Das, P P; Khatri, V N; Doley, R; Dutta, R K and Yadav, J S (2024) Estimation of bearing capacity of shallow footings on layered sand using finite elements analysis. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(2), pp. 385-403. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to estimate the bearing capacity of a surface strip and circular footings lying on layered sand using numerical limit analysis. Design/methodology/approach: Lower and upper bound limit analysis, as well as finite elements and second-order conic programming (SOCP), are used in this analysis. The yield criterion of Mohr-Coulomb is used to model soil behavior. Using this technique, stringent lower and upper bounds on ultimate bearing capacity can be achieved by assuming an associated flow law. Findings: The obtained results indicate that the exact collapse load is typically being bracketed to within 6% about a mean of both the bounds. The obtained results are compared with the existing literature wherever applicable. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, no study has used lower and upper bound limit analysis, as well as finite elements and SOCP, to estimate the bearing capacity of a surface strip and circular footings lying on layered sand.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bearing capacity; circular footing; comparison; finite element analysis; strip footing |
| Index terms: | finite element analysis, sand, estimate, estimation, programming, methodology, upper bound |
| Subjects: | research methods, probability and distributions, engineering analysis, programming, building materials, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here