STATIC AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF ADJACENTLY

PLACED TWO STRIP FOOTINGS USING FINITE ELEMENT

METHOD

Dissertation

submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the
degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

in

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

by

KOKO KARBIA
(18MT0337)

under the guidance of

Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad
May 2020
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Koko Karbia (Admission No. 18MT0337), a student of
M.Tech. (Geotechnical Engineering), Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad has worked under my guidance and completed
his Dissertation entitled "Static and Dynamic Analysis of Adjacently Placed Two Strip
Footings Using Finite Element Method" in partial fulfilment of the requirement for award of
degree of M.Tech. in Geotechnical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad.

This work has not been submitted for any other degree, award, or distinction elsewhere to the
best of my knowledge and belief. He is solely responsible for the technical data and information
provided in this work.

Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali

Assistant Professor,

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

FORWARDED BY:

Prof. Sarat Kumar Das

Head of the Department,

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

I
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

DECLARATION
The Dissertation titled "Static and Dynamic Analysis of Adjacently Placed Two
Strip Footings Using Finite Element Method " is a presentation of my original research work
and is not copied or reproduced or imitated from any other person's published or unpublished
work. At whatever point I have utilized materials (theoretical Analysis, text, figures and data)
from different sources, I have given due credit to them by referring to them in the content of
the report and their details is given in the references. Every effort is made to give proper citation
to the published/unpublished work of others, if it is referred to in the Dissertation.

To eliminate the scope of academic misconduct and plagiarism, I declare that I have
read and understood the UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism
in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018. These Regulations have been notified
in the Official Gazette of India on 31st July, 2018.

I confirm that this Dissertation has been checked with the online plagiarism detector
tool Turnitin (http:///www.turnitin.com) provided by IIT (ISM) Dhanbad and a copy of the
summary report/report, showing Similarities in content and its potential source (if any),
generated online through Turnitin is enclosed at the end of the Dissertation. I hereby declare
that the Dissertation shows less than 10% similarity as per the report generated by Turnitin and
meets the standards as per MHRD/UGC Regulations and rules of the Institute regarding
plagiarism.

I further state that no part of the Dissertation and its data will be published without the
consent of my guide. I also confirm that this Dissertation work, carried out under the guidance
of Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, has not
been previously submitted for assessment for the purpose of award of a Degree either at IIT
(ISM) Dhanbad or elsewhere to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Koko Karbia (18MT0337)

M.Tech. (Geotechnical Engineering)

Forwarded by

Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali,

Assistant Professor

II
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe my guide, Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, IIT Dhanbad, a deep sense of gratitude. His commitment and genuine interest in
supporting his student was primarily responsible for completing my work, above all his positive
attitude. His timely guidance, meticulous scrutiny, academic and scientific approach have
helped me to accomplish this mission in a very great way. His commitment and genuine interest
in supporting his student was primarily responsible for completing my work, above all his
positive attitude. In spite of his busy schedule, he participated in each minute details of my
progress of work. It's a great pleasure to have him as my mentor for my M.Tech thesis.

I would like to express my thanks and regards to Mr. Anupkumar G. Ekbote, PhD
scholar under Dr. Lohitkumar Nainegali. He helped and guided me during this entire journey
of my M.tech dissertation. I appreciate him for sparing his precious time.

It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to Prof. Sarat
Kumar Das, Head of Civil Engineering Department, IIT Dhanbad, for his keen interest in me
at every stage of my project. The prompt inspirations, timely suggestions with compassion,
excitement and dynamism have helped me to finish my project.

I am grateful to all the faculty members of Civil Engineering Department for their kind
support and co-operation. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and
illuminating views on a number of issues related to the research work.

Again, I would like to convey thanks to my friends and well wisher whose helping
hands, words of encouragement have always guided me towards the successful completion of
this project work.

Lastly but not the least I would like to thank my parent who have always supported me
by giving suggestion and guidance that are helpful in various phase of the completion of the
project.

III
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

ABSTRACT

The rampant urbanization, development of infrastructures, resulting in a limited amount

of construction space; requirement of building design and restriction in property lines has
brought up individual footings ever close to each other. The result of such circumstances cause
altered bearing capacity and settlement behaviour due to overlapping of failure zones. Owing
to such inevitable circumstance, there arises a phenomenon called interference of the footings.
In the present study, numerical analysis is carried out to find the interference effect of the two
nearby strip footing considering the c-φ soil.
The analysis has been carried out by considering 2-dimensional plane strain problem
using the finite element method analysis by employing the software, PLAXIS-2D. The soil
domain is modelled using a linear-elastic, perfect-plastic model having Mohr-Coulomb yield
criterion and the footings using linear-elastic material. The entire problem domain is discretized
using 15 noded triangular elements. By thorough sensitivity analysis for domain size and the
mesh elements optimized model has been adopted by applying appropriate boundary condition
for both the considered cases of loading such as static and dynamic loading. In this study, the
interference effect of two asymmetric footings is explored for the four given conditions such
as (1) the footings subjected to static loading; (2) the footings subjected to dynamic loading,
i.e. cyclic or sinusoidal loading; (3) the footings subjected to seismic excitation; and two
symmetrical embedded strip footing due to partial sand replacement in clay soil.
The results of the numerical analysis are presented in terms of efficiency factors defined
as the ratio of bearing capacity of interfering footings to that of identical isolated footing placed
on the similar soil conditions and loading; besides, the failure profile developed under the
closely spaced embedded footings for different spacing are presented. Further, the response
due to cyclic loading and seismic excitation has been presented in terms of displacement time
history for different spacing considered in the analysis.

IV
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CONTENTS

Page no.

DECLARATION I
CERTIFICATE II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT III
ABSTRACT IV
LIST OF FIGURES VII-IX
LIST OF TABLES X
LIST OF SYMBOLS XI-XII
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1-3
1.1 General 1
1.2 Objective and Scope 2
1.3 Structure of the Report 2-3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW 4-8
2.1 Static Interference 4-6
2.2 Dynamics Interference 7-8
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY 9-12
CHAPTER 4
STATIC INTERFERENCE OF TWO STRIP FOOTINGS 13-30
4.1 Introduction 13
4.2 Interference of Two Asymmetrical Footing 13-22
4.2.1 Definition of the problem 13-14
4.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Optimum Domain Size 15
4.2.3 Result and Observation 16-23
4.2.4 Conclusion 24
4.3 Interference of Two Symmetrical Embedded Footing Due to Partial 24-32
Sand Replacement in a Clay Soil
4.3.1 Definition of the problem 24-25
4.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Optimum Domain Size 26

V
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

4.3.3 Result and Observation 26-32

4.3.4 Conclusion 32
CHAPTER 5
DYNAMIC INTERFERENCE OF TWO STRIP FOOTINGS 33-52
5.1 Introduction 33
5.2 Dynamic Interference of Two Nearby Asymmetrical Machine 33-47
Foundations
5.2.1. Definition of the Problem 33-34
5.2.2 Modelling of Two Nearby Strip Footing Subjected to 34-36
Dynamics Loading
5.2.2.1 Determination of Rayleigh Damping Parameter 35-36
5.2.2.2 Finite Element Discretization 36
5.2.2.3 Boundary Conditions and Initial Condition 36
5.2.2.4 Constitutive Modelling and Loading Condition 36
5.2.3. Sensitivity Test for Optimum Domain Size 37-39
5.2.4. Result and Observation 40-47
5.2.5 Conclusion 47
5.3 Seismic Interference of Two Nearby Asymmetrical Footings 47-52
5.3.1 Definition of the Problem 47-49
5.3.2 Modelling of Two Nearby Strip Footing Subjected to Seismic 49-50
Loading
5.3.2.1 Determination of Rayleigh Damping Parameter 49-50
5.3.2.2 Boundary Conditions and Initial Condition 50
5.2.3.3 Constitutive Modelling and Loading Condition 50
5.3.3 Result and Observation 51-52
5.3.3 Conclusion 52

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE 53
REFERENCES 54-55

VI
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

LIST OF FIGURES

Page No.

Fig.4.1 Systematic Diagram of the problem 14

Fig.4.2 Stress vs Settlement Curve for Finding the Optimum Domain 15
size (S/Bl=0.5)
Fig.4.3 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Sand Medium 16
(Bl=1m and Df/Bl=1)
Fig.4.4 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Sand Medium 16
(Br=2 Bl and Df/Bl=1)
Fig.4.5 Failure Pattern for Different Spacing 16-19
Fig.4.6 Stress-Displacement Curve of the right footing due to 20
interference of footing
Fig.4.7 Stress-Displacement Curve of the left footing due to 21
interference of footing
Fig.4.8 Efficiency factor due to bearing capacity, ξ vs S/B 23
Fig.4.9. Systematic Diagram of the Problem 25
Fig.4.10 Stress vs Settlement Curve for Finding the Optimum 26
Domain size
Fig.4.11 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Clay Medium 26
Only
Fig.4.12 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Clay Medium 27
due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df /B=1)
Fig.4.13 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings 27
(S/B=0.5) in Clay Medium due to Partial Sand Replacement
(Df/B=1)
Fig.4.14 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings 27
(S/B=1) in Clay Medium due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)
Fig.4.15 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings 28
(S/B=2) in Clay Medium due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)
Fig.4.16 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings 28
(S/B=3) in Clay Medium due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)

VII
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Fig.4.17 Stress-Settlement curve of the embedded single footing 28

Fig.4.18 Stress-Settlement curve of the embedded footing due to 29-30
interference of footings
Fig.4.19. Variation of efficiency factor due to bearing capacity, ξ 32
with S/B
Fig.5.1 Systematic Diagram of the problem 33
Fig.5.2 Sensitivity analysis for optimum domain size for left footing 37-38
Fig.5.3 Sensitivity analysis for optimum domain size for right 38-39
footing
Fig.5.4. Systematic Diagram of the problem when both the footings 40
are active
Fig.5.5 Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when both 40-42
the footings are active.
Fig.5.6 Systematic Diagram of the problem when left footing is an 42
active footing and right footing as passive footing
Fig.5.7 Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when the 43-44
left footings is active
Fig.5.8 Systematic Diagram of the problem when left footing is an 45
passive footing and right footing as active footing
Fig.5.9.Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when the 45-47
right footings is active
Fig.5.10 Definition problem for the interaction of footings under 48
seismic loading
Fig.5.11. Seismic Input – Acceleration-Time History 50
Fig.5.12(a) Displacement vs time curve for Bl=1m when a seismic 51
loading is applied at the base of the soil deposit for different clear
spacing
Fig.5.12(b)Displacement vs time curve for Bl=1m when a seismic 51
loading is applied at the base of the soil deposit for different clear
spacing

VIII
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.
Table.3.1: Global coarseness settings and mesh elements 11
Table.4.1: Material Properties of a Soil 14
Table.4.2: Material Properties of a Footing 15
Table.4.3: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/Bl values 22
(Bl= 1m):
Table.4.4: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/Bl values 22
(Br=2Bl)
Table.4.5: Materials Properties of the Soil 25
Table.4.6: Material Properties of a Footing 25
Table.4.7: Ultimate Bearing Capacity of a Single Footing 29
Table.4.8: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B values 31
(Df/B=1)
Table.4.9: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B values 31
(Df/B=2)
Table.4.10: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B 31
values (Df/B=3)
Table.5.1: Material Properties of a Footing 34
Table.5.2: Material Properties of a Soil 34
Table.5.3: Material Properties of a Footing 48
Table.5.4: Material Properties of a Soil 48-49

IX
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

LIST OF SYMBOLS

ξb Efficiency factor due to bearing capacity

Df Depth of the footing
Bl Width of the left footing
Br Width of the right footing
S Spacing between the footings
H Height of the soil deposit
γunsat Unit weight above phreatic level
Eref Young's Modulus
ν Poisson's ratio
Qu Ultimate bearing capacity
C Cohesion
Nc Nq Nγ Bearing Capacity Factor
sc sq sγ Shape Factors
dc dq dγ Depth Factors
ic iq iγ Inclination Factors
q Surcharge
γ Unit weight of a soil
γsat Soil unit weight below phreatic level

φ Friction Angle

ψ Dilatancy Angle

α Rayleigh alpha

β Rayleigh Beta

Ed Young's Modulus due to dynamics loading

G Shear Modulus

Vs Shear wave velocity

fn Natural frequency of the soil system

ωn Angular frequency

q Dynamics loading with constant amplitude

qo Amplitude of the loading function

w Operating circular frequency

X
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Rint Strength reduction factor in the interface

ξ Damping Ratio
ζ Efficiency factor due to settlement

XI
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

In urban cities, with increasing population and resulting restriction in the property lines
and the limited availability of construction space, many a time the structures are built up very
closely. Due to which the foundations of an adjacent building or the same building are brought
up nearby to one another. Thus the behaviour of foundations in practice will never remain as
an isolated and the theory as postulated by noted researchers such as Terzaghi (1943),
Meyerhof (1951), Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973) might not hold good. Consequently, the
behaviour of isolated footing changes, evoking altered load-settlement behaviour, ultimate
bearing capacity (UBC) and settlement characteristics, tilt or the rotation in the footings might
be induced as well. The phenomenon of occurrence of the change in behaviour of adjacently
placed footings due to overlapping of stress zones is called the interference of footings, which
was first coined by Stuart (1962). Stuart (1962) observed the interference effect by conducting
laboratory model tests by placing the parallel strip footings on the surface of cohesionless sand
and subsequently, a limit equilibrium based theoretical study.
In the present study, the interference effect of two strip footings placed adjacently and
having different widths (asymmetrical) embedded in c-ϕ foundation soil bed are considered.
The footings subjected to static loading are first studied considering the case of soil medium as
homogenous sand and then the case of a clayey medium with partial replacement by sand below
the footings. Further, the study of interfering footings subjected to cyclic or the sinusoidal
loading and seismic excitation are considered. The efficiency factors defined as the ratio of
UBC of interfering footings to that of identical isolated have been evaluated for different
spacing between the footings.
Unlike static loading, seismic ground motions are highly variable in space and time.
The effect of ground motion on the foundations is significant as it can cause major calamity,
and hence it is necessary to analyze the response of footings due to ground motion. The
difference in the effect caused by an earthquake excitation is rather significant when the seismic
wave passes through a soil medium when considered in the presence and absence of footings.
Due to higher stiffness of the footing than soil, the free field motion (absence of footing)
becomes distorted when the seismic wave strikes. Similarly, the interaction of two nearby

1
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

machine foundation under a control dynamics loading, i.e. the cyclic or sinusoidal loading is
analyzed as well.

1.2 Objective of the study

The objective of the present study is to simulate the exact site condition, considering
the two nearby embedded strip footing. It is noted that the study of interference of footing is a
topic of interest for many geotechnical investigators since more than half of the decade. At
present, the effect of embedded interfering footings is virtually nill. Thus adjacently placed
embedded footings by considering static and dynamic loading is studied. For the case of static
loading sandy soil medium and the clay soil medium by considering the partial replacement of
clay by sand below the footing is considered. Then the dynamic loadings such as cyclic load
by considering both the footings are active when one of the footings is active while the other
as passive and vice versa is analyzed. Lastly, seismic excitation is applied by prescribing
acceleration time history of Loma Gilroy as input excitation to study the vertical displacement
induced in the interfering footings as the response.

1.3 Structure of the Report

The report is organized under various chapters, and each chapter deals with a particular
aspect of the study.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter provides a brief introduction to the topic and objectives of the present study.
Chapter 2: Literature review
It includes the summary of the literature which discuss the various experimental and analytical
tests and results of previous papers related to the interference of footings.
Chapter 3: Methodology
It deals with the basic concept of the finite element method and delivers the modelling details,
such as the boundary condition, finite element mesh details and the details of loading applied
to carry out an analysis.
Chapter 4: Static interference of two strip footings
The chapter deals with the interference of asymmetrical strip footings under the static condition
and finding out the efficiency factor. And interference of two symmetrical embedded strip
footing due to partial sand replacement in clay soil.
Chapter 5: Dynamic interference of two asymmetrical machine foundation

2
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

The chapter deals with the interference due to cyclic loading when both the footings are active
and when only one footing is active and vice versa. Then the interference effect of two
asymmetrical footings are studied under seismic condition are studied in this chapter.

Chapter 6: Conclusion and future scope

The chapter gives a summary of the chapters that are discussed in the above. The project that
can be done in the future which has not being done in this chapter.

3
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Static Interference:

Stuart (1962)

Stuart (1962) studied the effect of nearby footing’s presence on the footing-load
carrying capacity. The present work is carried out in limit equilibrium method. Below the base
of footing, a partial non-plastic trapped wedge was taken from the theories available for an
isolated footing with rough base. In this method, combination of logarithmic spiral and straight
line chose the shape of failure surface. To study interference effect, the region below those two
footings under consideration of plastic shear region and non plastic wedge. Different failure
surfaces shape were chosen as the combination of either logarithmic spiral or straight line.

West and Stuart (1965)

West and Stuart (1965) later adopted stress characteristics method to solve the
interference of two strip footings that were placed close to each other. The failure mechanism
used was similar to that adopted by Stuart 1962. This time the numerical solution was found
only for the case ϕ = 35.

Griffiths (1982)

Griffiths is probably the first one who initiated the determination of bearing capacity
by finite element analysis. With the use of elasto-platic theory in combination with finite
element analysis, the failure load of c-φ soils was obtained. In this analysis, the bearing capacity
factors Nc and Nq were found to be accurately calculated with the use of finite element. But it
was difficult to found out the exact solution for Nγ as inherent error occurred due to non-linear
behaviour in Nγ term. Nγ values is slightly dependent on footing width.

Das et al. (1993)

Das et al. conducted experimental test in order to find out the ultimate bearing capacity
of two closely spaced surface footing which were placed on sand having high relative density
upto a certain depth, underlain by a soft clay extending deeper. In the model, 101.6 mm wooden
strip footing was used and the footing base is made rough by cementing a thin layer of sand. It
was found that the ultimate bearing capacities for a single and two closely space strip footings

4
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

increased with the increase in depth (H) of sand up to H = Hcr (Hcr is the depth of the sand layer
at which the failure surfaces in the soil below which the strip footing was fully confined to the
top dense sand layer) and then remained constant thereafter. For H < Hcr , efficiency of the
footings increases with the increase in centre to centre spacing (S) and reaches about 100% at
S/B= 4 or 5. Whereas for H > Hcr , efficiency decreases with the increase in centre to centre
spacing i.e S/B , reaching about 100% at S/B= 4 or 5.

Manoharan and Dasgupta (1995)

Manoharan and Dasgupta extended the work of Griffiths (1983) in order to find the
bearing capacity of rough and smooth bases for the cases of strip as well as circular footing
footings. The study was carried out with the use of FE method. The displacement based visco-
plastic algorithm was used and materials behaviour were idealised as elastic-perfectly plastic
which satisfied the MC yield criteria. The solutions were made to compare with the analytical
solution proposed by many other researchers.

Frydman and Burd (1997)

Frydman and Burd used plain strain finite difference methods to determine the bearing
capacity factors with the variation of friction angle, φ. FE analysis was carried out using Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC). By integrating the velocity over the calculation
steps, the footing displacement was determined. Difficulties were encountered with the
increase in friction angle values. Because of that, large number of calculation steps was used
as reasonable solutions were obtained for the bearing capacity parameters with the increase in
friction angle, φ.

Kumar and Ghosh (2007a)

Kumar and Ghosh adopted stress characteristics method to find the ultimate bearing
capacity of two strip footings which are interfering to one another. The analysis was performed
by taking two distinct mechanisms. The first one was basing upon the wedge quadrilaterally
trapped beneath the footings base. The other one used the wedge which is triangular and non
symmetrical. With respect to the distance in between the 2 footings, the variation of the ξγ
(efficiency factor) was computed. It was found that ξγ for a given distance was higher with
higher friction angle from both the mechanisms.

5
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Kumar and Ghosh (2007b)

Kumar and Ghosh determined the ultimate bearing-capacity for the two closely spaced
strip footings placing on a sand. The analysis was carried with the help of upper bound limit
analysis. It assumed the radial shear zone below the periphery of the foundation which is of
logarithmic spiral in nature. It was reported that ultimate bearing-capacity was increasing up
to a particular distance among the footings and beyond that the bearing capacity was found to
decrease.

Kumar and Kouzer (2007)

Kumar and Kouzer calculated the load-carrying capacity of 2 strip footings placed close
to each other on the sand. Base of the footings were rough and the analysis was carried with
the help of upper bound limit theorem. It was studied how ξγ (efficiency factor) was varying
with the distance among the footings. When the footings were placed completely adjacent to
each other (without any gap), ξγ value is found to be 2 which means bearing-capacity is twice
the isolated single footing of the same width. The values found out from this theory were
compare with different experimental data available in the literature. It was reported that the
values of ξγ is lesser than the values reported in theories.

Ghosh and Sharma (2010)

Ghosh and Sharma studied the behaviour of vertical displacement of 2 strip footings
using elasticity approach A finite difference analysis was carried out to find the displacement
property of an isolated footing and two rough strip footings placed nearby. It determined the
effect of various parameters like modulus of elasticity, thickness of 2-layers and footing load
on the deformation characteristics of two footings that were closely space. When the strip
footings were placed close to each other, the settlement was found to be more in comparison
to that of isolated strip footing. But it was found that as the distance between the footing
increases, the settlement began to decrease. As the distance increases further, the settlement of
the two footing approach the value of the isolated footing.

6
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

2.2 Dynamics Interference:

Liang (1974)

Liang investigated the dynamics response on embedded strip footing and the response
was compare with the surface strip footing. Using linear finite element formulation with energy
absorbing boundaries along the right as well as left of the failure domain, dynamics study was
carried out. With the help of an external source, steady state harmonic vibrations of one or two
strip footings are applied. The footing which is investigated is placed on the linearly elastic
material with hysteretic damping. Then he analysed the response of one of the strip footings
and the soil motion under external excitation. It is found that the horizontal amplification was
higher for the footing that’s embedded compare to surface footing and frequency (of the peaks)
does not change with the embedment appreciably, it is the total thickness which governs the
resonant frequency. The actual excited structure affected the response of the adjoining passive
structure. The effect of the neighbouring structure was found to be significant around the first
fundamental frequency of the layer under the earthquake excitation.

Lysmer et al. (1975)

Lysmer et al. studied a building response to a ground motion in nearby building
presence. The building contain nuclear material and the study was carried taking help of 2-D
FE analysis. And FE analysis considered embedment of building and adjacent buildings on the
soil stratum. Energy absorbing boundaries was considered for the study of the response of
surface and embedded foundation. After doing the analysis, it was concluded that in some
cases, embedding have substantial influence on how closely space structure should interact.

Lin et al. (1987)

Lin et al. conducted dynamic analysis of interaction between the adjacent footings with
the help of parametric study. The parametric study involved the influence of distance between
the footings, direction of alignment, embedment ratio & the influence of inertia. The motion
was found to increases with a decrease in the distance between foundations. The foundation
which is arrange along one of their diagonals indicated that such an arrangements of the
foundation reduce the important of the interaction effect. It was found out that horizontal
excitation cause significant effect in embedded footing in the presence of other nearby footing.

7
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Wang and Schmid (1992)

Wang and Schmid investigated the dynamic interactions among the structures by
observing the foundation soil. The structures were discretised with finite and boundary
elements. And the soil medium was represented by boundary element. The study included the
effect due to the spacing between the structures, natural frequency of the structure and the
direction of alignment of the foundation. In this study, it was found that the horizontal
displacement was not significantly affected by the spacing between the structures. However,
the vertical displacement was influenced by the spacing from the passive footing. The
interaction effect is observed to be significant at the excited structure’s natural frequency and
the soil layer’s resonant frequency.

8
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The study deals with a numerical analysis using a finite element method software
PLAXIS 2D, which has been developed for analysis of deformation and stability analyses in
geotechnical engineering. The analysis is carried by considering a problem as plane strain as
the length of the assumed footing is greater than its width.

3.1 Finite Element Modelling in PLAXIS-2D:

1. Units and Sign Convention:

A PLAXIS 2D-Version 8 program starts by selecting a set of suitable basic units from the
standard units list given in the general settings. Meter (m), kiloNewton (kN), and second (s)
are selected as a unit of length, force, and time.

2. Elements:

PLAXIS 2D gives the option to use either 6-node or 15-node triangular elements to model soil
or other material clusters. For the present study, 15-node triangular elements are used as they
give more accurate calculation for stress and failure loads.

3. Model Geometry:
Finite element modelling starts with creating the model geometry. Points, lines, and clusters
are the basic components of creating geometry. PLAXIS 2D allows 2-D model geometry using
either plane strain or axisymmetric model. Plane strain models are used or analyzed for
asymmetrical attributes around the central axis and axisymmetric models are used for the
problems having spherical symmetry. Here, for the current study, plane strain models is model
for the Analysis.

4. Boundary Condition:

Boundary conditions can be assigned to the model boundaries either in the form of partial or
full fixities. In current Analysis, the model boundaries are assigned to standard fixities.

a) Vertical geometry lines are made horizontal fixity (ux=0).

b) Horizontal geometry lines are made full fixity (ux = uy =0).

9
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

In many of the practical application, standard fixity is widely used as a convenient boundary
condition.

5. Absorbent Boundaries (For Dynamic Analysis):

In static deformation analysis, model boundaries are made in such a way that the deformation
behaviour of the structure is not affected by boundaries. But in dynamic analyses, the absorbent
boundaries should be assigned to absorb the stress increment on the boundary caused by the
dynamic loading. In PLAXIS, absorbent boundary can be generated by selecting standard
absorbent boundary from the load menu. The use of absorbent boundary is based on the method
which is described by Lysmer and Kuhlmeyer (1969).

Absorbent boundary conditions are assigned to the extreme vertical boundary and bottom
horizontal boundary of the domain.

6. Material Model and Material Parameters:

PLAXIS allows various model to simulate the behaviour of the soil. The behaviour of the soil
can be modelled at various degree of accuracy. Available model are a) Linear-Elastic model,
b) Mohr-Coulomb model c) Jointed Rock Model d) Hardening Soil Model e) Soft Soil Model
f) Soft-Soil Creep Model g)User-defined Soil Model. The material model of soils is assumed
to be Mohr-Coulomb for the static analysis whereas for the dynamic analysis, it is assumed to
be linear elastic model. Mohr- Coulomb model is the first approximation of soil behaviour
which involves five parameters (i.e. Young's Modulus (E), cohesion (c), Poisson's Ratio (ν),
friction angle (φ) and dilatancy angle (ψ)). The linear elastic model represents Hook's law of
isotropic linear elasticity. The model involves two elastic stiffness parameters i.e. Young's
Modulus and Poisson's Ratio. In case of dynamics analysis, material damping is included in
soil by assigning Rayleigh damping parameters (α and β) conforming to the excitation
frequency (f). The relationship between these two parameters can be expressed as:

α + β ωi2=2 ωiξi

Where, ωi = 2πf is the angular frequency of excitation and ξi is the material damping (in terms
of damping ratio).

7. Mesh Generation:

Mesh generation is an important step for the calculation program. The domain discretization
can be done from the options for setting global coarseness in PLAXIS ranging from 'very

10
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

coarse' to 'very fine'. The generation of the mesh is based on the robust triangulation procedure
resulting in unstructured mesh. The meshes may looks disorderly but the numerical
performance of this mesh is better than the regular mesh i.e. structured mesh.

Table.3.1: Global coarseness settings and mesh elements:

For the present study, the mesh discretization is done by selecting 'very fine' coarseness option.

8. Modelling Steps:

The steps involved in generating a finite element model and Analysis are briefed as follows:

a) Model geometry is created by setting the model type as plane strain.

b) Boundary conditions is applied to the geometry by selecting standard fixities option.

c) Absorbent boundaries (for dynamic Analysis) is applied to allow absorption of dynamic

stresses on the boundaries. Absorbent boundaries are assigned to the right and bottom
boundaries of the model.

d) Distributed load is applied on both the asymmetrical footing. The load is set as dynamic load
system in case of dynamic Analysis but not for static Analysis.

e) The material model (soil) is chosen to be Mohr-Coulomb for static analysis and linear elastic
for dynamic analysis. The elastic parameters (i.e. elastic modulus, mass density, Poisson's ratio
are to be specified). The material damping is assigned with the use of Rayleigh mass and
stiffness matrix coefficients (for dynamics analysis).

f) Material property is assigned to the appropriate clusters.

g) The mesh is assigned by selecting 'very fine' element from the global coarseness setting.

11
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

h) Calculation program is run by selecting the calculation type as plastic in static loading and
dynamic analysis in dynamic loading. The numbers of step, time interval, loading, etc. are to
be specified for computation. For the dynamics analysis, the amplitude multiplier, frequency,
and initial phase angle of the harmonic excitation are to be specified in the load multiplier to
activate the load.

i) Before running the program, nodes are selected at specified points just below the base of the
footing for generating stress-displacement curve (static analysis) and displacement-time curves
(dynamic analysis) at the end of analysis.

12
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 4
STATIC INTERFERENCE OF TWO STRIP FOOTINGS
4.1 Introduction:

In this static interference of two strip footings chapter, numerical analysis of the
interference of (1) two embedded asymmetrical strip footing and (2) two symmetrical
embedded footing due to partial sand replacement in a clay soil is studied. For two embedded
asymmetrical strip footing, the soil domain is considered as sand. In both the cases, the ultimate
bearing capacity is found out and the efficiency factors is calculated. The soil is assumed is
assumed to be dry and the effect of water table is not taken into account for this present
Analysis.

4.2 Interference of Two Asymmetrical Footings:

Here the study deals with numerical Analysis of the two embedded asymmetrical strip
footing with Df/Bl=1 (where Bl = Left footing). The ultimate failure stress of the single isolated
footing is obtained first. Then, the failure stress due to the two adjacent footings by changing
the clear spacing between the footings is obtained. The efficiency factor due to bearing
capacity, ξb and due to settlement, ζ are obtained to compare with the effect of the isolated
single footing.

4.2.1 Definition of the problem:

Two embedded strip foundations are placed at different spacing, S between the two
asymmetrical footings (i.e. S/ Bl =0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3). Here the objective of
the study is to find out the interference effect between the footings. The properties of the soil
& footing is given in the table given below:

13
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

15 Bl S/ Bl 15 Br

Df

Bl Br
15 Bl
Sand

Fig.4.1 Systematic Diagram of the problem

Where
H = Height of the soil deposit;
Bl = Width of the left footing;
Br = Width of the right footing;
S = Spacing between the footings;
Df = Depth of the footing

Table.4.1: Material Properties of a Soil:

14
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Table.4.2: Material Properties of a Footing:

4.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis (Optimum Domain Size):

The analysis is carried out for the width of the domain keeping the depth of the domain fixed
i.e. 15Bl. Prescribed displacement is applied till the final failure occur. The procedure is
repeated until we get a failure load which is almost constant.

Br=2Bl
Stress(kN/m2)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
0.05
0.1
0.15 5Bl
Settlement(m)

0.2 8Bl
0.25 10Bl
0.3 12Bl
0.35 15Bl
0.4
0.45
0.5

Fig.4.2 Stress vs Settlement Curve for Finding the Optimum Domain size (S/Bl=0.5)

From the graph we found out the optimum domain size to be used in the finite element analysis
and found that at 12Bl and 15Bl, the stress values are almost same. Hence, optimum domain
that is taken for the present is 15B width and 15B depth.

15
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

4.2.3 Result and Discussion:

Fig.4.3 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Sand Medium (Bl=1m and Df/Bl=1)

Fig.4.4 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Sand Medium (Br=2 Bl and Df/Bl=1)

The shear failure pattern due to interference of two strip footings between different spacing,
S/Bl is shown below:

S/B=0.25

16
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

S/B=0.5

S/B=0.75

S/B=1

S/B=1.25

17
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

S/B=1.5

S/B=2

S/B=3

S/B=5

18
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

S/B=10

S/B=10

Fig.4.5 Failure Pattern for Different Spacing

From figure 4.5, at S/Bl=0.25 to 0.75, the failure pattern resembles the single general
shear failure. At S/Bl=10, the two adjacent footings are almost acting as a single footing.

From footing failure mechanism of Terzaghi, the lateral distance of the passive zone extends
to approximately 3 to 5 times the footing width. So at a spacing a S/Bl=12, the two footings are
totally separated from each other.

19
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

The Stress-Displacement curve for the interfering footing (when width of right footing is twice
that of the left footing) for different spacing on soil deposit is shown below:

Br=2Bl
Stress(kN/m)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
0

0.05
Single
0.1 S/B=0.25
S/B=0.5
Displacement(m)

0.15
S/B=0.75
0.2
S/B=1
0.25 S/B=1.25
0.3 S/B=1.5
S/B=1.75
0.35
S/B=2
0.4 S/B=3
0.45

0.5

Fig.4.6 Stress-Displacement Curve of the right footing due to interference of footing

From the curve, maximum ultimate bearing capacity (UBC=1315.186 kN/m2) is found when
the spacing between the footing is 1.5 i.e. S/Bl = 1.5. UCB (Ultimate-bearing capacity) of the
single- footing from the finite element analysis is 793.645 kN/m2 and from Meyerhof's
Analysis, we got an ultimate bearing capacity 737.742 kN/m2 and from Terzaghi's equation we
got an ultimate bearing capacity 749.2 kN/m2 which is less than 10% difference. The result
shows a good match with the theoretical solution.

Meyerhof's equation is given by

Qu= CNcscdcic + qNqsqdqiq+ 0.5BγNγsγdγiγ

Terzaghi's equation is given by

Qu= CNc + qNq+ 0.5BγNγ

20
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Bl=1m
Stress (kN/m2)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0

0.05 Single
S/B=0.25
0.1
S/B=0.5
0.15 S/B=0.75
Displacement(m)

0.2 S/B=1
S/B=1.25
0.25
S/B=1.5
0.3 S/B=1.75

0.35 S/B=2
S/B=3
0.4

0.45

0.5

Fig.4.7 Stress-Displacement Curve of the left footing due to interference of footing

From the curve, the bearing capacity is found to be high at S/B=1.75 beyond which the values
decreases until the value is almost same as that of the single footing. The stress value is almost
same as that of the single-footing at S/B=3.

Efficiency Factor:

Efficiency Factor, ξ is defined as the bearing-capacity of one footing in presence of

other to the bearing-capacity of an single isolated footing.

From the chart we have ultimate bearing capacity for Bl=1m for a single footing is found to be
642.03 kN/m2 and for Br=2Bl is found to be 793.645 kN/ m2.

Bearing_capacity of one footing in the presence of other footing

Efficiency Factor = Bearing_capacity of an isolated single footing

21
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Table.4.3: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/Bl values (Bl= 1m):
Single Single BC BC at
UBC at 0.05m 0.05m
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) S/B UBC(kN/m2) (kN/m2) EF (UBC) EF at 0.05m
0.25 927.58 283.77 1.44 0.80
0.50 1015.06 280.52 1.58 0.79
0.75 1235.19 296.28 1.92 0.84
1.0 1125.22 317.69 1.75 0.90
1.25 1035.61 330 1.61 0.93
642.03 351.38 1.50 970.59 334 1.51 0.95
1.75 890.51 363.86 1.38 1.03
2.0 830.50 371 1.29 1.05
3.0 700.54 407 1.09 1.15
4.0 685.57 423 1.06 1.20
5.0 673.63 431 1.04 1.22

Table.4.4: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/Bl values (Br=2Bl):

Single Single BC BC at
EF at
UBC at 0.05m S/B UBC(kN/m2) 0.05m EF (UBC)
0.05m
(kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
0.25 989.58 266.9 1.24 1.05
0.50 1035.32 259.31 1.30 1.02
0.75 1106.10 258.04 1.39 1.01
1.0 1185.17 259 1.49 1.02
1.25 1295.12 265 1.63 1.04
793.645 253.7 1.50 1315.18 267 1.65 1.05
1.75 1215.30 278 1.53 1.09
2.0 1135.63 291 1.43 1.14
3.0 984.53 307 1.24 1.21
4.0 892.64 307 1.12 1.21
5.0 848.65 310 1.07 1.22

22
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Present Analysis
Ekbote and
Nainegali (2019)

Present Analysis
Ekbote and
Nainegali (2019)

Fig.4.8 Efficiency factor due to bearing capacity, ξ vs S/B

23
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

4.2.4 Conclusion:

It is found out that efficiency factor due to bearing capacity is high when the spacing
between the footings is 0.75 i.e. S/Bl =0.75 for Bl and S/Bl =1.5 for Br =2Bl. And the minimum
bearing capacity is seen when S/Bl =0.25 (other than the isolated single footing). Considering
the efficiency factor due to settlement at 0.05m, ζ value is less than 1 S/Bl =1.5 beyond which
the values of ζ is more than 1 but almost remain constant i.e. not increasing significantly for
for Bl and ζ value remains constant i.e. almost around 1 for Br.

4.3 Interference of Two Symmetrical Embedded Footings Due to Partial Sand

Replacement in a Clay Soil:

In construction practices, we have seen that removing and replacing the soft soil by
sand or granular soil (mostly in shallow foundation) improves the bearing capacity and shows
that it is an effective technique. Here the present study represents the interference of closely
spaced strip footing due to partial sand replacement method. Here the study deals with
numerical Analysis of the two embedded symmetrical strip footing with Df/B=1. Here, the
ultimate failure stress of the single isolated footing is obtained first. Then the failure stress due
to the two adjacent footings by changing the clear spacing between the footing. The soil is
assumed to be dry and the effect of the water table is not taken into account for the present
Analysis. The clay is replaced by sand equal to the width of the footing (i.e. B=1m) and depth
equal Df/B=1, 2 and 3. Then study is performed to observe how much the bearing capacity
changes due to the interference of footings in partial sand replacement method.

4.3.1 Definition of the problem:

Two embedded strip foundations are placed at a different distance between the two, S
between the two asymmetrical footings (i.e. S/ B =0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3). Here
the objective of the study is to find out the interference effect between the footing with respect
to bearing capacity. Domain size of 12x B width and 15xB depth is considered. The properties
of the soil and footing is given in the table given below:

Systematic Diagram of the plain strain problem is shown in the fig.

B= Width of the footing
S= Spacing between the Footing

24
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Df= Depth of the footing

12B B S/B B 12B

Df
Sand Sand
Df / B

15B
Clay

Fig.4.9 Systematic Diagram of the Problem

Table.4.5: Materials Properties of the Soil:

1. Dense Sand (Mostafa A. El Sawwaf 2006):

2. Soft Clay (George and Hari 2016):

Table.4.6: Material Properties of a Footing:

25
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

4.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis:

Analysis is carried out to get the optimum width of domain keeping the depth of the
domain fixed i.e. 15B. Prescribed displacement is applied till the final failure occur. The
procedure is repeated until we get a failure load which is almost constant.

S/B=0.5
Stress (kN/m2)
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
0

0.05 5B

8B
0.1
Settlement(m)

10B
0.15
12B

0.2 15B

0.25

0.3

Fig.4.10 Stress vs Settlement Curve for Finding the Optimum Domain size
From the graph we found out the optimum domain size to be used in the finite element analysis.
Optimum domain that is taken for the present is 12B width and 15B depth.

4.3.3 Result and Observation:

Some of the failure pattern diagram is shown below:

Fig.4.11 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Clay Medium Only

26
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Fig.4.12 Shear Failure Pattern of Single Footing in Clay Medium due to Partial Sand
Replacement (Df /B=1)

Fig.4.13 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings (S/B=0.5) in Clay
Medium due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)

Fig.4.14 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings (S/B=1) in Clay Medium
due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)

27
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Fig.4.15 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings (S/B=2) in Clay Medium
due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)

Fig.4.16 Shear Failure Pattern of due to interfering of Two Footings (S/B=3) in Clay Medium
due to Partial Sand Replacement (Df/B=1)

From fig.4.11, the pattern shows a general shear failure when clay is not partially
replaced by sand. When S/B= 0.5 and 1 with Df/B=1, the failure acts like a single general
failure. At S/B=2 and S/B=3, the failure pattern is totally different from the single footing.
Stress-Settlement Curve for the single footing due to sand replacement is shown below:

Embedded Single Footing

Stress(kN/m2)
0

0.05
Only Clay
Settlement(m)

0.1
Df/B=1m
0.15 Df/B=2m
0.2 Df/B=3m
Df/B=5m
0.25

0.3
0 100 200 300 400

Fig.4.17 Stress-Settlement curve of the embedded single footing

28
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

From the curve, ultimate bearing capacity of the single footing from the finite element analysis
is 117.38 kN/m2 and from Meyerhof's Analysis, we got an ultimate bearing capacity 112.06
kN/m2 which is less than 10% difference. The result shows a good match with the theoretical
solution.

When Df/B=5 i.e. replacing clay by sand upto a depth of 5m , the UBC is around 2.5 times the
single footing when no replacement is there.

Table.4.7: Ultimate Bearing Capacity of a Single Footing:

UBC at different Df/B to UBC of the
UBC_Clay Df /B UBC_Df/B
single footing on clay medium
1 170.01 1.44
2 213.07 1.81
117.38 3 247.48 2.10
5 301.32 2.56

Stress(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200
0

0.05 Only Clay (Single

Footing)
Single
0.1 S/B=0.5
Settlement(m)

S/B=0.75
0.15
S/B=1
S/B=1.5
0.2
S/B=2
S/B=3
0.25
S/B=5
S/B=8
0.3

a) Df/B=1

29
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Stress(kN/m2)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 Only Clay (Single
Footing)
Single
0.05
S/B=0.5

0.1 S/B=0.75
Displacement(m)

S/B=1
0.15
S/B=1.5

S/B=2
0.2
S/B=3

0.25 S/B=5

S/B=8
0.3

b) Df/B=2

Stress(m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 Only Clay (Single
Footing)
0.05 Single

S/B=0.5
0.1
Settlement(m)

S/B=0.75
0.15
S/B=1

0.2 S/B=1.5

S/B=2
0.25
S/B=3
0.3
S/B=5
c) Df/B=3
S/B=8

Fig.4.18 Stress-Settlement curve of the embedded footing due to interference of footings

From the fig. 4.18, at S/B=0.5,0.75 & 1 the stress values is lower than the single footing
which is replaced by the sand. But the stress values is higher as compare to the footing when
the soil medium is clay. At S/B=8, the values is found to be almost equal to that of the single-
footing.

30
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Table.4.8: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B values (Df/B=1)

Single_UBC(kN/m2) S/B UBC(kN/m2) EF_UBC

0.50 157.21 0.92

0.75 168.00 0.98
1.0 177.80 1.04
170.01 1.5 181.63 1.06
2.0 180.28 1.06
3.0 176.73 1.03
5.0 174.40 1.02
8.0 171.80 1.01

Table.4.9: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B values (Df/B=2)

Single (kN/m2) S/B UBC(kN/m2) EF (UBC)

0.50 179.63 0.84

0.75 187.87 0.88
1.0 198.75 0.93
213.07 1.5 198.75 0.93
2.0 220 1.03
3.0 228 1.07
5.0 223 1.04
8.0 220 1.03

Table.4.10: Variation of Efficiency Factor, ξ with changing S/B values (Df/B=3)

Single (kN/m2) S/B UBC(kN/m2) EF (UBC)

0.5 201.89 0.81

0.75 210.84 0.85
1 217.89 0.88
247.48 1.5 237.56 0.95
2 255.38 1.03
3 257.38 1.04
5 253.69 1.02
8 249.28 1.00

31
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

1.2

0.8
Df/B=1
0.6
ξ

Df/B=2
Df/B=3
0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
S/B

Fig.4.19. Variation of efficiency factor due to bearing capacity, ξ with S/B

4.3.4 Conclusion:
In this present analysis, bearing capacity have increase when the portion of clay
below the footings has being replaced by a sand. With the increase in depth of the sand the
bearing capacity increases. It is also found that when the spacing (S/B) is less than 1, the
bearing capacity is less than the single footings. And the efficiency factors for different D f/B
(i.e. 1, 2 and 3) are almost same. At first the efficiency factor value is less the 1 and increases
upto certain value and then decreases to almost 1 again.

32
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 5
DYNAMIC INTERFERENCE OF TWO STRIP FOOTINGS

5.1 Introduction:

In this dynamics interference of two strip footings, two cases i.e. (1) dynamic
interference of two nearby asymmetrical machine foundations and (2) seismic interference of
two nearby asymmetrical footings are studied. In both the cases, the displacement-time curve
are plot. The Analysis has been carried out for different clear spacing, S for a single soil layer.
In the seismic interference of two nearby asymmetrical footings, one particular acceleration-
time history is used.

5.2 Dynamic Interference of Two Nearby Asymmetrical Machine Foundations:

Here the study deals with the dynamics interference of two nearby machine foundations
of width 1m (left footing) and 2m (right footing) with Df/Bl=1 where Df is the depth of the
footing and Bl is the width of the left footing.

5.2.1 Definition of the Problem:

The asymmetrical strip footing is excited by a known vibration source which is placed
on the top of the footing (i.e. active footing). Here the objective is to find out the effect of the
active footing on the neighbouring footing i.e. both active and passive footing.

Here the Analysis is numerically solved/carried by providing sinusoidal wave loading with
constant amplitude. The displacement behaviour of both the passive footing and active footing
is analyzed by changing the spacing between the footings. The material properties of both the
soil and footing are given in the table below.
120Bl S/Bl 120Br

A Df ~~ ~ D

Bl Br
30Bl
Sand

Absorbent Boundaries
B C

Fig.5.1 Systematic Diagram of the problem

33
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Table.5.1: Material Properties of a Footing:

Table.5.2: Material Properties of a Soil:

5.2.2 Modelling of Two Nearby Strip Footing Subjected to Dynamics Loading:

Dynamics analysis involve several step which is similar to the static Analysis which
involves mesh generation model, creating model geometry, initial stress generation, defining
& executing the calculation. In addition to above step, in dynamics analysis, parameter like
Rayleigh damping parameter is to be determined. The modelling aspects under sinusoidal
aspects is similar to that of the seismic loading condition. Meshes are generated simulating the
soil medium, initial conditions are applied as shown in the figure 5.1. Absorbent boundaries is

34
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

applied at BC, AB and CD. The dynamic properties of the soil deposit is given in the table
below and the properties of the footing remains the same as that taken in the static Analysis.
Here adsorbent boundaries is applied to the left, bottom and right side of the model. Very fine
mesh is done throughout the model for the Analysis. Domain size: 120xB width and 30xB
depth is considered. Here, the machine foundation is assumed to have a weight of 8 kN/m2 i.e.
around 800 kg. The frequency of 7 Hz is considered (since the machine is considered as
reciprocating machine which should have a frequency lesser than 10 Hz (600 rpm).

5.2.2.1 Determination of Rayleigh Damping Parameter:

Alpha (1970) has developed a relation between dynamic and static moduli of elasticity. From
the relation we have Ed /Es=4.8.

Therefore, Ed =153600 kN/m2

𝐸 153600
G=2(1+𝜈) =2(1+0.3) =59076.923 kN/ m2

𝐺
Vs=√ 𝜌= 192.15 m/s where Vs=shear wave velocity

Natural frequency of the soil system, fn for the single soil deposit

Vs
fn= 4𝐻 (2𝑛 − 1) where H= Thickness of the soil medium

First fundamental frequency, n=1

f1= 1.60

Second Fundamental Frequency, n=2

f2= 4.80

Angular frequency, ωn=2πfn

Therefore, ω1 =10.05 rad/s and ω2= 30.16 rad/s

For finding Rayleigh damping parameters, α and β, we have,

α + β ωi2=2 ωiξi

Damping Ratio, ξ for the first frequency is assumed to 1.6% and for the second frequency, it is
assumed to be 4.6%.

35
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

After solving the equation, we have

α= 0.015 and β=0.003034

5.2.2.2 Finite Element Discretization

Finite element Discretization is carried using 15 noded triangular element. It provides

second order interpolation for displacement and element stiffness matrix is evaluated by the
numerical integration at the three stress points inside each element. The interface element are
placed at the sides of structure-soil interaction. Suitable value for Rint in the interface is chosen
to model the roughness of interaction. The factor relates the interface strength to the soil
strength.

5.2.2.3 Boundary Conditions and Initial Condition:

Standard fixities is employed where total fixities is implement at base of the boundary
and horizontal fixities to both left and right of the vertical boundaries so that the movement
along the horizontal direction is kept constraint. In addition to the above applied boundaries,
special boundaries are applied called absorbent boundaries to counteract the reflections as the
vibration generally disperse very quickly which causes unnatural reflections from the
boundaries. The absorbent boundaries are considered damper which ensure that the stresses are
absorbed reflected without reflecting back to the failure domain.

5.2.2.4 Constitutive Modelling and Loading Condition:

Here in this present study, the soil is assumed to be linear elastic. Here in this present
study we considered a sinusoidal loading with constant amplitude. Here 3 cases are considered
i) Both the footings are active, ii) When left footing (Bl= 1m) is an active footing and right
footing as passive footing (Br= 2 Bl) and iii) When left footing (Bl= 1m) is an passive footing
and right footing as active footing (Br= 2 Bl).

q= qo sin(wt)
q= dynamics loading with constant amplitude
qo= amplitude of the loading function
w= operating circular frequency

36
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

5.2.3 Sensitivity Test for Optimum Domain Size:

Analysis is carried out for obtaining width of the domain keeping the depth of the domain fixed
i.e. 30Bl. Sensitivity test is done so that the value does not change with changing the domain
size. From the Analysis, we have domain size 120 Bl and 30Bl.

0.0015
Bl=1m
0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005
80B
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(a) 80B

0.0015
Bl=1m
0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005
100B
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(b) 100B

37
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0015
Bl=1m
0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005
120B
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(c) 120B
Fig.5.2 Sensitivity analysis for optimum domain size for left footing

0.0015
Br=2Bl
0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005
80B
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(a) 80B

38
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Br=2Bl
0.0015

0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005

0
100B
-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(b) 100B

Br=2Bl
0.0015

0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005

0
120B
-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time(secs)

(c) 120B
Fig.5.3 Sensitivity analysis for optimum domain size for right footing

From the figure, the optimum domain size is taken as to 120B since the displacement-time
curve is identical when S/B=120, 100 & 80.

39
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

5.2.4 Result and Discussion:

a) Both the footings are active: The dynamics i.e. the cyclic loading with a constant amplitude
(7kN/m2) is provided with a frequency of 7 Hz. The weight of the machine foundation is
assumed to be 8 kN/m2. Then the Analysis is carried out for different clear spacing, S between
the asymmetrical footings.

120Bl S/ Bl 120Br

A Df ~ ~ D

Bl Br
30Bl
Sand

Absorbent Boundaries
B C

Fig.5.4 Systematic Diagram of the problem when both the footings are active

0.0015
S/B=1
0.001
Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

0.0005
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

40
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0015
S/B=2
0.001
Displacement(m)

0.0005 Bl=1m
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0015
S/B=3
0.001
Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

0.0005
Br=2Bl

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.001 S/B=5
0.0005 Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

41
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.001 S/B=8
0.0005 Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

Fig.5.5 Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when both the footings are active
From the fig.5.5, at S/B=1&2, the settlement is almost similar for both the foundations.
Then difference in settelement becomes visible properly. For Br max. footing settlement goes
nearly 0.0007m and for Bl it is about 0.0002m at S/B=5 & 8.
b) When left footing (Bl= 1m) is an active footing and right footing as passive footing (Br= 2
Bl): The left footing is kept active while the right footing is kept is passive and the Analysis is
done keeping all the values same as that of the above (when both the footings are active).
120Bl S/Bl 120Br

Df ~
Bl Br
30Bl
Sand

Adsorbent Boundaries

Fig.5.6 Systematic Diagram of the problem when left footing is an active footing and right
footing as passive footing

42
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0006 S/B=1
0.0004
Displacement(m)

Bl=1m
0.0002
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0006 S/B=2
0.0004
Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

0.0002 Br=2Bl
0

-0.0002

-0.0004

-0.0006

-0.0008
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0008
S/B=3
0.0006
0.0004
Displacement(m)

Bl=1m
0.0002 Br=2Bl
0
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

43
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0008 S/B=8
0.0006
Displacement(m)

0.0004 Bl=1m
0.0002 Br=2Bl
0
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0008 S/B=5
0.0006
0.0004
Displacement(m)

Bl=1m
0.0002
Br=2Bl
0
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0008
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

Fig.5.7 Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when the left footings is active

From fig. 5.7, the different in settlement between the footings is not significant. Then
settlement become gradually distinct with increasing the distance. The settlement is higher for
Bl as compare to Br. The deflection goes upto almost 0.0006m for Bl & for Br it goes upto
0.0002m which is within the safety limit.

c) When left footing (Bl= 1m) is an passive footing and right footing as active footing (Br= 2
Bl): The left footing is kept passive while the right footing is kept is active and the Analysis is
done keeping all the values same as that of the above.

44
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

120Bl S/Bl 120Br

Df ~
Bl Br
30Bl
Sand

Adsorbent Boundaries

Fig.5.8 Systematic Diagram of the problem when left footing is a passive footing and
right footing as active footing

0.001 S/B=1

0.0005 Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

45
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0015
S/B=2
0.001
Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

0.0005
Br=2Bl

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0015
S/B=3
0.001
Displacement(m)

Bl=1m
0.0005
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

0.0015
S/B=5
0.001
Bl=1m
Displacement(m)

0.0005
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

46
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

0.0015
S/B=8
0.001
Displacement(m)

Bl=1m
0.0005
Br=2Bl
0

-0.0005

-0.001

-0.0015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time(secs)

Fig.5.9 Displacement vs Time for different clear spacing when the right footings is active

From fig. 5.9, the different in settlement for both the footings (Br & Bl) is almost same.
Then settlement become gradually distinct. The settlement is higher for Br as compare to Bl.
The settlement goes to 0.0008m for Br & for Bl it goes upto 0.0002m at S/B=5

5.2.5 Conclusion:
Here when both the footing are active, the displacement amplitude is high as compare
to the footing when either of the footing are active. The displacement amplitude decreases with
the increase in spacing between the footings. It is clearly seen that when the active footing is
Bl i.e. the left footing, amplitude is the lower as compare to the right footing as active footing.

5.3 Seismic Interference of Two Nearby Asymmetrical Footings:

Here the study deals with the seismic interference of two nearby footings of width 1m
(left footing) and 2m (right footing) with Df/Bl=1 where Df is the depth of the footing and Bl is
the width of the left footing. The Analysis has been carried out for different clear spacing, S
for a single layer.

5.3.1 Definition of the Problem:

The interference effect of two asymmetrical strip foundations is obtained for single
layer under seismic condition. The earthquake motion (LOMA GILROY) is applied at the bed
rock which is located at the depth 13m below the ground surface. The footings are applied a
static loading of 25 kN/m2 for both the footings. Objective is to get the interference effect of

47
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

two embedded strip footings with respect to the settlement and determining which spacing give
the least settlement due to the earthquake motion using PLAXIS 2D.

120Bl S/Bl 120Br

Df

Bl Br
30Bl
Sand

Adsorbent Boundaries Seismic Loading

Fig.5.10 Definition problem for the interaction of footings under

seismic loading

Table.5.3: Material Properties of a Footing:

Table.5.4: Material Properties of a Soil:

48
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

5.3.2 Modelling of Two Nearby Strip Footing Subjected to Seismic Loading:

Dynamics analysis involve several step which is similar to the static Analysis which
involves creation of geometry model, mesh generation, initial stress generation, defining and
executing the calculation. In addition to above step, in seismic Analysis, parameter like
Rayleigh damping parameter is to be determined.

5.3.2.1 Determination of Rayleigh Damping Parameter:

Alpha (1970) has developed a relation between dynamic and static moduli of elasticity.
From the relation we have Ed /Es=4.8.

Therefore, Ed =153600 kN/m2

𝐸 153600
G=2(1+𝜈) =2(1+0.3) =59076.923 kN/ m2

𝐺
Vs=√ 𝜌= 192.15 m/s where Vs=shear wave velocity

Natural frequency of the soil system, fn for the single soil deposit

Vs
fn= 4𝐻 (2𝑛 − 1) where H= Thickness of the soil medium

First fundamental frequency, n=1

f1= 1.60

Second Fundamental Frequency, n=2

f2= 4.80

Angular frequency, ωn=2πfn

Therefore, ω1 =10.05 rad/s and ω2= 30.16 rad/s

49
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

For finding Rayleigh damping parameters, α and β, we have,

α + β ωi2=2 ωiξi

Damping Ratio, ξ for the first frequency is assumed to 1.6% and for the second frequency, it is
assumed to be 4.6%.

After solving the equation, we have

α= 0.015 and β=0.003034

5.3.2.2 Boundary Conditions and Initial Condition:

Standard fixities is used. In addition to the above applied boundaries, special boundaries
are applied called absorbent boundaries to counteract the reflections as the vibration generally
disperse very quickly which causes unnatural reflections from the boundaries. The absorbent
boundaries are considered damper which ensure that the stresses are absorbed reflected without
reflecting back to the failure domain.

5.3.2.3 Constitutive Modelling and Loading Condition:

Here in this present study, the soil is assumed to be linear elastic. The seismic loading
is applied at the bed rock level resulting in shear wave to propagate upward and static load is
also applied to the top of the footing (25 kN/m2). LOMA GILROY (Acceleration–Time
History) is used as the seismic source in the present study. Figure is shown below:

Using LOMAGILROY (Acceleration Vs Time):

LOMAGIRLOYBR
0.4
0.3
Acceleration(m/sec2)

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time(secs)

Fig.5.11 Seismic Input – Acceleration-Time History

50
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

5.3.3 Result and Observation:

Bl=1m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0

-0.0001 S/B=1
S/B=2
-0.0002
Displacement(m)

S/B=3
-0.0003 S/B=1.5

-0.0004 S/B=1.25
S/B=0.75
-0.0005
S/B=0.5

-0.0006 S/B=0.25

-0.0007
Time(Secs)

Fig.5.12 (a): Displacement vs time curve for Bl=1m when a seismic loading is applied at the
base of the soil deposit for different clear spacing

Br=2Bl
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0

-0.0001 S/B=1

-0.0002 S/B=2
Displacement(m)

S/B=3
-0.0003
S/B=1.5

-0.0004 S/B=1.25
S/B=0.75
-0.0005
S/B=0.5
-0.0006 S/B=0.25

-0.0007
Time(Secs)

Fig.5.12 (b): Displacement vs Time curve for Br=2Bl when a seismic loading is applied at the
base of the soil deposit for different clear spacing.

51
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

From fig. 5.12, due to the input of acceleration-time history to the model, the settlement
suddenly drop to certain distance. For the left footing, the settlement is high for S/B= 0.25 and
least at the distance of 3m between the footings i.e S/B= 3. At around 3 secs, settlement is high
during the course of 8 secs. And for right footing which is shown in the figure 5.12(b), the
settlement drops around 0.0006m at 2.5 secs and goes up again to 0.0002m.

5.3.4 Conclusion:

The settlement is seen to drop higher for Br i.e. the right footing as compare to the left
footing. There is a sudden vertical displacement from 0 mm to about 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm for
different spacing. The settlement is the least when spacing is 3 Bl i.e. S/Bl =3. So it will be a
wise choice to keep the spacing between the footings as 3 (S/Bl =3) for this particular
Acceleration–Time History. Seismic interference can be analyzed by putting different
acceleration-time history and can check which one will be safest spacing between the putting.
In this acceleration-time history, S/Bl =3 but it doesn't mean that the safest spcing between the
spacing will be always be 3 for different acceleration-time history.

52
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
The study has been carried out numerically by using finite element method under static
and dynamics loading in order to find out the effect of interference of two asymmetrical footing
for a single soil deposit. Under static loading, (1) for asymmetrical footings, it is found out that
efficiency factor due to bearing capacity is high when the spacing between the footings is 0.75
i.e. S/Bl =0.75 for Bl and S/Bl =1.5 for Br =2Bl. And the minimum bearing capacity is seen
when S/Bl =0.25 (other than the isolated single footing) from the numerically Analysis. (2) For
partial sand replacement method in a clay soil, it is found that bearing capacity increase when
the portion of clay below the footings is replaced by the sand. With the increase in depth of the
sand the bearing capacity increases. It is found that when the spacing (S/B) is less than 1, the
bearing capacity is less than the single footings. And the efficiency factors for different D f/B
(i.e. 1, 2 and 3) are almost same. At first the efficiency factor is less the 1 and increases upto
certain value and then decreases to almost 1 again. In chapter 5 i.e. under dynamics loading (1)
for machine foundation, when both the footing are active, the displacement amplitude is high
as compared to the footing when either of the footing are active. The displacement amplitude
decreases with the increase in spacing between the footings. It is clearly seen that when the
active footing is Bl i.e. the left footing, amplitude is the lower as compared to the right footing
as active footing. (2) And for earthquake motion using LOMA GILROY, the settlement is seen
to drop higher for Br i.e. the right footing as compare to the left footing. There is a sudden
vertical displacement from 0mm to about 0.3mm to 0.5mm for different spacing. The
settlement is the least when spacing is 3 Bl i.e. S/Bl =3.

In this present studies, two dimensional finite element analysis has been carried for
static and dynamic for an asymmetrical strip footing and also machine foundation
(reciprocating machine). In the future, analysis can be done for impact machine as well as
rotary machine. Numerical Analysis can be done for asymmetrical circular footing in both
single deposits soil and layered soil deposit in PLAXIS 3D Foundation. The interference of
footing due to sand replacement is something we can analyse in PLAXIS 3D for square and
circular footing.

53
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

REFERNCES

1. Das, B.M. and Larbi-Charif, S. (1983), "Bearing Capacity of Two Closely- Spaced
Shallow Foundation".
2. Ghosh, P and Kumar, S (2011), "Interference Effect of Two Nearby Strip Surface
Footings on Cohesionless Layered Soil", International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering.
3. Mabrouki, A. Benmeddour, D., Frank, R., and Mellas, M. (2010)," Numerical Study of
the Bearing Capacity for Two Interfering Strip Footings on Sands".
4. Lee, J. and Eun, J., (2009), "Estimation of Bearing Capacity for Multiple Footings in
Sand".
5. Ghosh, P., Basudhar P.K., Srinivasan, V., and Kunal K. (2015), "Experimental Studies
on Interference of Two Angular Footings Resting on Surface of Two-Layer
Cohesionless Soil Deposit", International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
6. Punmia B.C, Jain A.K and Jain A.K. (2005), "Soil Mechanics and Foundation", 16th
Edition.
7. Ranjan, G., Rao, ASR. (2000), "Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics", 3rd Edition.
8. Stuart, J.G. (1962), "Interference Between Foundations, With Special Reference to
Surface Footings in Sand".
9. Liang, C.V (1974), "Dynamics Response of Structures in Layered Soil", Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA.
10. Lin, H.T., Rosset, J.M. and Tassoulas, J.L.(1987), "Dynamic Interaction Between
Adjacent Foundation", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.15(3).
11. Lysmer, J., Seed, H.B. Udaka. T., Hwang R.N. and Tsai C.S.(1975), "Efficient Finite
Analysis of Seismic Soil Structure Interaction", Report EERC 75-34, Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre.
12. Wang, W. and Schmid, G. (1992), "Dynamic Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction by
FEM-BEM", Computational Mechanics, Vol. 9, No.5, pp.347-357.
13. PLAXIS 2D-Version 8 (2002). Geotechnical Code for Soil and Rock Analysis, User
Manual, Brinkgreve, R.B.J ed., A.A. Balkema Publisers, Netherlands.
14. Ekbote, A.G and Nainegeli, L. (2019), "Finite Element Analysis of Two Nearby
Interfering Asymmetric Footings Embedded in Cohesionless Foundation Medium".

54
 Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

15. George, B. E., and G. Hari. (2016), "Numerical Investigations of Under-reamed Piles."
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, IGC 2016, IIT Madras, Chennai,
India.
16. M.A., El Sawwaf (2006), "Behavior of Strip Footing on Geogrid-Reinforced Sand Over
a Soft Clay Slope".
17. Alpan, I. (1970), ‘The Geotechnical Properties of Soils’, Earth-Science reviews, Vol.6,
pp. 5-49.
18. Bowles, J.E. (1977), ‘Foundation analysis and Design’, McGraw-Hill, New York.
19. Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., and Neo, B.K. (1993), ‘Interference effects between two surface
footings on layered soil’.
20. Deshmukh, A.M. (1978), ‘Interference of Different Types of Footings on Sand’, Indian
Geotechnical Journal.
21. Frydman, S. and Burd, H.J. (1997), ‘Numerical Studies of Bearing Capacity Factor Nγ’,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
22. Ghosh P. and Sharma A. (2010), ‘Interference Effect of Two Nearby Strip Footings on
Layered Soil: Theory of Elasticity Approach’, Acta Geotechnical.
23. Griffiths, D.V., Fenton. A.G. and Manoharan, N. (2006), ‘Undrained Bearing Capacity
of Two Strip Footings on Spacially Random Soil’. International Journal of
Geomechanics.
24. Kouzer, K.M. and Kumar, J. (2008), ‘Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Equally Spaced
Multiple Strip Footings on Cohesionless Soils without Surcharge’, Internationnal
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics.
25. Kuhlemeyer, R.L. and Lysmer, J. (1973), ‘Finite Element Method Accuracy for Wave
Propagation Problems’, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division.
26. Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P.(2007a), ‘Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Two Interference
Rough Strip Footings’, International Journal of Geomechanics.
27. Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P.(2007b), ‘Upper Bound Limit Analysis for Finding Interference
Effect of Two Nearby Strip Footing on Sand’, Geotechnical Geological Engineering.
28. Kumar, J. and Kouzer, K.M. (2007), ‘Bearing Capacity of Two Interfering Footings’,
International Journal for Numerical Analytical Methods in Geomechanics.
29. Manoharan N. and Dasgupta S.P. (1995), ‘Bearing Capacity of Surface Footings by
Finite Element’.

55