Advertisement

Influence of Shape of Cross Section on the Load–Settlement Behaviour of Strip Footings

  • J. JayamohanEmail author
  • P. Sajith
  • Shilpa Vijayan
  • Anusha Nair
  • S. Chandni
  • Akhila Vijayan
Conference paper
  • 41 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 56)

Abstract

The bearing capacity of footings has been extensively studied, both theoretically and experimentally over the past decades. In all the type of footings except shell foundations, the shape of the cross section adopted is rectangular and the base has been considered as a plane surface. The pattern of soil movement beneath the footing during loading is a significant factor contributing to the load–settlement behaviour. By altering the shape of the cross section of the footing, it would be possible to provide better confinement of underlying soil thereby improving the load–settlement behaviour. This paper investigates the influence of the shape of the cross section of the footing on its behaviour. The different shapes of the cross section of footing adopted for the study are sloped cross section, curved cross section and rectangular cross section with vertical flanges. A series of non-linear finite element analyses are carried out with the FE software PLAXIS 2D and the results are validated by carrying out laboratory scale load tests and comparing the results. It is observed from the results that the load–settlement behaviour of the footings can be significantly improved by altering the shape of the cross section. The improvement is significant when the shape of the cross section is Curved or Rectangular with flanges. The optimum length of flanges is observed to be 20% of the width of the footing.

Keywords

Shape of cross section Footing Load–settlement behaviour Finite element analyses 

References

  1. 1.
    Craig RF (2004) Craig’s soil mechanics. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ericson HL, Drescher A (2002) Bearing capacity of circular footings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 128(1):38–43Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffiths DV, Fenton Gordon A, Manoharan N (2002) Bearing capacity of rough rigid strip footing on cohesive soil: probabilistic study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 128(9):743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hossain MS, Randolph MF (2009) New mechanism-based design approach for spudcan foundations on single layer clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1264–1274.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hossain MS, Randolph MF (2010) Deep-penetrating spudcan foundations on layered clays: centrifuge tests. Géotechnique 60(3):157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu Y, Randolph MF, Watson PG (1999) Bearing response of skirted foundation on non-homogeneous soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng125(11):924–935.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241
  7. 7.
    Lee J, Salgado R (2005) Estimation of bearing capacity of circular footing on sands based on CPT. J Geotech and Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(4):442–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merifield RS, Sloan SW, Yu HS (2001) Stability of plate anchors in undrained clay. Géotechnique 51(2):141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyerhof G (1965) Shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 91(SM2):21–31Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michalowski Randoslaw L, Dawson ME (2002) Three-dimensional analysis of limit loads on Mohr-Coulomb soil. Found Civil Environ Eng 1(1):137–147Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prandtl L (1921) Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden. Zeit Angew Math Mech 1:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reissner H (1924) Zum Erddruckproblem. In: Proceedings of first international congress of applied mechanics. Delft, pp 295–311Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salgado R, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW, Yu HS (2004) Two- and three-dimensional bearing capacity of foundation in clay. Geotechnique 54(5):297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh SK, Monika K (2016) Load carrying capacity of shell foundations on treated and untreated soils. In: Indian geotechnical conference 2016, IIT MadrasGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taiebat HA, Carter JP (2000) Numerical studies of the bearing capacity of shallow foundation. Geotechnique 50(4):409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang CX, Carter JP (2002) Deep penetration of strip and circular footings into layered clays. Int J Geomech 2(2):205–232.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1532-641
  18. 18.
    Zhang Y, Bienen B, Cassidy MJ, Gourvenec S (2012) Undrained bearing capacity of deeply buried flat circular footings under general loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 385–397  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang Y, Wang D, Cassidy MJ, Bienen B (2014) Effect of installation on the bearing capacity of a spudcan under combined loading in soft clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 04014029.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu M, Michalowski RL (2005) Shape factors for limit loads on square and rectangular footings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(2):223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Jayamohan
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. Sajith
    • 1
  • Shilpa Vijayan
    • 1
  • Anusha Nair
    • 1
  • S. Chandni
    • 1
  • Akhila Vijayan
    • 1
  1. 1.LBS Institute of Technology for WomenThiruvananthapuramIndia

Personalised recommendations