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

net/publication/306094639

Experimental Studies on Dynamic Response of a Block Foundation on Sand

Reinforced with Geogrid

Conference Paper · February 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 755

4 authors:

Sandrine Clement Raghvendra Sahu

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ayothiraman R R. Gunturi
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
40 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   665 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

ground improvement View project

Advanced Technologies for Post-Disasters Reconnaissance, Forensic and Environmental Impact Studies-Geotechnical View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raghvendra Sahu on 14 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geosynthetics 2015
February 15-18, Portland, Oregon

Experimental Studies on Dynamic Response of a Block Foundation on

Sand Reinforced with Geogrid
Sandrine Clement, Former PG Student, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India, drine47@hotmail.com
Raghvendra Sahu, Ph.D. Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India, sahu.raghvendra@gmail.com
R. Ayothiraman, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India, araman@civil.iitd.ac.in
G. V. Ramana, Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India, ramana@civil.iitd.ac.in

ABSTRACT

Results of forced- and free- vertical vibration tests carried out on model foundation resting on dense sand are presented.
Tests were conducted in unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand to evaluate the effect of reinforcement on dynamic
characteristics of soil-foundation system. Dynamic force was applied using a laboratory electro-dynamic shaker.
Frequency of external force was varied and acceleration response of the foundation was recorded at respective
frequency. Free vibration of foundation was induced by giving hammer blow and the response was measured. From the
test results, the natural frequency/resonant frequency and damping factor were evaluated. Results have shown that soil
reinforcement increased the natural frequency of the soil–foundation system and reduced peak amplitude of vibration.
Dynamic shear modulus and damping of unreinforced and reinforced sand were also estimated from the experimental
results. The behavior of prototype foundation was interpreted using proper scaling laws and found to be in the practical
limits.

1. INTRODUCTION

Analysis and design of machine foundations require special considerations because machines transmit dynamic loads to
soil in addition to static loads due to weight of foundation, machine and accessories. The dynamic load due to operation
of the machine is generally small compared to the static weight of machine and the supporting foundation (less than 20
%) (Prakash and Puri, 1988). However, machine-induced dynamic load is applied repetitively over a very long period of
time, i.e. subjected to large number of cycles. The vibration due to machine operation may increase beyond the tolerable
limits under cyclic/dynamic loading, depending on many parameters such as operating frequency, natural frequency and
damping of soil-foundation system. Therefore, the amplitude of vibration of machines at its operating frequency is the
most important parameter in design of machine foundation, in addition to avoiding the resonance. Typically the
resonance is avoided by designing the natural frequency of a soil-foundation system such that it is away from operating
frequency of machines by 20 to 50 % in general or even by 100% for few important machines (IS: 2974, 1982). The
natural frequency of soil-foundation system is primarily governed by the in-situ dynamic soil properties as well as
geometry/mass of foundation. There may a possibility that the in-situ soil condition is not able to either provide the
required natural frequency to avoid resonance and/or to satisfy the permissible amplitude criteria. Under such
circumstances, the alternates are either to improve the dynamic soil properties by ground modification or by adopting pile
foundations. There are studies reported in literature (Al-Homoud and Al-Maaitah, 1996; Baidhya and Rathi, 2004; Ahn et
al. 2011, Kumar et al. 2013) which investigated the machine foundation behavior in unreinforced soils. However, there
are limited studies reported on behavior of machine foundations in reinforced soils, which are discussed herein. Antes
and von Estorff (1994) demonstrated how the dynamic behavior of structures is affected by local non-homogeneities
inside the soil. It was observed that, depending on the stiffness of inclusion and especially on the excitation frequency,
the dynamic response of the foundation may either increase or decrease. Wasti and Butun (1996) performed the series
of laboratory model tests on a strip footing supported by sand reinforced by randomly distributed polypropylene fiber and
mesh elements to compare the behavior of footings on reinforced and unreinforced sand. Shin and Das (1999) studied
the dynamic behavior of geogrid-reinforced sand by conducting laboratory model tests subjected to cyclic loading of low
frequency (1 cps) and transient loading. These tests were conducted with and without geogrid reinforcement in the soil.
The maximum permanent settlement due to the cyclic and transient loads in reinforced and unreinforced soils was
compared. Authors concluded that geogrid reinforcement can act as a settlement retardant for dynamic loading
conditions. Li and Ding (2002) carried out experimental investigation and modeling for understanding the behavior of
fiber reinforced soil under cyclic loading. Subaida et al. (2009) investigated the beneficial use of woven coir geotextiles
as reinforcing material in a two-layer pavement section. Monotonic and repeated loads were applied on reinforced and
unreinforced laboratory pavement sections through a rigid circular plate. Authors found that the bearing capacity was
improved significantly and permanent vertical deformation was reduced under repeated loading with inclusion of coir
fibers. El Sawwaf and Nazir (2010) carried out the model tests on rectangular footing resting on geogrid reinforced sand
under repeated loading and analyzed the bearing capacity and cumulative settlement behavior of footing. It is seen from
the literature review that the studies on behavior of machine foundation on reinforced soil is limited and there are ample

479
scope for further study to understand and assess the most influential parameters that affect the response and design of
machine foundation. Accordingly, the main objective of present investigation is envisaged as to study the behavior of
machine foundation resting on geogrid-reinforced sand and to assess its improved dynamic properties.

2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

2.1 Methodology

For estimating the natural frequency of machine–foundation–soil system, block vibration test as described in the IS 5249
(1992), is widely used. Additionally, the dynamic soil properties such as shear modulus and damping, which are very
useful in the dynamic analysis and design, could be determined from this test as well. The experimental study is carried
out on a model test tank, in which a square footing of 100 mm × 100 mm × 44 mm is subjected to dynamic load through
an electromagnetic shaker (which transforms electrical force into mechanical force). Dynamic response of the model
foundation is measured using accelerometers in both free vibration tests and forced vibration tests.

2.2 Materials Used

2.2.1 Sand

The soil used in this study was locally available sand collected from Badarpur, New Delhi (India). It contains insignificant
fraction of fines (i.e. clay and silt). The grain size distribution curve is shown in Fig. 1 and based on values of Cu and Cc;
it is classified as non-uniform, well graded medium-coarse sand. Table 1 presents the summary of index and strength
properties of sand.

Figure 1. Grain size distribution curve.

Table 1. Basic properties of Badarpur sand.

Properties of Badarpur Sand

Specific Gravity, Gs 2.64
Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu 2.43
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc 1.49
3
Maximum Density, ρmax (kg/m ) 1640
3
Minimum Density, ρmin (kg/m ) 1410
Angle of Shearing resistance, ɸmax 45̊
Angle of Shearing resistance, ϕmin 30.1̊

2.2.2 Geogrid

A biaxial, extruded geogrid is used as reinforcement for improving the soil below the plate foundation under dynamic
load. A biaxial geogrid is designed to have roughly the same tensile strength in both directions and to distribute loads
over a wider area, increasing the load capacity of the soil. Laboratory test was conducted to determine the tensile

480
strength of geogrid as per ASTM standard (D 6637–01). The summary of properties of geogrid is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Properties of biaxial geogrid.

Properties of Biaxial Geogrid

Thickness (mm) 15.0
2
Mass per unit area (g/m ) 540
AL (mm) 29.9
Aperture dimensions
AT (mm) 29.0
WLR (mm) 2.9
Width of Rib
WTR (mm) 2.3
tLR (mm) 2.0
Thickness of ribs
tTR (mm) 2.7
Thickness of joints tj (mm) 6.3
Longitudinal Ultimate Tensile Strength (kN/m) 37.2
Transversal Ultimate Tensile Strength (kN/m) 39.9

2.3 Scaling of Models

2.3.1 Modeling of Foundation

Plate foundation was dimensioned (scaled down) according to the capacity of the shaker (90 N) and size of the test tank
(1240 mm × 900 mm × 800 mm) to ensure that boundary effects are minimized significantly.

Figure 2. Modeling of foundation.

A square footing of dimension B × B is assumed to be resting on the surface (i.e. Df = 0). The tests were carried out
under dynamic force (Fd) using the electro-dynamic shaker with different dynamic force levels (Fig. 2). The dynamic force
levels are considered such that they do not exceed 20% the total mass of block and motor-oscillator assembly (Prakash
and Puri, 1988) or safe bearing capacity (qsafe). The safe bearing capacity is determined using Eq. (1) in terms of B
(width of footing).

𝑞𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 = 0.5𝛾𝐵𝑁𝛾 𝑆𝛾 /FOS [1]

Foundations subjected to static loading conditions in soils reinforced with geogrid and fibers may have boundary effect if
the model size is less than 8B in horizontal direction and 2B in vertical direction below the foundation (Khing et al. 1993;
Omar et al. 1993; Shin and Das 1999; Kolay et al. 2013; Kazi et al. 2014). For a width of footing, B = 10 cm, the ratio of
width of tank to the width of footing and the height to width ratio adopted in the present study are Btank/B = 9 and Htank/B =
8 respectively, thus the model eliminates boundary effect under static loading.

2.3.2 Thickness of Foundation

The thickness of the model foundation base was estimated on the known thickness of the prototype foundation in the
block vibration test by using scale factor (Wood, 2004). Thickness ratio, nh is given as,
𝑡𝑚 3 𝑛𝐺
𝑛ℎ = = 𝑛𝑙 √ [2]
𝑡𝑡 𝑛𝐸

481
The details of dimensions of in-situ test block foundation and model foundation are presented in Table 3. For these
values, the above Eq. gives thickness of the model foundation as 44 mm.

Table 3. Dimensions of in-situ and model foundations.

BVT (concrete) (mm) Model foundation (steel) (mm)

Bt = 750 Bm = 100
tt = 1000 tm = 44
Note: Bt and tt – width and thickness of the foundation as used in in-situ Block Vibration Test (BVT) respectively.
Bm and tm – width and thickness of the model foundation as used in model test respectively.

It is also required to ensure that the dimensions of the model foundation are such that the mass ratio is more than 1.0 as
per IS: 5249 (1992). The thickness of model foundation arrived at using the scaling law yield mass ratio of 1.98 which
satisfies the codal provisions. Accordingly, the verified thickness of model foundation (tm), 44 mm is considered for
testing.

2.4 Location of Geogrid

Several researchers have successfully performed the model tests using geogrid under static loads (Guido et al. 1986;
Omar et al. 1993; Yetimoglu et al. 1994) and found that Bearing Capacity Ratio increases with an increase of number of
layers within a depth of 3B below the footing base, but placing geogrid reinforcement beyond the depth of 1.3B would not
significantly increase bearing capacity. On the basis of past model test results (Shin and Das 1999), experiments were
performed for the optimum design parameters of geogrid reinforcement (u/B = 0.48, b/B = 10 and h/B = 0.4) and is
assumed that these would also be applicable to dynamic loads (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Location of geogrid.

The depth of reinforcement (Dr) has been decided on the basis of equation (Shin and Das, 1999),

𝐷𝑟 = 𝑢 + (𝑛 − 1)ℎ [3]

where u = depth of placement of first layer, h = spacing of geogrid layers, b = width of layers and n = no. of geogrid
layers.

2.5 Test Setup and Instrumentation

2.5.1 Test Tank

The test tank has a size of 1240 mm in length, 900 mm in width and 800 mm in height with 10 mm thickness steel sheet
forming three sides and bottom of tank and one side of tank was made with Acrylic Perspex sheet of 20 mm thickness. A
removable frame was fabricated to hang the shaker in the middle of the tank. Rubber sheets are used as joints between
the different parts to absorb vibrations (Fig. 4). Another flexible box with size of 1180 mm in length, 840 mm in width and
760 mm in height was fabricated with steel wire mesh on all four sides and wrapped and pasted with cotton cloth acts as
a boundary element between the soil and absorbing element (i.e. saw dust which is filled between the test tank wall and
flexible box (Fig.5) to minimize the reflection of waves during the application of the dynamic loading.

482
 Figure 4. Model test tank. Figure 5. Test tank with flexible box and saw dust.

2.5.2 Filling of Test Tank

The tank was filled at maximum density of sand to a height of 720 mm. The sand was spread in layers of 80 mm
(9 layers = 720 mm thick) so that, sand bed prepared is homogenous over the entire height of soil.

2.5.3 Equipments and Data Acquisition

Equipments used are: electro-dynamic shaker (90 N capacity); function generator; power amplifier; sensors such as
accelerometers and data acquisition system (DAS) consisting of multi-channel carrier frequency amplifier, LAB VIEW
software and a computer.

2.6 Experimental Program

2.6.1 Free Vibration Test

Free vibration tests were carried out on model test footing resting on unreinforced and reinforced sand. Free vibration
was induced by hitting the foundation co–axially with a light hammer (Fig. 6). The system then vibrates at one or more of
its natural frequencies and dies down with time, which was measured with the DAS.

2.6.2 Forced Vibration Test

Forced vibration tests (Fig. 7) were carried out on model test footing by varying input voltage 1 V, 2 V and 3 V,
corresponding to the force level 3.5 N, 7.0 N and 10.5 N respectively. For each force level, the input frequency was
2
gradually increased from 50 Hz to 190 Hz. Acceleration (m/s ) was recorded with each increment in input frequency.
Series of two tests were conducted for both free and forced vibration tests, i.e. for unreinforced and reinforced sand
conditions, which is defined in Table 4.

Figure 6. Free vibration test. Figure 7. Forced vibration test.

483
 Table 4. Test program.

Test Series No. of Geogrid Layers Maximum Density of Soil (max)

3
Test-A (Unreinforced Sand) 0 1640 kg/m
3
Test-B (Reinforced Sand) 2 1640 kg/m

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

3.1 Free Vibration Test

The typical measured time-history of acceleration from the free vibration test in unreinforced sand is shown in Fig. 8. It is
observed that the vibration died down after 7 cycles. The damped natural time period and the damping ratio were
determined from the measured time-history of acceleration using the fundamentals of vibration of SDOF system. The
damped time period is found as 0.009 s and the damping ratio is estimated considering first peak and seventh peak as
0.108. Accordingly, the damped natural frequency is found as 111.1 Hz. To confirm these results, three trials of free
vibration tests were carried out, and the same results were obtained. The typical measured time-history of acceleration
from the free vibration test in reinforced sand is shown in Fig. 9. It is observed that the vibration died down after 12-14
cycles. It is found that the free vibration in reinforced sand had remained for more number of cycles compared to
unreinforced sand. Damped natural frequency and damping ratio were determined similarly as determined for the Test-A
and results are summarized in Table 5.

Figure 8. Acceleration vs. time for unreinforced soil. Figure 9. Acceleration vs. time for reinforced soil.

Table 5. Results of free vibration tests.

Free Vibration Test Damping ratio () Natural Frequency ( 𝑓𝑛𝑑 ) 𝐀𝐯𝐠 ( 𝑓𝑛𝑑 )Avg
Trial 1 0.108 111.1
Test-A Trial 2 0.100 111.0 0.10 111
Trial 3 0.090 110.0
Test-B Trial 1 0.055 125.0
Trial 2 0.049 124.0 0.05 124
Trial 3 0.060 124.0
Percentage Change (%) 46.5 12.2

It is inferred from Table 5 that the average damped natural frequency in reinforced sand has increased by 12 %
compared to unreinforced sand. This is attributed to increase of stiffness of soil system with geogrid reinforcement.
However it is found that the damping ratio has reduced by about 46 % in reinforced sand. This is reflected in causing
more number of cycles (12-14 cycles) in dying down the vibration, compared to unreinforced sand (7 cycles). This may
be due to inadequate force level to mobilize the effect of reinforcement on damping in free vibration tests.

3.2 Natural Frequency of Tank and Electro-dynamic Shaker

Before conducting forced vibrations tests, an attempt was made to understand the natural frequency of tank, since the
electro-dynamic shaker is fixed on the loading frame/test tank. This may help us avoiding a resonance due to natural
frequency of test tank and measuring the resonant frequency of soil-foundation system accurately. For this, a free

484
vibration test was conducted by hitting the tank at different locations with a hammer. The Fourier transformation of
measured time-history of free vibration response was done (Fig. 10) and the natural frequency of tank is obtained as
89.4 Hz. The natural frequency of the electro-dynamic shaker was very high (>3 kHz) and does not influence the forced
vibration tests.

Figure 10. FFT of free vibration response of test tank.

3.3 Forced Vibration Test

Damped natural frequency of soil–foundation system was found to be more than 110 Hz through free vibration tests.
Hence to avoid the influence of test tank’s natural frequency, the forced vibration tests were carried out at frequency
range of 90–150 Hz. These tests were carried out for 3 different forces level i.e. 3.5 N, 7.0 N and 10.5 N corresponding
to voltage level of 1 V, 2 V and 3 V respectively for unreinforced and reinforced soil. At each input frequency for each
force level, the time-history of acceleration response was measured by DAS. From the time-history of acceleration,
single-peak acceleration was determined and the frequency response curve (i.e. variation of peak acceleration with
frequency) is shown in Fig.11 (A & C). The displacement at each frequency was calculated from acceleration based on
properties of harmonic motion and its variation with frequency is shown in Fig. 11 (B & D).

(A) (B)

(C) (D)
2
Figure 11: (A) Unreinforced soil: Acceleration (m/s ) vs. frequency (Hz); (B) Unreinforced soil: Displacement (mm) vs.
2
frequency (Hz); (C) Geogrid-reinforced soil: Acceleration (m/s ) vs. frequency (Hz) and

485
 (D) Geogrid-reinforced soil: Displacement (mm) vs. frequency (Hz).
It is observed from Fig. 11 that the amplitude of vibration increases as the dynamic force level increases. The maximum
amplitude at Fd = 3.5 N occurs at 110 Hz for unreinforced sand and at 134 Hz for reinforced sand. However as the force
level increases (Fd = 10.5 N), the resonant frequency has shifted towards left, i.e. 105 Hz for unreinforced sand and
108 Hz for reinforced sand. This may be accounted by the non–linear elastic behavior of soil, which resulted in reduction
of elastic modulus at higher force level. It is also seen from Fig. 11 that the acceleration response shows a major single
peak indicating that the soil-foundation system behaves as SDOF system. However, after the major peak; the
acceleration at higher operating frequencies (post-resonance) is still found to show second peak(s). This may be
attributed to the limitation of wave absorbing system in providing efficient absorption at higher frequencies. Damping ratio
for soil–foundation system under unreinforced and reinforced sand was determined using band–width method. Results of
forced vibration test are summarized in Table 6. It is noticed from the table that the resonant frequency has increased by
about 22 % at low force levels, but at higher force levels, the percentage increase is insignificant. On the other hand, the
damping ratio increase as the force level increases. This indicates that the increase of stiffness and damping due to
geogrid reinforcement had resulted in reduction of peak amplitude and increase of natural/resonant frequency.

Table 6. Results of forced vibration tests.

Force Level (Fd) Test fr (Hz) A (𝑢m) 𝜉

Test-A 110 1.2 0.025
3.5 N
Test-B 134 0.7 0.035
Percentage change (%) 21.8 41.6 40.0
Test-A 110 3.3 0.027
7.0 N
Test-B 124 2.3 0.079
Percentage change (%) 12.7 30.3 192.6
Test-A 105 6.4 0.039
10.5 N
Test-B 108 4.6 0.061
Percentage change (%) 2.8 28.1 56.4

3.4 Frequency of In-Situ Foundation

The in-situ foundation was scaled down to facilitate the model tests in the laboratory and hence the results obtained from
model tests are extended to determine the behavior of in-situ foundation using scale factor (Wood 2004).

𝑓𝑛𝑚
= n1−α⁄2 [5]
𝑓𝑛𝑡

where fnm and fnt represent the natural frequencies of model foundation and in-situ foundation of Block Vibration Test
(BVT) respectively. With adopted scale factor of 7.5 in the present study and considering α = 0.5 for sand (Wood 2004),
the natural frequency of in-situ foundation is determined and summarized in Table 7. It is observed from the table that
the extrapolated natural frequencies range from 23 to 30 Hz. It is noted from literature that the measured
natural/resonant frequencies range from 23 to 32 Hz from in-situ the block vibration tests (Baidya and Rathi 2004; Baidya
et al. 2006). This proves that the scaling adopted in the present study is able to simulate in-situ foundation behavior
under dynamic loading.

Table 7. Frequency of the foundation from vibration tests.

Test fnm (Hz) fnt (Hz)

Test-A 110 24
Free Vibration Test
Test-B 125 27
Test-A 110 24
3.5 N
Test-B 134 30
Test-A 110 24
Forced Vibration Test 7.0 N
Test-B 125 28
Test-A 105 23
10.5 N
Test-B 108 24

3.5 Dynamic Properties of Soil

Since the damping of soil-foundation system evaluated through free as well as forced vibration tests is small (𝜉 < 0.1), it
can be assumed that the damped natural/resonant frequency and undamped natural frequency are assumed as same.
Coefficient of elastic uniform compression (Cu), dynamic Young’s modulus and shear modulus were calculated as per IS

486
5249 (1992), assuming Poisson’s ration as 0.3 for sand. The mass of model footing and its natural frequency are
considered for estimating the Cu value. The dynamic soil properties derived from model dynamic experiments are
presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Dynamic properties of soil–foundation system.

3 2 2
Foundation Type Forced Vibration Test fnavg Cu (kN/m ) E (MN/m ) G (MN/m )
5
Test-A 108 1.6x10 13.0 4.95
Model Foundation 5
Test-B 122 2.0x10 16.0 6.20
4
Test-A 24 5.3x10 4.30 1.64
In-Situ Foundation 4
Test-B 28 7.0x10 5.60 2.17

4. CONCLUSIONS

If resonance occurs in a mechanical system it can lead to eventual failure of the system. Hence, vibration analysis is
carried out to predict resonance condition and necessary measures are taken to mitigate the occurrence of resonance.
The magnitude of displacement can be reduced if the natural frequency can be shifted away from the forcing frequency.
This experimental study shows that geogrid reinforcement increase the stiffness of the system, which lead to high tuning
of the frequency and to increase the damping ratio. The natural frequency of in-situ foundation arrived using scaling laws
is found to be in range of measured values from BVT reported at many sites. The dynamic Young’s and shear modulus
were determined and observed that the reinforcement has increased the dynamic shear modulus
by about 30 %. The forced vibration test results had shown more than one resonance frequency. This could be due to
wave reflection caused by tank walls in spite of having large size of the tank and using a flexible mesh and saw dust as
an absorbing system. Therefore, the results obtained from laboratory model tests in this study, may be verified by
conducting in-situ block vibration tests on reinforced sand.

REFERENCES

Ahn, J., Biscontin, G. and Roesset, J. M. (2011), Natural frequency and damping ratio of a vertically vibrated surface
foundation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31: 674–681.

AI-Homoud, A.S. and AI-Maaitah, O. N. (1996), An experimental investigation of vertical vibration of model footing on
sand, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 15: 431-445.

Antes, H. and Estorff, O. V. (1995), Dynamic response of 2D and 3D block foundations on a half space with inclusions,
Journal of Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, 13: 305–311.

ASTM D 6637-01. Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile Properties of Geogrids by the Single or Multi-Rib
Tensile Method, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.

Baidya, D. K., Muralikrishna, G., and Pradhan, P. K. (2006). Investigation of foundation vibrations resting on a layered
soil system, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(1): 116–123.

Baidya, D.K. and Rathi, A. (2004), Dynamic response of footings resting on sand layer of finite thickness, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(6): 651–655.

El Sawwaf, M. A. and Nazir, A.K. (2010), Behavior of repeatedly loaded rectangular footing resting on reinforced sand,
Alexandria Engineering Journal 49: 349–356.

Guido, V. A., Chang, D.K. and Sweeney, M. A. (1986), Comparison of geogrid and geotextile reinforced earth slabs,
Canadian Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 23(4): 436–440.

IS 2974. Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Machine Foundations, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak
Bhawan, 9 Bahadur Shar Zafar Marg, New Delhi-12, INDIA.

IS 5249. Determination of Dynamic Properties of Soil–Methods of Test, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9
Bahadur Shar Zafar Marg, New Delhi-12, INDIA.

487
 Kazi, M., Shukla, S. K. and Habibi, D. (2014), An improved method to increase the load-bearing capacity of strip footing
resting on geotextile-reinforced sand bed.’ Indian Geotechnical Journal.

Khing, K. H., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K. and Cook, E. E., YEN, S. C. (1993), The bearing–capacity of a strip foundation on
geogrid reinforced sand.’ Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12: 351-361.

Kolay, P. K., Kumar, S. and Tiwari, D. (2013), Improvement of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on geogrid
reinforced silty clay and sand.’ Journal of Construction Engineering, Article ID 293809: 1–10.

Kumar, A., Manna, B. and Rao, K.S. (2013), Dynamic response of block foundation on soil rock and rock–rock layered
system, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 43: 83–95.

Li, J. and Ding, D.W. (2002), Nonlinear elastic behavior of fiber–reinforced soil under cyclic loading, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 22: 977–983.

Omar, M. T., Das, B. M., Yen, S. C. Puri, V. K. and Cook, E. E. (1993), Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular
foundations on geogrid–reinforced sand, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(2): 246–252.

Prakash, S. and Puri, V. K. (1988), A handbook – Foundation for Machines: Analysis and Design, A Wiley–Interscience
Publication, New York.

Shin, E. C. and Das, B. M. (1999), Dynamic Behavior of Geogrid Reinforced Sand’ KSCE Journal of civil engineering,
3(4): 379 ~ 386.

Subaida, E. A., Chandrakaran, S. and Shankar, N. (2009), Laboratory performance of unpaved roads reinforced with
woven coir geotextiles, Geotextiles and Geomembrane, 27: 204–210.

Wasti, Y. and Butun, M. D. (1996), Behavior of model footings on sand reinforced with discrete inclusions, Geotextiles
and Geomembrane, 14: 575–584.

Wood, D. M. (2004), Geotechnical Modelling- Applied Geotechnics, Volume 1, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group Ltd,
London, UK.

Yetimoglu, T., Wu, J. T. H. and Saglamer, A. (1994), Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid–reinforced
sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(12): 2083–2099.

488

View publication stats