Open Access

Effect of confinement pressure on bearing capacity of two samples of square and strip footing (numerical study)

SpringerPlus20143:593

https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-593

Received: 8 September 2014

Accepted: 20 September 2014

Published: 9 October 2014

Abstract

This paper presents the results of modeling tests of the Effect of Confinement Pressure on footing bearing capacity of two kinds of square and strip footing. Footings bearing capacity depends upon many factors including soil kind, depth, form and kind of loading. Soil behavior is variable regarding the kind of loading and the kind of deformations in that can have great importance in the amount of bearing capacity. The kind of deformations depends on the amount of pressure on soil in the past and present. Therefore, studying the role of stress way, which is subject to the amount of confinement pressure on soil, will have an important role in identifying soil behavior. In this study, primarily the effect of confinement pressure on the cohesion and friction angle is studied. Then the effect of both on the bearing capacity with the Meyerhof and Terzaghi methods is evaluated. By using Plaxis software, changes of shearing resistance parameters of both samples different Confinement pressures are studied and bearing capacity of two kinds of square and strip footing has been computed and compared. This study indicated that the amount of bearing capacity by increasing lateral pressure increased, and this increasing is more in grain soil than cohesion one.

Keywords

Footing bearing capacity Lateral pressure Cohesion Friction angle

1 Introduction

The practices of improvement of soil by different techniques have been received as of late by Civil Engineering experts. Utilization of sites with marginal soil properties has been expanded due to the need accessibility of good construction sites. Because of this, improve foundation soil bearing capacity has risen noticeably. One method of improving soil capacity is soil confinement. Using metalcell, geocell are the current improvement this field to supply confinement to the soil. Civil Engineering professionals have applied these novel approaches efficiently in several fields of Geotechnical engineering; however they have not obtained much attention in foundation applications. Over the last few decades, via consideration of soil and structure interaction great strides in the modification of existing forms of foundations along with the development of new and unconventional types of foundation systems have occurred. This results in a system utilizing the form and material strength that is more realistic in performance. One of these novel methods is the lateral confinement of cohesion less soil. The effect of lateral confinement on bearing capacity, especially on sandy soil has been studied by many researchers.

Confining the soil is reductions in the settlement have been concluded by these researchers, and hence an increase is in the bearing capacity of the soil.

Arrive at optimum dimensions of the cell have been concluded by a series of model plate loading tests on circular footings supported over sand-filled square-shaped paper grid cells to identify different modes of failure (Rea and Mitchell (1978)).

experimental study concerning a method of improving the bearing capacity of the strip footing resting on sand sub-grades utilizing vertical non extensible reinforcement were presented by Mahmoud and Abdrabbo (1989). The test results indicate that the bearing capacity of sub-grades and modifies the load– displacement behavior of the footing is increased with this type of reinforcement.

The laboratory-model test results for the bearing capacity of a strip foundation supported by a sand layer reinforced with layers of geogrid were investigated by Khing et al. (1993).

The ultimate bearing capacity of strip and square foundations supported by sand reinforced with Geogrid were studied by Puri et al. (1993). The ultimate bearing capacity of surface strip foundations on geo grid-reinforced sand and unreinforced sand were presented by Omar et al. (1993a, [b]). the use of vertical reinforcement along with horizontal reinforcement consisted of a series of interlocking cells, constructed from polymer Geogrids, which contain and confine the soil within its pockets were investigated by Dash et al. (2001b). Mandal and Manjunath (1995) used geo grid and bamboo sticks as vertical reinforcement elements, also they studied their effect on the bearing capacity of a strip footing. Rajagopal et al. (1999) have studied the strength of confined sand, the influence of geo cell confinement on the strength and stiffness behavior of granular soils. An experimental study on the bearing capacity of a strip footing supported by a sand bed reinforced with a geo cell mattress was performed by Dash et al. (2001a). Strip foundations but reinforced with different materials such as steel bars also was studied by Several authors (Milovic, 1977; Bassett and Last, 1978; Verma and Char 1986), steel grids (Dawson and Lee, 1988; Abdel-baki et al. 1993), geotextile (Das 1987), and geogrids (Milligan and Love, 1984; Ismail and Raymond, 1995). The results of laboratory model tests on the effect of soil confinement on the behavior of a model footing resting on Ganga sand under eccentric – inclined load were presented by Vinod Kumar Singh et al. Confining cells with different heights and widths have been used to confine the sand.

2 Modeling

In this research, Plaxis software has been used for numerical modeling. PLAXIS is a three-dimensional finite element program especially developed for the analysis of foundation structures, including off-shore foundations. It combines simple graphical input procedures, which allow the user to automatically generate complex finite element models, with advanced output facilities and robust calculation procedures. The program is designed such that a user can analyze complex constructions after only a few hours of training. This program can model the soil behavior under loading as well as it happens in the nature.

In order to simulating soil behavior, hardening soil model has been used. Used parameters for samples are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

The specified parameters of soil samples used in numeral analyses

Sample

C

ϕ

γ

1

0

30

17.3

2

25

5

16.4

Unit

kN/m2

°

kN/m3

The boundary condition is modified in one of vertical sides of the model as grid along × direction and transferable along y direction and beneath the model is grid along y direction and transferable along × direction. So, in addition to preservation of balance of the entire model in horizontal side, it’s move along with vertical will also be released that are the direction of weight power and enforcing load.

The following assumptions have been considerable for simpler analysis.
  1. 1.

    The issue has been analyzed as an axisymmetry model.

     
  2. 2.

    Considering long term behavior of soil, the sample has been studied in drained condition.

     
  3. 3.

    The study has been carried out parametrical.

     

3 Methodology and the results of analysis

Several different approaches in determination of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations have been generally employed in the past decades. The famous triple-N formula of them is Terzaghi, and can be written as given in equation (1)
q u l t = c N c + q N q + 0.5 γ B N γ
(1)

Where, qult is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil mass, c is the cohesion, q is the surcharge pressure, B is the foundation width and γ is the unit weight of soil mass. Similarly N c , N q , N γ are bearing capacity factors, which are functions of the soil friction angle. The second and third terms in equation (1) have been known as the main contributor to the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on non-cohesive soils. Different investigators such as Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1963), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973), Bolton and Lau (1989) suggested values for the third factor.

Although all these methods are generally based on a limit equilibrium solution, there are differences between their assumptions for boundary conditions and consideration of the soil weight effect. taking several assumptions in to account comp uted the third bearing capacity factor i.e. N γ . Terzaghi (1943) assumed that, the components of bearing capacity equation can be safely superposed. Meyerhof (1951, 1963), proposed a bearing-capacity equation similar to that of Terzaghi but included a shape factor s-q with the depth term Nq. He also included depth factors and inclination factors.

Beside these assumptions, almost all conventional methods assume a constant value of soil friction angle to compute the bearing capacity factors. Generally, in calculating the footing bearing capacity, the condition of lateral pressure on soil is not considered. The amount of friction angle and cohesion are counted based on resulted average of some experimental tests while the structural value of foundation is ignored. However, foundation can have major effect on the amount of stress in the soil [Abdel-baki et al. (1993), Das and Omar (1994), Das et al. (1996), De Beer (1970), Fragaszy and Lawton (1984), Meyerhof (1953, 1965)].

In this research, by using Plaxis software, changes of shearing resistance parameters of both samples confinement pressure of 100,300,600 ,1000 ,1500 and 2000 kN/m2 are studied and bearing capacity of two kinds of square and strip footing based on Terzaghi and Meyerhof methods has been computed and compared.

These numerals analysis attempt to provide a better understanding of the effect of confinement pressure on the bearing capacity.

In order to study the effect of confinement pressure on bearing capacity and its parameters, at first, the changes of coherency and the friction angle has been studied and represented in Table 2.
Table 2

Amount of coherency and friction angle

Sample

1

ϕin= 30

2

ϕin= 5

σ3

ϕ

C

ϕ

C

100

30.2

8.13

7.86

46.56

300

34.1

0

7.86

46.56

600

31.4

8.16

6.7

60.3

1000

31.1

26.34

5.4

82.65

1500

29

116.6

5

103.1

2000

After that, a square footing and a strip one in dimensions of 2 × 2 m and 2 × 10 m has been and the coefficients of bearing capacity and ultimate bearing capacity based on Terzaghi and Meyerhof methods, which have the most applications, by considering the amount of friction angle and coherency obtained in confinement pressure have calculated. The obtained result has been presented in Tables 3and 4 and Figures 1 and 2.
Table 3

The coefficients and the ultimate bearing capacity in sample 1

Sample

1

σ3

ϕ

C

Terzaghi

Meyerhof

a

Nq

Nc

qult

Nq

Nc

qult

       

Strip

Square

   

Strip

Square

100

30.2

8.13

3.38

22.89

37.63

20.34

671.99

690.5

18.74

30.50

16.12

585.50

775.21

300

34.12

0

4.03

36.86

52.97

37.19

669.41

535.5

29.72

42.42

31.61

609.39

770.80

600

31.42

8.16

3.56

26.46

41.7

25

790.36

802.4

21.56

33.67

19.83

689.15

919.03

1000

31.12

26.34

3.52

25.53

40.65

24.39

1509.7

1743

20.82

32.85

18.84

1334.12

1852.66

1500

29

116.6

3.20

19.89

34.11

17.1

4285.2

5417

16.37

27.75

13.17

3858.83

5401.99

2000

Table 4

The coefficients and the ultimate bearing capacity in sample 2

Sample

2

σ3

ϕ

C

Terzaghi

Meyerhof

a

Nq

Nc

qult

Nq

Nc

qult

       

Strip

Square

   

Strip

Square

100

7.86

46.56

1.37

2.17

8.516

0.894

412.59

528.3

2.03

7.45

0.20

368.59

441.89

300

7.86

46.56

1.37

2.17

8.516

0.894

412.59

528.3

2.03

7.45

0.20

368.59

441.89

600

6.7

60.3

1.31

1.94

8.001

0.757

496.08

638.1

1.82

7.02

0.14

447.38

533.14

1000

5.4

82.65

1.24

1.71

7.47

0.553

627.35

810.6

1.62

6.58

0.08

572.01

677.15

1500

5

103.1

1.22

1.64

7.315

0.494

762.74

987.1

1.56

6.46

0.07

698.31

825.00

2000

Figure 1

Bearing capacity changes in sample 1.

Figure 2

Bearing capacity changes in sample 2.

In order to Study The effect of confinement pressure on bearing capacity, The ultimate bearing capacity related to each Sample has been presented at to pressure of 100 and 2000 kN/m2 in Table 5 and are compared by applying bearing capacity ratio coefficient (BCR).
Table 5

Comparing the bearing capacity of samples

 

Terzaghi

Meyerhof

 

Strip

Square

BCR

Strip

Square

BCR

qult

qult

Strip

Square

qult

qult

Strip

Square

σ3

2000

100

2000

100

2000

100

2000

100

Sample

            

1

4285

672

5417

690.5

6.38

7.84

3858.83

585.50

5401.99

775.21

6.59

6.97

2

762.7

412.6

987.1

528.3

1.85

1.87

698.31

368.59

825.00

441.89

1.89

1.87

4 Conclusion

Based on results obtained, it is observed that bearing capacity in sample 1 in strip footing with Terzaghi method increases 6.59 fold this increase in square footing is with Terzaghi and Meyerhof method 7.84 and 6.79 fold, respectively. Also in sample2 in strip footing with Terzaghi method increases 1.85 fold and with Meyerhof method increases 1.89 fold this increases in square footing is 1.87 Fold with Terzaghi and Meyerhof methods. By comparing obtained results, it way resulted that increasing confinement pressure in grain soils have more effect on increasing bearing capacity.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Islamic Azad University

References

  1. Abdel-baki S, Raymond GP, Johnson P: Improvement of the Bearing Capacity of Footing by a Single Layer of Reinforcement. Proceedings, Vol. 2, Geosynthetics 93 Conference, Vancouver, Canada; 1993:407-416.Google Scholar
  2. Bassett RH, Last NC: Reinforcing Earth Below Footing and Embankments. Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh; 1978:202-231.Google Scholar
  3. Bolton MD, Lau CK: Scale Effect in the Bearing Capacity of Granular Soils. International Proceeding of the 12th International conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil; 1989:895-898.Google Scholar
  4. Das BM: Shallow Foundation in Clay with Geotextile Layers. Proceedings of the 8th Pan American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 1987, 2: 497-506.Google Scholar
  5. Das BM, Omar MT: The effects of foundation width on model tests for the bearing capacity of sand with geo grid reinforcement. Geotech Geol Eng 1994, 12: 133-141. 10.1007/BF00429771View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Das BM, Puri VK, Omar MT, Evigin E: Bearing capacity of strip foundation on geogrid reinforced sand-scale effects in model tests. Proc, 6th International Conference on Offshore and Polar Engineering 1996, 12: 527-530.Google Scholar
  7. Dash S, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy N: Strip footing on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforcement. Geotextile and Geomembrane 2001, 19: 529-538. 10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00022-XView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Dash S, Krishnaswamy N, Rajagopal K: “Bearing capacity of strip footing supported on geocell-reinforced sand”. Geotextile and Geomembrane 2001, 19: 535-256.Google Scholar
  9. Dawson A, Lee R: “Full scale foundation trials on grid reinforced clay”. Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement 1988, 127-147.Google Scholar
  10. De Beer EE: Experimental determination of the shape factor and the bearing capacity f actors of sand. Geotechnique 1970, 20: 387-411. 10.1680/geot.1970.20.4.387View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Fragaszy RJ, Lawton E: Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. J Geotech Eng Div 1984, 110(10):1500-1507. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:10(1500)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen JB: Revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Bulletin 1970, 28: 5-11.Google Scholar
  13. Ismail I, Raymond GP: Geosynthetic reinforcement of granular layered soils. Proceedings, 1, Geosynthetics 1995, 95: 317-330.Google Scholar
  14. Khing KH, Das BM, Puri VK, Cook EE, Yen SC: “The bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand”. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 1993, 12: 351-361. 10.1016/0266-1144(93)90009-DView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahmoud MA, Abdrabbo FM: Bearing capacity tests on strip footing on reinforced sand sub grade. Can Geotech J 1989, 26: 154159.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Mandal JM, Manjunath VR: Bearing capacity of strip footing resting on reinforced sand sub grades. Construction and Building Material 1995, 9(1):35-38. 10.1016/0950-0618(95)92858-EView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyerhof GG: “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations,”. Geotechnique 1951, 2(4):301-332. 10.1680/geot.1951.2.4.301View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Meyerhof GG: The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric-3rd inclined loads. ICSMFE Zurich 1953, 1: 1-19.Google Scholar
  19. Meyerhof GG: Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Can Geotech J 1963, 1(1):16-26. 10.1139/t63-003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyerhof GG: Shallow foundations. J of S MFD, ASC E 1965, 91: SM2. 21–31Google Scholar
  21. Milligan GWE, Love JP Proceedings Symposium on polymer Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering. In Model Testing of Geogrids Under and Aggregate Layer in Soft Ground. ICI, London, England; 1984:4.2.1-4.2.11.Google Scholar
  22. Milovic D Proc. Of the 9thInternational conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. In Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced Sand. ᅟ, Tokyo, Japan; 1977:1. 651–654Google Scholar
  23. Omar MT, Das BM, Puri VK, Yen SC: Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement. Can Geotech J 1993, 30: 545-549. 10.1139/t93-046View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Omar MT, Das BM, Yen SC, Puri VK, Cook EE: Ultimate bearing capacity of rectangular foundations on geo grid reinforced sand. Geotech Test J 1993, 16: 246-252. 10.1520/GTJ10041JView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Puri VK, Khing KH, Das BM, Cook EE, Yen SC: The bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geo grid reinforced sand. Geotextile and Geomembrane 1993, 12: 351-361. 10.1016/0266-1144(93)90009-DView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy N, Latha G: Behavior of sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotextile and Geomembrane 1999, 17: 171-184. 10.1016/S0266-1144(98)00034-XView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Rea C, Mitchell JK Proc. Symposium on Earth Reinforcement. In Sand Reinforcement Using Paper Grid Cells. ASCE, Pittsburg; 1978:644-663.Google Scholar
  28. Terzaghi K: Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and sons, New York, USA; 1943.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Verma BP, Char ANR: Bearing capacity tests on reinforced sand subgrades. J Geotech Eng 1986, 112(7):701-706. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:7(701)View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Vesic AS: Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Foundat Div, ASCE 1973, 99: 45-73.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Hosseini; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.