1998
DOI: 10.3208/sandf.38.181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bearing Capacity Predictions of Sand Overlying Clay Based on Limit Equilibrium Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
33
0
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
3
33
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…By ignoring the properties of the upper sand layer (since even in the punching shear approach the frictional resistance through the sand is expressed in terms of the strength of the underlying clay), both methods provide oversimplified approaches whereby the ratio of q peak to the bearing capacity of the underlying clay increases as a simple quadratic function of the ratio of the upper sand thickness to the foundation diameter, H s /D. Two alternative prediction methods have been developed more recently by Okamura et al (1998) and Teh (2007). Okamura et al (1998) proposed a new limit equilibrium method with a failure mechanism that combines the concept of the projected area method and the punching shear method, as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…By ignoring the properties of the upper sand layer (since even in the punching shear approach the frictional resistance through the sand is expressed in terms of the strength of the underlying clay), both methods provide oversimplified approaches whereby the ratio of q peak to the bearing capacity of the underlying clay increases as a simple quadratic function of the ratio of the upper sand thickness to the foundation diameter, H s /D. Two alternative prediction methods have been developed more recently by Okamura et al (1998) and Teh (2007). Okamura et al (1998) proposed a new limit equilibrium method with a failure mechanism that combines the concept of the projected area method and the punching shear method, as shown in Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Kim and Yamamoto (2004) and Mizuno and Tsuchida (2002) reported that Okamura et al's (1998) failure mechanism obtained bearing capacity was close to the finite element method's results in comparison to the other bearing capacity theories. In this study, the authors modeled a clay layer underlying sand layer based on failure mechanisms from centrifuge tests performed by Okamura et al (1998), as shown in Figure 4. A clay layer underlying the sand layer with friction angle 35 o was modeled by 26 discrete elements.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Numerical Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Representative examples for multilayer soils are shown in Figure 3. In order to evaluate the bearing capacity determination of a clay layer underlying a sand layer shown in Figure 3(a), the semi-empirical approaches (Meyerhof 1974;Hanna and Meyerhof 1980), numerical approach (Kim and Yamamoto 2004), and model tests were performed (Kim and Yamamoto 2004;Mizuno and Tsuchida 2002;Okamura et al 1998). Kim and Yamamoto (2004) and Mizuno and Tsuchida (2002) reported that Okamura et al's (1998) failure mechanism obtained bearing capacity was close to the finite element method's results in comparison to the other bearing capacity theories.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Numerical Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Okamura et al [8] compared the factors as thickness of sand, strength of clay and width, shape and embedment of footing, as well as calculated bearing capacities to the results of wellconditioned centrifuge tests by [6] to verify the validity of the previous methods. It has been confirmed that reasonable assumptions in which the variation of the shape of the sand block and the forces related to the factors taken into consideration are important to obtain a reasonable prediction, as shown in Fig.(3).…”
Section: Analytical Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A method called the projected area method was proposed by Yamaguchi; as reported by [8]; as shown in Fig. (2.a).…”
Section: Analytical Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%