Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sciences
Results of laboratory model tests and numerical studies on the behavior of a strip footing adjacent to a
sand slope are investigated and presented in this paper. The investigated parameters include the
effects of depth of the first reinforcement layer, vertical spacing, number of reinforcement layers, and
distance between the edges of footings on bearing capacity. Results were analyzed to determine the
effects of each parameter. Using a strip footing located near a sand slope crest had a significant effect
on improving bearing capacity. The improvement increased when relative density decreased. The depth
of the first layer decreased with further improvement when the distance of the footing edge from the
slope crest increased. Using a strip footing can be considered effective in controlling the horizontal
movement of the subgrade and in decreasing slope deformation. Finite element analysis explained and
identified the failure pattern of strip footings adjacent to a slope crest. The findings also confirmed the
load transfer mechanism and showed how a slope can be protected when geotextile is used.
Key words: Strip footing, slope stability, plaxis, bearing capacity, scale effects.
INTRODUCTION
Rapid population growth and urbanization have resulted
in increased construction areas and the decrease of
suitable settlement areas. As a result, the bearing
capacity and settlement criteria for building construction
are changing. The use of unwanted soil has also become
obligatory. Engineering structures, foundation systems,
ground transportation, and living conditions are usually
designed by using shallow foundations, which becomes
problematic with regard to certain types of soil. The most
commonly used solution is deep/pile foundation, which is
applied by selecting the foundations of a building.
Deep/pile solution is expensive. However, rapid
advancements in construction technology that provide
new solutions to problematic surfaces have made
deep/pile solution necessary. Several methods in soil
solution have been developed since the 1970s
1808
q ult
1 ,
BN
2
(1)
1809
Numerical modeling
Experimental results were verified through numerical modeling by
using FEM. Plane strain elastoplastic finite element analysis (FEA)
was conducted by using the commercial program PLAXIS 2D
1810
qu
qu ( 0)
Test No
Ur1*
Ur2
Ur3
Ur4
Ur5
Ur6
Ur7
Ur8
Ur9
Ur10
Ur11
Ur12
Ur13
Ur14
Ur15
Ur16
Ur17
Ur18
Ur19
Ur20
Ur21
Ur22
Ur23
Ur24
Ur25
Ur26
Ur27
Ur28
0
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Dr%
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
B (mm)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
70
70
70
100
100
100
150
150
150
50
50
50
70
70
70
100
100
100
150
150
150
X/B
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
1811
Figure 3. Load variations with settlement for different edge distances of strip footing on the slope
(Dr=85%, and =30).
q ur
qu
q ur
qu
SRF
Sr
S
1812
Table 2. Ultimate bearing capacity test results (Dr = 85% and = 30).
X/B
0
1
2
3
4
5
Flat
qu(kN/m )
39.27
67.64
83.98
107.16
122.58
122.87
153.21
S(mm)
-4.06
-3.72
-4.75
-6.74
-8.22
-7.59
-8.16
i
0.256315
0.441486
0.548137
0.699432
0.800078
0.801971
1
1813
Figure 5. Loadsettlement curves for different numbers of reinforcement layers at Dr = 85%, X/B
= 2, and =30.
Table 3. Variation of footing settlement and bearing capacity for reinforcement soil.
Soil type
Unreinforced
One reinforced layer
Two reinforced layers
Three reinforced layers
Bearing capacity
67.4
158.9
283.5
358.9
1814
FEA results
FEA results are shown in Figures 9a to h. Figure 9a
presents a typical deformed FE mesh for strip footing on
reinforced sand slope in the case of (X/B = 1, = 30,
and d/B = 0.5). A small deformation is shown, which is a
significant feature of the reinforced sand slope, unlike the
1815
1816
1) Without reinforcement
1) Without reinforcement
1) Without reinforcement
2) One-layer reinforcement
e) Shading of mean stresses
1) Without reinforcement
2) One-layer reinforcement
f) Plastic points for geotextile
1817
1818
1) Without reinforcement
2) One-layer reinforcement
(g) The principal strain location
1)
Without reinforcement
2) One-layer reinforcement
(h) The contours of principal strain
Figure 9. Horizontal displacement contours in soil mass under footing placed on: (a) unreinforced slope, (b)
reinforced footing (d=B).
1819
1820
(a) X/B=0
(b) X/B=1
(c) X/B=2
Figure 10. Experimental and numerical results of test with D r=85% (a) X/B = 0; (b) X/B = 1;
and (c) X/B = 2.
the variation of
qu
1
BN
2
where
Figure 11. Load variations with S for model slope with different footing widths (X/B=1).
Table 4. Bearing capacity factor N for strip footing on sand slope with relative density of 60%.
X/B
B(mm)
(0)
50
70
100
150
0
58.93491
37.19358
24.26036
5.443787
/4
69.5858
51.05664
37.75148
28.00789
/2
76.21302
62.21471
41.30178
31.3215
(1)
50
70
100
150
69.5858
25.86644
21.06509
33.13609
91.59763
79.79713
59.40828
44.26036
104.142
88.25021
63.07692
49.78304
3/4
77.15976
62.72189
45.08876
34.00394
82.36686
63.90533
46.0355
34.47732
108.6391
90.78614
70.88757
52.70217
109.3491
92.98394
72.42604
53.57002
1821
1822
(a) X/B = 0
Figure 13. N versus X/B for different for relative density of 60%.
values.
increased with
Conclusions
A series of experimental and numerical model tests was
conducted to evaluate the bearing capacity of a strip
footing with and without reinforcement that rests adjacent
to the crest of sand slopes. This study mainly aimed to
investigate the effects of geotextile depth, footing
location, and slope angle on both ultimate bearing
1823