Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Numerical investigation for strengthened RC footings with square

concrete jacketing
Mohamed Attia Fouda a, *, Amr Ibrahim b, Mahmoud El-Kateb c, Tamer Elkateb c,
Ayman Khalil c
a
Candian International College, Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo, Egypt
b
The British University in Egypt, Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo, Egypt
c
Ain Shams University, Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Strengthening of existing isolated footings using concrete jacketing is a traditional method to
Reinforced concrete footings increase the load-carrying capacity and to enhance the performance of isolated footings. This
Contact stress paper presents a parametric study and a numerical validation for full-scale square footings
Concrete damage plasticity
strengthened with concrete jacketing, using either dowels and bonding agent or bonding agent
Stress distribution
Concrete jacketing
only, to connect the existing and new concrete surfaces. A nonlinear finite element program
Dowels “ABAQUS” was used for the numerical validation and the parametric investigation for various
Strengthening parameter’s effect on the load-carrying capacity and contact stress redistribution underneath the
Finite element analysis strengthened footings. The parameters used in the parametric analysis include the ratio of the
concrete jacket depth to the concrete footing depth, concrete compressive strength, spacing be­
tween dowels, and the ratio of the concrete jacket width to the concrete footing width. The effect
of dowels on load carrying capacity of footings strengthened using a full concrete jacket is
insignificant for jacket width smaller than the footing width. In footing strengthened using a full
concrete jacket, the load carrying capacity increases by 9% compared to the non-strengthened
footing.

1. Introduction

Strengthening of isolated foundations resting on sand generally requires knowledge of load behavior and the stress redistribution
related to the deformability of the supporting soil. The footing enlargement method is commonly used to strengthen footings with
insufficient load carrying capacity "M.S. Saiidi et al., 2001" [1–3]. The traditional method for installing the concrete jacket connects the
existing surface to the new surface by installing shear dowels and a bonding agent. Moreover, the impact of the bonding strategy,
between existing and new concrete jacket, on the stress redistribution underneath strengthening footing is not yet determined, and the
engineering judgment is still needed to estimate the strengthening effect. Usually, due to the need for an adequate load capacity of the
strengthening technique, it is required to calculate the stress distribution underneath the strengthening reinforced footings. The soil
structure interaction behavior is governed by the structural elements and the surrounding soils. The contact stress distribution below a
footing resting on a soil medium depends on the soil type as well as the footing stiffness "Algin, 2007" [4]. Previous studies about the
contact stress distribution under a rigid footing were conducted by the method of sub reaction, which considers the supporting soil as

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Attia Fouda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00807
Received 24 August 2021; Received in revised form 18 November 2021; Accepted 21 November 2021
Available online 27 November 2021
2214-5095/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Notations

fcu Concrete compressive strength.

fy Steel yield stress.
RC Reinforced concrete.
Ec Concrete modulus of elasticity.
Es Steel modulus of elasticity.
Esoil Soil modulus of elasticity.
FE Finite element.
Ø Rebar diameter.
Cof Coefficient of friction.
µ Reinforcement ratio.
υ Poisson’s ratio.
CDP Concrete damage plasticity.
FEM Finite element modeling.

Fig. 1. Distribution of contact stresses (Mosley and Bungey [7]). (a) Uniform assumption distribution theory (b) Rigid concrete footing resting on
sand soil.

both elastic and isotropic half-space, which agrees with Winkler’s assumption that considers the soil’s behavior as a linear spring. This
method did not sufficiently describe the real shape of stresses beneath the rigid footing at increased load levels. Soil-structure
interaction is the mechanism in which the structure’s performance is directly affected by the displacement of the individual soil
particles beneath the bottom surface of the concrete footing "Hallak, 2012" [5]. The foundation moves as the load is transferred be­
tween the concrete footing and the soil, which results in internal forces shifting inside the structure as well as generating a
soil-to-structure interaction. The stress distribution beneath the concrete footing is the most significant part of the soil-structure
interaction "Conniff and Kiousis, 2007" [6]. Fig. 1 illustrates the distribution of the contact stresses beneath a rigid footing that
rests above sand bed" Mosley and Bungey, 1987" [7]. When the concrete footing is loaded, the individual sand particles located at the
edge of the footing are laterally displaced, thus releasing a portion of the pressure. However, Experimental analysis performed on a
rigid footing, resting on the sand, found that the higher stresses are encountered near the center, while the stresses were reduced at the
edges [8,9]. Different design codes don’t concentrate on estimating the stress redistribution under strengthened footing with concrete
jacketing resting on the sand and hence, the concept of the uniform distribution is assumed [10–12].
Most of the studies related to spread footings in the geotechnical literature have considered the structural foundations as either
elastic or very rigid elements since the focus was mainly on the behavior of the underlying stratum. Nevertheless, cracking may have a
significant impact on the behavior of concrete footings since it usually results in a reduction in footing rigidity and redistribution of
contact stress. The interaction between soil, existing footing, and new concrete jacket interaction also play an important role in the
shape of stress redistribution beneath the footings after strengthening.
Many researchers have conducted a notifiable increase in a footing’s bearing capacity which is resting on sand and confined by
horizontal geo-grids. e.g., "Binquet and Lee, 1975" [13], "Fragaszy and Lawton, 1984’’ [14], "Mahmoud and Abdrabbo, 1989" [15],
Khing et al., 1993" [16], and also The use of more rigid confining metal skirts attached to the circumferences of a sand base, resulted in
a significant enhancement of the sand’s bearing capacity and stress-strain behavior "Al-Aghbari, 2002" [17], "Al-Aghbari and
Mohamedzein, 2004" [18].
"Wang-Xi Zhang et al., 2019" [19] conducted an experiment that explored the punching behavior of RC footings, specifically, they
used a footing rested on top of rubber block and an eccentric load was applied onto the footing. Through this type of experimentation,
they found that the stress distribution was uniform when experiencing smaller loads, whereas underneath the point at which the load
was applied, the stress distribution tended to be highly concentrated as the applied eccentric load increases in magnitude.
Compared to the various researches carried out on RC footings, less concentration has been focused on retrofitting for RC footings.

2
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 2. Test Setup (Fouda et al. [23]).

Fig. 3. (a) LVDT Distribution (b) Pressure Cell Distribution (Fouda et al. [23]).

Table 1
Details of selected test footings (Fouda et al. [23]).
Symbols Dimensions before strengthening Dimensions after strengthening Strengthening Methodology
(mm) (mm)

F1 1200×1200×400 – –
F1J1 800×800×250 1200×1200×400 Shear dowels were used to connect the new concrete jacket and the
existing footing
F1J2 800×800×250 1200×1200×400 Bonding agent was used to connect the new concrete jacket and the
existing footing

"FEMA 547, 2006" [20] suggested three techniques to strengthen a spread footing regarding different deficiencies. For a footing with
insufficient ability to resist the overturning, its plan dimensions can be increased, and piles can be added. Shear and punching capacity
can be improved by further deepening the footing or placing vertical bars to provide extra shear reinforcements. The bending capacity
was enhanced by providing an additional reinforced concrete layer.
"Gia Toai Truong et al., 2017" [21] experimented a set of three strengthened reinforced concrete footing with dimensions
900×900×120mm by adding RC AMF concrete layer with/without shear reinforcement or use a high strength concrete, and all

3
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
4

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 4. Reinforcement details for (a) Footing (F1) (b) Elevation of strengthened footing before strengthening (c) Elevation of strengthened footing F1J1 after strengthening (d) Plan of strengthened
footing F1J1 after strengthening (e) Elevation of strengthened footing F1J2 after strengthening (f) Plan of strengthened footing F1J2 after strengthening (Fouda et al. [23]).
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 5. FE conceptual model.

Fig. 6. FE meshing.

Fig. 7. Modified concrete tension stiffening model (Wahalathantri, [27]).

specimens were rested on a nine-car spring bed. The authors have reported that applying the reinforcement AMF concrete layer to
existing concrete increases the footing punching strength.
"Xingji Lu et al., 2020" [22] studied a numerical new technique for strengthening existing square RC footings and converted it to
circular footing using an unbonded post-tension system. The authors studied 210 models using FEM (ABAQUS) to investigate im­
provements in punching shear capacity. The tested models are categorized into two separate groups, each consisting of various pa­
rameters such as flexural reinforcement ratio, shear span to depth proportion, increasing the depth strategy, as well as the magnitude of
pre-stressing force. The findings showed a significant increase in punching shear capacity when rising the pre-stressing force. In

5
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Table 2
Experimental [23] and Numerical results.
Footing Ultimate Load (kN) Average settlement at failure (mm) (Numerical / Experimental) %

Experimental Numerical Experimental Numerical Ultimate load Average Settlement

F1 921 980.9 15 13.4 106.5 89.33

F1J1 994.5 1068.5 19.45 18 107.4 92.5
F1J2 980 1060 19.6 18.4 108.36 93.8

addition, it was observed that the foundations with a high reinforcement ratio had a higher punching shear capacity, and its
improvement was greater even when the equivalent magnitude of pre-stressign force was imposed.

2. Research significance

There is no clear clause in current construction codes and standards for studying the load-carrying capability and contact stress
distribution beneath strengthening footing with a concrete jacket. However, many existing RC footings need flexural strengthening due
to changes likely to occur, such as increased loads due to changing structure use. This paper provides a numerical validation for the
analyzed footings which consist of one control footing and two strengthened footings with a different techniques. Furthermore, a
parametric study is carried out to expand the experimental study by investigating the effect of different parameters on the load-
carrying capacity and stress redistribution beneath strengthened footings. These assessed strengthening techniques are applicable
in practical work. Beside the traditional technique of using side dowels, installment of the concrete jacket using bonding agent only,
depending only on the contact between the existing and new concrete, would be advantageous in case of any restrictions to installment
of side dowels. The findings help the structural engineers to predict the pattern of stress redistribution beneath strengthened footings,
load-carrying capacity, and average settlement values.

3. Finite element modeling validation

"Fouda et al.,2020" [23,32] experimented a set of square strengthened and non strengthened footings resting above dense sand.
Some footings were subjected to concentric loading, and others were tested under eccentric load. The settlements of the footing and
soil medium were determined using LVDTs, while the readings of four pressure cells demonstrated the stress distributions under the
footings. Fig. 2 depicts the test setup for all tested footings, while Fig. 3 shows the arrangement of the LVDTs and pressure cells beneath
tested footings to measure the vertical displacement and the contact pressure beneath the footings. Three specimens were chosen from
their experiments to validate the finite element modeling, and the descriptions of the chosen footings are described in Table 1. Fig. 4
shows the reinforcement details for the selected footings and dimensions of dowels. The main findings from the selected footings were
listed as follow:

1. All footings experienced a flexural tensile failure.

2. Neither compression failure nor separations for concrete jacketing were observed.
3. The stress distribution was saddle-shaped, and the settlement profile was uniform before cracking, while the stress distribution was
a parabolic shape and the highest settlement was recorded at the center of the footing after cracking.

4. Numerical modeling methodology

The footings in the experimental program were modeled and analyzed using Finite Element (FE) program “ABAQUS 6.14′′ [24].
Both the FE and experimental findings were compared, and it was found that both results were consistent regarding the distribution of
stresses under the footings as well as the avaeafe settlement readings. The mesh size, concrete and soil modeling, the interaction
between the existing concrete and the applied jacketing, and the boundary conditions are key factors to the accuracy of the results
obtained. The conceptual model for the analyzed footing and the campacted sand layer beneath is shown in Fig. 5, and Fig. 6 presents
the mesh pattern adopted in the numerical analysis. The meshing was applied using 8-node hex-structured linear bricks with density of
25 KN/m3 for the concrete footing and 20 KN/m3 for the soil bed. Moreover, the hourglass control was considered in the meshing.
Three mesh sizes of 50 mm, 100 mm and 150 mm were investigated in the developed models, and a good agreement between nu­
merical and rexperimental findings was found when the mesh size of 100 mm was adopted.

4.1. Reinforcement modeling

The steel reinforcement was defined as two-node truss elements (T3D2). The stress-strain relationship was considered as bilinear as
in Kachlakev et al. [25]. The Yield and Ultimate tensile strength were 407 and 611 Mpa respectively. While Young’s modulus (Es) and
Poisson’s ratio (υ) were 220 Gpa and 0.3 respectively.

6
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807
Fig. 8. Experimental and Numerical results (Load vs. Average settlement).
7
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
8

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 9. Experimental and Numerical results (Distibution of stresses at center-line of footing - 100% of F1 ultimate Load).
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
9

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 10. Experimental and Numerical results (Distibution of stresses at center-line of footing - 50% of F1 ultimate Load).
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
10

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 11. Numerical versus Experimental failure mode: (a) Typical tension damage failure for F1 (b) Typical tension damage failure for F1J1 (c) Typical tension damage failure for F1J2.
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Table 3
Parametric study matrix.
Group Footing- Fcu New Coefficient of friction between The dimension of Footing before Spacing between d/h a/L
ID Jacket (Mpa) the existing and new jacket /after Strengthening (mm) side bars (mm)

Group- F1J1- 25 0.45 800x800x250 167 0.375 0.33

1 tested 1200x1200x400
F1J1–1 30
F1J1–2 35
F1J1–3 40
F1J1–7 800x800x200 0.50
1200x1200x400
F1J1–8 800x800x150 0.625
1200x1200x400
F1J1–9 800x800x300 0.25
1200x1200x400
F1J1–10 650x650x250 0.625 0.45
1200x1200x400
F1J1–11 700x700x250 0.41
1200x1200x400
F1J1–12 750x750x250 0.375
1200x1200x400
F1J1–13 800x800x250 100 0.33
F1J1–14 1200x1200x400 200
F1J1–15 300
Group- F1J2- 25 800x800x250 – 0.375 0.33
2 tested 1200x1200x400
F1J2–1 30
F1J2–2 35
F1J2–3 40
F1J2–7 800x800x200 0.50
1200x1200x400
F1J2–8 800x800x150 0.625
1200x1200x400
F1J2–9 800x800x300 0.25
1200x1200x400
F1J2–10 650x650x250 0.625 0.45
1200x1200x400
F1J2–11 700x700x250 0.41
1200x1200x400
F1J2–12 750x750x250 0.375
1200x1200x400
F1J2–13 0.4 800x800x250 0.625 0.33
1200x1200x400
F1J2–14 0.5 800x800x250
F1J2–15 0.55 1200x1200x400

Fig. 12. Parametric Study notation.

4.2. Concrete modeling

The constitutive model used for concrete modeling is the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP). Modeling of concrete was done ac­
cording to the uniaxial compression model developed by James Wight and James Macgregor[26]. The characteristic compressive
strength was 25 MPa. The stress-strain relationship developred by Wahalathantri [27] was used to stimulate tension stiffening, shown
in Fig. 7. The CDP model predicts that cracking would begin when the tensile plastic strain is greater than zero and the maximum
principal plastic strain is positive. The crack plane is assumed to be parallel to the path of the highest principal plastic strain. Moreover,
the Concrete damage plasticity (CDP) was applied for defining both the tension and compression damages.

11
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 13. Effect of increase compressive for a concrete jacket on loading capacity for Group 1&2(Load Vs Average Settlement).

4.3. Soil modeling

The model adopted to stimulate the behavior of the sand soil is taken as Elasto-plastic material using non-associated flow rule Mohr-
Coulomb model. The angle of internal friction was taken as 43.9◦ , so that the linear relation between normal and shear stresses is
considered. Material properties such as soil modolus of elasticity (Esoil) and υ were taken as 40 Mpa and 0.3 respectively. The dilation
angle in the developed FE models was considered as 13.6◦ . No cohesion between the soil particles was considered in the modeling. It is
also worthnoting that the soil failure was assumed to be governed by the shear strength.

4.4. Interaction between model elements

Embedded region constraint is used to define the interaction of the steel rebars with an existing footing and concrete jacket. One of
the advantages of applying this constraint is that it accounts for the both bond slip and dowel action when representing the concrete
behavior in tension [28]. The steel rebars were defined as embedded truss elements in the concrete footings which were the host
regions, these host regions were defined as solid elements and the exterior tolerance was taken as 0.05. Shear dowels are embedded in
the concrete jacket and existing concrete using the embedded region technique, which represents the bond-slip and dowel action when
representing the concrete behavior in tension. The contact between the existing concrete and the new concrete surface was defined to
have bilinear bond-slip cohesive behavior (non-adherence) to stimulate the debonding and slipping between old and new concrete
with a friction coefficient of 0.45 in the tangential behavior to represent the relative displacement [29]. The maximum tensile and
bond strengths of the cohesive layer were 20 and 3 MPa respectively as per the manufacturer data. Moreover, the interaction berween
concrete, whether it was the existing footing or the new strengthening jacket, and the sand medium was modeled as surface-to-surface
considering both tangential and normal behaviors. Penatly contact with 0.4 friction coefficient was considered for the tangential
behavior to permit slippage [30,31], while normal behavior was linear with stiffnes at contact taken as 1.

5. Numerical results

The FE analysis findings, including relationships between the load and average settlement, failure mode for each specimen, are
summarized in the upcoming sections.

5.1. Strength of footings, average settlements, distribution of stresses

Table 2 presents the ultimate load as well as the average vertical displacment recorded from the experimental investigation and
compared to the corresponding numerical results for the control and strengthened concrete footings. The maximum discrepancy
between both set of results for the ultimate load is 8.36%, while the largest variance regarding the recorded settlement values is equal
to10.67%. These values indicate the reliability of the FE results obtained. Fig. 8 shows the load vs average settlement relations for both
the experimental and FE data regarding the control and strengthened footings. As per load-average settlement graphs, there is strong
agreement between experimental and numerical findings, specifically in the elastic level. Regarding that, the numerical load values in
footings F1J1 and F1J2 were more than the experimental load values. For footing F1, the load-average settlement response was almost
the same in the elastic stage before the experimental load readings begin to become lower than the numerical findings up to failure.
Fig. 9 depicts the contact stress distribution at the footing center-line at 100% of the ultimate load of the control footing F1(without
strengthening). The numerical stress underneath the center of footing F1, F1J1, and F1J2 is higher than their corresponding exper­
imental ones by 5%, 4.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. In addition, the numerical stress beneath the centerline of footing at 50% of footing
F1, F1J1, and F1J2 is higher than the comparable experimental one by 1.5%, 7.7%, and 7.8% as shown in Fig. 10. The pattern of the
distribution of stresses, regarding the FE results, under the footings at half and full value of the ultimate load was similar to the

12
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
13

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 14. Effect of increasing Compressive Strength for New Concrete on Stress distribution at F1J1& F1J2 failure Load. (a) Group-1 (b) Group-2.
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 15. Effect of the increasing concrete jacketing depth on loading capacity for Group 1&2.

experimental findings, which means that there is strong consistency between both findings regarding the representation the interaction
properties between the footing and the sand bed. The difference in the load-carrying capacity between the numerical predictions and
test results was negligible. Overall, the numerical predictions were compatible with the experimental findings. Thus, the FE model will
accurately represent the structural behaviour of non-strengthened / strengthened reinforced concrete footings subjected to
compression loading.

5.2. Failure modes

All numerical models underwent and followed the same failure pattern as the experimental test footings, where footings F1, F1J1,
and F1J2 failed in flexure as result of yielding of the lower tensile steel bars. Fig. 11 presents the failure modes the experimental
specimens underwent compared to the corresponding numerical ones for all the footing. According to the validation data, the nu­
merical simulations agree very well with the experimental results. Due to adopting a CDP model for the concrete and bi-linear stress-
strain behavior for the steel reinforcemet, a minor difference between the numerical and the experimental observations is noticed in
the plastic range. Based on the mentioned validation data, it is possible to conclude that the developed FE models can be used to expand
the parametres used in the experimental program, and to assess the effect of various other factors on the load-carrying capacity and
contact stress beneath the strengthened footing with a reinforced concrete jacket with/without side dowels.

6. Parametric study

On a total of 24 footings, a parametric analysis was carried out, divided into two groups. The parameters tested in this analysis are
the concrete compressive strength (fcu) for concrete jacketing, concrete jacketing thickness (d), concrete jacketing width (a), the
spacing between side dowels (s), and the coefficient of friction (cof) between the concrete jacketing and existing concrete. The first
group consisted of 12 footings with different parameters for footings strengthened with concrete jacketing and side dowels, while the
second group included 12 footings with different parameters for strengthening footing with concrete jacket without side dowels.
Table 3 illustrates the parameters investigated in the parametric study and Fig. 12 shows the notation for the symbols used in the
parametric study.

6.1. Analysis of Groups-1&2

This section presents the results of footings strengthened with concrete jacketing with/without side dowels to connect the concrete
jacket to the existing footing. Footings were reinforced with 7Φ10 with the same arrangement as shown in Fig. 4. The yield strength for
all bars used in the numerical modeling was 407Mpa. Table 3 shows the parameters investigated in those groups.

6.1.1. Effect of changing fcu of concrete jacketing

It is noticed that the increase of the compressive strength of the new concrete jacket increases the failure load capacity and stiffness
of the footing. Fig. 13 shows the effect of increasing compressive strength for the concrete jacket with/without side dowels on load vs
average settlement response. From the figure, it is found out that there is no effect for increasing the compressive strength until
reaching the load level of 700 KN, which is approximately 66% of the failure load, this is due to the concentration of stress beneath the
existing footing, then the stresses become redistributed between the new jacket and existing footing through the bonding surfaces. It is
noticed that for a difference between grading, not more than 40%, ductility is more significant. But if the difference between grading
further increased to more than 40%, the ductility as well as the elastic deformation decrease. Furthermore, the increase in compressive
strength decreases the slip reduction rate because the friction at the interface becomes stronger at high compressive strength. Fig. 14 (a
& b) show the difference in the stress distribution under the strengthened footings at the same failure load of F1J1 and F1J2
respectively. It is observed that the increase in compressive strength of the concrete jacket decreases the central contact stresses by 1%,

14
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
15

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 16. Effect of the increasing concrete jacketing depth on Stress distribution at F1J1& F1J2 failure Load. (a) Group-1. (b) Group-2.
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 17. Effect of the increasing concrete jacketing width on loading capacity for Group 1 & 2.

2%, and 3% for F1J1–1, F1J1–2, and F1J1–3 respectively compared to F1J1. While the edge contact stress passing through the
centerline of the footing increased by 1%, 2%, and 7% for F1J1–1, F1J1–2, and F1J1–3 respectively, relative to F1J1 as shown in
Fig. 14-a. Moreover, increasing the compressive strength leads to the reduction of the central contact stress by 1.2%, 1.7%, and 1.36%
for F1J2–1, F1J2–2, and F1J2–3 respectively compared to F1J2. While the edge contact stress passing through the centerline of the
footing is increased by 2.6%, 7.5%, and 4.4% for F1J2–1, F1J2–2, and F1J2–3 respectively, relative to that in F1J2 as shown in Fig. 14-
b.

6.1.2. Effect of increasing depth of concrete jacket (d/h)

The benefit of increasing the ratio of jacketing depth (d) to total height (h) of the footing was investigated in Groups (1&2), and it
was applied by decreasing the height of existing footing to investigate the change in load carrying capacity vs. average settlement
relationship, as well as the stress distribution below the strengthened footings. The load-carrying capacity was improved by increasing
the (d/h) ratio, this enhancement was 8.9%, 10.2%, and 11.2% for the footings in group 1, at which (d/h) were 0.375,0.5, and 0.625
respectively, when compared with control footing F1(without strengthening) as shown in Fig. 15. The percentages of increase in load-
carrying capacity for strengthened footings in group 2 with the same (d/h) ratios used in group 1 were almost similar to the per­
centages achieved by the footings in group 1. The failure Load for the footing at which (d/h) ratio of was equal to 0.25 was smaller than
the control footing F1 by 1.2% and 5.1% for Groups 1&2 respectively. Fig. 16 (a & b) show the comparisons for stress distribution
beneath strengthened footings after increasing the (d/h) ratios. It was noticed that when (d/h) was equal to 0.25, the stress distribution
was close to that of control footings (F1J1 and F1J2) for Groups (1&2) respectively.

6.1.3. Effect of increasing width of a concrete jacket (a/l)

Fig. 17 shows the improvement in load-carrying capacity with increasing the (a/l) ratio for group 1 and group 2, there were
improvements in the capacity until (a/l) ratios reached 0.4. After that, it was noticed that there was a slight reduction in the load-
carrying capacity. Fig. 18 (a & b) show the comparisons for stress distribution beneath strengthened footings at different (a/l) ra­
tios. It was noticed that the increase in (a/l) has increased the stress concentration beneath the center of strengthened footings for
Groups 1&2 compared to F1. The shape of contact stresses under strengthened footing with (a/l) of 0.45 was different from that in the
other strengthened footings in group 2, this was due to the tensile stress accompanying the shear stress that affects the interface
between the new jacket and existing concrete. The edge stress beneath strengthened footings decreased with increasing the (a/l) ratio
for group 1, while the decreases in edge stress in group 2 up to (a/l) ratio of 0.41, and with increase (a/l) ratio, an increase in edge stress
occurs as shown in Fig. 18 (a & b).

6.1.4. Effect of changing the spacing between dowels for group-1 and change the coefficient of roughness factor between existing and new
concrete for group-2
Fig. 19-a shows the effect of changing the spacing between dowels on the Load vs average settlement behavior, and it was noticed
that there was no increase in failure capacity at spacings of 100,200, 300 mm. However, there were increases in the average settlement
by 11.1% for footings F1J1–15 & F1J1–14 when compared with F1J1. Fig. 19-b shows the improvement in load carrying capacity for
footings with roughness coefficients of 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5 by 6.1%, 8%, and 4.1% respectively. Furthermore, the increase in the
roughness coefficient to 0.55 had reduced the ultimate capacity by 1.2%.

7. Conclusions

In the current numerical study, three footings were modeled and the findings were compared with the experimental results. A set of
24 strengthened speciemens with different parameters were divided into 2 groups to assess the performance of concentric footings

16
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
17

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 18. Effect of the increasing concrete jacketing width on Stress distribution at F1J1& F1J2 failure Load. (a) Group-1. (b) Group-2.
 M. Attia Fouda et al.
18

Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

Fig. 19. (a) Effect of the increasing dowel spacing on loading capacity for Group 1. (b) Effect of the increasing coefficient of roughness factor on loading capacity for Group 2.
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

after strengthening. The increase and decrease in load carrying capacities were investigated using the parametric study data, the stress
distribution at failure underneath reinforced footings was presented, the impact of the application of dowels as well as a bonding agent
was analyzed and compared to that of using only bonding agent. The following conclusions could be reached:

1. Contact stress below centrically loaded footing changes from saddle-shape to parabolic after initiation of cracks in the concrete
footing.
2. The average ratio between central to edge contact stress in centrically loaded footing changes from 10% to 40% after initiation of
cracks in the footing concrete.
3. In footing strengthened using a full concrete jacket, the structure capacity increases by 9% compared to non-strengthened footing.
4. The effect of dowels on structure capacity of footings strengthened using full concrete jacket is insignificant for jacket width smaller
than the footing width.
5. The ratio between the jacket thickness and the total footing depth should be greater than 0.25 for significant impact for concrete
jacket.
6. Optimum performance of dowels occurs at a spacing equal to 15–20 dowel diameter.
7. The load-carrying capacity increased with increasing the roughness coefficient for existing surfaces without dowels up to 0.50.
While there were reductions in the load-carrying capacity and ductility when the roughness coefficient was more than 0.50.
8. The central contact stress for footing strengthened with concrete jacket without dowels is higher than that of footings strengthened
with dowels. However, the contact edge stresses in the footings strengthened with dowels is higher than that of the footings
strengthened without dowels.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1] I. McLean, David , D.Thad Saunders , H. Harold Hahnenkratt . "Seismic evaluation and retrofit of bridge substructures with spread and pile-supported
foundations." (1995).
[2] M.Saiid Saiidi, Sanders David, Acharya Suresh, Seismic retrofit of spread footings supporting bridge columns with short dowels, Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (4)
(2001) 177–185.
[3] Yan Xiao, M.J.Nigel Priestley, Frieder Seible, Seismic assessment and retrofit of bridge column footings, Struct. J. 93 (1) (1996) 79–94.
[4] H.M. Algin, Practical formula for dimensioning a rectangular footing, Eng. Struct. 29 (6) (2007) 1128–1134.
[5] A. Hallak, "Soil-Structure Interaction and Foundation Vibrations" , 2012.
[6] Dawn E. Conniff, D.Kiousis Panos, Elastoplastic medium for foundation settlements and monotonic soil–structure interaction under combined loadings. Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 31 (6) (2007) 789–807.
[7] W.H. Mosley, J.H. Bungey, Reinforced Concrete Design. 3rd ed. Hound mills: Macmillan Education LTD (1987). [270–291].
[8] Gia Truong, Kyoung-Kyu Toai, Choi, Hee-Seung Kim, Punching-shear behaviors of RC-column footings with various reinforcement and strengthening details.
Eng. Struct. 151 (2017) 282–296.
[9] J. Hegger, M. Ricker, B. Ulke, M. Ziegler, Investigations on the punching behaviour of reinforced concrete footings. Eng. Struct. 29 (9) (2007) 2233–2241.
[10] EN 1504: European Standard: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures - Definitions, requirements, quality control and
evaluation of conformity, European Committee for Standardization.
[11] ACI 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary, ACI 318–14, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 2014.
[12] CSA/A23.3, Canadian Standard Association, Code for the design of concrete structures for buildings, CSA/A23.3–14, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014.
[13] Jean Binquet, L.Lee Kenneth, Bearing capacity tests on reinforced earth slabs. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (12) (1975) 1241–1255.
[14] Richard J. Fragaszy, Evert Lawton, Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (10) (1984) 1500–1507.
[15] M.A. Mahmoud, F.M. Abdrabbo, Bearing capacity tests on strip footing resting on reinforced sand subgrades. Can. Geotech. J. 26 (1) (1989) 154–159.
[16] K.H. Khing, B.M. Das, V.K. Puri, E.E. Cook, S.C. Yen, The bearing-capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 12 (4) (1993)
351–361.
[17] M.Y. ,Al-Aghbari, A.J. Khan . "Behaviour of shallow strip foundations with structural skirts resting on dense sand." In Challenges of Concrete Construction:
Volume 6, Concrete for Extreme Conditions: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Dundee, Scotland, UK on 9–11 September
2002, pp. 737–746. Thomas Telford Publishing, 2002.
[18] M.Y. Al-Aghbari, Y.E.A. Mohamedzein, Bearing capacity of strip foundations with structural skirts, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 22 (1) (2004) 43–57.
[19] Wang-Xi Zhang, Bo Li, Hyeon-Jong Hwang, Jin-Yi Zhang, Long-Jie Xiao, Wei-jian Yi, Hong-Gun Park, Punching shear strength of reinforced concrete column
footings under eccentric compression: Experiment and analysis, Eng. Struct. 198 (2019), 109509.
[20] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. FEMA, 2006.
[21] Gia Truong, Ngoc Hieu Toai, Jong-Chan Dinh, Kim, Kyoung-Kyu Choi, Seismic performance of exterior RC beam–column joints retrofitted using various retrofit
solutions. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 11 (3) (2017) 415–433.
[22] Xingji Lu, S.Aboutaha Riyad, Structural strengthening of square spread footings using circular external prestressing. J. Build. Eng. (2020), 101344.
[23] M.A. Fouda, M. Elkateb, T. Elkateb, A. Khalil, Experimental Investigation of RC Footings Resting on Sand Strengthened with Concrete Jacketing, Adv. Sci.,
Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 5 (6) (2020) 133–142.
[24] D. Hibbit, , B. Karlsson , P. Sorensen . "ABAQUS/Standard analysis user’s manual, version 6.14." Providence, RI: Dassault Systèmes/Simulia (2014).
[25] Damian I. Kachlakev, H.Miller Thomas, Tanarat Potisuk, Solomon C. Yim, K. Chansawat, Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete structures strengthened
with FRP laminates. No. FHWA-OR-RD-01-XX. Oregon, Dept. Transp. Res. Group (2001).
[26] Tomasz Jankowiak, Tomasz Lodygowski, Identification of parameters of concrete damage plasticity constitutive model. Found. Civ. Environ. Eng. 6 (1) (2005)
53–69.
[27] Wahalathantri, Buddhi Lankananda, D.P. Thambiratnam, T.H. T. Chan, and Sabrina Fawzia "A material model for flexural crack simulation in reinforced
concrete elements using ABAQUS." In Proceedings of the first international conference on engineering, designing and developing the built environment for
sustainable wellbeing, pp. 260–264. Queensland University of Technology, 2011.
[28] Y.Z. Wang, C.G. Fu . "Structural engineering analysis and example explanation of ABAQUS.", 2010.
[29] X.Z. Lu, J.G. Teng, L.P. Ye, J.J. Jiang, Bond–slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete. Eng. Struct. 27 (6) (2005) 920–937.

19
M. Attia Fouda et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 16 (2022) e00807

[30] Yamin, M. Mohammad, M.Ashteyat Ahmed, Al-Mohd Izzaldin, Mahmoud Enad, Numerical study of contact stresses under foundations resting on cohesionless
soil: Effects of foundation rigidity and applied stress level, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (4) (2017) 1107–1114.
[31] El-kady, Mahmoud Samir, Essam Farouk Badrawi, Performance of isolated and folded footings, J. Comput. Des. Eng. 4 (2) (2017) 150–157.
[32] Mohamed Fouda, Mahmoud Attia, Tamer El-Kateb, Elkateb, Ayman Khalil, Numerical investigation for failure load and contact stress beneath RC square footing
resting on cohesionless soil, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021), e00656.

Mohamed Attia Fouda is currently working as a lecturer at Canadian international college in Egypt, and he worked as a technical support manager at Thyssenkrupp-
Egypt. He earned his BSc. Degree from Ain Shams University in 2009. He received his MSc. and Ph.D. degrees from the same University in 2015 and 2021. He served as a
reviewer for the ACI Structural and materials Journals. His research interests include the design of reinforced concrete structures, soil-structure interaction,
Strengthening of reinforced concrete elements, and finite element analysis.

Amr Ibrahim is currently working as a lecturer at the British University in Egypt, he earned his BSc. Degree from Ain Shams University in 2009. He received his MSc. And
Ph.D. degrees from the same University in 2015 and 2020, respectively. His research interests include the design of reinforced concrete structures, composite materials,
the application of Fiber Reinforced Plastics in concrete structures and finite element analysis. He has been involved with consultancy firms where he designed several
residential and commercial structural projects.

Mahmoud Elkateb received his BSc. degree from Ain Shams University in 1999, He earned his MSc. And Ph.D. degrees from the same University in 2007 and 2013. He is
working as a full-time assistant professor in the structural engineering department at Ain Shams University. His career as a structural engineer has extended for over 20
years of professional experience and academic practice, with many publications in peer-reviewed international journals.

Tamer Elkateb has extended over 23 years of professional practice and academic research. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Alberta, Canada. He has
published more than 14 journal and conference papers in the last 16 years. He has been a faculty member at Ain Shams University in Egypt since2004 where he taught
several undergraduate and graduate courses and supervised several M.Sc. and Ph.D. theses. He has also been involved with several international designing firms where
he was responsible for the design of several large scale projects in more than 20 countries.

Ayman Khalil is a professor of reinforced concrete structures at Ain Shams University, he earned his Ph.D. degree from Iowa State University in 1998. He has over
twenty-five years of experience in Structural Engineering fields. He has been teaching for both undergraduate and graduate levels. His research interests include the
design of reinforced concrete structures, Pre-stressed concrete, and Bridge Engineering.

20