## 3 Experimental and Numerical Procedures
### Performance of RSF with Different Reinforcing Techniques
The large soil movement between the footing and first layer of geotextile was observed (Figure 16c) when compared with soil with PI \(<\) 118% (Figures 14c and 15c for B0 and B20, respectively). As such, this technique was recommended for foundation soil with PI \(<\) 118%. Figure 12: Simulated bearing stress results of strip footing resting on different soils reinforced with different reinforcing techniques. Figure 13: Relationship between bearing improvement factor and number of reinforcement layer of soils reinforced with different Reinforcement layout configurations (series C, D, E and F). Figure 14: Simulated results of total displacement vectors of: (**a**) unreinforced B0 Soil; (**b**) B0, reinforced by series C; and, (**c**) B0 reinforced by series D for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. Figure 15: Simulated results of total displacement vectors of: (**a**) unreinforced B20; (**b**) B20 reinforced by series C; (**c**) B20 reinforced by series D; (**d**) B20 reinforced by series E; and (**e**) B20 reinforced by series F for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. Figure 16: Simulated results of total displacement vectors of: (**a**) unreinforced B100; (**b**) B100 reinforced by series C; (**c**) B100 reinforced by series D; (**d**) B100 reinforced by series E; and (**e**) B100 reinforced by series F for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. Figure 17: Simulated results of stress distribution (sig-yy) of: (a) unreinforced B0 Soil; (b) B0 reinforced by series C; and (c) B0 reinforced by series-D for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. Figure 19: Simulated results of stress distribution (sig-yy) of: (**a**) unreinforced B100; (**b**) B100 reinforced by series C; (**c**) B100 reinforced by series D; (**d**) B100 reinforced by series E; and (**e**) B100 reinforced by series-F for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. Figure 18: Simulated results of stress distribution (sig-yy) of: (**a**) unreinforced B20; (**b**) B20 reinforced by series C; (**c**) B20 reinforced by series D; (**d**) B20 reinforced by series E; and (**e**) B20 reinforced by series-F for N = 4 at the S/B ratio of 15%. The \(q_{b}/q_{0}\) development for Series E (filled sand in wraparound geotextile) decreased with the increase in PI of foundation soils. The \(q_{b}/q_{0}\) value increased from 1.70 to 2.84 for B20, 1.69 to 2.36 for B40, and 1.50 to 2.06 for B60, 1.40 to 1.62 for B80, and 1.2 to 1.60 for B100 when N increased from 2 to 4. For foundation soil with PI < 181% (B0, B20, B40 and B60), the applied stresses were transferred through foundation soil and distributed to wraparound geotextiles. The displacement vectors under the footing moved downward, as shown in Figures 14c and 15d. The usage of high-quality soil (B0) as fill material can improve the stiffness of full-wraparound ends of geotextile. The applied stress distributed through the foundation soil under the footing to the top of geotextile layer and then the applied stress transferred to the bottom of geotextile layer, as shown in Figures 17c and 18d. However, the stress distribution of foundation soil depended on its soil shear strength and stiffness. With the low stiffness of soil with PI > 181% (B80 and B100) on the comparably stiffer RSF, the soil above the RSF largely deformed, as shown in Figure 16d. Therefore, the applied stresses could not be perfectly transferred to the other layers of geotextile; hence, the development of \(q_{b}\) with the addition of N was insignificant (see Figure 13). In addition, the distributed stress in B0 inside full-wraparound layers was lower when compared to the case of foundation soil with PI < 181%, as illustrated in Figures 17c, 18d and 19d. To improve the performance of \(q_{b}\) for the wraparound ends technique with filled sand, the replacement of foundation soil above the RSF by B0 was studied in Series F. It was evident that the \(q_{b}\) in Series F was the highest when compared with other Series (Figure 13).