A progressive research on the bearing capacity of footing in sand

(by XXXX, student number: xxxxx, XXXX Lab)

(for Advanced Topics in Civil Engineering)

Bearing capacity is so important that there are many theories to calculate it. In the
lecture, it is mentioned that the traditional theories have many faults. I have known it
roughly in XXXXX’s lecture, but it was not so detailed. In writing the report, I went over
the two lectures both.
The research seems very interesting to me as 1) it is practically useful; 2) it shows
the research method in geotechnical engineering; 3) it is a vivid example of FEM
capacity and 4) it shows further research is needed.

1) It is practically useful
There are numerous theories
on the bearing capacity of
footing in sand (Fig.1.). And for
Bearing capacity coefficient due to soil weight, N

different country the engineers Rigid, rough, surface strip footing

tend to use difference theory
Stress characteristics method
and special formulae. The
same sand seems have
different capacity in different
area. As shown in Fig.1. all the
theory curves is rather
different from each other. And
thus may make engineers
confused. But much more Limit equilibrium method
difference can be seen in Fig. 2
between the theories and Limit analysis
experimental data.
In Fig. 2., for different test
Angle of internal friction,  (degree)
condition, i.e. PSC, TC and
simple shear test with different
Fig. 1. Isotropic perfectly plastic classical solutions
 and different footing width,
the much more confused tests
results are obtained. Which curve in Fig. 2. can be trusted? For an engineer, a clear
answer is desired. For a practical use, the answer will be complex, I think. It will be
 i) classical bearing
capacity theories can be
PSC (= 90o)
used by assuming isotropic, PSC (= 23o) Toyoura sand
TC (=90o) (e= 0.66)
perfectly-plastic material Simple shear

Bearing capacity coefficient

properties with failure

due to soil weight, N

planes without a thickness;
ii) the following factors
res= 35o
should be taken into (PSC)

account Rigid, rough, surface strip footing

(1) Pressure Range of solutions by classical bearing

capacity theories assuming isotropic,
level-dependency; and perfectly-plastic material properties with
failure planes without a thickness
(2) anisotropy of the
strength and deformation Angle of internal friction,  (degree)
properties;
(3) different values and Fig. 2. Discrepancy between the theories
definitions of φ among and experimental data
different shear modes
(e.g., TC, PSC & simple shear); and
(4) progressive failure associated with; a) strain localisation (i.e., shear banding); b)
strain softening rate; which is subjected to particle size effects; and c) compressibility.
iii) The use of an under-estimated angle of friction, close to residual, in engineering
practice which may result into consistently conservative design (or too conservative
design in many cases, particularly with large footings); and an inconsistent design for
different ratios of footing size to particle size.
It is sufficient for an engineer to know the point i), ii) and iii). And the points can give
them confidence that the design is on the safe side. At the same time unease can grow
as their design may be too extravagant. Although the answer has its limitations, e.g. the
viscosity is not considered, a rather clear answer for practice has been proposed by this
research.

2) research method
Theory is very important in engineering although we can not depend on theory. As
shown in Fig. 2., the range of solutions by classical bearing capacity theories can give us
some information to predict the bearing capacity.
But geotechnical engineering is very practical and its theory is always very complicated
as geomaterial property is too difficult to be expressed by simple formulae. How to do
research in this field? Fig. 2 shows some hints to answer the question.
i) It is better to be consistent with the practice. Considering the importance of
geotechnical structure and the relatively weak theory background of
geotechnique, engineers tend to design on the safe side. In some case, this safe
side seems too conservative, but it is easily acceptable. In Fig. 2, residual=35°is
considered as a design parameter, and you can say this design parameter is not
rational but in most case, this parameter determination is intelligent
considering the consequence caused by structure failure. Theory and Ref:1mar1-1a

experiments should
Excel:1mar3

be able to explain
1000
the reason why the SSB B=5cm
No.1 ei=0.666
/( B CF)N

empirical No.2 ei=0.648

2 qpressure,

800
parameter can be
No.3 ei=0.665
No.5 ei=0.669
Wall friction
acceptable. decreasing
No.6 ei=0.634
c

No.7 ei=0.639
600
B CF) orfooting

ii) The results should No.8 ei=0.627

No.10 ei=0.637
be analyzed 2 qt/( B CF)
2 qt/(Normalised

carefully. Test 400

procedure and }
apparatus can 200

affect the test MSB1 No.16 ei=0.669

2 qc/( B CF)
B=5cm No.18 ei=0.642
results significantly, 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
but crazy test
s/Bsettlement, s/B
Normalised footing
results may be
caused by the
Fig. 3. Significant effects of wall friction
material itself. The
peak pressure value in Fig. 3 has a range from 200 to 850 which is only because
of wall friction which has no relation to the test material. In the other case, in
Fig. 2, the internal friction has a range from 42° to 50° only because of the
difference which can show anisotropic property of the test material. If the test results had
not been analysed carefully, the research would seem rather confused.
iii) Only considering the effect factors one by one. Soil properties is complicated but
can be discovered one by one. If one researcher wants to perform limited tests to
discover lots of soil properties, his ambitious plan is destined to failure. But he
can discover the given property by performing a set of tests. In Fig. 2 the set of
open circle "○" can show the effect of footing width B.
3) FEM problem
The advancement of
computational mechanics
enables to solve numerous
problems of solid
mechanics which are
described as a boundary
value problem or an initial
boundary value problem.
But there is another
problem that any result can
be obtained by FEM.
Fig. 4. Any result can be obtained based on the order.

As shown
field equations of physical principles
in Fig.4, physical problem
six FEM
results are
a boundary value problem for displacement
obtained mathematical problem
for the approximation
same
numerical problem a matrix equation for unknown displacement
problem,
and other
Fig. 5. Physical, mathematical and numerical problems
five FEM
results can be yielded as well. This phenomenon often happens in FEM. Sometimes I do
not trust FEM result because of this. Now, seeing Fig. 4, some reason causing the
irrational FEM result can be explained.
As shown in Fig. 5, the fault is because of the first arrow from physical problem to
mathematical problem. That is to say, the fault is not because of FEM itself, but only
because the mathematical description are incorrect or the mathematical description did
not touch some effective physical properties at all!
Fig. 4 proved FEM is a useful tool for geotechnical engineering. Furthermore, in
reading literatures, I have to pay more attention to the relation between physical
problem and mathematical problem. If a FEM without thoroughly considering physical
properties simulates a test results perfectly, the FEM is doubtful.

4) need more research on this topic

After understanding the mechanism of the bearing capacity of footing in sand, the
subsequent research is needed. How about in other geomaterial? Is their capacities
misunderstood too? How can we correct them? On the other hand, the bearing capacity
of footing in sand has not been discovered thoroughly. For example ageing effect and
viscous effect have not been taken account in the current research as mentioned in the
lecture. This research seems to be a progressive research.