Home The optimum reinforcement length for ring footing resting on sandy soils resisting inclined load
Article Open Access

The optimum reinforcement length for ring footing resting on sandy soils resisting inclined load

  • Hussein Ameer Bachay EMAIL logo and A’amal A. H. Al-Saidi
Published/Copyright: May 12, 2025
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials
From the journal Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials Volume 34 Issue 1

Abstract

The primary components of successful engineering projects are time, cost, and quality. The use of the ring footing ensures the presence of these elements. This investigation aims at finding the effective length of geogrid reinforcement layers under ring footing, which is subjected to inclined loading. For this purpose, experimental models were used. The parameters were studied in order to find the effective reinforcement length, including the ring footing optimum radius ratio, optimum depth ratio of the first reinforcement layer, and optimum reinforcement length. The results of the experimental study showed the optimum radius ratio, optimum reinforcement depth, and optimum reinforcement length to be 0.4, 0.25B, and 5B, respectively. The tilting improvement ratio due to soil enhancement for the load inclination angles 5, 10, and 15° were 10, 12, and 15%, respectively

Keywords: ring footing; sandy soil; geogrid; carrying capacity; inclined load

1 Introduction

Ring footings are a unique type of shallow foundation in addition to carrying loads of axisymmetric structures such as bridges, piers, jacket structures, silos, wind turbines, and water tower structures. The ring foundation can resist different types of loads such as inclined load [1]. The load inclination significantly reduces the carrying capacity of the supporting soil by tilting or foundation sliding and lifting the supporting soil. This becomes more complicated when the soil is weak and might be avoided by either increasing the carrying capacity of the soil beneath the foundation or constructing the foundation with larger dimensions to minimize the contact load, but this is costly and inefficient. Another solution is using soil reinforcement material and this is the aim of this study.

Generally, the soil has a low tensile strength [2]. Therefore, it is often necessary to use soil reinforcement to improve the soil, increase its carrying capacity, and reduce differential settlement. Many researchers have shown how soil reinforcement can boost bearing capacity at a low cost, such as by using reinforcement materials [3,4,5].

Thomas and Philip [6] investigated the bearing capacity of ring foundations resting on both unreinforced and reinforced sand by geonet. They found that the bearing capacity depends on the depth and the number of layers of reinforcements. If the number of layers increased, then the bearing capacity also increased. As the depth increased, the bearing capacity decreased.

Al-Khaddar and Al-Kubaisi [7] investigated numerically the behaviors of ring footing located on two layers when an inclined load was applied. The effect of multi-layered soil has been simulated in the model. The results showed that, both vertically and horizontally, stresses are affected when the inclination angle of the load exceeded 45° with a reduction of 40–80% when compared to those with an inclination angle of 0°. Furthermore, the bending moment and shear forces within the footing were affected by the diameter ratio of inner diameter/outer diameter and by the inclination angle of the load.

In this article, a small experimental model was used to evaluate the performance of ring footing resting on reinforced sandy soil resisting inclined loading, which is an unpopular topic; also there is a lack of studies on the ring footing subjected to inclined loads.

2 Materials and laboratory testing work

2.1 Soil used

The sand used in this study was Al-Ekhaither sand, with a passing sieve no. 10 (B.S.). The grain size distribution curve is shown in Figure 1. The sand properties and their values are listed in Table 1.

Figure 1 The grain size distribution curve.
Figure 1

The grain size distribution curve.

Table 1

Properties of the sand used

Property Value Specification
Classification SP ASTM D 2487 [8]
Coefficient of uniformity (C u) 4 ASTM D 422 [9]
Coefficient of curvature (C c) 1 ASTM D 422 [9]
Specific gravity (G s) 2.67 ASTM D 854 [10]
Optimum water content (%) 12.3 ASTM D698 [11]
The angle of friction (Ø), dr = 30% 32o ASTM D 3080 [12]
The angle of friction (Ø), dr = 75% 35.6o ASTM D 3080 [12]
Maximum dry unit weight (γ) 17.40 kN/m3 ASTM D 4253 [13]
Wet unit weight (γ) 15.55 kN/m3 ASTM D 4254 [14]
Dry unit weight in test (γ d), dr = 30% 14.6 kN/m3 ASTM D 4254 [13]
Minimum dry unit weight 14.6 kN/m3 ASTM D 4254 [13]

2.2 Geogrid

In this study, geogrid was used as a reinforcement material (Figure 2). The geogrid was of a biaxial type, which could resist the stresses in both directions by the same amount; its physical properties are shown in Table 2.

Figure 2 Geogrid used.
Figure 2

Geogrid used.

Table 2

Physical properties of the geogrid

Property Data
Mesh type Rectangle
Rib thickness 1.5 mm
Rib width 1.6 mm
Junction thickness 1.8 mm
Roll width 1.2 m
Roll length 30 m
Elastic modulus 0.26 GPa
Tensile strength 2.25 MPa

2.3 Laboratory testing setup

A steel container with a dimension of 700 × 700 mm in length and width and 500 mm in height and a plate with a thickness of 3 mm was used as the container walls, while an angle section of 50 mm × 3 mm was used as the frame. All parts were welded together by electrical welding. The internal walls of the box were covered with a nylon layer to reduce the friction that might be induced between the box walls and the soil.

The footing model is a small-scale physical model of a steel ring footing with a 100 mm outer diameter (D), a variable inner diameter (d), and a 20 mm thickness (H).

Many devices were used to measure the load–settlement of the ring foundation. The load was measured using a load cell (SC516C) of 1 ton capacity (Figure 3a) while the settlement and the displacement were recorded using a three-dial gauge Mitutoyo brand with a capacity of 50 mm (Figure 3b).

Figure 3 Measuring instruments. (a) load cell; and (b) dial gauge.
Figure 3

Measuring instruments. (a) load cell; and (b) dial gauge.

The loading system was made using an electrical jack with a capacity of 3 tons working on a battery with 12 V and 15 A, as illustrated in Figure 4. The rate of loading was adjusted to 1 mm/min.

Figure 4 Loading system.
Figure 4

Loading system.

3 Boundary conditions and scale effect

  1. Container walls may significantly reduce the vertical stress with depth. To avoid wall-side friction, the container’s height/diameter ratio must be ≤1 [15].

  2. To keep the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K o) close to its assumed value with no lateral strain, the effect of horizontal deflection of the container wall should be lesser than H c/2,000 (container height/2,000).

  3. It has been demonstrated that a sand thickness of >3B below the footing is sufficient to eliminate any rigid bottom boundary effect in shallow foundations [16].

  4. For the best reinforcement effect, the width of the foundation should be 13–27 times the average particle size.

4 Testing procedure

To achieve the required density of the sandy soil, the rain technique was used. A mechanical system similar to that recommended in the study of Bieganousky and Marcuson [17] was used. Many researchers have used this technique [18,19,20]. Many tests have been done with various heights to obtain the desired density. A drop with a height of 15 cm was chosen, which gave a placing density of 14.6 kN/m3 corresponding to a void ratio and a relative density of 0.79 and 30%, respectively, as illustrated in Figure 5. A relative density of 30% was used in this test program to represent the weak soil, and an improvement was noted in the geogrid used.

Figure 5 Relationship between the density and height of the sand drop.
Figure 5

Relationship between the density and height of the sand drop.

The sand was poured for each test until the designed level of sand was reached, and the foundation model was placed centrally in the tank. The load was subjected to the footing through an electrical jack. The load was recorded from the load cells that are connected to the digital screen.

The dial gauges were installed on both sides of the foundation for reading the differential settlement and lateral displacement.

5 Studied parameters

Several parameters were studied to evaluate the performance of ring footing. These parameters include the optimum radius ratio R I/R O (inner radius/outer radius), optimum embedment ratio U/B of the first geogrid layer (depth of the first reinforcement layer/foundation width), and the optimum geogrid length L/B (reinforcement layer length/foundation width). Different load inclination angles (α = 0, 5, 10, and 15°) were used to perform this study. The testing program is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Testing program

Studied parameters Radius ratio R I/R O Depth ratio U/B Length ratio L/B State
Radius ratio R I/R O (0.3) (0.35) (0.4) (0.45) — — Unreinforced
Depth ratio U/B Optimum 0.25B-0.5B-0.75B-B 7B Reinforced
Length ratio L/B Optimum Optimum B-2B-3B-4B-5B-6B-7B Reinforced

6 Results and discussion

6.1 Optimum radius ratio1

Many tests were performed to investigate the effect of the radius ratio on the behavior of the ring footing. A footing model with varied radius ratios (R I/R O = 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.45) was used. The model was subjected to various load inclination angles (α = 0, 5, 10, and 15°) and rested on unreinforced sand. Figures 6–9 show the load–settlement curves, and Figures 10–12 show the load–horizontal displacement relationship.

Figure 6 Load–settlement curves (α = 0°).
Figure 6

Load–settlement curves (α = 0°).

Figure 7 Load–settlement curves(α = 5°).
Figure 7

Load–settlement curves(α = 5°).

Figure 8 Load–settlement curves (α = 10°).
Figure 8

Load–settlement curves (α = 10°).

Figure 9 Load–settlement curves (α = 15°).
Figure 9

Load–settlement curves (α = 15°).

Figure 10 The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).
Figure 10

The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).

Figure 11 The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).
Figure 11

The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).

Figure 12 The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).
Figure 12

The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).

From Figures 6–9, the optimum radius ratio value was found to be 0.4. As the load inclination increased, the settlement decreased. In addition, the values of the ultimate carrying capacity decreased. This occurs due to the increasing horizontal load component, which increases the lateral pressure on the surrounding soil, leaving less resistance to support the vertical pressure generated by the vertical load component [21]. Figures 10–12 show that the value of R I/R O = 0.4 reduces the lateral displacement as a result of increased friction area.

6.2 Optimum depth ratio

To investigate the effect of the depth ratio U/B, 16 tests have been conducted on a footing model with an optimum radius ratio R I/R O = 0.4. The suggested depth ratio values were 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B, and B subjected to various load inclination angles α (0, 5, 10, and 15°). Figures 13 and 14 show the load–settlement curves, and Figures 17–19 illustrate the load–horizontal displacement relationship.

Figure 13 Load–settlement curves (α = 0°).
Figure 13

Load–settlement curves (α = 0°).

Figure 14 Load–settlement curves (α = 5°).
Figure 14

Load–settlement curves (α = 5°).

As can be seen from Figures 13–16, the optimum depth ratio value is 0.25B, and according to load–horizontal displacement curves in Figures 17–19, the depth ratio value of 0.25 has a noticeable effect on reducing the horizontal displacement.

Figure 15 Load–settlement curves (α = 10°).
Figure 15

Load–settlement curves (α = 10°).

Figure 16 Load–settlement curves (α = 15°).
Figure 16

Load–settlement curves (α = 15°).

Figure 17 The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).
Figure 17

The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).

Figure 18 The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).
Figure 18

The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).

Figure 19 The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).
Figure 19

The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).

The results indicate that vertical and lateral displacements of the footing increase as the depth of the reinforcement layer increases. The reduction percentage of the lateral displacement for the depth ratios 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B, and B are 12, 7, 2, and 0%, respectively.

6.3 Optimum reinforcement length ratio

The total number of tests to investigate the optimum reinforcement layer length is 28. The suggested length ratios L/B are B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, and 7B with load inclination angles α equal to 5, 10, and 15°. Figures 20–23 show the load–settlement relationship.

Figure 20 The load–settlement relationship (α = 0°).
Figure 20

The load–settlement relationship (α = 0°).

Figure 21 The load–settlement relationship (α = 5°).
Figure 21

The load–settlement relationship (α = 5°).

Figure 22 The load–settlement relationship (α = 10°).
Figure 22

The load–settlement relationship (α = 10°).

Figure 23 The load–settlement relationship (α = 15°).
Figure 23

The load–settlement relationship (α = 15°).

It is clear from Figures 20–23 that when the ratio of reinforcement length is less than 4B, it does not have a noticeable effect on the carrying capacity and the footing settlement; when the value is beyond 5B, it slightly influences the bearing capacity. The most cost-effective length ratio is 5B and is the optimum value. The load carrying improvement [(P r/P) × 100] (where P r and P are the maximum loads for reinforced and unreinforced sand, respectively) for lengths 4B, 5B, 6B, and 7B were 12, 23, 24, and 25%, respectively. If a foundation with a diameter of 10 m was used, the additional cost for each length 6B and 7B will be 1,100$ and 1,300$, as the square meter price is 1$.

A soil reinforcement redistributes the surface stresses by restraining the granular fill, which reduces the normal stress on the underlying foundation. This is known as the confinement effect.

Figures 24–26 show the load–horizontal displacement relationship. It was observed that increasing the length of the geogrid decreases the horizontal displacement of the footing as the load inclination increases.

Figure 24 The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).
Figure 24

The load–displacement relationship (α = 5°).

Figure 25 The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).
Figure 25

The load–displacement relationship (α = 10°).

Figure 26 The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).
Figure 26

The load–displacement relationship (α = 15°).

Figure 27 shows the load reduction factor, r = (1 − L uu/L ut) × 100, where L uu and L ut are the ultimate loads for unreinforced and reinforced soils, respectively. The figure shows that the load reduction factor increases as the geogrid layer length ratio (L/B) increases. The load reduction factor, r, increases to about 35% as the L/B ratio increases from B to 7B.

Figure 27 Load reduction factor vs reinforcement length (L/B).
Figure 27

Load reduction factor vs reinforcement length (L/B).

The tilt–load relationship (difference between both vertical dial gauge (mm)/footing diameter (mm)) is shown in Figures 28 and 29. The tilt curves for unreinforced sand were similar to those for the reinforced sand. The tilt decreases as the length ratio of reinforcement increases. As the inclination angle increased, the tilt value increased; similar results were observed by Abbas and Hasan [22]. The tilting improvement percentage for the load inclination angles 0, 5, 10, and 15° were 10, 12, and 15%, respectively.

Figure 28 Load–tilting with an optimum reinforcement length ratio (L/B).
Figure 28

Load–tilting with an optimum reinforcement length ratio (L/B).

Figure 29 Load–tilting unreinforced case.
Figure 29

Load–tilting unreinforced case.

7 Conclusion

  1. The optimum radius ratio (R I/R O) is 0.4 and it achieves the highest carrying capacity. The reduction in the carrying capacity for the load inclination angles 5, 10, and 15° are 40, 60, and 72%, respectively.

  2. The value of the radius ratio slightly affects the horizontal displacement of the ring footing and the reduction percentage of the lateral displacement for the reinforcement layer numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are 12, 16, 18, 20, and 21%, respectively.

  3. The optimum depth ratio for the first geogrid layer (U/B) is 0.25. The effect of using reinforcement decreased as the depth ratio increased.

  4. Increasing the length of the reinforcement layer increases the carrying capacity. The length ratio (L/B) value of 5 is considered to be the optimum value.

  5. The optimum reinforcement length under the ring footing resting on sandy soils resisting an inclined load is 5B.

  6. Increasing the reinforcement length ratio decreases the horizontal displacement of the ring footing. The reduction percentage of the lateral displacement for the reinforcement length ratios B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, and 7B are 0, 0, 2, 7, 10, 10, and 12%, respectively.

  7. The tilt decreases as the length ratio of reinforcement increases. The tilting improvement percentages for the load inclination angles 5, 10, and 15° are 10, 12, and 15%, respectively.

  1. Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Ali AM. Evaluation of bearing capacity of strip foundation subjected to eccentric inclined loads using finite element method. J Eng. 2016 Aug;22(8):86–102.10.31026/j.eng.2016.08.06Search in Google Scholar

[2] Nakai T, Shahin HM, Morikawa Y, Masuda S, Mio S. Effect of reinforcement on bearing capacity of foundations. Advances in Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering; 2014. p. 482–90.10.1061/9780784413425.049Search in Google Scholar

[3] Al Mosawe MJ, Al Saidi AA, Jawad FW. Bearing capacity of square footing on geogrid reinforced loose sand to resist eccentric load. J Eng. 2010 Jun;16(2):4990–9.10.31026/j.eng.2010.02.17Search in Google Scholar

[4] Al-Mosawe MJ, Al-Saidi AA, Jawad FW. Improvement of soil using geogrids to resist eccentric loads. J Eng. 2008 Dec;14(4):3198–208.10.31026/j.eng.2008.04.25Search in Google Scholar

[5] Al-Taie ET, Jawad FW, Fattah MY. Improvement of capacity of bearing for Shallow Foundation supporting inclined load using geomesh reinforcement. 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Thomas LM, Philip JG. Experimental and numerical analysis of load carrying capacity of ring footing on sand reinforced with geonet. Int J Eng Manag Res (IJEMR). 2017;7(2):345–50.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Al-Khaddar RM, Al-Kubaisi OK. Evaluating the behavior of ring footing on two-layered soil subjected to inclined load. Int J Sci Res. 2015;6(4):125–8.Search in Google Scholar

[8] American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard test method for classification of soil for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM D2487-06, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA; 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[9] ASTM D422-63. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol.04.08, Soil and Rock; March, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[10] American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer, ASTM D854, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA; 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[11] ASTM D698. Optimum water content, American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol. 0408, soil and rock; March 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[12] ASTM D 3080. DIRECT SHEAR TEST American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol.0408, Soil and Rock; March, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[13] ASTM D 2049-69. Test Method for Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils”, American Society for Testing and Materials; 1991.Search in Google Scholar

[14] ASTM D4254-00. Standard Test Methods for Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density, American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol.04.08, Soil and Rock; March, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Graham J, Stuart JG. Scale and boundary effects in foundation analysis. J Soil Mech Found Div. 1971 Nov;97(11):1533–48.10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001701Search in Google Scholar

[16] Cerato AB, Lutenegger AJ. Scale effects of shallow foundation bearing capacity on granular material. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2007 Oct;133(10):1192–202.10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:10(1192)Search in Google Scholar

[17] Bieganousky WA, Marcuson WF, III. Uniform placement of sand. J Geotech Eng Div. 1976 Mar;102(3):229–33.10.1061/AJGEB6.0000244Search in Google Scholar

[18] Al-Sa’adi AH. Improvement of earth slopes by reinforcement. Ph D thesis. Iraq: University of Baghdad; 1997.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Budania R, Arora RP, Singhvi BS, Veerwal HK. Experimental study of rectangular footing resting over geo-grid reinforced sand. Development. 2017 Jan;4(1):292–9.10.21090/IJAERD.77987Search in Google Scholar

[20] Aldeeky H, Al Hattamleh O, Abu Alfoul B. Effect of sand placement method on the interface friction of sand and geotextile. Int J Civ Eng. 2016 Mar;14(2):133–8.10.1007/s40999-016-0019-0Search in Google Scholar

[21] Sowers GB, Sowers GF. Introductory soil mechanics and foundations. LWW. 1951 Nov 1.10.1097/00010694-195111000-00014Search in Google Scholar

[22] Abbas JK, Hasan NA. Experimental study of rectangular footing under inclined and eccentric load on geogrid reinforced sand. Muthanna J Eng Technol (MJET). 2017;5(3).Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-04-15
Revised: 2022-08-06
Accepted: 2022-09-21
Published Online: 2025-05-12

© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Research Articles
  2. Probing microstructural evolution and surface hardening of AISI D3 steel after multistage heat treatment: An experimental and numerical analysis
  3. Activation energy of lime cement containing pozzolanic materials
  4. Optimizing surface quality in PMEDM using SiC powder material by combined solution response surface methodology – Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system
  5. Experimental study of the mechanical shear behaviour of steel rebar connectors in timber–concrete structure with leafy wood species
  6. Development of structural grade lightweight geopolymer concrete using eco-friendly materials
  7. An experimental approach for the determination of the physical and mechanical properties of a sustainable geopolymer mortar made with Algerian ground-granulated blast furnace slag
  8. Effect of using different backing plate materials in autogenous TIG welding on bead geometry, microhardness, tensile strength, and fracture of 1020 low carbon steel
  9. Uncertainty analysis of bending response of flexoelectric nanocomposite plate
  10. Leveraging normal distribution and fuzzy S-function approaches for solar cell electrical characteristic optimization
  11. Effect of medium-density fiberboard sawdust content on the dynamic and mechanical properties of epoxy-based composite
  12. Mechanical properties of high-strength cement mortar including silica fume and reinforced with single and hybrid fibers
  13. Study the effective factors on the industrial hardfacing for low carbon steel based on Taguchi method
  14. Analysis of the combined effects of preheating and welding wire feed rates on the FCAW bead geometric characteristics of 1020 steel using fuzzy logic-based prediction models
  15. Effect of partially replacing crushed oyster shell as fine aggregate on the shear behavior of short RC beams using GFRP rebar strengthened with TRC: Experimental and numerical studies
  16. Micromechanic models for manufacturing quality prediction of cantula fiber-reinforced nHA/magnesium/shellac as biomaterial composites
  17. Numerical simulations of the influence of thermal cycling parameters on the mechanical response of SAC305 interconnects
  18. Impact of nanoparticles on the performance of metakaolin-based geopolymer composites
  19. Enhancing mechanical and thermal properties of epoxy-based polymer matrix composites through hybrid reinforcement with carbon, glass and steel
  20. Prevention of crack kinetic development in a damaged rod exposed to an aggressive environment
  21. Review Articles
  22. Advancing asphaltic rail tracks: Bridging knowledge gaps and challenges for sustainable railway infrastructure
  23. Chemical stabilization techniques for clay soil: A comprehensive review
  24. Development and current milestone of train braking system based on failure phenomenon and accident case
  25. Rapid Communication
  26. The role of turbulence in bottom-up nanoparticle synthesis using ultrafast laser filamentation in ethanol
  27. Special Issue on Deformation and Fracture of Advanced High Temperature Materials - Part II
  28. Effect of parameters on thermal stress in transpiration cooling of leading-edge with layered gradient
  29. Development of a piezo actuator-based fatigue testing machine for miniature specimens and validation of size effects on fatigue properties
  30. Development of a 1,000°C class creep testing machine for ultraminiature specimens and feasibility verification
  31. Special Issue on Advances in Processing, Characterization and Sustainability of Modern Materials - Part II
  32. Surface integrity studies in microhole drilling of Titanium Beta-C alloy using microEDM
  33. Experimental investigation on bacterial concrete by using Cantabro loss and UPV
  34. Influence of gas nitriding on the surface layer of M50 NiL steel for aerospace-bearing applications
  35. Experimental investigation on the spectral, mechanical, and thermal behaviors of thermoplastic starch and de-laminated talc-filled sustainable bio-nanocomposite of polypropylene
  36. Synthesis and characterization of sustainable hybrid bio-nanocomposite of starch and polypropylene for electrical engineering applications
  37. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of Al6061-ZrB2 nanocomposites fabricated by powder metallurgy
  38. Effect of edge preparation on hardness and corrosion behaviour of AA6061-T651 friction stir welds
  39. Mechanical improvement in acetal composites reinforced with graphene nanotubes and Teflon fibers using loss functions
  40. Experimental investigation on the mechanical properties of aluminum-based metal matrix composites by the squeeze casting method
  41. Investigation on punch force–displacement and thickness changes in the shallow drawing of AA2014 aluminium alloy sheets using finite element simulations
  42. Influence of liquid nitriding on the surface layer of M50 NiL steel for bearing applications
  43. Mechanical and tribological analyses of Al6061-GO/CNT hybrid nanocomposites by combined vacuum-assisted and ultrasonicated stir casting method
  44. Strengthening of structures with bacterial concrete for effective crack repair and durability enhancement
  45. Unique approaches in developing novel nano-composites: Evaluating their mechanical and tribological characteristics
  46. Load-carrying capacity of highly compact rigid deployable booms
  47. Investigating the influence of SiC and B4C reinforcements on the mechanical and microstructural properties of stir-casted magnesium hybrid composites
  48. Evaluation of mechanical and performance characteristics of bitumen mixture using waste septage ash as partial substitute
  49. Mechanical characterization of carbon/Kevlar hybrid woven 3D composites
  50. Development of a 3D-printed cervical collar using biocompatible and sustainable polylactic acid
  51. Mechanical characterization of walnut shell powder-reinforced neem shell liquid composite
  52. Special Issue on Structure-energy Collaboration towards Sustainability Societies
  53. Effect of tunneling conductivity of CNTs on the EMI shielding effectiveness of nanocomposite in the C-band
  54. Evaluation of the effect of material selection and core geometry in thin-walled sandwich structures due to compressive strength using a finite element method
  55. Special Issue on Sustainability and Development in Civil Engineering - Part III
  56. The optimum reinforcement length for ring footing resting on sandy soils resisting inclined load
  57. Special Issue on Advanced Materials in Industry 4.0
  58. Cross-dataset evaluation of deep learning models for crack classification in structural surfaces
https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0259
Keywords for this article
ring footing; sandy soil; geogrid; carrying capacity; inclined load
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Research Articles
  2. Probing microstructural evolution and surface hardening of AISI D3 steel after multistage heat treatment: An experimental and numerical analysis
  3. Activation energy of lime cement containing pozzolanic materials
  4. Optimizing surface quality in PMEDM using SiC powder material by combined solution response surface methodology – Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system
  5. Experimental study of the mechanical shear behaviour of steel rebar connectors in timber–concrete structure with leafy wood species
  6. Development of structural grade lightweight geopolymer concrete using eco-friendly materials
  7. An experimental approach for the determination of the physical and mechanical properties of a sustainable geopolymer mortar made with Algerian ground-granulated blast furnace slag
  8. Effect of using different backing plate materials in autogenous TIG welding on bead geometry, microhardness, tensile strength, and fracture of 1020 low carbon steel
  9. Uncertainty analysis of bending response of flexoelectric nanocomposite plate
  10. Leveraging normal distribution and fuzzy S-function approaches for solar cell electrical characteristic optimization
  11. Effect of medium-density fiberboard sawdust content on the dynamic and mechanical properties of epoxy-based composite
  12. Mechanical properties of high-strength cement mortar including silica fume and reinforced with single and hybrid fibers
  13. Study the effective factors on the industrial hardfacing for low carbon steel based on Taguchi method
  14. Analysis of the combined effects of preheating and welding wire feed rates on the FCAW bead geometric characteristics of 1020 steel using fuzzy logic-based prediction models
  15. Effect of partially replacing crushed oyster shell as fine aggregate on the shear behavior of short RC beams using GFRP rebar strengthened with TRC: Experimental and numerical studies
  16. Micromechanic models for manufacturing quality prediction of cantula fiber-reinforced nHA/magnesium/shellac as biomaterial composites
  17. Numerical simulations of the influence of thermal cycling parameters on the mechanical response of SAC305 interconnects
  18. Impact of nanoparticles on the performance of metakaolin-based geopolymer composites
  19. Enhancing mechanical and thermal properties of epoxy-based polymer matrix composites through hybrid reinforcement with carbon, glass and steel
  20. Prevention of crack kinetic development in a damaged rod exposed to an aggressive environment
  21. Review Articles
  22. Advancing asphaltic rail tracks: Bridging knowledge gaps and challenges for sustainable railway infrastructure
  23. Chemical stabilization techniques for clay soil: A comprehensive review
  24. Development and current milestone of train braking system based on failure phenomenon and accident case
  25. Rapid Communication
  26. The role of turbulence in bottom-up nanoparticle synthesis using ultrafast laser filamentation in ethanol
  27. Special Issue on Deformation and Fracture of Advanced High Temperature Materials - Part II
  28. Effect of parameters on thermal stress in transpiration cooling of leading-edge with layered gradient
  29. Development of a piezo actuator-based fatigue testing machine for miniature specimens and validation of size effects on fatigue properties
  30. Development of a 1,000°C class creep testing machine for ultraminiature specimens and feasibility verification
  31. Special Issue on Advances in Processing, Characterization and Sustainability of Modern Materials - Part II
  32. Surface integrity studies in microhole drilling of Titanium Beta-C alloy using microEDM
  33. Experimental investigation on bacterial concrete by using Cantabro loss and UPV
  34. Influence of gas nitriding on the surface layer of M50 NiL steel for aerospace-bearing applications
  35. Experimental investigation on the spectral, mechanical, and thermal behaviors of thermoplastic starch and de-laminated talc-filled sustainable bio-nanocomposite of polypropylene
  36. Synthesis and characterization of sustainable hybrid bio-nanocomposite of starch and polypropylene for electrical engineering applications
  37. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of Al6061-ZrB2 nanocomposites fabricated by powder metallurgy
  38. Effect of edge preparation on hardness and corrosion behaviour of AA6061-T651 friction stir welds
  39. Mechanical improvement in acetal composites reinforced with graphene nanotubes and Teflon fibers using loss functions
  40. Experimental investigation on the mechanical properties of aluminum-based metal matrix composites by the squeeze casting method
  41. Investigation on punch force–displacement and thickness changes in the shallow drawing of AA2014 aluminium alloy sheets using finite element simulations
  42. Influence of liquid nitriding on the surface layer of M50 NiL steel for bearing applications
  43. Mechanical and tribological analyses of Al6061-GO/CNT hybrid nanocomposites by combined vacuum-assisted and ultrasonicated stir casting method
  44. Strengthening of structures with bacterial concrete for effective crack repair and durability enhancement
  45. Unique approaches in developing novel nano-composites: Evaluating their mechanical and tribological characteristics
  46. Load-carrying capacity of highly compact rigid deployable booms
  47. Investigating the influence of SiC and B4C reinforcements on the mechanical and microstructural properties of stir-casted magnesium hybrid composites
  48. Evaluation of mechanical and performance characteristics of bitumen mixture using waste septage ash as partial substitute
  49. Mechanical characterization of carbon/Kevlar hybrid woven 3D composites
  50. Development of a 3D-printed cervical collar using biocompatible and sustainable polylactic acid
  51. Mechanical characterization of walnut shell powder-reinforced neem shell liquid composite
  52. Special Issue on Structure-energy Collaboration towards Sustainability Societies
  53. Effect of tunneling conductivity of CNTs on the EMI shielding effectiveness of nanocomposite in the C-band
  54. Evaluation of the effect of material selection and core geometry in thin-walled sandwich structures due to compressive strength using a finite element method
  55. Special Issue on Sustainability and Development in Civil Engineering - Part III
  56. The optimum reinforcement length for ring footing resting on sandy soils resisting inclined load
  57. Special Issue on Advanced Materials in Industry 4.0
  58. Cross-dataset evaluation of deep learning models for crack classification in structural surfaces
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jmbm-2022-0259/html
Scroll to top button