0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

6 vizualizări67 paginiJun 04, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

6 vizualizări67 paginiSunteți pe pagina 1din 67

METHOD

Dissertation

requirements for the award of the

degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

in

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

by

KOKO KARBIA

(18MT0337)

Assistant Professor

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.

Assistant Professor,

FORWARDED BY:

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and is not copied or reproduced or imitated from any other person's published or unpublished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to the published/unpublished work of others, if it is referred to in the Dissertation.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.

Forwarded by

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

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

4.3.4 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.4.2 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.4.18 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

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

G Shear Modulus

ωn Angular frequency

X

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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.

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.

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.

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

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) 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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. 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. 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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).

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.

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.

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

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

14

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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

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

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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:

B= Width of the footing

S= Spacing between the Footing

24

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

Df

Sand Sand

Df / B

15B

Clay

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

25

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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.

Some of the failure pattern diagram is shown below:

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:

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

33

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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).

Alpha (1970) has developed a relation between dynamic and static moduli of elasticity. From

the relation we have Ed /Es=4.8.

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

f1= 1.60

f2= 4.80

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Df

Bl Br

30Bl

Sand

seismic loading

48

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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.

Alpha (1970) has developed a relation between dynamic and static moduli of elasticity.

From the relation we have Ed /Es=4.8.

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

f1= 1.60

f2= 4.80

49

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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%.

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.

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:

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)

50

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad

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