Behaviour of Cohession Less Soil with Square Plate
|International Journal of Civil Engineering|
|© 2015 by SSRG - IJCE Journal|
|Volume 2 Issue 9|
|Year of Publication : 2015|
|Authors : Gonugunta Venkata Nagavalli, Y. Anand Babu|
How to Cite?
Gonugunta Venkata Nagavalli, Y. Anand Babu, "Behaviour of Cohession Less Soil with Square Plate," SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 18-28, 2015. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23488352/IJCE-V2I9P104
Many studies on the distribution of contact pressure have been made when a flexible or rigid footing is founded on soil. Many investigators have proposed bearing capacity theories assuming the footing to be rigid. But all theories have been based on the assumption that the footing will always be in contact with the soil. In this paper numerical analysis is carried out to separate foundations with partial contact with soil form those with full contact. The factors determining the contact of footing with the soil are plan dimensions, thickness and elastic properties of the material of the footing, modulus of sub grade reaction of the soil supporting it, the column to footing width ratio and eccentricity of loading. The conventional method of finding bending moment says that the maximum bending moment is independent of the relative rigidity of the footing(i.e . thickness of the footing and the modulus of sub grade reaction of the soil supporting it). But ANSYS 12.0 results show that bending moment depends on relative rigidity of footing also. Experimental work have been conducted to verify the values of maximum bending moment given by ANSYS.
Experimental work have been conducted to verify the values of maximum bending moment given by ANSYS.
1. System (2007) Halil Sezen, M.ASCE; and Mohammad Shamsai “High-Strength Concrete Columns Reinforced with Prefabricated Cage” J.Constr.Eng.Manage (2007)133:864-870
2. Syed Sohailuddin S S1 and M G Shaikh1 (2013) “FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM COLUMN JOINT USING ANSYS” International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume2, No 3.
3. Ata EI-kareim Shoeib Soliman(2011) “Behavior of long confined concrete column” Ain Shams Engineering Journal (2011) 2,141-148
4. R.Chitra & R.Thenmozhi (2011) “Studies on prefabricated cage reinforced steel-concrete composite beams” Asian jouranal of civil engineering (building & housing) vol. 12, no. 1, Pages 27-37
5. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804–1826.
6. Shamsai, M., and Sezen, H. (2005). “Fast and easy concrete construction using innovative steel reinforcement.” Proc., Construction Research Congress, ASCE, Reston, Va., 317– 321.
7.Shamsai, M. (2006). “Prefabricated cage system for reinforcing concrete members.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Sciences, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio.
8. Joel Gniel a,1, Abdelmalek Bouazza b, “Construction of geogrid encased stone columns: A new proposal based on laboratory testing” Geotextiles and Geo membranes 28 (2010) 108–118
9.Joel Gniel 1, Abdelmalek Bouazza ” Improvement of soft soils using geogrid encased stone columns” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 167–175
10. McDowell EL, McKee KE, Sevin E. Arching action theory of restrained masonry walls. ASCE J Struct Eng 1956;82(ST):915- 1–915-18.
11. Neville, A., ‘Neville on Concrete, An Examination of Issues in Concrete Practice’, (American Concrete Institute, 2003).
12. Mehta, P. K. and Monteiro, P.J.M., ‘Concrete Microstructure, properties, and materials’, (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 2006)