Open Access

Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Shallow Foundations on Stabilized Layered Soil using ABAQUS

Avinash Bhardwaj

Avinash Bhardwaj

Civil Engineering Department, NIT Hamirpur (HP)India
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, Avinash
 and 
Ravi Kumar Sharma

Ravi Kumar Sharma

Civil Engineering Department, NIT Hamirpur (HP)India
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Sharma, Ravi Kumar
  
Dec 25, 2022
Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Shallow Foundations on Stabilized Layered Soil using ABAQUS's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Article Category: Original Study
Published Online: Dec 25, 2022
Page range: 55 - 71
Received: Mar 14, 2022
Accepted: Nov 15, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2022-0026
Keywords
© 2023 Avinash Bhardwaj et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Problem definition. (a) Single layer; (b) thickness of top layer varying at h/B=0.7, 1.225, 1.75, and 2.275; (c) FEM model of footing for aspect ratio (L/B) =1 at h/B=0.7; (d) FEM model of footing for aspect ratio (L/B) =2 at h/B=0.7. h: thickness of the upper layer in two-layered soil; L, B:length and width of footing, respectivelyNote: all dimensions are not to scale.
Problem definition. (a) Single layer; (b) thickness of top layer varying at h/B=0.7, 1.225, 1.75, and 2.275; (c) FEM model of footing for aspect ratio (L/B) =1 at h/B=0.7; (d) FEM model of footing for aspect ratio (L/B) =2 at h/B=0.7. h: thickness of the upper layer in two-layered soil; L, B:length and width of footing, respectivelyNote: all dimensions are not to scale.

Figure 2

Particle size curve for clayey soil and WFS.
Particle size curve for clayey soil and WFS.

Figure 3

Finite element discretization and boundary condition selection of the footing model with L/B=1.
Finite element discretization and boundary condition selection of the footing model with L/B=1.

Figure 4

Finite element discretization and boundary condition selection of the footing model with L/B=2.
Finite element discretization and boundary condition selection of the footing model with L/B=2.

Figure 5

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=0.7 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=0.7 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.

Figure 6

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=0.7 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=0.7 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.

Figure 7

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.225 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.225 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.

Figure 8

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b)) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.225 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b)) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.225 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2

Figure 9

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.75 and of single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.75 and of single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.

Figure 10

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.75 and of single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=1.75 and of single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.

Figure 11

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=2.275 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=2.275 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=1.

Figure 12

(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=2.275 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.
(a) Pressure–settlement curves and (b) bearing capacity values of two-layered soil for all cases at h/B=2.275 and single-layer sandy soil for L/B=2.

Figure 13

Variation of numerical and predicted bearing capacity for both footings (L/B= 1, 2).
Variation of numerical and predicted bearing capacity for both footings (L/B= 1, 2).

Figure 14

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=1.

Figure 15

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=1.

Figure 16

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=2.

Figure 17

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 0.7 for L/B=2.

Figure 18

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=1.

Figure 19

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=1.

Figure 20

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=2.

Figure 21

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.225 for L/B=2.

Figure 22

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=1.

Figure 23

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=1
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=1

Figure 24

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=2.

Figure 25

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=2
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 1.75 for L/B=2

Figure 26

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=1.

Figure 27

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=1.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=1.

Figure 28

Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 1 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=2.

Figure 29

Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=2.
Displacement contours of case 8 at h/B = 2.275 for L/B=2.

Chemical properties of molasses used_

Constituents Result
Color Black
Brix 83.2
pH (1:1 at 20°C) 5.6
Specific gravity 1.39
Viscosity 17,500 mPas
Moisture 21.76%
Total sugar 47.83%
Invert sugar 10.20%
Sulfated sugar 15.50%
Ca 1.63%

Mineral composition of clayey soil_

Mineral composition Content (%)
Oxygen, O 45.4
Silicon, Si 18.5
Aluminum, Al 8.69
Carbon, C 10.9
Iron, Fe 1.42
Potassium, K 1.86
Magnesium, Mg 2.30
Titanium, Ti 2.51

Chemical properties of WFS_

Chemical composition Percentage
SiO2 84.90
Al2O3 5.21
Fe2O3 3.32
CaO 0.58
MgO 0.67
SO3 0.29
MnO 0.08
TiO2 0.19
K2O 0.97
P2O5 0.05
Na2O 0.50
¬Loss of ignition 2.87

Comparison of observed bearing capacity values with Vesic (1973), Hansen (1970), and Terzaghi (1943) calculations_

Type of soil Bearing capacity (kPa)
Present study Vesic (1973) Hansen (1970) Terzaghi (1943)
Sand L/B=1 L/B=2 L/B=1 L/B=2 L/B=1 L/B=2 L/B=1 L/B=2
148 133 138 121.78 113.27 106.11 94.25 97.67

Geotechnical properties of WFS_

Property Value
Specific gravity 2.64
Optimum moisture content 8.20%
Maximum dry density 1.59 g/cc

Designation and details of type of soil in upper and lower layers under both types of footings in two-layered soils_

Designation Soil type in upper and lower layers for two-layered soil
Case 1 Upper layer Unstabilized clay
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 2 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:M:: 90:10)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 3 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:WFS:: 80:20)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 4 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C: L:: 91:9)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 5 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:M:WFS:: 80:10:10)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 6 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:M:L:: 84:10:6)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 7 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:WFS:L:: 74:20:6)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand
Case 8 Upper layer Stabilized clay (C:M:WFS:L:: 67:10:20:3)
Lower layer Medium-dense sand

Chemical composition of lime used_

Chemical composition Content (%)
SiO2 2.1
Al2O3 1.3
Fe2O3 1.2
CaO 82.8
MgO 0.3
SO3 0.4
Na2O 0.4
K2O -
TiO2 -
C 2.2
CaCO3 4.3
Impurities 5.0
¬Loss of ignition at 800°C -

Geotechnical properties of clayey soil_

Soil properties Value
Soil type CH
Liquid limit 55%
Plastic limit 20%
Plasticity index 35%
Specific gravity 2.6
Differential free swell index 35%
Optimum moisture content 16.5%

Material properties of unstabilized/stabilized clayey soil and sandy soil (Mohr–Coulomb model) [23]_

Properties Combinations
C C:M C:WFS C:L C:M:WFS C:M:L C:WFS:L C:M:WFS:L S::100
Mass density (γ) (kg/m3) 1710 1790 1781 1606 1840 1750 1730 1820 1615
Modulus of elasticity (E) (MPa) 3.2 5.3 7.2 9.6 10.3 14.7 16.2 18.5 32.3
Poisson ratio (ν) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.3
Angle of internal friction (ϕ) 14.86 17.06 19.11 21.43 23.62 25.64 27.85 29.68 35
Cohesion (c) (kPa) 21.77 19.92 19.08 17.61 16.43 15.59 14.78 13.89 0.1
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics
Journal RSS Feed