Finite Element Analysis of Clay Reinforced with

Geogrid Encapsulated in Thin Layers of Sand

Archana C. Anand#, Rugmini A#, Aarathi Krishna. V#,
Anciya Fazal. R# and Jayamohan J*
# Final year Civil Engineering Students, LBS Institute of Technology for Women,
Thiruvananthapuram
achhu02@gmail.com, rugminiishere@gmail.com, aamimax@gmail.com, anciya786@gmail.com,

*Corresponding author, Associate Professor in Civil Engineering, LBS Institute of Technology

for Women, Thiruvananthapuram, jayamohan7@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Reinforced Granular Beds are often used to support foundations on weak soils and low lying
areas. But now granular soils have become very scarce and it makes reinforced soil technique
uneconomical. The cost effective option is to reinforce the locally available soil with suitable
geosynthetics. But the effectiveness of reinforcement embedded in clayey soil is very less when
compared with granular soil. This paper investigates the possibility of reinforcing the locally
available clayey soil with geogrid encapsulated in thin layer of sand by carrying out a series of
finite element analyses using the software PLAXIS 2D. The parameters studied are the effects
of thickness of thin granular layer and its depth below the base of footing. The results of the
finite element analyses indicate that bearing capacity of clay can be improved considerably by
reinforcing with geogrid embedded in thin layer of sand. It is observed that the normal and shear
stresses at the interface between sand and clay are considerably influenced by the thickness of
sand layer.
Keywords
Keywords: Geogrid, Finite Element Analyses, Strip footing, Load-Settlement Behaviour.

1. INTRODUCTION
Soil reinforcement is a highly attractive alternative for embankment and retaining wall projects
because of its low cost, aesthetics, reliability, simple construction techniques, and the ability to
adapt to different site conditions compared to conventional retaining structures. The use of
geosynthetic reinforced granular bed over weak soil effectively reduces settlement and increases
the bearing capacity of weak soil. Systematic layers of reinforcement (e.g. woven geotextile,
geogrid, or geocomposites) are often placed beneath foundations to improve the settlement
characteristics and load-bearing capacity of the weak foundation soils.
A number of studies have expanded the knowledge on the failure mechanisms and the potential
benefits of soil reinforcement on the bearing capacity and settlement of shallow foundations
(Binquet and Lee, 1975, Mitchell, 1981). Several experimental and analytical studies were
conducted to evaluate the bearing capacity of footings on reinforced soil (Alamshahi and Hataf,
2009, Deb et al, 2006, 2007, Elias and Christopher, 1996, Madhavilatha and Somwanshi, 2009,
Shivashankar and Reddy, 1998, Shivashankar et al, 1993, Vinod et al, 2009). Attempts have
been made to study the improvement in bearing capacity due to prestressing the geosynthetic
reinforcement (Lackner et al, 2013, Lovisa et al, 2010, Shivashankar and Jayamohan, 2013).
It is well established that a geosynthetic reinforced foundation bed over weak soil effectively
reduces settlement and increases the bearing capacity of weak soil. However, these benefits
have often been limited due to the scarcity of good-quality granular material (Elias and
Christopher, 1996). Build up of pore water pressure, lesser frictional strength and higher creep
potential are the main concerns expressed about the use of cohesive soils in soil reinforcement
(Mitchell, 1981). The improvement due to Reinforced soil is derived from the stress transfer
between soil and reinforcement at the interface. In case of the clayey soils, the interfacial
strength between the soil and the reinforcement is low which causes failure at the interface
before the full strength of reinforcement can be mobilized. Thus, strength of reinforcement will
be underutilized due to early failure of the interface.
One promising technique is to encapsulate geogrids in thin layers of sand. The sand will act as a
drainage layer and will assist in the dissipation of pore water pressure. Large scale direct shear
tests and numerical studies have been carried out on clay reinforced with geogrid encapsulated
with thin layer of sand (Abdi et al, 2009, Abdi and Zandieh, 2014). They observed that
provision of thin layers of sand for encapsulating geogrids is very effective in improving the
strength and deformation characteristics of saturated clay. Shear failure will occur at the
interface between reinforcement and soil due to the high shear stresses which decrease rapidly
away from the reinforcement as experimentally observed by (Jewell and Wroth, 1987, Milligan
et al, 1990 and Sridharan et al, 1991). Hence, when marginal soils are used as backfill, it is
advantageous to place thin layers of high-strength granular soil around the reinforcement to
resist these high shear stresses near the interface. This method of construction known as
sandwich technique will improve the stress transfer mechanism because of the interface
properties. Sridharan et al, 1991reported significant improvement in the pullout capacity of
geogrids encapsulated in thin granular layer within weak soils.
Based on laboratory tests on model retaining walls employing sandwich layers, Sreekantiah and
Unnikrishnan, 1992 also reported improvement in the response of retaining walls. Unnikrishnan
et al, 2002 reported improvement in strength and deformation behaviour of reinforced clay soils
under static and cyclic loading by conducting UU triaxial compression tests.
The purpose of this paper is to study the improvement in bearing capacity of clay attained by
reinforcing with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of sand by carrying out a series of finite
element analyses using the FE software PLAXIS 2D. The effects of thickness and depth of sand
layer from the base of footing on the load-settlement behaviour and stresses at the interface
between clay and sand are particularly studied.

2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

For simulating the behaviour of soil, different constitutive models are available in the FE
software. In the present study Mohr-Coulomb model is used to simulate soil behaviour. This
non-linear model is based on the basic soil parameters that can be obtained from direct shear
tests; internal friction angle and cohesion intercept. Since strip footing is used, a plain strain
model is adopted in the analysis. The settlement of the rigid footing is simulated using non zero
prescribed displacements.
The displacement of the bottom boundary is restricted in all directions, while at the vertical
sides; displacement is restricted only in the horizontal direction. The initial geostatic stress
states for the analyses are set according to the unit weight of soil. The soil is modelled using 15
noded triangular elements. Mesh generation can be done automatically. Medium mesh size is
adopted in all the simulations.The size of the strip footing (B) is taken as one metre and the
width and depth of soil mass are taken as 10B in all analyses

The reinforcement is modelled using the 5-noded tension element. To simulate the interaction
between the reinforcement and surrounding soil, an interface element is provided on both upper
and lower surface of reinforcement. The interaction between soil and reinforcement is simulated
by choosing an appropriate value for strength reduction factor Rinter at the interface. The aperture
size of geogrid is sufficiently large enough to allow soil to soil contact through the apertures and
hence the angle of friction between reinforcement and soil is taken equal to the angle of internal
friction of sand . Hence the value of Rinter is taken as one. The typical deformed shape after
loading is shown in Fig 1 and stress distribution in soil in Fig 2. The properties of a locally
available clay and sand are assigned as material parameters. The soil is modeled using 15-node
triangular elements. Poissons ratio of the soil is assumed to be 0.25 for all cases.

Figure 1. Deformed Shape after Loading

Figure 2. Stress Distribution after loading

The parameters varied are thickness of sand layer (t/B), width of sand layer (L/B) and depth of
sand layer from ground surface (h/B); where B is the width of footing. The details of parameters
varied in the study are outlined in Table 1.

Table-1 Parameters Varied

Sl. Depth of sand layer Width of sand layer Thickness of sand layer
No: (h/B) (L/B) (t/B)
1 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 2, 3, 4, 5 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. Effect of thickness of sand layer

Figure 3 presents the vertical stress vs normalized settlement curves, from finite element
analyses, for sand layer of various thicknesses. It is seen from the figure that the bearing
capacity increases with the thickness of sand layer up to 0.6 B. A further increase in the
thickness of sand layer is not beneficial.

Stress (kPa)
0 50 100 150
0 t/B=0.2
1 t/B=0.4
2 t/B=0.6
(S/B)%

3 t/B=0.8
t/B=1
4

Figure 3. Vertical Stress versus normalised settlement curves for various thicknesses of sand
layer
3.2 Effect of depth of sand layer from the base of footing

Vertical Stress (kPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0

h/B=0.2
4
h/B=0.4
(S/B%)

h/B=0.6
6

10

Figure 4. Vertical Stress versus normalised settlement curves for various depths of sand layer
from the base of footing
The variation of load-settlement behaviour with depth of sand layer from the base of footing is
presented in Figure 4. It is observed that the bearing capacity increases when the depth of sand
layer decreases up to 0.4B. A further reduction in depth of sand layer bed did not give any
improvement.

3.3. Distribution of Normal Stress in Reinforcement

Figure 5. Typical distribution of normal stress on reinforcement during loading

Figure 5 shows the distribution of normal stress on reinforcement during loading. It is observed
that maximum normal stress on reinforcement develops beneath the edges of footing. The effect
of thickness of sand layer on the normal stress acting on reinforcement is presented in Figure 6.
It is observed that initially as the thickness of sand layer increases, up to 0.6B, the normal stress
on reinforcement reduces. However with a further increase in thickness of sand layer, the
normal stress increases.

120

100

80
Stress (kPa)

t/B=0.2
60 t/B=0.4

40 t/B=0.6
t/B=0.8
20
t/B=1

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Distance from Centre (m)

Figure 6. Distribution of normal stress on reinforcement for various thicknesses of Sand layer
3.4. Shear stress at the interface between Reinforcement and Sand

Figure 7. Typical distribution of shear stress at the interface between reinforcement and sand
The typical distribution of shear stress between reinforcement and sand is presented in Figure 7.
It is observed that the peak shear stress develops beneath the edges of the footing. The variation
of shear stress distribution with thickness of sand layer is presented in Figure 8. It is observed
that as the thickness of sand layer increases up to 0.6B, the peak shear stress reduces and the
distribution becomes wider. With a further increase in thickness of sand layer, the peak stress
does not reduce further, but the stress within the footing area reduces.

40

30

20
Shear Stress (kPa)

10 t/B=0.2
t/B=0.4
0
t/B=0.6
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-10 t/B=0.8
t/B=1
-20

-30

-40
Distance from Centre (m)

Figure 8. Distribution of shear stress at the interface between reinforcement and sand for
various thicknesses of sand layer
3.5. Normal stress at the interface between Sand layer and clay

Figure 9. Typical distribution of normal stress at the top and bottom interface between sand
layer and clay

Typical distribution of normal stress at the top and bottom interface between sand layer and clay
is shown on Figure 9. The effect of thickness of sand layer on the distribution of normal stress at
the interface between sand layer and clay are presented in Figure 10. Stresses at bottom
interface are shown as dotted lines. It is seen from the figure that normal stress at top interface
is maximum when (t/B) =1 and at bottom interface the normal stress is maximum when (t/B)
=0.2. It is seen from the figure that the normal stress at top increases with thickness of sand
layer since the resistance to deformation increases with thickness. It is also observed that at the
bottom interface normal stress decreases with increase in thickness of sand layer. As thickness
decreases, the downward deformation increases which results in an increase in normal stress at
the bottom interface. A stress concentration is also observed at the ends of bottom interface.

200 t/B=0.2 Top Interface

150 t/B=0.4 Top Interface

t/B=0.6 Top Interface

100
t/B=0.8 Top Interface
50
t/B=1 Top Interface
Stress (kPa)

0 t/B=0.2 Bottom Interface

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-50 t/B=0.4 Bottom Interface

t/B=0.6 Bottom Interface

-100

t/B=0.8 Bottom Interface

-150
t/B=1 Bottom Interface

-200
Distance from Centre (m)

Figure 10. Variation of normal stress distribution at the top and bottom interface between sand
layer and clay with thickness of sand layer
3.6. Shear stress at the interface between Sand layer and clay

Figure 11. Typical distribution of shear stress at the top and bottom interface between sand
layer and clay

Typical distribution of shear stress at the top and bottom interface between sand layer and clay
is shown on Figures 11. The effect of thickness of sand layer on the distribution of shear stress
at the interface between sand layer and clay are presented in Figure 12. Stresses at bottom
interface are shown as dotted lines. It is seen that the shear stress at interface increases with a
decrease in thickness of sand layer. With a decrease in thickness of sand layer, its deformation
increases resulting in an increased relative movement between sand and clay. It is also observed
that the shear stress at bottom interface is more widely distributed.

40

30 t/B=0.2 Top Interface

t/B=0.4 Top Interface

20
t/B=0.6 Top Interface
10 t/B=0.8 Top Interface
Stress (kPa)

t/B=1 Top Interface

0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 t/B=0.2
2.5 Bottom Interface
-10
t/B=0.4 Bottom Interface

-20 t/B=0.6 Bottom Interface

t/B=0.8 Bottom Interface

-30
t/B=1 Bottom Interface

-40
Distance from Centre (m)

Figure 12. Variation of shear stress distribution at the top and bottom interface between sand
layer and clay with thickness of sand layer
4. CONCLUSIONS
From the results of finite element analyses, the following conclusions are made on the
behaviour of Strip footing resting on Clay reinforced with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of
sand.

1. Introduction of geogrid encapsulated in thin layer of sand considerably improves load-

settlement behaviour.
2. The optimum thickness of sand layer and its depth below the base of footing are found
to be 0.6B and 0.4B respectively.
3. It is seen that the peak normal stress and shear stress in reinforcement develops beneath
the edges of the footing.
4. Due to the increase in thickness of sand layer, the peak shear stress in reinforcement
reduces and the distribution becomes wider.
5. The normal and shear stresses at interface between sand layer and clay are considerably
influenced by the thickness of sand layer.

REFERENCES
[1] Abdi, M. R., Sadrnejad, A. and Arjomand, M. A. (2009). Strength enhancement of clay by encapsulating
geogrids in thin layers of sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27,447 455.
[2] Abdi, M. R and Zandieh, A.R.(2014). Experimental and Numerical Analysis of large scale pullout tests
conducted on clays reinforced with geogrids encapsulated with coarse material, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 42, 494 504.
[3] Alamshahi,S. and Hataf,N. (2009). Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand slopes reinforced with
geogrid and grid-anchor, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, 217 226.
[4] Binquet, J. and Lee, K.L. (1975). Bearing capacity tests on reinforced earth slabs. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 101 (12), 12411255.
[5] Deb,K, Sivakugan,N, Chandra,S. and Basudhar,P,K. 2006, Nonlinear analysis of multilayer
extensiblegeosynthetic reinforced granular bed on soft soil, Geotechnical and GeologicalEngineering, 25,
11 23.
[6] Deb,K, Chandra,S. and Basudhar,P,K , 2007, Numerical analysis of multilayer geosynthetic reinforced
granular bed on soft fill, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25, 639 646.
[7] Elias, V., Christopher, B.B., 1996. Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, design
and construction guidelines. Federal Highway Administration FHWA-Sa-96071.
[8] Jewell, R.A., Wroth, C.P., 1987. Direct shear tests on reinforced sand. Geotechnique 37, 5368.

[9] Lackner,C., Bergado,D.T. and Semprich,S. (2013). Prestressed reinforced soil by geosynthetics concept
and experimental investigations, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 37, 109123.
[10] Lovisa,J., Shukla,S.K. and Sivakugan,N. (2010). Behaviour of prestressed geotextile- reinforced sand bed
supporting a loaded circular footing, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28, 23 32.
[11] Madhavilatha,G. and Somwanshi, A. (2009). Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic
reinforced sand, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, 281 294.
[12] Milligan, G.W.E., Earl, R.F., Bush, D.I., 1990. Observation of photo-elastic pullout tests on geotextile and
grids. In: Proceeding of the Fourth Inter. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomemebranes and Related
Products, Hague, 2, 747751.

[13] Mitchell, J.K., 1981. Soil improvement: State of the Art. Proc. of Tenth Inter. Conf. On Soil Mechanics and
Found. Eng., Stockholm, Sweden, vol. 4, 509565.
[14] Ramaiah Shivashankar and Jayamohan Jayaraj. 2013,Effectsof prestressing the reinforcement on the
behaviour of reinforced granular beds overlying weak soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol 42, Issue
 1, pp 69-75, February
[15] Shivashankar,R., Madhav,M.R. and Miura,N. (1993). Reinforced granular beds overlying soft clay,
Proceedings of11th South East Asian Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, 409 414.
[16] Shivashankar, R. and Reddy, A.C.S. (1998). Reinforced granular bed on poor filled up shedi ground,
Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference - 1998, Vol.1, 301-304.
[17] Sreekantiah, H.R., Unnikrishnan, N., 1992. Behavior of geotextile under pullout. In: Proc. of the Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Calcutta, 215228.

[18] Sridharan, A., Murthy, S., Bindumadhava, B.R., Revansiddappa, K., 1991. Technique for using fine-
grained soil in reinforced earth. Division, ASCE. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117, 11741190.

[19] Vinod, P., Bhaskar,A.B. and Sreehari,S. (2009). Behaviour of a square model footing on loose sand
reinforced with braided coir rope, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, 464 474.
[20] Unnikrishnan, N., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2002. Behavior of reinforced clay under
monotonic and cyclic loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20, 117
133.