Open Access

Model experiments to assess effect of cavities on bearing capacity of two interfering superficial foundations resting on granular soil

Djamel Saadi
Djamel Saadi
, 
Khelifa Abbeche
Khelifa Abbeche
 and 
Rafik Boufarh
Rafik Boufarh
   | Jun 13, 2020
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Jun 13, 2020
Page range: 222 - 231
Received: Oct 04, 2019
Accepted: Apr 16, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0046
Keywords
© 2020 Djamel Saadi et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of test setup: 1) steel test box; 2) steel load frame; 3) hydraulic jack; 4) proving ring; 5) dial gauge; 6) steel beam; 7) model steel footing; 8) cavities (PVC 110 mm); 9) roller compactor.
Schematic diagram of test setup: 1) steel test box; 2) steel load frame; 3) hydraulic jack; 4) proving ring; 5) dial gauge; 6) steel beam; 7) model steel footing; 8) cavities (PVC 110 mm); 9) roller compactor.

Figure 2

Models used in this study: (a) isolated footing; (b) two adjacent strip footings; (c) isolated footing with cavity; (d) two adjacent strip footings with cavity; (e) isolated footing with two cavities; (f) two adjacent strip footings with two cavities
Models used in this study: (a) isolated footing; (b) two adjacent strip footings; (c) isolated footing with cavity; (d) two adjacent strip footings with cavity; (e) isolated footing with two cavities; (f) two adjacent strip footings with two cavities

Figure 3

Interpretation of ultimate bearing capacity (qu) by Tangent Intersection Method.
Interpretation of ultimate bearing capacity (qu) by Tangent Intersection Method.

Figure 4

Load-settlement curve for cases of isolated footing and two strip footings; both cases rest on the surface of a sand layer without cavities.
Load-settlement curve for cases of isolated footing and two strip footings; both cases rest on the surface of a sand layer without cavities.

Figure 5

Load-settlement curve of isolated footing without cavity, isolated footing with cavity (H/B = 1), and isolated footing with two cavities (H/B = 1 and L/B = 1).
Load-settlement curve of isolated footing without cavity, isolated footing with cavity (H/B = 1), and isolated footing with two cavities (H/B = 1 and L/B = 1).

Figure 6

Load-settlement curve of adjacent footings without cavity and case of adjacent footings with cavity (H/B = 1).
Load-settlement curve of adjacent footings without cavity and case of adjacent footings with cavity (H/B = 1).

Figure 7

Load-settlement curve of adjacent footings without cavity and case of adjacent footings with two cavities (H/B = 1 and L/B = 1).
Load-settlement curve of adjacent footings without cavity and case of adjacent footings with two cavities (H/B = 1 and L/B = 1).

Figure 8

Comparison of EF values of strip footing without cavities with values reported in literature.
Comparison of EF values of strip footing without cavities with values reported in literature.

Figure 9

Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 1; H/B = 2 and H/B = 3).
Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 1; H/B = 2 and H/B = 3).

Figure 10

Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavities and with cavity (H/B = 3); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, and L/B = 5.0)
Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavities and with cavity (H/B = 3); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, and L/B = 5.0)

Figure 11

Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 2); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, L/B = 5.0).
Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 2); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, L/B = 5.0).

Figure 12

Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 1); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, and L/B = 5.0).
Variation of EF as a function of x/B in the following cases: two strip footings without cavity and with cavity (H/B = 1); (L/B = 1.0, L/B = 1.5, L/B = 2.0, L/B = 3.0, L/B = 4.0, and L/B = 5.0).

Model tests program.

Test seriesx/BH/BL/B
Without cavity1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0//
With Cavity1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.00.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0/
with two cavities1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.00.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.00.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0

Geotechnical properties of the tested sand.

PropertyValue
Specific gravity Gs2.583
Effective particle size D10, mm0.094
Mean particle size D30, mm0.200
Mean particle size D60, mm0.300
Uniformity coefficient Cu3.19
Coefficient of curvature Cc1.42
Maximum dry unit weight γd(max), KN/m317.02
Minimum dry unit weight γd(min), KN/m314.51
Peak friction angle φ035
eISSN:
2083-831X
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, other, Materials Sciences, Composites, Porous Materials, Physics, Mechanics and Fluid Dynamics
Journal RSS Feed