlsby, G.T., 2002. Vertical bearing capacity factors for
conical footings on sand. Geotechnique 52 (9), 687–692.
Chakraborty, D., Kumar, J., 2012. Bearing capacity of strip foundations in
reinforced soils. Int. J. Geomech. 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000275.
Chehab, G.R., Palomino, A.M., Tang, X., 2007. Laboratory evaluation and
specification development for geogrids for highway engineering applica-
tions. Report No. FHWA-PA-2007-009-050110.
832 M. Chakraborty, J. Kumar / Soils and Foundations 54 (2014) 820–832
Das, B.M., Omar, M.T., 1994. The effects of foundation width on model tests
for the bearing capacity of sand with geogrid reinforcement. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 12 (2), 133–141.
Davis, R.O., Selvadurai, A.P.S., 2002. Plasticity and Geomechanics. Cam-
bridge University Press, New York, USA.
Davis, E.H., Booker, J., 1971. The bearing capacity of strip footings from the
standpoint of plasticity theory. In: Proceedings of the 1st Australian–New
Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, Melbourne. pp. 276–282.
Deb, K., Sivakugan, N., Chandra, S., Basudhar, P.K., 2007. Numerical analysis
of multilayer geosynthetic-reinforced granular bed over soft fill. Geotech.
Geol. Eng. 25 (6), 639–646.
De Simone, P., 1985. Bearing capacity of a circular footing on a Coulomb
medium. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, Nagoya, vol. 2. pp. 829–836.
Demir, A., Yildiz, A., Laman, M., Ornek, M., 2013. Experimental and numerical
analyses of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced granular fill underlain by soft
clay. Acta Geotech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0207-x.
Erickson, H.L., Drescher, A., 2002. Bearing capacity of circular footings. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (1), 38–43.
Fragaszy, R., Lawton, E., 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 6 (10), 1500–1507.
Fourie, A.B., Fabian, K.J., 1987. Laboratory determination of clay geotextile
interaction. Geotext. Geomembr. 6, 275–294.
Guido, V.A., Chang, D.K., Sweeney, M.A., 1986. Comparison of geogrid and
geotextile reinforced earth slabs. Can. Geotech. J. 23 (4), 435–440.
Haar, A., von Karman, T.h., 1909. Zur Theorie der Spannungs-zustaende in
Plastischen und Stanartigen Medien, Nachrichten der Akademic Wis-
senschaften in Gottingen. Math. – Phys. Klasse, 204–218.
Houlsby, G.T., Martin, C.M., 2003. Undrained bearing capacity factors for
conical footings in clay. Geotechnique 53 (5), 513–520.
Huang, C.C., Hong, L.L., 2000. Ultimate bearing capacity and settlement of
footings on reinforced sandy ground. Soils Found. 9 (5), 65–73.
Khatri, V.N., Kumar, J., 2008. Bearing capacity factor Nc under ϕ ¼0
condition for piles in clays. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 33,
1203–1225.
Khing, K., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Cook, E.E., Yen, S.C., 1993. The bearing
capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotext.
Geomembr. 12 (4), 351–361.
Koerner, R.M., 1994. Designing with geosynthetics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
USA.
Kumar, J., Kouzer, K.M., 2007. Effect of footing roughness on bearing
capacity factor Ng. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (5), 502–511.
Kumar, J., Khatri, V.N., 2011. Bearing capacity factors of circular foundations
for a general c-ϕ soil using lower bound finite element limit analysis. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 35 (3), 393–405.
Kumar, J., Sahoo, J.P., 2013. Bearing capacity of strip foundations reinforced
with geogrid sheets by using upper bound finite element limit analysis. Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 37 (18), 3258–3277.
Kumar, J., Chakraborty, M., 2014. Upper-bound axisymmetric limit analysis
using the Mohr–Coulomb yield xriterion, finite elements, and linear
optimization. J. Eng. Mech. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-:
A 7889.0000820.
Kusakabe, O., Suzuki, H., Nakase, A., 1986. An upper bound calculation on
bearing capacity of a circular footing on a non-homogeneous clay. Soils
Found. 26 (3), 143–148.
Lavasan, A.A., Ghazavi, M., 2012. Behavior of closely spaced square and
circular footings on reinforced sand. Soils Found. 52 (1), 160–167.
Lawson, C.R., Kempton, G.T., 1995. Geosynthetics and Their Use in
Reinforced Soil. Terram Limited, UK.
Lovisa, J., Shukla, S.K., Sivakugan, N., 2010. Behavior of prestressed
geotextile reinforced sand bed supporting a loaded circular footing.
Geotext. Geomembr. 28, 23–32.
Lyamin, A.V., Salgado, R., Sloan, S.W., Prezzi, M., 2007. Two and three-
dimensional bearing capacity of footings in sand. Geotechnique 57 (8),
647–662.
Martin, C.M., 2004. ABC – analysis of bearing capacity. Available online
from: 〈www-civil.eng.ox.ac.uk/people/cmm/software/abc〉.
Martin, C.M., 2005. Exact bearing capacity calculations using the method of
characteristics. In: Proceedings of the 11th IACMAG, Torino, Italy. vol. 4,
pp. 441–450.
Michalowski, R.L., 2004. Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (4), 381–390.
Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.J., 2012. Reliability analysis of soil-geogrid pullout
models in Japan. Soils Found. 52 (4), 620–633.
Omar, M.T., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Yen, S.C., 1993. Ultimate bearing capacity
of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement. Can. Geotech.
J. 30, 545–549.
Ornek, M., Laman, M., Demir, A., Yildiz, A., 2012. Prediction of bearing
capacity of circular footings on soft clay stabilized with granular soil. Soils
Found. 52 (1), 69–80.
Otani, J., Ochiai, H., Yamamoto, K., 1998. Bearing capacity analysis of
reinforced foundations on cohesive soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 16 (4),
195–206.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T.G., Dash, S.K., 2009. Bearing capacity of circular
footing on geocell–sand mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotext.
Geomembr. 27, 89–98.
Sloan, S.W., 1989. Upper bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear
programming. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 13, 263–282.
Sloan, S.W., Kleeman, P.W., 1995. Upper bound limit analysis using
discontinuous velocity fields. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 127 (1),
293–314.
Vidal, H., 1966. La terre Armee, Anales de l'Institute Technique du Batiment et
des Travaux Publiques, France, pp. 888–938.
Yu, H.S., Sloan, S.W., 1997. Finite element limit analysis of reinforced soils.
Comput. Struct. 63 (3), 567–577.