Technical Note

Stress Distribution below a Continuous Footing on

Geotextile-Reinforced Soil
Elif Cicek1; Erol Guler, M.ASCE2; and Temel Yetimoglu3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study investigated the additional vertical stress (Ds ) change occurring under the centerline of a continuous footing on
geotextile-reinforced soil. For different reinforcement parameters and conditions, load tests and finite-element model (FEM) analyses were
performed. It was determined that the presence of reinforcements reduces the additional vertical stress values. There is a good correlation in
some cases between experimental measurements and FEM results, but the values obtained are different from the values proposed based on the-
oretical considerations developed for uniform materials. Each additional reinforcement layer affects Ds , and different parameters can affect
the values of Ds . It was determined that the reinforcements create a discontinuity in the triangular failure wedge under the footing, thereby
affecting the additional stress developed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001095. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Additional stress; Sand; Vertical pressure; Finite element; Plate load.

Introduction
Reinforced soils are used in many areas of civil engineering, such
as foundations, highways, airport pavements, railways, embank-
ments, slopes, and retaining walls. It is well known that reinforce-
ment works together with soil to provide an improved composite
performance during compressive loading and changes the differen-
tial settlement. For many years, a number of researchers have con-
ducted model tests in laboratories and numerical analyses to deter-
mine the effect of the reinforcements (Binquet and Lee 1975a, b;
Guido et al. 1986; Huang and Tatsuoka 1990; Al-Qadi et al. 1994,
1997, 2008; Adams and Collin 1997; Schlosser et al. 1983; Huang
and Menq 1997; Wayne et al. 1998; DeMerchant et al. 2002;
Kumar and Saran 2003; Michalowski 2004; Hufenus et al. 2006;
Ghazavi and Lavasan 2008; Cicek 2011; Abu-Farsakha et al. 2016).
It is a known fact that stress distribution in soils was studied by
some well-known researchers for unreinforced soil. The Boussinesq
(1885) and Westergaard (1938) theories are among the most fre-
quently used theories. According to Westergaard’s theory, soils con-
taining stronger layers between soft layers tend to prevent lateral
spreading, and therefore, the stress at deeper layers is less than that
formulated for isotropic soil after the Boussinesq approach. The
Westergaard calculation indicates that stratified soil behaves like a
soil reinforced by thin and rigid sheets (Naval Facilities Engineering
Command 1982). The assumptions of the additional vertical stresses
in the theories are generally adequately correct. Nevertheless, neither
theory considers the material properties. However, some literature
studies show that stress distribution in soils can be affected by
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Hacettepe Univ.,
Ankara 06800, Turkey (corresponding author). E-mail: elif.cicek@
hacettepe.edu.tr
2 compared with literature studies and classical evaluations.
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Bogazici Univ., Istanbul
34470, Turkey. E-mail: eguler@boun.edu.tr
3
Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ataturk Univ.,
Erzurum 25240, Turkey. E-mail: yetimt@atauni.edu.tr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 22, 2017; approved
on September 25, 2017; published online on January 10, 2018. Discussion
period open until June 10, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This technical note is part of the International
Journal of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
different factors (Cicek et al. 2014). In recent years, a limited number
of studies have been performed to determine the stress behavior of
reinforced soil (Chen 2007; Lovisa et al. 2010; Abu-Farsakha et al.
2016). It was noted that the additional stress was decreased by using
reinforcement materials in soil. However, the studies mainly investi-
gated the stress distribution in dense sands, and consequently, the
stress distribution of the reinforced medium-dense sand is not
known. As was known from the study by Cicek et al. (2014), the
stress behavior changes depending on the relative stiffness of the
soil. In some studies, it was also stated that compaction of sand can
affect the stress distribution. Both laboratory and finite-element
model (FEM) results show this difference (Lovisa et al. 2010;
Yetimoglu 1998). However, soil reinforcement is mostly needed in
the case of medium-dense sands in real projects. Many studies can
be found in the literature on reinforced soil behavior and bearing
capacity, but there is not much information on additional stress distri-
bution behavior of reinforced medium-dense sand. This study pro-
vides important information on this aspect.
In reinforced foundation studies, the parameters related to geom-
etry are commonly normalized to minimize the scale effect. The
scale effect is one of the problems for laboratory model tests.
However, in the literature, it was stated that the general mechanisms
and behavior observed in the model tests are reproduced on a large
scale, and model-scaled tests can be helpful to determine the mecha-
nism of foundations (Milligan et al. 1986; Adams and Collin 1997;
Sireesh et al. 2009; Moghaddas Tafreshi and Norouzi 2012; Cicek
et al. 2015).
Furthermore, for different configurations of reinforcement, the
effects can be changed, so different configurations were selected to
determine the effect on interaction without changing the type of
reinforcement for medium-dense sand. In this study, laboratory
tests and numerical analyses were conducted, and the results were
Material Properties and Test Setup
In this study, uniform dry sand with a specific gravity of 2.65 was
used to investigate the pressure behavior under static load. The min-
imum and maximum dry unit weights of the sand were 13.9 and
16.5 kN/m3. The sand had a coefficient of uniformity of 2.5 and an

© ASCE 06018005-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005

 effective size of a particle of 0.22 mm. In all model tests, the aver- Table 1. Properties of Geosynthetic Reinforcement
age unit weight and relative density of the sand were kept constant
Material property Polypropylene
at 15 kN/m3 and 46%, respectively. The friction angle of the sand at
a relative density of 46% was determined to be 38° with triaxial lab- Type Woven
oratory tests. A constant relative density was achieved in the test Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 60
tank using a sand raining technique. A woven geotextile was used Failure strain (%) 16
as reinforcement, and its properties are given in Table 1. The test Mass per unit area (g/m2) Thickness (mm) 310 1.01
tank was a steel tank measuring 100 cm (width) by 50 cm (length)
by 100 cm (height). The inside walls and the edges of the tank were
polished to reduce friction as much as possible. The static load was
applied on a steel plate with a width of 10 cm (B), a thickness of
25 mm, and a length of almost the same length as the tank. The plate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

was centered, with the length of the footing parallel to the width of
the tank. The plane-strain condition existed in all tests. The plate
was placed on the surface of the sand bed. The applied load was
measured by a load cell with the help of a data logger. Additional
vertical soil stress values (Ds ) were measured by using miniature
pressure sensors. These gauges have a diameter of 2.667 mm and a
thickness of 0.508 mm. Such small pressure gauges were chosen so
that the stress distribution would not be influenced by creating addi-
tional rigidity. For the same reason, the cabling of the strain gauges
was chosen to be as thin as the electronic circuit allows. Pressure
sensors measured the stresses directly with the help of quarter
bridges and a connector block (Cicek 2011; Cicek et al. 2014). All
pressure gauges came with a calibration, but the calibrations were Fig. 1. Test setup
also checked at the authors’ laboratory to be sure. Many times dur-
ing disassembly, the strain gauges or the cables were harmed.
Therefore, a new set of pressure gauges were used in each test to exponent of the stress-stiffness function = 0.5. The steel plate was
avoid mismeasurements. Miniature pressure sensors were placed modeled using 5-node beam elements, and plate properties were
below the centerline of the plate at various depths (z) from the base represented with flexural rigidity (260 kNm2/m) and axial stiffness
of the footing (z/B = 0.35, 0.55, 0.75, 0.95, 1.65, and 2.2). These (5  106 kN/m) (Cicek et al. 2014). Elastic rigidity for geotextile
locations were selected to enable measurement of the pressure in reinforcement was taken as J = 550 kN/m. The interactions of sand
the reinforced and unreinforced zones. Sensors were located care- and reinforcement happen mostly at the interface, and this interac-
fully during sand placement, and some tests were repeated to be tion depends on the sand particle morphology and the surface
sure of the measurements. However, in some tests, mainly due to roughness characteristics of the reinforcement. In this study, to
the cable breakage of some sensors, measurement for some points account for this, the interface coefficient between soil and geotex-
could not be taken. Additionally, the geotextile reinforcements tiles was taken as 0.7. Because stresses can be measured in the
(with the 1.01-mm thickness) were placed in the soil in different experiments only at discrete points, the FEM results are very impor-
configurations to achieve the maximum benefit from the reinforce- tant for interpretation of the results.
ment, in accordance with the literature survey (Cicek et al. 2015).
After the placement of sand and reinforcements was completed, the
Results
plate footing was placed on the sand surface, and uniform static ver-
tical loads were applied to the center of the model plate. The differ-
To investigate the additional vertical soil stress distribution in rein-
ent configurations of the reinforcement geometry were controlled
forced and nonreinforced soil, experiments were conducted in a lab-
by the vertical spacing between consecutive layers of reinforcement
oratory, and measured stress values were compared with finite-
(h), the total number of reinforcement layers (N), the width of the
element (FE) analysis results. These values were also compared to
geosynthetic reinforcement (L), and total reinforced zone (d). The
the Westergaard and Boussinesq values. First, the results of unrein-
test setup can be seen in Fig. 1. In modeling the problems, the first
forced models were discussed. Then, test results were compared for
reinforcement depth was taken constantly as u = 0.35B.
different reinforcement parameters, namely, number of reinforce-
ment layers, vertical spacing of reinforcement layers, and various
FEM Properties loading levels.
The stress distribution of unreinforced soil was examined and
FEM analyses were performed using the PLAXIS 8 program. reported by Cicek et al. (2014). As can be seen in Fig. 2, the values
Boundary-loading conditions were modeled to simulate the labora- of additional stress in soil created by the surface foundation (Ds )
tory test conditions. The plane-strain method was chosen for the obtained from FEM were similar to the Boussinesq values at greater
two-dimensional (2D) model. The mesh size was very fine. Fifteen- depths, but the vertical stresses measured in the laboratory tests
node triangular elements were used. The problem is symmetrical were lower than both the FEM and Boussinesq predictions for the
regarding the center of the footing, so only half of the system was stress level of q = 50 kPa (Cicek 2011).
modeled. Laboratory test results were used as model properties. For As is known from the literature, the presence of reinforcement
modeling, the hardening-soil model was chosen to model the sand layers changes the soil’s mechanical behavior. Failure does not
soil. The soil properties were as follows: unit weight = 15 kN/m3, occur at the same stress as in unreinforced conditions, and load–
elasticity modulus = 25,000 kN/m2, Poisson’s ratio = 0.25, friction settlement curve behavior can change the bearing capacity of the
angle = 38°, dilatancy angle = 8°, reference pressure = 100 kPa, soil for different reinforcement configurations. So, initially, the

© ASCE 06018005-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005

 load–settlement (q-s) curves obtained from laboratory model tests,
and subsequently, FEM analysis results, were compared for unrein-
forced and geotextile-reinforced soil, as seen in Fig. 3. The number
of reinforcements, reinforcement length, and vertical spacing
between reinforcement layers for the reinforced model were
selected based on literature studies (Cicek 2011; Cicek et al. 2015)
as N = 3, L = 3B, and h = 0.4B, respectively. It is evident that, for
measurements of small loading and FEM analysis, the results
show the same values for both tests. However, this behavior
changes in the case of larger loads, and in this case, the unrein-
forced model carries smaller loads than the reinforced soil for the
same strain. Boushehrian and Hataf (2003) reported that the FE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and physical test results do not match completely. They explained
Fig. 2. Additional vertical stresses for unreinforced soil (reprinted
from Cicek et al. 2014, © ASCE)
Fig. 3. Load-settlement curves (q-s): (a) for unreinforced sand (reprinted from Cicek et al. 2014, © ASCE); (b) for reinforced sand
Fig. 4. Additional vertical stress distributions at different points for different reinforcement lengths: (a) L = 5B; (b) L = B
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005
that this behavior is due to the soil parameters, such as modulus
of elasticity, used in the analysis and the values of displacement
measured in the laboratory. For this reason, it can be said that the
medium-dense soil properties, such as average unit weight and
relative density, can be changed by the loading because the exces-
sive stress causes a reduction in the void ratio, and as a conse-
quence, the relative density of the soil increases. When an exter-
nal load is applied to a moderately dense sand, the stress level
applied until that failure is not great enough to create a further
densification of the sand. However, because the presence of rein-
forcement prevents failure, larger loads can be applied. These
high loads and the lateral confinement created by the reinforce-
ment may cause a densification in the sand. Therefore, in this pa-
per, results are discussed for the small load (q = 50 kPa) and larger
loads, such as q = 100 kPa.
Effect of Length of Reinforcement on Dr Distribution
It is known that the reinforcement length can change the deforma-
tion behavior in load–settlement curves and bearing capacities of
soils (Cicek et al. 2015). It can be said that the change in the addi-
tional vertical stress due to the reinforcement is a very important
factor influencing this behavior. As was shown by Cicek et al.
(2015), L = 5B is the geotextile reinforcement length, which gives
the maximum bearing capacity, and L = B gives the minimum bear-
ing capacity for reinforced soil models. It can be stated that the rein-
forcement length affects the additional pressure behavior of soil and
the bearing capacity. To emphasize the difference between the dif-
ferent lengths, the results of only L = B and L = 5B are compared in
Fig. 4. The number of reinforcement layers and the vertical spacing
06018005-3 Int. J. Geomech.
 of the reinforcement layers were kept constant as N = 3 and h =
0.4B. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that FEM analysis and model test
results show good agreement in some cases for the reinforced zone
(z < 0.75 for N = 2, and z < 1.15 for N = 3); however, the results
have smaller values than FEM and theoretical values below the re-
inforced zone. It should be mentioned that the vertical stresses
decreasing and increasing with depth are related to the presence of
reinforcement layers at these depths. At greater depths, the results
of the laboratory test and FEM show smaller additional stresses
resembling more closely the Westergaard distribution. Furthermore,
it can be clearly seen that each reinforcement layer affects the addi-
tional vertical stress (Ds ) of soil and decreases the value of Ds in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the reinforced zone, especially as the number of reinforcement
layers increases for all reinforcement lengths. Furthermore, the
reinforcements send the vertical stress to a deeper area. The other
important point is that, as can be seen from Fig. 4, the larger geo-
textile reinforcement length reduces the additional vertical stress
more than the shorter one, which is equal to the width of the plate.
Fig. 4(a) shows results for a longer length of the reinforcements
(L = 5B), and the number of reinforcements is N = 3. This means
the maximum bearing ratios can occur in this condition. When the
reinforcement layers’ lengths increase, the effect of the reinforce-
ment increases. It was thought that reinforcement behaves as a
plate and block in front of the loading vectors. And vertical stress
decreases by the effect of this longer block and friction between
the reinforcement and soil particles. Hence, stresses moved to hori-
zontal lines, and for vertical parts, this value can be decreased. This
situation can be seen more clearly in Fig. 5, in which FEM analyses
are compared to each other for longer and shorter geotextile rein-
forcement lengths (L = 5B and B) for N = 3. To investigate the rea-
son for the reduction in vertical stress, FE results were compared
with unreinforced sand for reinforcement lengths of L = 5B and L =
B in (Fig. 6). As can be seen from Fig. 6, the reinforcement causes
the stresses to be transmitted to deeper layers, probably because the
load on the footing plate may enable densification of the soil more
easily with the help of the reinforcement, preventing lateral spread-
ing. Therefore, the stress could be transferred to the deeper layers
via this effect. Additionally, reinforcements divide the active zone
under the plate into parts by tensile load and membrane effect or
friction between reinforcement. Shorter reinforcements (L = B)
could affect only the active zone, but the behavior of the longer
ones (L = 5B) might impact larger areas, so additional vertical soil
stress values become smaller, and the results of applied load can be
improved. Cicek et al. (2015) reported that the model with a rein-
forcement length of L = 5B has almost 50% higher bearing capacity
Fig. 5. Comparison of additional stress distributions for L = 5B and
via FEM analysis
© ASCE 06018005-4
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005
ratios than the model with L = B for 5-cm settlement. As a result, it
can be said that the optimum reinforcement-layered soil has a
greater bearing ratio and can be loaded more by decreasing addi-
tional vertical stress in the reinforced zone. Each reinforcement
behaves as a block for loads, and transfer of the loads under soil
can be attempted. Friction and blocking effects are critical, after
the reinforcement layers, soil behaves weaker. Hence, soil takes
more loads. Reinforcement effects absorb stresses in the rein-
forced zones, and behave as a different rigid plate above the
weak soil. This can be seen clearly in Fig. 6. Although unrein-
forced model maximum pressure values occur under the footing
center, for reinforced models, the pressures can be changed on
the reinforcement lines and absorb the energy. They transfer the
loading effects under the reinforced zone. That is to say, rein-
forcements can move the loads to deeper areas, as can be seen in
Fig. 6.
Effect of Vertical Spacing of Reinforcement Layers on
Dr Distribution
To investigate the effect of additional vertical stress behavior for
different vertical spacings of reinforcement layers, model tests were
conducted with h/B = 0.6, 0.4, and 0.2. In these series of tests, the
number of reinforcements and reinforcement length were taken as
N = 4 and L = 3B, respectively. The bearing capacity–settlement
relation was reported by Cicek et al. (2015). Fig. 7 shows the addi-
tional vertical stress distribution for different vertical spacings. As
can be seen from the graphs, experimental measurements and FEM
analysis results have approximately good agreement with each
other in some cases for the shape of the curve by reinforcement
effect, but in some cases, experimental results have smaller vertical
stress values than the FE results. In the reinforced zone, additional
vertical stress values are similar to Westergaard theory results, and
Ds values change with the effects of the reinforcement layers. The
effect of the vertical displacement of reinforcement layers is shown
more clearly in Fig. 8, which is a comparison of effects for bigger
(h = 0.6B) and smaller (h = 0.2B) vertical spacings of reinforce-
ments on Ds distribution in sand soil. As can be seen from the
curves of Fig. 8, Ds values for the smaller vertical spacing of rein-
forcement layers (h = 0.2B) until almost z = 1B (z = 10 cm) decrease
more than the greater vertical spacing of reinforcement layers (h =
0.6B), because this depth is the reinforced zone for h/B = 0.2. After
the depth z = 1B, Ds values start to increase for h = 0.2B. However,
Ds values for h = 0.6B start to become smaller than h = 0.2B
because, for h = 0.6B, the reinforced zone continues until z = 2.15B.
That is, for h = 0.6B, the reinforced zone (d1) is greater than the rein-
forced zone (d2) of h = 0.2B, and vertical spacing of reinforcement
layers can increase the stress levels more. However, the behavior of
both additional vertical stress curves becomes similar at a depth of
z = 3B. Therefore, under the reinforced zone for both d1 and d2,
the degrees of stress start to increase and become the same value.
Indeed, it can be seen that different conditions can affect the addi-
tional vertical stress distribution in the soil and, consequently, the
bearing capacity. In other words, reinforcements decrease the Ds
values, but these values start to increase under the reinforcement,
and then for the second reinforcement layer, Ds values decrease.
So, each reinforcement layer reduces the vertical load and prob-
ably spreads it laterally, and the stress increases again but below
the reinforcement. However, under the reinforced zone, the Ds
values abruptly become far greater. In the reinforced zone, addi-
tional stress behavior is smaller than the literature suggestions,
but under this zone, the stress behavior resembles the calculation
formula of Boussinesq more than that of Westergaard.
Additionally, the results of the FEM show the effect of
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Vertical stress distribution below footings in unreinforced and reinforced soils from FEM analysis: (a) unreinforced; (b) reinforced soil for
\L = B; (c) reinforced soil for L = 5B

reinforcements in different vertical spacings for stress levels
(Fig. 9). It can be noticed that, as the vertical spacing of the rein-
forcement layer decreases, the boundary of the active stress zone
changes. Each reinforcement layer affects the active zone and
causes a small amount of swelling on the border of the active
zone, dividing it into sections and transferring the stress from the
center of the footing into horizontal lines. The greater vertical
spacing of reinforcement layers affects the deeper areas. Thus, it
follows that the decrease of the additional stress levels can be
determined in this way.
Effect of Number of Reinforcement Layers on
Dr Distribution
A comparison was made for the different numbers of reinforce-
ments, such as N = 2, 3, and 4 at h = 0.6B for L = 3B in Fig. 10. It

© ASCE 06018005-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Effect of vertical spacing of reinforcement layers: (a) h = 0.6B; (b) h = 0.4B; (c) h = 0.2B
Fig. 8. Comparison of FEM results for vertical spacing
can be noticed from Fig. 10 that when the number of reinforcements
increases, each geotextile reinforcement decreases the additional
vertical soil pressure values. The model laboratory test measure-
ments and FEM results show similar behaviors, but the theoretical
results were slightly larger in some cases.
As is generally agreed in the literature (Chen 2007; Cicek 2011),
the total maximum reinforcement depth that is efficient is 3B.
However, the effect of the number of reinforcement layers and
depth of reinforced zone on the pressure distribution in soil is not
known completely yet. The vertical spacing and the number of rein-
forcement layers were studied in this study, but it is important to see
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005
the effects of the reinforcement layers more clearly, and different
reinforcement configurations were compared in the same reinforced
zone depths (d). The configuration of the tests is given in Table 2
and the results are shown in Fig. 11, and it can be seen that three dif-
ferent depths of the reinforced zone were discussed (d/B = 0.75,
0.95, and 1.55). In Fig. 11, the reinforced zone depth is equal for
each graph, but the values of the number of reinforcement layers
and, consequently, the vertical spacing of reinforcement layers are
different. From the interpretation of Fig. 11, it can be said that for
the same reinforced zone depth, the number of reinforcement layers
affects the result in small ratios and causes only small changes in
the vertical stress distribution for a small loading value (50 kPa).
Therefore, it can be concluded from these results that the reinforced
zone depth is more influential in decreasing the stress levels in
medium-dense soil for small loadings.
Dr Distribution for Different External Load Levels
To understand the effect of the external stress level, three levels
were chosen. One level is nearly below the bearing capacity of the
unreinforced sand (namely, q = 50 kPa). The second level is above
the unreinforced soil’s bearing capacity (namely, q = 100 kPa), and
the last one is for much bigger loadings. First, the number of rein-
forcement was chosen as N = 4, the length of the reinforcement
layers was chosen as L = 3B, and the vertical spacings of the rein-
forcement layers were h = 0.6B, 0.4B, and 0.2B. As can be seen in
Fig. 12, there is a good correlation in some cases between the exper-
imental measurements and FE analysis results. However, the test
06018005-6 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Effect of vertical spacing of reinforcement on vertical stress distribution below the footing for q = 100 kPa found from FEM analysis: (a) h =
0.6B; (b) h = 0.4B; (c) h = 0.2B

results of stresses are slightly smaller than the FE model results, but
for both of them, reinforcements affect the stress distribution. On
increasing the vertical spacing of layers, Ds values become smaller
in the deeper depths of soil, and the reinforced zone can be more
effective. In this series, the changing ratio in Ds values is bigger
than the q = 50 kPa models. Also, in the reinforced zone, Ds values
become almost smaller than the Westergaard results, and under the
reinforced zone, Ds values are greater than the Boussinesq calcula-
tion results.
It is important to see the behavior of a structure under working
loads and under extreme loading values. Therefore, finally, different
load levels were compared for the same reinforced zone, as can be
seen in Fig. 13. Here, the depth of the reinforced area is same as in
Fig. 13(a) for h = 0.2B and N = 4, and in Fig. 13(b) for h = 0.6B and
N = 2. These configurations were already compared for the small
loading value (50 kPa) in Fig. 11(a). However, in Fig. 13, the com-
parisons can be seen for different loading values. Fig. 13 shows that
within the reinforced zone, the magnitude of the additional pressure
decreases, and below the reinforced zone, the additional stress val-
ues increase for both N = 2 and N = 4. Furthermore, as the magni-
tude of the load increases, the difference in the additional stress in
the reinforced and unreinforced zone becomes more pronounced.
As the loading on the footing increases, the settlement ratios
increase as well. Fig. 14 shows the effect of the number of
reinforcements and settlement ratio on bearing ratios. The bearing
ratio (BR) is defined as BR = qr/qu. Here, qu is the average loading
of footing on unreinforced soil, and qr is the average loading of the
same footing on reinforced soil at the same settlement ratio (s/B). It
can be noticed that as the settlement rates increase, the BR values
also increase. This means that if larger settlements are allowed, the
bearing capacity increase becomes much more pronounced, and if
only a limited settlement is allowed, the effect of the reinforcement
on bearing capacity remains more moderate. Additionally, there is a
good correlation in some cases between Figs. 13 and 14. This means
that as the loading values on the structure increase, the additional
vertical stress decreases more than the small loadings. Each rein-
forcement divides the loadings and distributes them. In the rein-
forced zone, smaller vertical stresses occurred, and settlements can
be decreased by this effect. In other words, as loading increases,
vertical stress in the reinforced zone decreases by the reinforcement
effect, and so the total settlement values of the structure decrease
and bearing ratio values increase. Hence, it can be said that rein-
forced soils can show much more effective improvement in big
loading values by changing the behavior of vertical stress distribu-
tion, and so settlement behavior can also be affected.
In the literature, some stress distribution measurements are
reported, but not on the medium-dense sand, and when the figures
given in this paper are examined carefully, it can be said that the

© ASCE 06018005-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Distribution of additional vertical stress with number of reinforcement layers: (a) N = 2; (b) N = 3; (c) N = 4
Table 2. Parameters for Comparison of Number of Reinforcements
Vertical spacing of
Number of reinforcement reinforcement layers Depth of the reinforced
layers (N) (h/B) zone (d/B)
2 0.4 0.75
3 0.2
2 0.6 0.95
4 0.2
3 0.6 1.55
4 0.4
stiffness of the sand can be important in terms of the additional ver-
tical stress distribution. For the reinforced case, when the unrein-
forced bearing capacity is exceeded, the excessive load can densify
the soil. Therefore, with increasing pressure, the density of the sand
soil changes, and as a consequence, the additional vertical stress dis-
tribution also changes.
In general, there is a good correlation in some cases between the
experimental measurements and the FE analysis results. However,
test measurements for additional stress behavior are smaller than
the FEM results. The unreinforced soil shows more difference, but
the characteristics of the curves are similar. The reason for this can
be the relative stiffness of the soil. In general, as is known from the
literature (Boushehrian and Hataf 2003), this may be due to the soil
parameters, such as modulus of elasticity, used in the analysis and
the values of displacement measured in the laboratory. The sand
used in this study was medium-dense sand, and so the FEM models
cannot model the values completely, but can model behavior and
changing slopes similar to experiments.
FEM analyses were based on the theoretical backgrounds, but in
the real test, this condition can be changed via different soil or
© ASCE 06018005-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005
reinforcement configurations. Via different reinforcement parame-
ters (h, L, and N), the behavior of the reinforced zone can be
changed, and the differences between the test and FEM or theoreti-
cal results can be changed. Additionally, different conditions
change not only bearing ratios but also stress behavior in the tests.
Hence, friction between the soil particles and geotextile can change
the behavior of the results.
Additionally, there are some limitations, as can be seen for FE
results. A more detailed simulation can be made when the FE pro-
grams are developed and more details can be introduced. Therefore,
the similar studies can be continued via different programs and
methods in the future. Additionally, the soil was almost loose in this
study, so different conditions can be studied and the results can be
compared with this study. Furthermore, theoretical methods also
have some limitations. For example, for the Boussinesq method, the
soil stiffness and other descriptions cannot be determined, so new
theoretical methods should be improved for different unreinforced
and reinforced models with different reinforcement parameters.
Additionally, the mean grain size of the sand was 0.22 mm.
Hence, it can be said that each gauge could connect with 24 sand
particles. Therefore, some possible particle sizes may affect some
small measurements. However, in this study, the point results in
general have good agreement when the reinforced soil results are
compared with each other.
Ling and Liu (2003) reported that there can be big differences
between the test and computer results. They conducted plate load
tests on reinforced sand and computed the model by using the same
FE method as this paper (PLAXIS), but they highlighted that there
can be differences between the FE and laboratory test results for
soils. They reported that the stiffness of the geogrid affected the
load–settlement relationships. However, different values of stiff-
ness gave rise to different strain distributions in the geogrid.
Additionally, the stiffness of reinforcement can affect the load–
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Comparisons of reinforced zone depths: (a) d = 0.75B; (b) d = 0.95B; (c) d = 1.55B

settlement behavior. The geosynthetic material modeled as a linear-
elastic model poorly predicted the strain distributions in the geosyn-
thetic layer. Additionally, test and FE results showed big differen-
ces in the study by Yetimoglu et al. (1994). Additionally,
Yetimoglu et al. (1994) reported that Lambrechts and Leonards
(1978) indicated that the irreversible strain due to prestressing could
increase the reload modulus by more than an order of magnitude
over that of the normally consolidated sand, even though no residual
stresses due to stressing are extant. The presence of residual lateral
stress can further increase the soil stiffness by an additional factor
of two. Lade and Duncan (1976) indicated that prior stress history,
which may influence stress-strain behavior of a sand very signifi-
cantly, had no discernible effect on the shear strength. There are a
lot of limitations for FE studies, and the theoretical studies
(Boussinesq and Westergaard) have gaps and uncertainties in deter-
mining the behavior of the reinforced soils. This study shows the
importance of experiments and different soil types. The procedure
of the study of Lade and Duncan (1976) was based on only limited
parameters but density of soil changed by loading of the plate, and
the membrane effect (Zornberg 2012) of the reinforcement can
affect the behavior of pressure in the soil. Each reinforcement place-
ment and condition parameters, such as vertical displacement of
reinforcements, numbers, or lengths, can affect the behavior of the
reinforced soil (Cicek et al. 2015). Via the effect of the reinforce-
ment, the vertical stress behavior decreases. However, the soil used
in this study is loose sand, so in some cases, the stress point can
occur suddenly by the effect of the loading and being much stiffer
than the starting point of the experiment. Some differences can
occur via the loading effect when the soil compacts in the experi-
ment. Hence, a new approach should be determined by conducting
experiments on reinforced soils.
Many reasons were mentioned earlier for the differences
between FEM and test methods. For dense sand soil, in some
studies, the comparisons can be the same; however, this study
shows one important point for not only researchers but also pro-
ject engineers in the field: that this behavior starts to change for
loose sand, and for some behaviors, the differences can be seen.
By loading the soil, the grains become denser, and the stiffness of
the soil changes as mentioned earlier. Another point is that loose
soil has a different grain distribution from denser ones, and in
FEMs, only some parameters can be determined by general soil
values. Although load–settlement behavior is consistent, pressure
or stress behaviors of reinforced soils in loose sand can be inco-
herent when test and FEM results are compared. Load–settlement
occurs about the general form of the structure, but stress behavior
in the soil can be affected by the grain behaviors. Therefore, in
future studies, discrete-element method can be used for similar
researches. Additionally, project engineers should be careful
about using FE because some soil conditions can be give different
results according to real soil conditions. Loose and medium-

© ASCE 06018005-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Additional vertical stress distributions for q = 100 kPa: (a) h = 0.6B; (b) h = 0.4B; (c) h = 0.2B

Fig. 13. Additional stress distributions for different loading values: (a) h = 0.2B, N = 4; (b) h = 0.6B, N = 2

dense conditions have different failure systems from dense condi-
tions. Dense sand and rigid materials, such as concrete, can give
the same results as FEM, but discontinuous structures can have
different behaviors. This case should be considered for solving
problems. Theoretical calculations, such as Boussinesq and FEM
computations, need revisions for loose and medium-dense soils.
However, there are limited studies to compare the results. In the
future, new studies can be conducted to find the new theoretical
calculations by helping this parametric study.
Conclusion
In this paper, the additional vertical stress under the center of a strip
plate resting on medium-dense sand soil was investigated through
experiments and FE analysis. Furthermore, measurements and nu-
merical results were compared with classical theoretical calcula-
tions. Different load levels were used. The research was repeated
for different reinforcement configuration parameters (L, h, and N),
and their effects were noted. The results show the behavior of

© ASCE 06018005-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Bearing ratio–settlement ratio behavior for different
conditions
medium-dense sand, of which the effects were not known com-
pletely. Based on the results, the following conclusions were
drawn:
• There is a good correlation in some cases between the experi-
mental measurements and the FE analysis results for small val-
ues for load–settlement behavior. However, laboratory test
stress values are a little bit smaller than FEM in some condi-
tions, but for both of them, reinforcements affect the stress dis-
tribution similarly.
• Long reinforcement length (L = 5B) reduces the additional ver-
tical stress more than the reinforcement that is only as wide as
the base plate.
• Each reinforcement divides the active triangular zone under
the loaded plate into sections.
• As a general conclusion, it can be stated that for the calculation
of the vertical additional stress for small loadings in reinforced
soil, the Westergaard approach can generally give the maxi-
mum degree of stress expected. But for the levels below the re-
inforced zone, stresses predicted by the Boussinesq approach
can be exceeded. Furthermore, the presence of reinforcements
transfers the vertical stress to deeper levels, so if the soil at a
deeper level is stiffer, the stress increase will cause less
settlement.
• For smaller loads on the footings, a difference in the behavior
exists depending on the reinforcement and the reinforced zone
depth.
• The FE and theoretical assumptions have limitations to show
the real stress-strain behaviors for reinforced soils. Therefore,
new approaches should be determined via experimental tests
in future studies.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Bogazici University Research fund and
the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK). Additionally, the first author thanks Hacettepe
University Research Projects Management System (Project
FDS-2015-8791).
References
Abu-Farsakha, M., Akond, I., and Chen, Q. (2016). “Evaluating the per-
formance of geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads using plate load
tests.” Int. J. Pavement Eng., 17(10), 901–912.
© ASCE 06018005-11
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005
Adams, M. T., and Collin, J. G. (1997). “Large model spread footing load
tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(66), 66–72.
Al-Qadi, I. L., Brandon, T. L., and Bhutta, S. A. (1997). “Geosynthetic sta-
bilized flexible pavements.” Proc., Conf. Geosynthetics ’97, Industrial
Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, 647–661.
Al-Qadi, I. L., Brandon, T. L., Valentine, R. J., Lacina, B. A., and Smith,
T. E. (1994). “Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced pave-
ment sections.” Transp. Res. Rec., 25–31.
Al-Qadi, I. L., Dessouky, S. H., Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2008).
“Geogrid in flexible pavements: Validated mechanism.” J. Transp. Res.
Board, 1, 102–109.
Binquet, J., and Lee, K. L. (1975a). “Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced
earth slabs.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(12), 1257–1276.
Binquet, J., and Lee, K. L. (1975b). “Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(12), 1241–1255.
Boushehrian, J. H., and Hataf, N. (2003). “Experimental and numerical
investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings
on reinforced sand.” Geotext. Geomembr., 21(4), 241–256.
Boussinesq, J. (1885). Application des potentiels a l’etude de l’equilbre
et du movement des solids elastiques, Gauthier-Villars, Paris (in
French).
Chen, Q. (2007). “An experimental study on characteristics and behavior of
reinforced soil foundation.” Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State Univ.,
Baton Rouge, LA.
Cicek, E. (2011). “Analysis of strip footings on geosynthetic reinforced
sand.” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Science in Ataturk Univ.,
Erzurum, Turkey.
Cicek, E., Guler, E., and Yetimoglu, T. (2014). “Comparison of measured
and theoretical pressure distribution below strip footings on sand
soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000347,
06014009.
Cicek, E., Guler, E., and Yetimoglu, T. (2015). “Effect of reinforcement
length for different geosynthetic reinforcements on strip footing on sand
soil.” Soils Found., 55(4), 661–677.
DeMerchant, M. R., Valsangkar, A. J., and Schriver, A. B. (2002). “Plate
load tests on geogrid reinforced expanded shale lightweight aggregate.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 20, 173–190.
Ghazavi, M., and Lavasan, A. A. (2008). “Interference effect of shallow
foundations constructed on sand reinforced with geosynthetics.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 26(5), 404–415.
Guido, V. A., Chang, D. K., and Sweeney, M. A. (1986). “Comparison of
geogrid and geotextile reinforced slabs.” Can. Geotech. J., 23(4),
435–440.
Huang, C. C., and Menq, F. Y. (1997). “Deep-footing and wide-slab effects
in reinforced sandy ground.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(30), 30–36.
Huang, C. C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990). “Bearing capacity reinforced hori-
zontal sandy ground.” Geotext. Geomembr., 9(1), 51–82.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, O., Springman, S. M., and
Bronnimann, R. (2006). “Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic rein-
forced unpaved roads on soft subgrade.” Geotext. Geomembr., 24(1),
21–37.
Kumar, A., and Saran, S. (2003). “Bearing capacity of rectangular footing
on reinforced soil.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 21(3), 201–224.
Lade, P. V., and Duncan, J. M. (1976). “Stress-path dependent behavior of
cohesionless soil.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 102(1), 51–68.
Lambrechts, J. R., and Leonards, G. A. (1978). “Effects of stress history on
deformation of sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 104(11), 1371–1387.
Ling, H. I., and Liu, H. (2003). “Finite element studies of asphalt con-
crete pavement reinforced with geogrid.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:7(801), 801–811.
Lovisa, J., Shukla, S. K., and Sivakugan, N. (2010). “Behaviour of pre-
stressed geotextile-reinforced sand bed supporting a loaded circular
footing.” Geotext. Geomembr., 28(1), 23–32.
Michalowski, R. L. (2004). “Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:
4(381), 381–390.
Milligan, G. W. E., Fannin, R. J., and Farrar, D. M. (1986). “Model and full-
scale tests of granular layers reinforced with a geogrid.” Proc., Third
Int. J. Geomech.
 Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, International Geosynthetics Society, Jupiter,
FL, 1, 61–6.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., and Norouzi, A. H. (2012). “Bearing
capacity of a square model footing sand reinforced with shredded
tire—An experimental investigation.” Constr. Build. Mater., 35,
547–556.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command. (1982). Soil mechanics: Design
manual 7.1, Dept. of the Navy, Alexandria, VA.
PLAXIS 8 [Computer software]. PLAXIS, Delft, Netherlands.
Schlosser, F., Jacobsen, H. M., Juran, I. (1983). “Soil reinforcement.”
Genereal Rep., Eighth European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Helsinki, pp. 83–103.
Sireesh, S., Sitharam, T. G., and Dash, S. K. (2009). “Bearing capacity of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi on 01/10/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wayne, M. H., Han, J., and Akins, K. (1998). “The design of geosynthetic
reinforced foundations.” Proc., Annual Convention and Exposition,
ASCE, Reston, VA, pp. 1–18.
Westergaard, H. M. (1938). “A problem of elasticity suggested by a prob-
lem in soil mechanics: Soft material reinforced by numerous strong hori-
zontal sheets.” The mechanics of solids, Macmillan, New York.
Yetimoglu, T. (1998). “Bearing capacity of footings on vibratory com-
pacted sand.” Teknik Dergi, 9(1), 479–482.
Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J. T. H., and Saglamer, A. (1994). “Bearing capacity of
rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand.” J. Geotech. Engrg, 10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:12(2083), 2083–2099.
Zornberg, J. G. (2012). “Geosynthetic-reinforced pavement systems.”
Proc., Fifth European Geosynthetics Conf., EuroGeo5, 16-19 September,

circular footing on geocell-and mattress overlying clay bed with void.” Spanish Chapter of the International Geosynthetics Society, Tilesa Kenes,
Geotext. Geomembr., 27(2), 89–98. Spain, Keynote Lectures, 49–61.

© ASCE 06018005-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(3): 06018005