Numerical analysis of bearing capacity of multiple strip footing on unreinforced and reinforced sand beds

Zidan, Ahmed F.; Mohamed, Mostafa

doi:10.1007/s42452-019-1520-2

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The backfill, reinforcement and soil-reinforcement interface are considered and simulated separately in the numerical models [10,14,18,42]. In the literature, the finite element software for modeling reinforced foundation is PLAXIS 2D or 3D [13,[15][16][17]. In the models, the geogrid or plate structural element is generally used to simulate the reinforcement and the behavior of structural elements is modeled as linear-elastic material.…”

Section: Finite Element and Finite Difference Modellingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hussein and Meguid [79] Finite element ABAQUS 3D Square Geogrid Badakhshan and Noorzad [59] Finite element ABAQUS 3D Circular, Square Geotextile Lai and Yang [80] Finite difference FLAC 2D Strip Geotextile Nasr and Azzam [60] Finite element PLAXIS 2D Strip Geogrid, Geotextile Oliaei and Kouzegaran [19] Finite difference FLAC 3D Square Planar geosynthetic, Geocell Venkateswarlu et al [20] Finite difference FLAC 3D Square Geogrid, Geocell Gao and Meguid [23] Discrete element PFC 3D Square Geogrid Ouria and Mahmoudi [81] Finite element -Strip Geotextile Aria et al [82] Finite element PLAXIS 3D Strip Wraparound geotextile Zidan and Mohamed [17] Finite element PLAXIS 2D Strip Geogrid Wang et al [24] Discrete element PFC 2D Strip Geogrid…”

Section: Pfc 2d Strip Geogridmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to experimental studies, numerical modellings were used to validate the results of model tests and investigate the effect of various influencing factors on the performance of GRS foundations. Currently, the numerical analysis methods consist of finite element method [14][15][16][17], finite difference method [18][19][20], and discrete element method [21][22][23][24]. Based on the results of experimental and numerical studies, some researchers have proposed the analytical solutions to calculate the bearing capacity of reinforced foundation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Planar geosynthetic-reinforced soil foundations: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geosynthetics-reinforced soil (GRS) foundation can improve the bearing capacity of the foundation and reduce the settlement of the footing, which has been widely applied to the treatment and improvement of soft soil foundation. In recent years, scholars have carried out a large number of studies to reveal the influence of different factors on the load and settlement behaviors of GRS foundations. In this study, the reinforcing mechanisms of reinforced materials are first summarized, and then the literature review of planar geosynthetic-reinforced foundations from the aspects of experimental studies, numerical simulations and theoretical analyses are presented. Finally, the current research trend of reinforced foundation and the prospects in the future study are discussed. Although the researches on the performance of GRS foundations are conducted extensively, there is no unified understanding on the failure mode and reinforcing mechanism of reinforced foundation. It is necessary to propose the accurate and simple calculation method to evaluate the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced foundations based on the reinforcing mechanism and failure mode. In addition, the dynamic response of GRS foundations under cyclic loading and earthquake needs to be studied intensively. The paper summarizes the past and present developments of the GRS foundations and provide the views for the further researches.

show abstract

Section: Finite Element and Finite Difference Modellingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pfc 2d Strip Geogridmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Planar geosynthetic-reinforced soil foundations: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of investigators [21,22] remarked that geocell confinement in soil induces apparent cohesion, whereas the reinforcement depth is replaced by an equivalent layer, with homogenous properties [33]. The induced cohesion in the soil is related to the increase in the confining pressure on the soil due to the geocell reinforcement, which is calculated through the following equation:…”

Section: Parametric Calculations Of Reinforced Soil Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of geocell dimensions and layout on the strength properties of reinforced soil

Kouchaksaraei

Khalkhali

2020

SN Appl. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selecting suitable materials with acceptable shear strength characteristics may be the easiest and most economical way to obtain the maximum shear strength, if possible. But, it is costly in some projects, due to the long distances to access the source of high-quality materials, as well as environmental constraints. Therefore, this study intends to adopt a more appropriate strategy in order to achieve desired strength properties using 3D geosynthetic reinforcement called geocell. In this study, both laboratory experiments and numerical analyses were employed to investigate the layout-dependent and dimensional effects of geocell on the shear strength of reinforced soil in various sections of a reinforcing element. Experimental outputs were extended using numerical simulation through the finite element method. The results indicated that geocell with smaller pocket opening diameter increased the shear strength of soil up to 31%. It was also observed that despite the increase in the pocket opening diameter (up to 80%), only 4% decrement occurred in the value of shear strength. Due to the increase in the aspect (height-diameter) ratio of geocell, the interface shear strength between the soil and geocell edge increased. When the failure plane exactly passed through the middle of the geocellheight, the shear strength is increased by 11%, in comparison with the state that the edge of geocell is tangential to the failure plane. However, when the geocell moved away from the failure plane, the shear stress-horizontal displacement curves had a similar trend to that of the unreinforced soil.

show abstract

“…Several reports are published after the pioneering work reported by Stuart [1] using different analytical/numerical methods and experimental observations. The studies offering the understanding of two or multiple interfering footings using analytical/numerical methods use upper and lower bound limit analysis [2][3][4][5][6][7], finite difference method [8][9][10], finite element method [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and analytical method [19,20], the probabilistic method [21] and others [22]. Then several experimental studies [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] have been reported on the interference of surface footings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural Assessment on Influence of Adjacently Placed Strip Footings at Different Embedment Level

Ekbote¹,

Nainegali

Rajhans

et al. 2022

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The footings laid in close proximity imposes a definite change in the behaviour of the adjacent footing, subsequently changing the behaviour of the nearby footings. The present study emphasises the behaviour of the nearby strip footings embedded at a different level by adopting the commercially available finite element analysis program, ABAQUS. The load-settlement behaviour, ultimate bearing capacity (UBC), and the failure patterns of adjacent strip footings are assessed by considering the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The UBC is of the nearby footings (left and right) are estimated and represented in terms of interference factors (ξL/ξR ) defined as the UBC of a footing in the presence of adjacent footing to that of same considered for equivalent isolated footing. The results reveal that a significant influence of the adjacent footing is experienced when the spacing between the footings (S/B) is lesser, and they behave as the single footing of greater width at S/B = 0.25 irrespective of the level of embedment depth. Furthermore, the influence of interference increases with the increase in the embedment depth of adjacent footing. It is found that the ξL is significantly more for a lower level of embedment depth, and the same increases with an increase in the embedment depth of the right footing but on the contrary ξR decreases. The increase in the peak interference factor, ξL-max for DL/B = 0.5 is 2.1% and 4.2% when DR/B = 0.75 and DR/B = 1.0, respectively.

show abstract

Numerical analysis of bearing capacity of multiple strip footing on unreinforced and reinforced sand beds

Cited by 6 publications

References 43 publications

Planar geosynthetic-reinforced soil foundations: a review

Planar geosynthetic-reinforced soil foundations: a review

The effect of geocell dimensions and layout on the strength properties of reinforced soil

Behavioural Assessment on Influence of Adjacently Placed Strip Footings at Different Embedment Level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About