Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Anisotropic and Nonhomogeneous Clays

Reddy, A. Siva; Rao, K. Balaji

doi:10.3208/sandf1972.21.1

Cited by 41 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the discrepancy between the presented solution and that of Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) is attributed not to the method of analysis but rather to the different postulated failure mechanisms. In fact, as stated at the outset of this paper, Chen (1975) solved the same problem using the kinematical approach of limit analysis and the results agreed with the Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) Reddy and Rao (1981) used the kinematic approach of limit analysis and adopted Prandtl-type failure mechanism. It is seen from Table 2 that for degree of anisotropy less than one, the presented solution overpredicted the Reddy and Rao (1981) Reddy and Rao (1981) solution is expected to consistently increase with increasing k value.…”

Section: Comparative Study Irrespective Of the Degree Of Soil Anisotrsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…It is seen from Table 2 that for degree of anisotropy less than one, the presented solution overpredicted the Reddy and Rao (1981) Reddy and Rao (1981) solution is expected to consistently increase with increasing k value. In addition, although the Reddy and Rao (1981) Davis and Christian (1971) (After Davis and Christian, 1971) As far as the locus of strength is assumed to be represented by Equation 3, the change in the b/a ratio with k is, as shown in Figure 12, Davis and Christians (1971) yield identical expressions for the anisotropic bearing capacity factor, provided that in the Davis and Christian (1971) solution, either the angular variation of shear strength is defined as in Figure 11 but the b/a ratio is set equal to 1, or alternatively the Casagrande and Carillo (1944) Geometric parameter ψ:…”

Section: Comparative Study Irrespective Of the Degree Of Soil Anisotrmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…A correction coefficient for the bearing capacity factor was presented in a graphical form as a function of the soil strength parameters. Assuming a failure mechanism similar to Prandtl-type mechanism, but with varying boundary wedge angles, Reddy and Rao (1981) used the upper bound approach of limit analysis for the evaluation of bearing capacity for anisotropic and nonhomogeneous clays. Although the solution is rigorous within the concept of limit analysis, however the derived expression is exceedingly cumbersome and the least upper bound could only be obtained numerically by a process of trial-and-error (heuristically) (Drucker et al, 1952) Casagrande and Carillo (1944) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Soluciones de forma cerrada para la capacidad de carga de zapatas en suelos anisotrópicos cohesivos

Al‐Shamrani

Moghal

2015

Rev. ing. constr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparative Study Irrespective Of the Degree Of Soil Anisotrsupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Comparative Study Irrespective Of the Degree Of Soil Anisotrmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soluciones de forma cerrada para la capacidad de carga de zapatas en suelos anisotrópicos cohesivos

Al‐Shamrani

Moghal

2015

Rev. ing. constr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since the solution of Reddy and Rao (1981) is available in a graphical form, the same values for degree of anisotropy considered by them were considered for the generation of the bearing capacity factor values shown in Table 2. It should however be remarked that in Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) and Reddy and Rao (1981) the degree of anisotropy is defined as the ratio of vertical to horizontal principal shear strength and as such it is the reciprocal of the definition adopted in this paper. Thus, the values for k shown in Table 2 are the reciprocal of those values considered by Reddy and Srinivasan (1967) and Reddy and Rao (1981).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A correction coefficient for the bearing capacity factor was presented in a graphical form as a function of the soil strength parameters. Assuming a failure mechanism similar to Prandtl-type mechanism, but with varying boundary wedge angles, Reddy and Rao (1981) used the upper bound approach of limit analysis for the evaluation of bearing capacity for anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays. Although the solution is rigorous within the concept of limit analysis, the derived expression is exceedingly cumbersome and the least upper bound could only be obtained numerically by a process of trial-and-error (heuristically) or with the aid of iterative rigorous optimization technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper Bound Solutions for Bearing Capacity of Footings on Anisotropic Cohesive Soils

Al‐Shamrani¹,

Moghal²

2012

GeoCongress 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A closed form solution for the undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on anisotropic cohesive soils using kinematic approach of limit analysis has been presented in this article. A translational failure mechanism with variable wedge angles is attempted and the resulting upper bound was analytically determined leading to an analytical expression for the bearing capacity factor. The influence of degree of soil anisotropy on the corresponding value for the bearing capacity factor was evaluated and the results are compared with available pertinent solution. An advantage of the closed-form solution is that it is more convenient for complex computations as well as it clearly depicts the effect of soil anisotropy on the bearing capacity as opposed to tabular or graphical representations where such an effect is obstructed in a number of charts and/or tables.. INTRODUCTIONThe ultimate bearing capacity of foundations is commonly estimated based on the assumption that the soil is isotropic with respect to shear strength. However, clay strata are usually deposited and consolidated under one-dimensional conditions, and hence most naturally occurring clays are inherently anisotropic (Ward et al., 1965;Bishop 1966). This commonly results in horizontal bedding planes having strength and other physical properties different in horizontal and vertical directions. Because of soil anisotropy, the undrained shear strength varies with the orientation of the failure plane. In the bearing capacity problem, the direction of the principal stresses along any assumed failure surface changes from one point to the other. Therefore, it is more realistic to use values of strength appropriate to each orientation of the failure plane. This is of a prime importance especially for the case of analytical solutions where the undrained bearing capacity is solely function of one soil parameter (i.e. undrained shear strength), contrary to computational solutions where the soil behavior is characterized by several constitutive parameters, albeit with different level of importance.There have been several attempts pertaining to the evaluation of the bearing capacity of footings on cohesive soils that took into account anisotropy in shear strength. Using the limit equilibrium approach and assuming a circular failure 1066 GeoCongress 2012

show abstract

Lower bound limit analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion using second‐order cone programming

Ukritchon

Keawsawasvong

2018

Num Anal Meth Geomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In this paper, the formulation of the lower bound limit analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion using second‐order cone programming is described. The finite element concept was used to discretize the soil mass into 3‐noded triangular elements. The stress field was modeled using a linear interpolation within the elements while stress discontinuities were permitted to occur at the shared edges of adjacent elements. An elliptical yield criterion was adopted to model the anisotropic undrained strength of the clay. A statically admissible stress field was defined by enforcing the equilibrium equations within all triangular elements and along all shared edges of adjacent elements, stress boundary conditions, and no stress violation of the anisotropic strength envelope cast in the form of a conic quadratic constraint. The lower bound solution of the proposed formulation was solved by second‐order cone programming. The proposed formulation of the anisotropic undrained strength criterion was validated through comparison of the model's predictions with the known exact solutions of strip footings, and was applied to solve undrained stability of a shallow unlined square tunnel. Computational performance between the proposed approach of second‐order cone programming and linear programming was examined and discussed.

show abstract

Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Anisotropic and Nonhomogeneous Clays

Cited by 41 publications

References 8 publications

Soluciones de forma cerrada para la capacidad de carga de zapatas en suelos anisotrópicos cohesivos

Soluciones de forma cerrada para la capacidad de carga de zapatas en suelos anisotrópicos cohesivos

Upper Bound Solutions for Bearing Capacity of Footings on Anisotropic Cohesive Soils

Lower bound limit analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion using second‐order cone programming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About