Bearing Capacity of Footings Adjacent to Slopes

Saran, Swami; Sud, V. K.; Handa, S. C.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1989)115:4(553)

Cited by 83 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other methods and modified approaches to calculate bearing capacity of soils such as Hovland and Mitchell (1971), Vesic (1973), Durgunoglu and Mitchell (1975), Kusakabe et al (1981), Saran et al (1989), and Eurocode7 (1996) have been developed. However, besides minor mathematical and methodical differences between Hansen (1970) and these approaches, previous studies such as Shill and Hoque (2015) have shown that most methods produce similar bearing capacity results.…”

Section: 1029/2018je005876mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a new era of lunar exploration, pyroclastic deposits have been identified as valuable targets for resource utilization and scientific inquiry. Little is understood about the geomechanical properties and the trafficability of the surface material in these areas, which is essential for successful mission planning and execution. Past incidents with rovers highlight the importance of reliable information about surface properties for future, particularly robotic, lunar mission concepts. Characteristics of 149 boulder tracks are measured in Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Narrow Angle Camera images and used to derive the bearing capacity of pyroclastic deposits and, for comparison, mare and highland regions from the surface down to ~5‐m depth, as a measure of trafficability. Results are compared and complemented with bearing capacity values calculated from physical property data collected in situ during Apollo, Surveyor, and Lunokhod missions. Qualitative observations of tracks show no region‐dependent differences, further suggesting similar geomechanical properties in the regions. Generally, bearing capacity increases with depth and decreases with higher slope gradients, independent of the type of region. At depths of 0.19 to 5 m, pyroclastic materials have bearing capacities equal or higher than those of mare and highland material and, thus, may be equally trafficable at surface level. Calculated bearing capacities based on orbital observations are consistent with values derived using in situ data. Bearing capacity values are used to estimate wheel sinkage of rover concepts in pyroclastic deposits. This study's findings can be used in the context of traverse planning, rover design, and in situ extraction of lunar resources.

show abstract

Section: 1029/2018je005876mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Lunar Boulder Tracks: Implications for Trafficability of Pyroclastic Deposits

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Great attention was given by many authors to the bearing capacity of a footing near a slope both in static (De Buhan and Gaernier 1988;Saran et al 1989;Narita and Yamaguchi 1990;Shields et al 1990;Jao et al 2001) and seismic conditions (Sawada et al 1994;Pecker 1996;Sarma and Chen 1996;Kumar and Rao 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings Near Slopes

Castelli

Motta

2009

Geotech Geol Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades a great attention was given by many authors to the evaluation of the static and seismic bearing capacity of footings near slopes. In this paper a model has been developed based on the limit equilibrium method, considering a circular surface propagates towards the slope until the sloping ground is reached. The bearing capacity is investigated considering either the distance of the footing from the edge of the slope and/or the effect of the footing embedment. A validation of the proposed model was made by a comparison with solutions taken from literature regarding the evaluation of the bearing capacity for a footing adjacent to a slope and for an inclined load. The loading conditions consist in vertical and horizontal stress on the footing and on the soil below the footing. Both the inertial and kinematic effects of the seismic loading have been analyzed, and a simple equation has been derived for the evaluation of the seismic bearing capacity. The static and seismic bearing capacity has been investigated as a function of the soil friction angle, of the seismic coefficient, of the sloping ground. Finally, the influence of the distance of the footing from the edge of the slope was taken into consideration in the evaluation of the bearing capacity, and a threshold distance at which the reduction of the bearing capacity due to the sloping ground vanishes has been defined.

show abstract

“…When a shallow foundation is placed near the edge of a sloping ground the bearing capacity may be reduced both in static (De Buhan & Gaernier, 1988;Saran et al, 1989;Narita & Yamaguchi, 1990;Shields et al, 1990;Jao et al, 2001) and seismic conditions (Sawada et al, 1994;Pecker, 1996;Sarma & Iossifelis, 1990;Sarma & Chen, 1996;Kumar & Rao, 2003). In this case, the failure mechanism is influenced by the distance d of the foundation from the edge of the sloping ground ( Figure 6).…”

Section: Bearing Capacity Of Strip Footings Near Slopesmentioning

confidence: 99%