Effect of interface adhesion factor on the bearing capacity of strip footing placed on cohesive soil overlying rock mass

doi:10.1007/s11709-021-0768-y

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2021, Vol. 15

Issue (6) : 1494-1503 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0768-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of interface adhesion factor on the bearing capacity of strip footing placed on cohesive soil overlying rock mass

Shuvankar DAS, Debarghya CHAKRABORTY(

)

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

Download: PDF(8115 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

The problem related to bearing capacity of footing either on pure soil or on pure rock mass has been investigated over the years. Currently, no study deals with the bearing capacity of strip footing on a cohesive soil layer overlying rock mass. Therefore, by implementing the lower bound finite element limit analysis in conjunction with the second-order cone programming and the power cone programming, the ultimate bearing capacity of a strip footing located on a cohesive soil overlying rock mass is determined in this study. By considering the different values of interface adhesion factor (α_cr) between the cohesive soil and rock mass, the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing is expressed in terms of influence factor (I_f) for different values of cohesive soil layer cover ratio (T_cs/B). The failure of cohesive soil is modeled by using Mohr−Coulomb yield criterion, whereas Generalized Hoek−Brown yield criterion is utilized to model the rock mass at failure. The variations ofI_f with different magnitudes of α_cr are studied by considering the influence of the rock mass strength parameters of beneath rock mass layer. To examine stress distribution at different depths, failure patterns are also plotted.

Keywords bearing capacity soil-rock interface Hoek−Brown yield criterion plasticity limit analysis

Corresponding Author(s): Debarghya CHAKRABORTY

Just Accepted Date: 30 September 2021 Online First Date: 10 November 2021 Issue Date: 21 January 2022

Cite this article:

Shuvankar DAS,Debarghya CHAKRABORTY. Effect of interface adhesion factor on the bearing capacity of strip footing placed on cohesive soil overlying rock mass[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 1494-1503.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-021-0768-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2021/V15/I6/1494

Fig.1 (a) Problem definition; (b) chosen domain and stress boundary conditions; (c) finite element mesh used in the analysis along with zoomed view around the footing for ? = 0o, α_cr = 1, GSI = 30, m_i = 25, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 2; (d) triangular element, stress discontinuity between two triangular elements, and boundary condition in the LBFELA.

Tab.1 Mesh convergence study for a rough strip footing placed on cohesive soil overlying rock mass having T_cs/B = 0.5, GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, and α_cr = 1

Fig.2 Variation of influence factor (I_f) for: (a) GSI = 10,m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (b) GSI = 10, m_i = 15, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (c) GSI = 10, m_i = 25, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (d) GSI = 10, m_i = 35, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (e) GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (f) GSI = 30, m_i ≥ 15, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (g) GSI ≥ 50, m_i ≥ 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞.

Fig.3 Variation of influence factor (I_f) for: (a) GSI = 10, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (b) GSI = 10, m_i = 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (c) GSI = 10, m_i = 25, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (d) GSI = 10, m_i = 35, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (e) GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (f) GSI = 30, m_i = 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (g) GSI = 30, m_i = 25, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (h) GSI = 30, m_i = 35, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (i)GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (j) GSI = 50, m_i = 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (k) GSI = 50, m_i = 25, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (l) GSI = 50, m_i = 35, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (m) GSI ≥ 70, m_i ≥ 5, D = 1.0, σ_ci/γB = ∞.

Fig.4 Variation of influence factor (I_f) for: (a) GSI = 10, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (b) GSI = 10, m_i = 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (c) GSI = 10, m_i = 25, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (d) GSI = 10, m_i = 35, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (e) GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (f) GSI = 30, m_i = 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (g) GSI = 30, m_i = 25, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (h) GSI = 30, m_i = 35, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (i)GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (j) GSI = 50, m_i ≥ 15, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞; (k) GSI ≥ 70, m_i ≥ 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞.

Tab.2 Comparison of bearing capacity factor, N_c for rough strip footing placed on cohesive soil without any underlying rock mass

Fig.5 Comparison of obtained influence factor (I_f) with the result of Ouahab et al. [13] for (a) GSI having m_i = 5, D = 0; (b) m_i having GSI = 30, D = 0.5; (c) D having GSI = 30, m_i = 15.

Fig.6 Failure patterns obtained for: (a) ? = 0o, GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 0; (b) ? = 0o, GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 0.4; (c) ? = 0o, GSI = 30, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 1.0; (d) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 0; (e) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 0.4; (f) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.5, α_cr = 1.0; (g) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 3.0, α_cr = 0; (h) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 3.0, α_cr = 0.4; (i) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 3.0, α_cr = 1.0; (j) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.75, α_cr = 1.0; (k) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 0.5, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.75, α_cr = 1.0; (l) ? = 0o, GSI = 50, m_i = 5, D = 1.0, σ_ci/γB = ∞, T_cs/B = 0.75, α_cr = 1.0.

1	L Prandtl. The bond strength of plastic building materials and the strength of cutting edges. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 1921, 1( 1): 15– 20 https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19210010102(inGerman
2	G G Meyerhof. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1963, 1( 1): 16– 26 https://doi.org/10.1139/t63-003
3	J B Hansen. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Bulletin of Danish Geotechnical Institute, 1970, 28 : 5– 11
4	D V Griffiths. Computation of bearing capacity factors using finite elements. Geotechnique, 1982, 32( 3): 195– 202 https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1982.32.3.195
5	R S Merifield, A V Lyamin, S W Sloan. Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised Hoek–Brown criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2006, 43( 6): 920– 937 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.02.001
6	J Kumar, D Mohapatra. Lower-bound finite elements limit analysis for Hoek−Brown materials using semidefinite programming. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2017, 143( 9): 04017077– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001296
7	J Kumar, O Rahaman. Lower bound limit analysis using power cone programming for solving stability problems in rock mechanics for generalized Hoek–Brown criterion. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2020, 53( 7): 3237– 3252 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02099-y
8	S Das, K Halder, D Chakraborty. Bearing capacity of interfering strip footings on rock mass. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 2021, 1– 13 https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2021.1903091
9	D V Griffiths. Computation of bearing capacity on layered soils. In: Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference. Edmonton: Balkema, 1982, 163– 170
10	A Florkiewicz. Upper bound to bearing capacity of layered soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1989, 26( 4): 730– 736 https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-084
11	H J Burd, S Frydman. Bearing capacity of plane-strain footings on layered soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1997, 34( 2): 241– 253 https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-106
12	M Huang, H L Qin. Upper-bound multi-rigid-block solutions for bearing capacity of two-layered soils. Computers and Geotechnics, 2009, 36( 3): 525– 529 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.10.001
13	M Y Ouahab, A Mabrouki, M Mellas, D Benmeddour. Effect of load eccentricity on the bearing capacity of strip footings on non-homogenous clay overlying bedrock. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 2018, 5( 2): 169– 186 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-018-0055-0
14	O Mohr. Circumstances that cause the elastic limit and the breakage of a material. Journal of the German Engineers Association, 1900, 46 : 1572– 1577 (in German)
15	E Hoek, C Carranza-Torres, B Corkum. Hoek−Brown failure criterion—2002 edition. Proceedings of NARMS-Tac, 2002, 1( 1): 267– 273
16	K Halder, D Chakraborty. Effect of interface friction angle between soil and reinforcement on bearing capacity of strip footing placed on reinforced slope. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2019, 19( 5): 06019008– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001394
17	S W Sloan. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and linear programming. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 1988, 12( 1): 61– 77 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610120105
18	A Makrodimopoulos, C M Martin. Lower bound limit analysis of cohesive-frictional materials using second-order cone programming. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2006, 66( 4): 604– 634 https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1567
19	MATLAB. Version 8.5. Natick, Massachusetts: MathWorks. 2015
20	MOSEK ApS. Version 9.0. Copenhagen: MOSEK, 2020
21	K Krabbenhøft, A V Lyamin, S W Sloan. Formulation and solution of some plasticity problems as conic programs. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2007, 44( 5): 1533– 1549 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.06.036
22	C Tang, K K Phoon, K C Toh. Lower-bound limit analysis of seismic passive earth pressure on rigid walls. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2014, 14( 5): 04014022– https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000385
23	H Nguyen-Xuan, T Rabczuk. Adaptive selective ES-FEM limit analysis of cracked plane-strain structures. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2015, 9( 4): 478– 490 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-015-0317-7
24	B Ukritchon, S Keawsawasvong. Lower bound limit analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion using second-order cone programming. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2018, 42( 8): 1016– 1033 https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2781
25	K Halder, D Chakraborty. Probabilistic bearing capacity of strip footing on reinforced soil slope. Computers and Geotechnics, 2019, 116 : 103213– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103213
26	O Rahaman, J Kumar. Stability analysis of twin horse-shoe shaped tunnels in rock mass. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 98 : 103354– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103354
27	D Chakraborty, J Kumar. Bearing capacity of strip foundations in reinforced soils. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2014, 14( 1): 45– 58 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000275
28	S Zhou, X Zhuang, H Zhu, T Rabczuk. Phase field modelling of crack propagation, branching and coalescence in rocks. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 2018, 96 : 174– 192 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2018.04.011
29	S Zhou, T Rabczuk, X Zhuang. Phase field modeling of quasi-static and dynamic crack propagation: COMSOL implementation and case studies. Advances in Engineering Software, 2018, 122 : 31– 49 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.03.012
30	S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. A phase-field modeling approach of fracture propagation in poroelastic media. Engineering Geology, 2018, 240 : 189– 203 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.04.008
31	X Zhuang, S Zhou, M Sheng, G Li. On the hydraulic fracturing in naturally-layered porous media using the phase field method. Engineering Geology, 2020, 266 : 105306– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105306
32	S Zhou, X Zhuang, T Rabczuk. Phase-field modeling of fluid-driven dynamic cracking in porous media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2019, 350 : 169– 198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.03.001

[1]	Hongyuan TANG, Ruizhong LIU, Xin ZHAO, Rui GUO, Yigang JIA. Axial compression behavior of CFRP-confined rectangular concrete-filled stainless steel tube stub column[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 1144-1159.
[2]	Baki BAĞRIAÇIK, Ahmet BEYCIOĞLU, Szymon TOPOLINSKI, Emre AKMAZ, Sedat SERT, Esra Deniz GÜNER. Assessment of glass fiber-reinforced polyester pipe powder in soil improvement[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(3): 742-753.
[3]	Mantu MAJUMDER, Debarghya CHAKRABORTY. Bearing and uplift capacities of under-reamed piles in soft clay underlaid by stiff clay using lower-bound finite element limit analysis[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(2): 537-551.
[4]	Mohammad Reza AZADI KAKAVAND, Ertugrul TACIROGLU. An enhanced damage plasticity model for predicting the cyclic behavior of plain concrete under multiaxial loading conditions[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 1531-1544.
[5]	Dan V. BOMPA, Ahmed Y. ELGHAZOULI. Nonlinear numerical simulation of punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete flat slabs with shear-heads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 331-356.
[6]	Jordan CARTER, Aikaterini S. GENIKOMSOU. Investigation on modeling parameters of concrete beams reinforced with basalt FRP bars[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1520-1530.
[7]	Shaochun WANG, Xi JIANG, Yun BAI. The influence of hand hole on the ultimate strength and crack pattern of shield tunnel segment joints by scaled model test[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1200-1213.
[8]	Pengfei LIU, Dawei WANG, Frédéric OTTO, Markus OESER. Application of semi-analytical finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt pavements under moving loads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 215-221.
[9]	Sergio A. MARTÍNEZ-GALVÁN, Miguel P. ROMO. Assessment of an alternative to deep foundations in compressible clays: the structural cell foundation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 67-80.
[10]	Priyanka GHOSH, S. RAJESH, J. SAI CHAND. Linear and nonlinear elastic analysis of closely spaced strip foundations using Pasternak model[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(2): 228-243.
[11]	Xin LIANG,Qian-gong CHENG,Jiu-jiang WU,Jian-ming CHEN. Model test of the group piles foundation of a high-speed railway bridge in mined-out area[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 488-498.
[12]	Janaka J. KUMARA,Yoshiaki KIKUCHI,Takashi KURASHINA,Takahiro YAJIMA. Effects of inner sleeves on the inner frictional resistance of open-ended piles driven into sand[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 499-505.
[13]	H. NGUYEN-XUAN,T. RABCZUK. Adaptive selective ES-FEM limit analysis of cracked plane-strain structures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 478-490.
[14]	S. HASHEMI,H. AHMADIAN,S. MOHAMMADI. An extended thermo-mechanically coupled algorithm for simulation of superelasticity and shape memory effect in shape memory alloys[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 466-477.
[15]	Bruno SUDRET,Hung Xuan DANG,Marc BERVEILLER,Asmahana ZEGHADI,Thierry YALAMAS. Characterization of random stress fields obtained from polycrystalline aggregate calculations using multi-scale stochastic finite elements[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 121-140.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed