See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298706319

Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Reinforced Foundation Bed over Soft

Ground with Granular Trench

Article  in  Indian Geotechnical Journal · July 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s40098-014-0138-y

CITATIONS READS

4 100

3 authors, including:

Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur Madhira Madhav

Purdue University Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
18 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    170 PUBLICATIONS   997 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Back-to-back MSE walls View project

pile foundations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
DOI 10.1007/s40098-014-0138-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Reinforced Foundation Bed
over Soft Ground with Granular Trench
S. V. Abhishek • K. Rajyalakshmi • M. R. Madhav
Received: 19 March 2014 / Accepted: 15 October 2014 / Published online: 28 October 2014
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2014
Abstract The paper presents a method for the estimation
of bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on a reinforced
foundation bed over soft ground stabilized with a granular
trench. Meyerhof’s two-layered punching failure mecha-
nism along with Madhav and Vitkar’s solution for bearing
capacity of granular trench supported footing resting on
soft ground, form the basis of the analysis. The bearing
capacity of a strip footing in a two-layered system of
reinforced granular fill overlying soft ground stabilized
with granular trench is estimated by incorporating the
contribution from the axial tension mobilized in the rein-
forcement to those from the granular fill and the stabilized
soft ground. A parametric study quantifies the effect of
various parameters on the degree of bearing capacity
improvement. The predictions are compared with experi-
mental studies available in literature. The percentage
improvement in the bearing capacity of the strip footing
due to reinforcement of the soft ground with a granular
trench coupled with unreinforced and reinforced granular
fill is established through the comparisons.
S. V. Abhishek (&)
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
e-mail: svabhi.92@gmail.com
K. Rajyalakshmi
Department of Technical Education, Bheemunipatnam 531163,
AP, India
e-mail: dhanista123@gmail.com
M. R. Madhav
Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU & IIT,
Hyderabad 500034, AP, India
e-mail: madhavmr@gmail.com
123
Keywords Bearing capacity  Soft ground 
Granular trench  Granular fill 
Geosynthetic reinforcement  Bearing capacity ratio (BCR)
Introduction
Rapid growth of urban infrastructure has resulted in inevitable
large scale construction over soft and weak soils. Such soils
possess low bearing capacity, exhibit high compressibility
and pose problems of stability and deformation to structures
founded on them. A variety of ground engineering techniques
have been developed over the past decades to improve the
load-settlement behaviour of soft ground. One such popular
and versatile technique is to use granular piles, also known as
stone columns (Fig. 1). The granular piles carry high normal
stresses by acting as stiff elements, dissipate excess pore
water pressure quickly by providing a shorter drainage path,
accelerate the consolidation process leading to reduced post-
construction settlement and increase the strength and stiffness
of the ground. A granular trench (Fig. 2) is a two-dimensional
plane strain variation of a granular pile. In the field, a layer of
well compacted granular material is often placed over the soft
deposit so as to provide an elevated platform for the con-
struction machinery to operate. The granular fill functions as a
strong base, distributes the load over a wider area and facil-
itates increased load to be applied over it. Geosynthetics, used
in foundation beds to support shallow foundations installed
in soft compressible ground, further enhance the bearing
capacity by mobilizing tensile forces in the reinforcement.
This paper presents a method for estimating the bearing
capacity of a strip footing embedded in a geosynthetic rein-
forced granular bed over soft ground stabilized with a gran-
ular trench. A parametric study quantifies the improvement in
the bearing capacity of the footing.
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
Fig. 1 Schematic of embankment on granular pile-engineered soft
clay
Literature Review
Madhav and Vitkar [1] proposed a theoretical solution for
the bearing capacity of a strip footing on granular trench-
reinforced ground considering a general shear failure
mechanism along with Coulomb’s criterion for yielding of
soils. Provision of a granular trench improved the bearing
capacity of the footing considerably. Hamed et al. [2] and
Das [3] presented laboratory model test results for the
ultimate bearing capacity of a surface strip foundation
installed in soft ground and supported by a granular trench
of the same width as the foundation. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing increased with the depth of the
granular trench to a maximum value and remained constant
thereafter. Rao et al. [4] used the results of drained triaxial
compression tests on sand specimens reinforced with cir-
cular discs and micro-meshes of woven and non-woven
geotextiles and geogrids, to assess the influence of such
reinforced material on the ultimate bearing capacity of a
strip footing in granular trench-improved weak clay. Pro-
vision of reinforced material in the granular trench
enhanced the bearing capacity of the footing.
Bouassida and Hadhri [5] investigated the improvement
in bearing capacity of soft purely cohesive soils reinforced
by granular piles (axi-symmetric case) and granular trench
(plane strain case) using the yield design theory. Unni-
krishnan and Rajan [6] studied the influence of providing a
granular trench (GT) below strip footings on loose sand
deposits. The additional benefit of encapsulating such a
granular trench with a geosynthetic, called Encapsulated
granular trench (EGT) was also studied. EGT supported
strip footings performed better than the footings on GT
alone. Bouassida et al. [7] compared the ultimate bearing
capacity of a strip footing on soil reinforced by a trench,
obtained numerically using finite element code FELA and
finite difference code FLAC3D, with the analytical solu-
tions obtained by Prandtl’s mechanism, for trench widths
less than and equal to that of the footing.
Meyerhof [8] proposed a theory to investigate the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of footings resting on dense sand
over soft clay, based on punching of the footing through the
305
Fig. 2 Schematic of strip footing in soft ground stabilized with
granular trench
sand layer into the underlying soft clay. Rajyalakshmi and
Madhav [9] presented a method for the estimation of
bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on a geosynthetic
reinforced foundation bed laid over soft compressible clay.
The cavity expansion theory of Vesic [10] that considers
the compressibility/stiffness of the ground together with its
shear strength, and the reinforcement assumed to be sub-
jected to axial pullout were incorporated in the bearing
capacity solution. From a review of the literature, it is
evident that no theoretical formulation is available to
evaluate the bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on a
reinforced foundation bed over granular trench-stabilized
soft ground. This paper attempts to fill the above gap in the
literature and improve the current state of knowledge by
coupling the theories of Madhav and Vitkar [1] and Mey-
erhof [8] resulting in an enhanced bearing capacity equa-
tion that can analyse the complexity of a geosynthetic
reinforced granular bed ? granular trench-stabilized soft
ground problem.
Problem Definition
A strip footing (Fig. 3) of width, B, is embedded at a depth,
Df, below the ground surface in a granular fill of thickness,
H, with a single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement of
length, Lr, placed in the fill overlying soft ground stabilized
with granular trench. The reinforcement is placed just
above the soft ground-granular fill interface, within the
granular fill, as shown in the figure. The width of the
granular trench is Bt. The cohesion and unit weights of the
granular trench and soft ground are c1, c1 and c2, c2
respectively while u1 is the angle of shearing resistance of
the trench material. The granular bed is characterized by its
angle of shearing resistance, u and unit weight c. The
interface/bond resistance between the reinforcement and
the fill is ur and the axial tension mobilized in the rein-
forcement is TR.
123
306 Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317

punches through the sand layer into the soft clay, shear
stresses are developed on either sides of the sand column.
The ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the strip footing in the
two-layered system of dense sand over soft clay (Meyerhof
[8]) is
 
cH 2 2Df
qu ¼ c2 Nc þ 1þ Ks tan / þ cDf ð5Þ
B H
limited by the ultimate bearing capacity, qt, of a thick sand
deposit (Fig. 5b) as,
qt ¼ cDf Nq þ 0:5cBNc ð6Þ

Fig. 3 Definition sketch of strip footing on reinforced granular bed where Ks is the coefficient of punching shearing resistance;
over soft ground with granular trench Nc (equal to 5.14 for soft clay with undrained angle of
shearing resistance uu = 0), Nq and Nc are Meyerhof’s
Method of Analysis bearing capacity factors. Normalizing Eq. 5 with the
undrained cohesion of soft clay, c2, the normalized
A soft deposit is stabilized by a granular trench (the plane ultimate bearing capacity, Ncg, of a strip footing resting
strain version of a granular pile), (Madhav and Vitkar [1] ). on dense sand over soft clay is
The ratio of the width of the granular trench to that of the  " 2    #
cB H 2Df Df
footing is Bt/B. Figure 4a, b depict the failure mechanisms Ncg ¼ Nc þ 1þ Ks tan / þ
c2 B H B
for Bt/B B 1 and Bt/B C 1 respectively. The ultimate
bearing capacity, qu.f, of the strip footing in soft ground ð7Þ
stabilized with granular trench is determined using the
upper bound theorem based on kinematic considerations. Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Granular Bed
An equation similar to that of Terzaghi’s for homogeneous Over Soft Ground with Granular Trench
soil is obtained (Madhav and Vitkar [1]), as
 
cB The ultimate bearing capacity, qctb, of a strip footing in a
qu;f ¼ c2 Nc þ 2 Nc þ Df c2 Nq ð1Þ
2 two-layered system of granular fill over soft ground sta-
bilized with granular trench is obtained by incorporating
where Madhav and Vitkar’s [1] theory in Meyerhof’s [8] equa-
c1 tion, as
Nc ¼ Nc1 þ Nc2 ð2Þ
c2  
cH 2 2Df
c qctb ¼ c2 Nc þ 0:5c2 BNc þ 1þ Ks tan /
Nc ¼ 1 Nc1 þ Nc2 ð3Þ B H
c2
þ cDf Nq ð8Þ
Nc1, Nc2, Nc1, Nc2 and Nq are dimensionless factors that
depend on the geotechnical properties of the trench and soft where Nc, Nq and Nc are given by Madhav and Vitkar [1],
soil materials and the ratio Bt/B. The values of the bearing Ks is the coefficient of punching shearing resistance which
capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nc in Eq. 1 have been given by is a function of the angle of shearing resistance of the
Madhav and Vitkar [1] for varying values of Bt/B and u1. granular fill, u, and the ratio q2/q1 where q1 and q2 are the
Normalizing Eq. 1 with the undrained cohesion of soft ultimate bearing capacities of a strip footing on the surface
ground c2, the normalized bearing capacity, Nct, of a strip of a thick granular bed and granular trench reinforced
footing in soft ground stabilized with granular trench is ground respectively. Considering the total thickness of the
     granular fill as H, Eq. 8 gets modified as
c2 B Df
Nct ¼ Nc þ : Nq þ 0:5Nc ð4Þ cðH 2  D2f Þ
c2 B
qctb ¼ c2 Nc þ 0:5c2 BNc þ Ks tan / þ cDf Nq
B
Meyerhof [8] proposed a punching mode of failure for a
ð9Þ
strip footing of width, B, and depth Df, resting on a
relatively thin, dense sand stratum of thickness, H with Equation 9 is normalized with the undrained cohesion of
angle of shearing resistance, u, unit weight, c, overlying soft ground, c2, to obtain the normalized ultimate bearing
thick soft clay with undrained cohesion, c2, (Fig. 5a). A capacity, Nctb, of a strip footing in a two-layered system of
total passive force, Pp, inclined at an angle, d, acts on a granular fill over soft ground stabilized with granular
vertical plane through the footing edge. As the footing trench as

123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317 307

Fig. 4 Failure mechanisms for

strip footing on soft ground with
granular trench a Bt/B B 1 and
b Bt/B C 1 (Madhav and Vitkar
[1])

Fig. 5 Failure mechanism for

strip footing on a relatively thin,
dense sand stratum over soft
clay and b thick sand deposit
(Meyerhof [8])

   (" 2  2 # capacity, qctb, of the strip footing in a two-layered system

c2 B cB H Df
Nctb ¼ Nc þ 0:5 Nc þ  of granular fill over soft ground stabilized with granular
c2 c2 B B
   trench reduces to
Df  
Ks tan / þ Nq ð10Þ c H 2  D2f
B
qctb ¼ 5:14c2 þ Ks tan / þ cDf ð11Þ
B
The following cases verify the formulation developed
above: which is similar to the equation proposed by Meyerhof [8]
(Eq. 5), except that the thickness of the granular bed con-
1. No granular trench (Bt/B = 0): sidered is H – Df, whereas it is H in Meyerhof’s analysis.
In the absence of a granular trench, the strip footing of 2. No granular bed below footing (H = Df):
width, B and depth Df, rests in the granular fill of thickness,
H, over soft ground. As a result, Madhav and Vitkar’s In the absence of a granular bed, the strip footing rests
bearing capacity factors, Nc, Nq and Nc reduce to 5.14, 1.0 directly on soft ground stabilized with granular trench. As a
and 0.0 respectively. Consequently, the ultimate bearing result, the ultimate bearing capacity, qctb, of the strip

123
308 Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317

footing in a two-layered system of granular fill over soft reinforcement beyond the edge of the footing, (Lr - B)/2,
ground stabilized with granular trench reduces to is considered to be effective in contributing to the resis-
qctb ¼ c2 Nc þ 0:5c2 BNc þ cDf Nq ð12Þ tance to axial pullout and bearing capacity improvement.
The axial tension, TR, developed in the reinforcement on
which is same as that of Madhav and Vitkar [1] (Eq. 1), either side of the footing, due to shear stresses developed
considering the unit weights of the soft ground and the over the surface of the reinforcement at the granular fill-
trench material to be comparable. soft ground interface is,
ðLr  BÞ
Effect of Water Table TR ¼ cH tan /r ð17Þ
2
The ultimate bearing capacity, qctbr, of a strip footing in
The ultimate bearing capacity, qctb, of a strip footing in a
a reinforced two-layered system of granular fill over soft
two-layered system of granular fill over soft ground sta-
ground stabilized with granular trench, thus becomes
bilized with granular trench, considering the effect of
possible rise of the ground water table is cðH 2  D2f Þ
qctbr ¼ c2 Nc þ 0:5c2 BNc Rw2 þ Ks tan /
cðH 2  D2f Þ B
cH
qctb ¼ c2 Nc þ 0:5c2 BNc Rw2 þ Ks tan / þ cDf Nq Rw1 þ tan /r ðLr  BÞ ð18Þ
B B
þ cDf Nq Rw1 ð13Þ
Normalizing Eq. 18 with the undrained cohesion of soft
where Rw1 and Rw2 are water table correction factors ground, c2, the normalized ultimate bearing capacity, Nctbr,
defined by of a strip footing in a reinforced two-layered system of
  granular fill over soft ground stabilized with granular
zw1
Rw1 ¼ 0:5 1 þ  1:0 ð14Þ trench is
Df
     ("   2   2 #
zw2  c2 B cB H Df
Rw2 ¼ 0:5 1 þ  1:0 ð15Þ Nctbr ¼ Nc þ 0:5 Nc Rw2 þ 
B c2 c2 B B
     
where zw1 and zw2 are the depths of the water table below Df H Lr
Ks tan / þ Nq Rw1 þ tan /r 1
the ground surface and the base of the footing, respectively. B B B
Equation 13 is normalized with the undrained cohesion ð19Þ
of soft ground, c2, to obtain the normalized ultimate
bearing capacity, Nctb, of a strip footing in a two-layered Bearing capacity ratios, BCR, are defined to quantify the
system of granular fill over soft ground with granular degrees of improvement as:
trench and water table effect as (BCR)ctb = Nctb/Nct is the ratio of the normalized ulti-
   (" 2  2 # mate bearing capacity of a strip footing in an unreinforced
c2 B cB H Df two-layered system of granular fill over soft ground sta-
Nctb ¼ Nc þ 0:5 Nc Rw2 þ 
c2 c2 B B bilized with granular trench to that in granular trench
   reinforced ground alone. The ratio (BCR)ctb quantifies the
Df
Ks tan / þ Nq Rw1 ð16Þ contribution of the granular fill.
B
(BCR)ctbr = Nctbr/Nct is the ratio of the normalized
Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Reinforced ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing in a reinforced
Granular Bed Over Soft Ground with Granular Trench

The ultimate bearing capacity, qctbr, of a strip footing in a

two-layered system of reinforced granular fill over soft
ground stabilized with granular trench (Fig. 3), is obtained
by adding the contribution of the axial resistance of the
geosynthetic reinforcement to pull-out to Eq. 13. The axial
tension developed in the reinforcement layer of length, Lr,
is due to interface shear resistance mobilized over the top
and bottom surfaces of the reinforcement. Figure 6a, b
depict the stresses developed in the reinforced granular
column and the geosynthetic reinforcement respectively,
due to punching of the footing through the reinforced Fig. 6 Stresses on a reinforced granular column and b geosynthetic
granular bed into the underlying soft clay. The length of the reinforcement

123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317 309

two-layered system of granular fill over soft ground sta-
bilized with granular trench to that in granular trench
reinforced ground alone. The ratio (BCR)ctbr quantifies the
contribution of both the granular fill as well as the geo-
synthetic reinforcement.
ðBCRÞctbr = Nctbr/Nctb is the ratio of the normalized
ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing in a reinforced
two-layered system of granular fill over soft ground sta-
bilized with granular trench to that of an unreinforced two-
layered system. The ratio ðBCRÞctbr quantifies the contri-
bution of the reinforcement alone.
Results and Discussion
The ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing in a two-
layered system of granular fill over soft ground stabilized
with granular trench, depends on the normalized founda-
tion depth, Df/B, angle of shearing resistance of the gran-
ular material, u, normalized fill thickness, H/B and cB/c2,
related to the unit weight of the granular fill, width of the
footing and undrained cohesion of the soft ground. If the
granular fill is reinforced with a layer of geosynthetic,
parameters Lr/B and ur/u also influence the bearing
capacity of the footing. The bearing capacity factors given
by Madhav and Vitkar [1] are adopted for normalized
trench widths, Bt/B, of 0.5 and 1.0 and c1/c2 equal to 0. The
granular fill, trench and soft ground are considered to have
comparable unit weights (c = c1 = c2) while the trench
and fill materials possess comparable angles of shearing
resistance (u = u1). A parametric study quantifies the
effect of the parameters cB/c2, Df/B, H/B and u on the
bearing capacity ratio. Results are obtained for the fol-
lowing ranges of non-dimensional parameters: cB/c2: 5–35,
Df/B: 0–1.0, H/B: 0.5–2.5, u: 30°–40° and ur/u: 0.5–1.0.
The water table effect has not been considered in Figs. 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 but is illustrated through
Fig. 17.
Nctbr values increase with increased depth of foundation
from zero to about 0.4–0.6 times B (depending on the size
of the trench), but progress gradually thereafter and attain a
value corresponding to that of a strip footing on granular
trench reinforced ground alone, at Df/B equal to unity. The
reason for the above variation of Nctb and Nctbr with Df/B is
due to the reduced thickness of the granular bed below the
footing with increased Df/B for constant overall fill thick-
ness, H. The contribution of the granular fill towards
bearing capacity improvement is more for softer deposits
with cB/c2 C 15 than relatively stiffer ones (cB/c2 \ 5).
Provision of a single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement in
the granular bed further enhances the bearing capacity of
the footing due to additional contribution from the axial
resistance to pullout mobilized by the reinforcement. Fur-
ther, Nctb and Nctbr increase with the normalized width of
the granular trench, Bt/B, due to greater replacement of the
soft ground with well compacted granular material having
better shear characteristics.
The variations of the bearing capacity ratios (BCR)ctb and
(BCR)ctbr with the normalized foundation depth, Df/B, for Bt/
B equal to 0.5 and 1.0, with u of 35°, ur/u of 0.75, H/B of
1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25 and 35, are shown
in Fig. 8a, b respectively. For a given cB/c2, (BCR)ctb and

Effects of Normalized Depth of Foundation Df/

B and cB/c2

Figure 7a, b present the variations of the normalized ulti-

mate bearing capacities, Nctb and Nctbr, of a strip footing in
a two-layered system of unreinforced and reinforced
granular fill over soft ground with granular trench respec-
tively, with the normalized foundation depth, Df/B, for Bt/B
equal to 0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with u of 35°, ur/u of
0.75, H/B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25
and 35. The bearing capacity of the two-layered system
increases with the normalized embedment depth of the
footing due to increased overburden/surcharge from the
granular fill. For a given Bt/B and cB/c2 C 25, Nctb and Fig. 7 Nctb and Nctbr versus Df/B—effect of cB/c2

123
310
Fig. 8 (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr versus Df/B—effect of cB/c2
(BCR)ctbr decrease with increase in Df/B for a given Bt/B and
vice versa (i.e., with increase in Bt/B for a given Df/B). The
improvement in bearing capacity due to the two-layered
system over that of granular trench reinforced ground alone,
diminishes with increased depth of foundation for a constant
normalized fill thickness, H/B, due to reduction in thickness
of the granular bed beneath the footing. In addition, more
and more trench material contributes to the increase of Nct,
over and above that of Nctb and Nctbr as the size of the trench
increases. The performance of the reinforced two-layered
system is better than that of the unreinforced one, as reflected
by the BCR values (Fig. 8a, b). Higher BCR is obtained for
relatively softer deposits or relatively wide footings with
larger cB/c2. However, for a given trench size and fill
thickness with Df/B [ 0.6, the improvement in bearing
capacity with cB/c2 is marginal due to insufficient thickness
of the granular bed beneath the footing resulting in reduced
load dispersion ability of the bed. Df/B equal to 1.0 corre-
sponds to the case of the footing resting directly on soft
ground stabilized with granular trench and hence (BCR)ctb
equals unity. (BCR)ctbr is however greater than unity due to
some contribution from the overlying granular fill in the
mobilization of interface/bond resistance over the surface of
the reinforcement.
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
Fig. 9 ðBCRÞctbr versus Df/B—effect of cB/c2
Figure 9a, b depict the variations of the bearing capacity
ratio ðBCRÞctbr with the normalized foundation depth, Df/B,
for Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with u of 35°,
ur/u of 0.75, H/B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5,
15, 25 and 35. Maximum bearing capacity enhancement
due to provision of a reinforced foundation bed (RFB) for a
surface footing, decreases gradually with increase in the
normalized depth of foundation. The rate of decrease is
sharp for 0 B Df/B B 0.6 but gradual thereafter. Compared
to an unreinforced bed, RFB laid over granular trench
reinforced soft ground of low undrained shear strength (of
the order of 10–25 kPa prior to stabilization) yields larger
improvement in bearing capacity than RFBs laid over rel-
atively stiffer soils stabilized with granular trench.
Effects of Normalized Fill Thickness H/B and cB/c2
Figure 10a, b present the variations of the normalized
ultimate bearing capacities, Nctb and Nctbr, of a strip footing
in a two-layered system of unreinforced and reinforced
granular fill over soft ground with granular trench respec-
tively, with the normalized fill thickness, H/B, for Bt/B
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
Fig. 10 Nctb and Nctbr versus H/B—effect of cB/c2
equal to 0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with u of 35°, ur/u of
0.75, Df/B of 0.5, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25
and 35. For a given cB/c2 and Bt/B, the normalized ultimate
bearing capacity of the footing increases non-linearly with
the normalized fill thickness, with the reinforced fill
expectedly yielding relatively higher bearing capacity. A
thick granular bed beneath a footing installed at a given
depth below the ground surface over granular trench rein-
forced ground, distributes the applied load over a wider
area per unit depth and reduces the intensity of stresses
transmitted to the underlying ground. This results in an
increase in the normalized ultimate bearing capacities, Nctb
and Nctbr, as reflected in Fig. 10a, b. The increase in the
normalized ultimate bearing capacity of the footing with H/
B is more for relatively soft clays with higher cB/c2,
wherein, punching of the footing through the granular bed
into the underlying composite ground is likely to occur.
Further, Nctb and Nctbr increase with the normalized width
of granular trench, Bt/B, due to additional replacement of
the soft ground with well compacted granular material
having higher shear resistance.
The variations of the bearing capacity ratios, (BCR)ctb
and (BCR)ctbr, with the normalized fill thickness, H/B, for
Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0, with u of 35°, ur/u of 0.75, Df/B
311
Fig. 11 (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr versus H/B—effect of cB/c2
of 0.5, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25 and 35 are
shown in Fig. 11a, b respectively. For a given cB/c2 and Bt/
B, the bearing capacity ratios, (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr
increase non-linearly with H/B with the reinforced bed
yielding relatively higher BCR compared to the unrein-
forced one. Provision of a granular bed of larger thickness
beneath the footing, improves the bearing capacity of the
two-layered system significantly. For Bt/B equal to 0.5,
enhanced values of (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr are reflected for
relatively wide footings or relatively softer deposits with
higher cB/c2, especially at H/B greater than 1.5. However,
for Bt/B equal to 1.0, the enhancement is marginal and
nearly independent of cB/c2 (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr
decrease with increased normalized width of the granular
trench, Bt/B, for a given value of H/B and cB/c2. H/B equal
to 0.5 corresponds to the case of the footing resting directly
on soft ground stabilized with granular trench and hence
(BCR)ctb equals unity. (BCR)ctbr is however greater than
unity due to some contribution from the overlying granular
fill in the mobilization of interface/bond resistance over the
surface of the reinforcement.
Figure 12a, b depict the variations of the bearing
capacity ratio ðBCRÞctbr with the normalized fill thickness,
H/B, for Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with u of
35°, ur/u of 0.75, Df/B of 0.5, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal
123
312
Fig. 12 ðBCRÞctbr versus H/B—effect of cB/c2
Fig. 13 (H/B)cr versus cB/c2—effect of Bt/B
to 5, 15, 25 and 35. For a given Bt/B and cB/c2, the bearing
capacity ratio, ðBCRÞctbr = qctbr/qctb, which quantifies the
improvement in bearing capacity due to the geosynthetic
reinforcement alone, increases with the normalized fill
thickness up to a critical value of H/B but decreases
thereafter. Greater improvement in the bearing capacity of
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
Fig. 14 Nctb and Nctbr versus u—effect of cB/c2
the two-layered system is achieved for relatively wide
footings or relatively softer deposits with higher values of
cB/c2 (of the order of 25–35). For a given normalized fill
thickness and cB/c2, the improvement in the bearing
capacity of the footing upon placement of reinforcement in
the granular fill, decreases marginally with increased nor-
malized width of the granular trench, Bt/B due to consid-
erable contribution from the shear resistance of a relatively
wide trench towards the bearing capacity of the two-lay-
ered system.
Figure 13 presents the variation of the critical normal-
ized thickness of reinforced granular fill (H/B)cr, with cB/
c2, for u of 35°, ur/u of 0.75, Df/B of 0.5, Lr/B of 3.0, for
Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0. The critical normalized fill
thickness corresponds to the maximum ðBCRÞctbr of the
reinforced granular fill—granular trench—soft ground
system attained in Fig. 12a, b. For a given normalized
width of the granular trench, Bt/B, (H/B)cr decreases with
increased width of the strip footing due to load dispersion
over a wider area per unit depth resulting in reduced
intensity of stresses transmitted to the underlying soil
layers. Further, (H/B)cr also decreases for relatively narrow
granular trenches having lower Bt/B values. It is interesting
to note that (H/B)cr remains nearly independent of cB/c2 for
a granular trench of width equal to that of the footing.
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317 313

Fig. 16 ðBCRÞctbr versus u—effect of cB/c2

Fig. 15 (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr versus u—effect of cB/c2

Effects of Angle of Shearing Resistance of Trench

and Fill Materials u, and cB/c2

The variations of the normalized ultimate bearing capaci-

ties, Nctb and Nctbr, of a strip footing in a two-layered
system of unreinforced and reinforced granular fill over
soft ground stabilized with granular trench, with the angle
of shearing resistance of the trench and fill materials, u, for
Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0, with ur/u of 0.75, Df/B of 0.5, H/
B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25 and 35 are
shown in Fig. 14a, b respectively. For a given cB/c2 and Bt/
B, the normalized ultimate bearing capacity of the footing
increases with the angle of shearing resistance of the trench
and fill materials, with the reinforced fill expectedly Fig. 17 Nctbr versus ur/u—effect of location of water table
yielding relatively higher bearing capacity (Nctbr [ Nctb)
due to the higher shear strength of the granular material soft clays with higher cB/c2 (greater than 15), wherein,
compared to that of soft ground, and the additional con- punching of the footing through the granular bed into the
tribution from the axial resistance to pullout mobilized by underlying composite ground is likely to occur. For a given
the reinforcement. The increase in the normalized ultimate cB/c2 and u, the normalized ultimate bearing capacities,
bearing capacity of the footing with u is more for relatively Nctb and Nctbr, increase with the normalized width of the

123
314
granular trench, Bt/B, due to stabilization and reinforce-
ment of the soft ground with a larger volume of trench
material.
Figure 15a, b present the variations of the bearing
capacity ratios, (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr, with the angle of
shearing resistance of the trench and fill materials, u, for
Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with ur/u of 0.75,
Df/B of 0.5, H/B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5,
15, 25 and 35. For cB/c2 equal to 5 with normalized
trench width, Bt/B equal to 0.5, (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr,
decrease marginally with increase in u from 30° to 35°
but increase thereafter with u from 35° to 40°. However
for cB/c2 equal to 15, 25 and 35; (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr
continue to increase with the angle of shearing resistance
of the trench and fill materials, particularly beyond 35°.
On the other hand, for a given cB/c2 with the width of
the footing equal to that of the trench, the bearing
capacity ratios decrease with increased angle of shearing
resistance of the trench and fill materials. Thus, the
beneficial effect of the two-layered system over that of
granular trench reinforced ground alone, is pronounced
for a trench with angle of shearing resistance greater than
35° and width equal to half of that of the strip footing
installed in soft ground with cB/c2 greater than 15. For a
given cB/c2 and u, (BCR)ctb and (BCR)ctbr decrease with
increase in the normalized width of the granular trench,
Bt/B.
Figure 16a, b depict the variations of the bearing
capacity ratio ðBCRÞctbr with the angle of shearing resis-
tance of the trench and fill materials, u, for Bt/B equal to
0.5 and 1.0 respectively, with ur/u of 0.75, Df/B of 0.5, H/
B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0, for cB/c2 equal to 5, 15, 25 and 35.
For a given cB/c2 and Bt/B, the improvement in bearing
capacity of the two-layered system due to provision of a
single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement in the granular
bed (when compared to the unreinforced one), reduces for
higher angles of shearing resistance of the trench and fill
materials. For a given normalized width of granular trench
and angle of shearing resistance, the contribution from the
reinforcement is more for higher values of cB/c2. However
for a given cB/c2 and u, the effect of the reinforcement
towards bearing capacity enhancement of the two-layered
system decreases with increase in the normalized width of
the granular trench, Bt/B.
Effect of Ground Water Table
Figure 17 presents the effect of the location of the ground
water table on the variation of the normalized ultimate
bearing capacity, Nctbr, of a strip footing in a two-layered
system of reinforced granular fill over soft ground stabi-
lized with granular trench (Bt/B equal to 0.5 and 1.0), with
ur/u, for u of 35°, Df/B of 0.5, H/B of 1.0, Lr/B of 3.0 and
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
cB/c2 of 15. As the water table rises to the ground surface,
the vertical effective stress at the granular fill—geosyn-
thetic reinforcement interface decreases, and consequently,
the interfacial shear resistance developed between the fill
and the reinforcement reduces. Therefore, Nctbr decreases
with rise of the ground water table for a given width of
granular trench. On the other hand, the normalized ultimate
bearing capacity of the footing increases with the width of
the granular trench and ur/u for a given location of the
ground water table. Nctbr increases from 47.0 at ur/u of 0.5
to 51.2 at ur/u of 0.7 and thereafter to 58.5 at ur/u of 1.0
for Bt/B equal to 0.5 with water table at ground surface,
whereas, for Bt/B equal to 1.0, Nctbr increases from 78.5 at
ur/u of 0.5 to 82.8 at ur/u of 0.7 and thereafter to 90.1 at
ur/u of 1.0.
Comparison with Experimental Results
Figure 18 compares the present method for estimation of
bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on a granular bed
over soft ground stabilized with a granular trench, with the
results of a model footing test at shallow depth in dense
sand overlying soft clay performed by Meyerhof [8], for u
of 47°, Df/B of 0.5, cB/c2 of 0.04 (with B = 0.0762 m and
c2 = 32.4 kPa as per Meyerhof [8]) for c1/c2 equal to 0.
The unit weights of the trench, bed and soft soil materials
are considered to be 17 kN/m3. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing is normalized with the undrained
cohesion of soft clay, c2. In the absence of a granular trench
(Bt/B equal to 0), the predicted normalized ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing compares well with the experi-
mental results of Meyerhof [8]. In the absence of a sand
layer/granular bed beneath the footing (H/B equal to 0), the
predicted normalized ultimate bearing capacity of the
footing reduces to the value computed from Meyerhof’s
theory [8] for a strip footing installed in soft clay alone.
The variation of the predicted normalized ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing on a sand/granular layer in soft
ground stabilized with a granular trench (Bt/B equal to
0.25), with the normalized layer thickness below the
footing, H/B, is plotted. The bearing capacity of the footing
increases due to reinforcement of the soft clay with a
granular trench. The percentage improvement in bearing
capacity of the footing over that of the two layer (dense
sand on soft clay) experimental results of Meyerhof [8] are
42.1, 40.3, 38.1 and 35.9 % for H/B of 0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5
respectively. For H/B equal to 0, the predicted normalized
ultimate bearing capacity of the two layered system with
granular trench (Bt/B equal to 0.25) reduces to the theo-
retical solution of Madhav and Vitkar [1] for bearing
capacity of granular trench supported footing resting on
soft ground.
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
Fig. 18 Comparison of Present Theory with Experimental Results of
Meyerhof [8]
Rethaliya and Verma [11] presented experimental
results for the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing
resting on the surface of geotextile reinforced sand over
soft clay. The pressure-settlement plots given by them have
been reanalyzed to obtain the ultimate bearing pressures of
the strip footing corresponding to different H/B ratios.
Figure 19 compares the present method for estimation of
bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on an unrein-
forced as well as reinforced granular bed overlying soft
ground stabilized with granular trench, with the experi-
mental results of Rethaliya and Verma [11] for various H/
B. The values correspond to a granular fill with u of 45°,
Lr/B of 5, ur/u of 0.75, cB/c2 of 0.107 and c2B/c2 of 0.117
(with c = 17.1 kN/m3, c2 = 18.7 kN/m3, B = 0.075 m
and c2 = 12 kN/m2) as per Rethaliya and Verma [11]. The
ultimate bearing capacity of the footing is normalized with
the undrained cohesion of soft clay, c2. In the absence of a
granular trench (Bt/B equal to 0), the predicted normalized
ultimate bearing capacity of the footing compares
Fig. 19 Comparison of Present Theory with Laboratory Study of
Rethaliya and Verma [11]
315
reasonably well with the experimental results of Rethaliya
and Verma [11] for an unreinforced granular bed, but is
conservative for a reinforced one. The predicted normal-
ized ultimate bearing capacity of the footing increases from
5.1 at H/B equal to 0 to 7.1 at H/B equal to 1.2 while that
measured by Rethaliya and Verma [11] increases from 5.1
at H/B equal to 0 to a critical value of 7.9 at H/B equal to
0.8 and decreases to 7.5 at H/B of 1.2, for a reinforced
granular bed. The difference between the predicted nor-
malized ultimate bearing capacities of the strip footing
resting on a reinforced and unreinforced granular bed is
very small, perhaps due to the low values of cB/c2 and H/B.
The percentage improvement in bearing capacity of the
footing over that of Rethaliya and Verma [11] due to
reinforcement of the soft clay with a granular trench (Bt/B
equal to 0.25) varies from a minimum of 29.4 and 7.1 % at
H/B equal to 0.8 to a maximum of 43.1 and 43.2 % at H/B
equal to 0 for an unreinforced and reinforced granular bed
respectively.
Lee et al. [12] carried out laboratory model tests using a
rigid strip footing supported on medium dense sand over-
lying soft clay with and without a layer of geotextile
reinforcement at the interface. Figures 20 and 21 compare
the present method for estimation of bearing capacity of a
strip footing resting on an unreinforced and reinforced
granular bed overlying soft ground stabilized with granular
trench respectively, with the model test results of Lee et al.
[12] for various H/B. The values correspond to a sand layer
with u of 36°, Lr/B of 8, ur/u of 0.75, cB/c2 of 0.182 and
c2B/c2 of 0.193 (with c = 17.3 kN/m3, c2 = 18.35 kN/m3,
B = 0.1524 m and c2 = 14.5 kPa) as per Lee et al. [12].
The measured ultimate bearing capacity of the model
footing resting on the surface of unreinforced and rein-
forced sand overlying soft clay is observed to exceed the
ultimate bearing capacity of the footing resting on a rela-
tively thick sand layer. The model tests have been carried
Fig. 20 Comparison with Laboratory Study of Lee et al. [12]—
unreinforced granular bed
123
316
Fig. 21 Comparison with Laboratory Study of Lee et al. [12]—
reinforced granular bed
out in a square mild steel tank of size 1,200 mm and height
1,000 mm. The initial stresses in the model ground, before
shearing, are very small while the angle of shearing
resistance of sand (u = 36°) is measured under relatively
large stresses of 50–200 kPa. The u values obtained from
conventional direct shear tests are inappropriate for the
determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of the model
footing as the angle of shearing resistance at low stress
levels would be larger than the one measured at relatively
higher stress levels. Bolton [13] and Fannin et al. [14]
predict the shear strength of cohesionless soils at low stress
levels. The predicted normalized ultimate bearing capacity
of the strip footing (normalized with the undrained cohe-
sion of soft clay, c2) resting on sand overlying soft clay
stabilized with granular trench is plotted with revised u of
40° based on Fannin et al. [14]. In the absence of a granular
trench (Bt/B equal to 0), the predicted normalized ultimate
bearing capacity of the footing with the new u value of 40°
compares well with the model test results of Lee et al. [12]
for an unreinforced sand layer (Fig. 20), but is conservative
for a reinforced one (Fig. 21). The predicted and measured
normalized ultimate bearing capacities (Figs. 20 and 21)
increase with the normalized thickness of the sand layer, H/
B, up to a critical thickness beyond which no further
increase is possible as the bearing capacity of the footing is
limited by that of a relatively thick layer of sand.
Conclusions
1. A new method of estimating the bearing capacity of a
strip footing embedded in a RFB over soft ground
stabilized with granular trench is presented by incor-
porating Madhav and Vitkar’s theory [1] in Meyer-
hof’s equation [8] together with the consideration of
the resistance of the reinforcement to axial pull-out.
123
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317
2. Provision of a granular bed below the footing in soft
ground stabilized with granular trench increases the
bearing capacity of the footing significantly when
compared to that in granular trench reinforced ground
alone. Placement of a single layer of geosynthetic
reinforcement within the granular bed further enhances
the bearing capacity of the two-layered system.
3. Larger improvement in bearing capacity of the footing
is reflected for relatively wide footings or relatively
soft to very soft deposits whose cB/c2 values are
greater than 15.
4. A relatively narrow granular trench (Bt/B equal to 0.5)
contributes to lower bearing capacity of the two-
layered system but exhibits greater bearing capacity
enhancement than its wider counterpart (Bt/B equal to
1.0) upon provision of a granular fill.
5. The improvement in bearing capacity of the footing
due to the two-layered system with respect to granular
trench reinforced ground alone, decreases with
increased normalized depth of foundation for a given
fill thickness. The improvement is zero for a footing
whose depth of foundation equals the fill thickness, but
is nearly twice the bearing capacity of granular trench
reinforced ground alone, for a surface footing on RFB
over soft ground stabilized with granular trench with
Bt/B of 0.5 and cB/c2 of 35. The improvement due to
the reinforcement alone varies from a minimum of
13.2 % at Bt/B, Df/B, cB/c2 of 1.0, 1.0, 5.0 to a
maximum of 41 % corresponding to Bt/B, Df/B, cB/c2
of 0.5, 0.0, 35.0.
6. The bearing capacity enhancement due to the two-
layered system increases with the fill thickness but
decreases with increased trench width for a given
depth of foundation. The ultimate bearing capacity of
the footing obtained is as high as 5.85 times that of
granular trench reinforced ground, for RFB over soft
ground stabilized with granular trench with Bt/B, H/B,
cB/c2 of 0.5, 2.5, 35 respectively while no enhance-
ment is achieved for a footing installed in granular
trench reinforced ground alone. The contribution from
the reinforcement exclusively towards bearing capac-
ity enhancement of the two-layered system is higher
for granular trenches of relatively narrow size.
7. The improvement in bearing capacity of the footing
due to the two-layered system is larger for a relatively
narrow granular trench with higher angle of shearing
resistance. The percentage improvement in the bearing
capacity of the footing varies from a minimum of 23 %
for an unreinforced granular bed with Bt/B, u, cB/c2 of
1.0, 40°, 5 to a maximum of 112 % for RFB with Bt/B,
u, cB/c2 of 0.5, 40°, 35 respectively.
8. Results from the present method for estimation of
bearing capacity of a strip footing in RFB over soft
Indian Geotech J (July–September 2015) 45(3):304–317 317

ground stabilized with granular trench are in good 6. Unnikrishnan N, Rajan S (2012) Bearing capacity of strip foot-
agreement with the results of model studies reported by ings on geosynthetic encapsulated granular trenches. In: Pro-
ceedings of international conference on ground improvement and
[8, 11, 12] for an unreinforced granular bed, but predict ground control, ISBN: 978-981-07-3560-9, pp 977–983
conservative values for a reinforced granular bed. 7. Bouassida M, Jellali B, Lyamin A (2014) Ultimate bearing
capacity of a strip footing on ground reinforced by a trench. Int J
Geomech ASCE, ISSN: 1532-3641/06014021(8), doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000418
8. Meyerhof GG (1974) Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
References sand layer overlying clay. Can Geotech J 11(2):223–229
9. Rajyalakshmi K, Madhav MR, Ramu K (2011) Bearing capacity
of reinforced strip foundation beds on compressible clays. Indian
1. Madhav MR, Vitkar PP (1978) Strip footing on weak clay sta-
Geotech J 42(4):294–308
bilized with granular trench or pile. Can Geotech J 15:605–609
10. Vesic AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J Soil
2. Hamed JT, Das BM, Echelberger WF (1986) Bearing capacity of
Mech Found Div ASCE 98(3):265–290
a strip foundation on granular trench in soft clay. Civ Eng Pract
11. Rethaliya RP, Verma AK (2009) Strip footing on sand overlying
Des Eng 5(5):359–376
soft clay with geotextile interface. Indian Geotech J 39(3):271–287
3. Das BM (1988) Bearing capacity of shallow foundation on a
12. Lee KM, Manjunath VR, Dewaikar DM (1999) Numerical and
granular trench in ground [online]. In: Proceedings of 5th Aus-
model studies of strip footing supported by a reinforced granular
tralia-New Zealand conference on geomechanics: predictions
fill—soft soil system. Can Geotech J 36(5):793–806
versus performance; preprints of papers. Institution of Engineers,
13. Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geo-
Australia, Barton, no. 88/11, pp 278–282
technique 36(1):65–78
4. Venkatappa Rao G, Kate JM, Shamsher FH (1994) Soil
14. Fannin RJ, Eliadorani A, Wilkinson JMT (2005) Shear strength
improvement with geosynthetics. In: Proceedings of 13th inter-
of cohesionless soils at low stress. Geotechnique 55(6):467–478
national conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineer-
ing, New Delhi, pp 1237–1240
5. Bouassida M, Hadhri T (1995) Extreme load of soils reinforced
by columns: the case of an isolated column. Soils Found 35(1):
21–35

123

View publication stats