Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES

A report submitted for the comprehensive Seminar for the registration

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by

NABAM BUDH

(PhD/FT/16/CE/01)

Under the guidance of Dr. Sukumar Baishya Prof. Deptt. of Civil Engg.

  

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

NIRJULI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791109 INDIA DECEMBER 2017

 Introduction  Literature Review ◦ Analytical Techniques ◦ BC of shallow foundation on horizontal ground
  • Introduction

  • Literature Review

Analytical Techniques BC of shallow foundation on horizontal ground BC of shallow foundation on slopes Comparison of available methodologies Failure mechanism of shallow foundation on slopes Factors affecting BC of shallow foundation on slopes BC using Finite element analysis (FEA)

  • Why FEA Method?

    • Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017)

  • Critical comments

    • Proposed work and research objectives

    • Methodology

    • Work Plan

      • References

 GENERAL BACKGROUND  BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW  BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL  Definition of BC
  • GENERAL BACKGROUND

  • BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW

    • BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL

      • Definition of BC & Ultimate BC

      • In foundation, soil is the weakest construction material.

      • BC depends on mechanical characteristic of soil and physical characteristic of foundation.

      • First developed by Prandtl (1920), and later extended by Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1951), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973)

      • Terzaghi (1943) q u =cN c +qN q +γBN γ

  • BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL ON SLOPES

    • Land limitations

    • NO BIS guidelines

    • Overall stability & BC failure makes it more critical

    • First undertaken by Meyerhof (1957) and later on by Hasen (1970), Vesic (1975), Kusakabe et. al. (1981), etc.

    • q u,slope =cN cq +γBN γq

    • Theories of Ultimate BC was developed using analytical techniques.

  • SUMMARY

  •  The theories of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations were developed by employing one
    • The theories of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations were developed by employing one of the following analytical techniques:

    Limit equilibrium analysis

    Considers equilibrium of forces ,an approximate method, trial and error, simple, most widely used till date.

    • Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1957), Azzouz and Baligh (1983), Narita and Yamaguchi (1990) and Castelli and Motta (2008)

    Slip line analysis

    Slip line represent the direction of the maximum shear stresses.

    • Sokolovski (1960), Buhan and Garnier (1994, 1998)

    Limit analysis

    Considers the stress-strain relationship in an idealized

    manner. Ben Leshchinsky (2015,2017), Mofidi et.al. (2014), Chakraborty (2012)

    Finite element analysis

    A numerical technique

    • Kai Wing Ip (2005), Loukidis et.al.(2008), Georgiadis (2010), Shaiau et. al.(2011), Nyugen et.al. (2011), Abbas & Sabbar (2011), Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017),

    BEARING

    CAPACITY THEORY FOR STRIP FOUNDATION ON HORIZONTAL

    SURFACE

    • Terzaghi (1943) proposed a theory for determination of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow ,rough, rigid & continuous foundation

    supported by a homogenous,

    isotropic soil.

    • q u =cN c +qN q +γBN γ

      • Used limit equilibrium analysis

        • Moment in equilibrium was not considered

      • Elastic zone is responsible for resistance against sliding

    due to self weight of the soil.

    • passive force is due to

      • surcharge (q),

      • cohesion (c),

      • unit weight of the soil (γ),

      • the angle of shear resistance (Φº),

  • the solution is not exact

  •  Meyerhof (1957) u,slope cq γq ◦ Plastic zone on the side of the slope is
    • Meyerhof (1957)

    • q u,slope =cN cq +γBN γq

    Plastic zone on the side of the slope is relatively smaller The ultimate BC of the foundation is reduced. BC depends on

    • the distance of the foundation from the top of the slope (b), If b˃ 2 to 6B, BC is independent of (α°).

    • the angle of the slope (α°),

    • the angle of shearing resistance of the soil

    • the depth/width ratio (D f /B), of the foundation

    Author

    Year

    Loadin

    Geometr

    Clay

    Sand

    C-Φ

    Constitutive

    Methods

     

    g

    y of

    models used

    used

     

    Top of

    On Slope

    footing

    Slope

     

    Meyerhof

    1957

     

       

    Strip

    X

    Limit

       

    footing

    equilibrium

    Hansen

    1970

     

    X

     

    Vesic

    1975

     

    X

     

    X

    X

    Graham

    1988

     

    X

     

    X

    X

    Analytical

    et.al.

       

    method

    Shields

    1988

     

    X

     

    Strip

    X

    X

    Centrifugal

    et.al.

     

    footing

    Test

    Saran et.al.

    1989

     

    X

     

    Strip

    Limit

       

    footing

    equilibrium

     

    and limit

    analysis

    Sharma &

    1995

     

    X

     

    Strip

    Mohr-coulomb

    Limit

    Chen

     

    footing

    failure criteria

    equilibrium

    Choudhury

    2006

    X

     

       

    Strip

    Rigid perfectly

    Limit

    & Rao

     

    footing

    plastic

    equilibrium

    Georgiadis

    2009

     

    X

    Inclined

    Strip

    X

    X

    Mohr-coulomb

    FEA
    FEA
       

    footing

    elastic perfectly

     

    plastic

    Yamamoto

    2010

     

    X

     

    Pseudo static

         

    approach

    Author

    Year

    Foundation

     

    Loading

    Geometry

    Clay

    Sand

    C-Φ

    Constitutive

    Methods

    Position

    of footing

    models used

    used

    Top of

    On

     

    the

    Slope

    Slope

    Shiau et.al

    2011

    X

    X

    X

    Limit analysis

    Nguyen et.al.

    2011

    X

    Strip footing

    X

    X

    Mohr-coulomb

    FEA
    FEA
     

    failure criteria

    Abbas &

    2011

    X

    Rectangular

    X

    X

    FEA
    FEA

    Sabbar

     

    footing

    Castelli et.al.

    2012

    X

    Square &

    X

    X

    Experimental

     

    Strip

    Chakrabort

    2013

     

    Strip footing

    Mohr-coulomb

    Limit analysis

    y & Kumar

     

    failure criteria

    Mofidi, et.al.

    2014

     

    Strip footing

    X

    Mohr-coulomb

    Limit Analysis

     

    yield function

    Ben

    2015

    X

    Strip footing

    X

    X

    Perfectly plastic

    Upper bound

    Leshchinsky

     

    limit state

    Ganesh et.

    2016

    X

    Eccentric

    Strip footing

    X

    Regression

    al.

     

    and

    analysis of

    oblique

    laboratory

     

    model

    ◦ Bearing capacity failure ◦ Overall stability of the slope failure ◦ Combined failure Figure: Failure

    Bearing capacity failure

    Overall stability of the slope failure

    Combined failure

    ◦ Bearing capacity failure ◦ Overall stability of the slope failure ◦ Combined failure Figure: Failure

    Figure: Failure modes: (a) and (b) bearing capacity failure and (c) overall slope failure

     The effect of slope angle( β )  BC decreases  Height of slope (H)
    • The effect of slope angle(β)

      • BC decreases

    • Height of slope (H)

    • Geometry of footing

    • Distance of slope from edge of footing
      (b)

    • Cohesion (c)

    • Angle of shearing resistance (φ)

    • Drainage conditions in the slope.

     The effect of slope angle( β )  BC decreases  Height of slope (H)
     Kai Wing Ip (2005)  Loukidis et al. (2008)  Georgiadis (2010)  Shaiau et.
    • Kai Wing Ip (2005)

    • Loukidis et al. (2008)

    • Georgiadis (2010)

    • Shaiau et. al.(2011)

    • Nyugen & Merifield (2011)

    • Abbas & Sabbar (2011)

    • Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017)

     A very powerful program that ◦ covers most of the problem in geotechnical engineering .
    • A very powerful program that

    covers most of the problem in geotechnical engineering.

    • FEA is capable to simulate

    the geometry of the foundation,

    the soil and

    the loading conditions

    • Takes into account,

    the 3-D confinement effect at the site.

    • Unlike others methods, no assumptions are made.

    • Numerical simulation obtained from 3D models gives

    accurate solutions

    consistently higher than that obtained from analytical estimates

    • Solutions obtained by finite element method of analyses are

    widely acceptable in current industry.

    Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on the crest of a slope Figure:
    Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on the crest of a slope Figure:
    Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on the crest of a slope Figure:

    Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on the crest of a slope

    Figure: Schematic representation of a model geometry for a footing resting on sloping ground (not to scale)

    Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on the crest of a slope Figure:
    Figure: 2.19. Standard fixities applied in the numerical model Fig. Typical meshing scheme adopted in the
    Figure: 2.19. Standard fixities applied in the numerical model Fig. Typical meshing scheme adopted in the

    Figure: 2.19. Standard fixities applied in the numerical model

    Fig. Typical meshing scheme adopted in the numerical model

    (Acharyya & Dey 2017)

    (Acharyya & Dey 2017)

    Figure: Formation of passive zones beneath the footing for various setback ratios (b/B) (Acharyya & Dey
    Figure: Formation of passive zones beneath the footing for various setback ratios (b/B) (Acharyya & Dey

    Figure: Formation of passive zones beneath the footing for various setback ratios (b/B)

    (Acharyya & Dey 2017)

     Coupled stress-deformation analysis  BC increases with the increase in ◦ The angle of internal
    • Coupled stress-deformation analysis

    • BC increases with the increase in

    The angle of internal friction, Embedment depth, Footing width, Setback distance.

    • The increase in BC due to increase of embedment depth of the footing is

    due to increase in the degree of confinement restricting the movement of the soil towards the sloping face.

    • Beyond a critical setback ratio b/B = 3,

    the footing behaves similar to that on horizontal ground.

    • Bearing capacity reduces

    with the increase of slope angle,

    • which is associated with the increased soil movement towards the

    slope.

    • The variation of unit weight and modulus of elasticity of soil

    has marginal effect on the bearing capacity.

     Theories of Meyerhof (1957) and Graham et al. (1987), and the experimental work from Shields
    • Theories of Meyerhof (1957) and Graham et al. (1987), and the experimental work from Shields et.al (1977), Gemperline (1988) and Garnier et al. (1994) ,etc.

    Provided a design chart needed

    • to predict the magnitude of N γq .

    Design chart valid for only

    • a limited range of footing location and

    • embedded depth.

    • The experimental work of Meyerhof (1957) and Shield et al. showed that

    soil with different value of ϕ° leads to

    • BC with respect to the distance of the footing.

    • While most of the theories developed for foundations near slope are

    for cohesionless material, Meyerhof presented a solution for the case of

    • pure cohesive soil (ϕ°=0°).

    • Thus for cohesive-frictional material,

    equation q u,slope =cN cq +γBN γq may not be capable

    • to predict the ultimate BC of footing on cohesive-frictional materials.

     Method of Gemperline (1988) has provided a mathematical solution, which is valid for ◦ different
    • Method of Gemperline (1988) has provided a mathematical solution, which is valid for

    different size of footing and

    different horizontal and vertical location of the footing.

    • The solutions of BC of shallow foundation on

    slopes given by Saran et al. (1989) are

    valid only for D f /B=0 to 1 and b/B=0 to 1. For other footing locations and embedded depths, the values of BC factors are

    • not accurately predicted.

     All the approaches used by different researchers for the evaluation of BC of shallow foundation
    • All the approaches used by different researchers for the evaluation of BC of

    shallow foundation on slope or near the

    slope

    have their own sets of assumptions and corresponding weaknesses also.

    • Some investigations show that,

    in case of non cohesive soils,

    • the BC is always governed by foundation failure,

    while in cohesive soil

    • the BC of the foundation is dictated by the stability of slope.

     Hybrid methods (viz. combination of FE method with Limit analysis or FE method with Limit
    • Hybrid methods (viz. combination of FE method with Limit analysis or FE method with Limit equilibrium) has been used successfully by many researchers

      • use of finite element analysis has been very nominal

    till date.

    • Most of the research work has been carried out on Strip footing but very few works has been reported on Square (Castelli et.al. 2012;

    Acharyya & Dey 2015, 2017)

    and rectangular footing (Abbas & Sabbar 2011)

    • Use of circular footing has not been reported so far.

    • Most of the work was carried out for

    foundation loaded with

    axial loads

    • but the case of inclined load is very limited (Georgiadis 2009; Ganesh et.

    al. 2016)

     To develop a numerical model  simulate the case of shallow foundation with strip/square/rectangular/circular footing
    • To develop a numerical model

      • simulate the case of shallow foundation with strip/square/rectangular/circular footing on/near a slope.

        • Using Salome-Meca, FEA based software.

    • To evaluate the ultimate bearing capacity

      • the effect of slope angle,

      • height of slope,

      • geometry of footing,

      • distance of slope from edge of footing,

      • cohesion,

      • angle of shearing resistance and

      • drainage conditions in the slope.

  • To evaluate the effect of the drainage on BC

    • Undrained

    • Drained

  •  To analyse BC  considering 3D geometry of slopes  To study the effect of
    • To analyse BC

      • considering 3D geometry of slopes

    • To study the effect of different soil constitutive models

    on BC of shallow foundation on slopes.

    • To compare the result obtained in this investigation

    with the generally used existing theoretical values available in literatures of Meyerhof (1957), Vasic

    (1975), etc.

     Development of FE model ◦ of soil and foundation system on slopes covering wide range
    • Development of FE model of soil and foundation system on slopes covering wide range of parameters identified in the objective of the studies.

    • Development of load deformation curve of the footing under progressive loading.

    • Determination of ultimate bearing capacity of the footing from step 2 above.

    • Identification of pertinent failure mechanism in terms of deformation/strain/stress.

    • Study of variation of failure mechanism if any,

    vis-a-vis variation of different salient parameters identified above.

    • Development of non-dimensional (ND) charts

    reflecting the effects of salient geotechnical/geometric factors affecting bearing capacity of soil on slopes.

     Abbas & Sabbar (2011), Finite analysis for bearing capacity of rectangular footing resting near sloped
    • Abbas & Sabbar (2011), Finite analysis for bearing capacity of rectangular footing resting near sloped cohesive soil, Tikrit Journal of Eng. Sciences/Vol.18/No.3/September 2011, (33-41).

    • Acharyya R. & Dey R. (2015), Site characterization and bearing capacity estimation for a school building located on hill slope, 50th indian geotechnical conference, College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India.

    • Acharyya R. & Dey R. (2017), Finite Element Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of Square Footings Resting on Sloping Ground, Springer; Indian National Academy of Engineering; INAE Lett (2017)

    2:97105; DOI 10.1007/s41403-017-0028-6.

    • Ben Leschchinsky (2015), “Bearing capacity of footings placed Adjacent to c-ϕ slopes” A.M.ASCE.

    • Ben Leschchinsky and Xie Yonggui (2017), “Bearing capacity of spread footings placed near c-ϕ slopes”, J. Geothech, Geoenviron, Eng., 2017, 143(1):06016020; ASCE: DI10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
      5606.0001578

    • Castelli, F. and Lentini, V. (2012), Evaluation of the bearing capacity of footings on slopes, International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 129(3), 112-118.

    • Choudhury & Rao (2006), Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings embedded in slope, DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-

    3641(2006)6:3(176).

    • Chakraborty & Kumar (2013), “Bearing capacity of foundations on slopes”, Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An international Journal, Vol.8, No.4, 274-285.

    • Ganesh et al. (2016), “Bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations in sand under eccentric and oblique loads”, ASCE.

    • Georgiadis, K., 2009. The influence of load inclination on the undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes. Computers and Geotechnics, 37 (3), 311322.

    • Georgiadis, K., (2010), Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Slope, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000269.

    • Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity.” DGI Bull., No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, 511.

    • Kai Wing Ip (2005), “Bearing capacity for foundation near slopes”.

    • Meyerhof, G.G. (1957), “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundation on slopes, Proceedings of 4th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, I, 384-386.

    • Meyerhof, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity

    • Mona A. et.al., Three dimensional bearing capacity of shallow foundations adjacent to slopes using discrete element method, Iternational Journal of Engineering, (IJE) volume (4): issue (2).

    • Mofidi J et al. (2014), “Bearing capacity of strip footings near slopes using lower bound limit analysis”, Civil engineering Infrastructure journal, 47(1): 89-109, ISSN: 2322-2093.

    • Narita, K. and Yamaguchi, H., 1990, Bearing capacity analysis of foundations on slopes by use of log-spiral sliding surfaces. Soils and Foundations, 30 (3), 144
      152.

    • Nguyen V. Q. and Merifield R. S. (2011), undrained bearing capacity of surface footings near slopes, Australian Geomechanics Vol 46 No 1 March 2011

    • Raj Dhiraj and Bharathi M. (2014), Analysis of shallow foundation on slope: a comparative study, International Symposium Geohazards: Science, Engineerin and Management No.LF-16.

    • Raj Dhiraj and Bharathi M. (2013), Bearing capacity of shallow foundation on slope: A review, Proc. GGWUIP, Ludhiana, India.

    • Saran, S., Sud, V.K. and Handa, S.C., 1989. Bearing capacity of footings adjacent to slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115 (4), 553573.

    • Sarma S.K. & Chen Y.C. (1996), Bearing capacity of strip footings near sloping ground during earthquakes, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, ISBN: 0080428223, Elsevier Science Ltd, No.2078.

    • Shields et.al. (1981), Bearing capacity of footing in granular slope, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2, 33-36.

    • Shields, D., Chandler, N. and Garnier, J. (1990), Bearing capacity of foundation in

    slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(3), 528-537.

    • Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    • Vesic, A.S., 1973, Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99 (1), 4573.