Uplift Resistance of Interfering Pipelines Buried in Sand

The vertical uplift resistance of interfering pipelines buried in sands has been computed using the lower-bound limit analysis in conjunction with finite elements and nonlinear optimization. The soil mass is assumed to follow the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and an associated flow rule. It is specified that all the pipes fail simultaneously at the same magnitude of the failure load. For different clear spacing (S) between the pipes, the magnitude of the efficiency factor (xi(gamma)) is determined. Because of pipes' interference, with a reduction in the spacing between the pipelines, the magnitude of xi(gamma) is found to decrease continuously. The results were found to compare quite well with the available data from literature for horizontal strip anchors. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

A PRACTICAL PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE THE BEARING CAPACITY OF FOOTINGS ON SAND-APPLICATION TO 87 CASE STUDIES

Following the recent work of the authors in development and numerical verification of a new kinematic approach of the limit analysis for surface footings on non-associative materials, a practical procedure is proposed to utilize the theory. It is known that both the peak friction angle and dilation angle depend on the sand density as well as the stress level, which was not the concern of the former work. In the current work, a practical procedure is established to provide a better estimate of the bearing capacity of surface footings on sand which is often non-associative. This practical procedure is based on the results obtained theoretically and requires the density index and the critical state friction angle of the sand. The proposed practical procedure is a simple iterative computational procedure which relates the density index of the sand, stress level, dilation angle, peak friction angle and eventually the bearing capacity. The procedure is described and verified among available footing load test data.

Effect of particle size of sand and surface asperities of reinforcement on their interface shear behaviour

This paper investigates the effect of particle size of sand and the surface asperities of reinforcing material on their interlocking mechanism and its influence on the interfacial shear strength under direct sliding condition. Three sands of different sizes with similar morphological characteristics and four different types of reinforcing materials with different surface features were used in this study. Interface direct shear tests on these materials were performed in a specially developed symmetric loading interface direct shear test setup. Morphological characteristics of sand particles were determined from digital image analysis and the surface roughness of the reinforcing materials was measured using an analytical expression developed for this purpose. Interface direct shear tests at three different normal stresses were carried out by shearing the sand on the reinforcing material fixed to a smooth surface. Test results revealed that the peak interfacial friction and dilation angles are hugely dependent upon the interlocking between the sand particles and the asperities of reinforcing material, which in turn depends on the relative size of sand particles and asperities. Asperity ratio (AS/D-50) of interlocking materials, which is defined as the ratio of asperity spacing of the reinforcing material and the mean particle size of sand was found to govern the interfacial shear strength with highest interfacial strength measured when the asperity ratio was equal to one, which represents the closest fitting of sand particles into the asperities. It was also understood that the surface roughness of the reinforcing material influences the shear strength to an extent, the influence being more pronounced in coarser particles. Shear bands in the interface shear tests were analysed through image segmentation technique and it was observed that the ratio of shear band thickness (t) to the median particle size (D-50) was maximum when the AS/D-50 was equal to one. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.