Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0094-3(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

TECHNICAL NOTE

Interference of Strip Footings Resting on Nonlinearly Elastic

Foundation Bed: A Finite Element Analysis
Lohitkumar Nainegali1 • Prabir Kumar Basudhar2 • Priyanka Ghosh3

Received: 9 February 2016 / Accepted: 5 January 2018 / Published online: 17 January 2018
 Shiraz University 2018

Abstract
The study pertains to finite element analysis of two interfering strip footings (symmetrical and asymmetrical with respect to
footing size) resting on the surface of a nonlinearly elastic soil (dense/loose sand) medium obeying Duncan and Chang’s
hyperbolic constitutive relationship. Predicted pressure–settlement behavior, bearing pressure and settlement character-
istics of the interfering footings are then compared with the same for isolated footing, expressing the interference effects in
terms of non-dimensional interaction factors. It is found that the characteristic behavior of an isolated footing is greatly
influenced due to interference of a nearby footing. Studies have shown that for dense sand, interference affects the response
of isolated footing much more compared to loose sand and for asymmetrical footings at very close spacing, the effect is
more pronounced for footing with small size. The variation of pressure-interaction factors measured in working/allowable
range is found to be similar to that measured at the ultimate failure, but on the contrary, the settlement-interaction factors
are found to be different.

Keywords Footing interference  Pressure–settlement  Bearing capacity  Duncan and Chang model  Nonlinearly elastic 
Asymmetrical footings

1 Introduction upper bounds to the limit load. Lately numerical methods

like finite difference (Ghazavi and Lavasan 2008; Mab-
Behavior of closely placed footings is one of the most rouki et al. 2010; Ghosh and Sharma 2010) and finite
interesting studies in the field of geotechnical engineering. element (Lee et al. 2008; Lee and Eun 2009; Nainegali and
A number of theoretical/numerical and experimental works Basudhar 2011; Nainegali et al. 2013a, b; Naderi and Hataf
have been reported on the subject. Most of the theoretical 2014) have also increasingly been used. For a succinct
studies reported are related to the prediction of lower and account of the works done so far, the works of Kouzer and
Kumar (2010), Kumar and Bhattacharya (2013), Ghazavi
and Lavasan (2008), Nainegali et al. (2013a) can be
& Lohitkumar Nainegali referred.
lohitkumarsn@gmail.com It is well known that the stress–strain behavior of soil is
Prabir Kumar Basudhar generally nonlinear in nature though the same typically
pkbd@iitk.ac.in exhibits linear variation for a very low range of strain level.
Priyanka Ghosh Therefore, for rational and realistic predictions it is nec-
priyog@iitk.ac.in essary to consider the nonlinearity of stress–strain behavior
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of of soil. Mabrouki et al. (2010) used FLAC to evaluate the
Technology (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad, Dhanbad, influence of interference on the bearing capacity of two
Jharkhand 826004, India adjacent smooth and rough rigid strip footings under ver-
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of tical loads characterizing the foundation soil as linearly
Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi, Varanasi, elastic–perfectly plastic material obeying Mohr–Coulomb
Uttar Pradesh 221005, India yield criterion with associated flow rule. Ghazavi and
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Lavasan (2008) investigated the effect of interference on
Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208016, India

123
200
the ultimate bearing capacity (UBC) of square footings
placed on the surface of a homogeneous cohesionless soil
medium reinforced with geogrids using FLAC in associa-
tion with Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion and non-asso-
ciated flow rule. Using ABAQUS, Lee et al. (2008)
estimated the settlements of closely spaced multiple square
and rectangular footings in sand considering Drucker–
Prager failure criterion with nonlinear state-dependent
stress–strain relationship, which was further extended by
Lee and Eun (2009) for multiple strip and spread footings;
it was found that the interference effect on the bearing
capacity of multiple footing configurations was significant.
From the literature studied, it has been found that little
work has been reported on different aspects of the problem
(asymmetrical footings, settlement and bearing capacity at
working range, state of compaction of foundation soil, etc.)
considering soil to be nonlinearly elastic medium. As such,
the present study is conducted considering the foundation
soil medium to be nonlinearly elastic, to find the response
of interfering footings using finite element (FE) method for
the cases of symmetrical and asymmetrical footings resting
on dense and loose cohesionless soil medium.
2 Analysis
Two closely spaced rigid strip footings (Fig. 1) designated
as the left (L) and the right (R) with corresponding width
BL and BR and subjected to uniform vertical pressure, q, are
considered. The footings are placed at a clear spacing, S on
Fig. 1 Problem domain, FE mesh and associated boundary conditions
123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
the surface of a semi-infinite, homogeneous, isotropic and
nonlinearly elastic dense/loose cohesionless soil medium.
FE analysis is adopted to find the pressure–settlement
response, bearing pressure/capacity and settlement aspects
of the two footings. In spite of its inherent limitations,
nonlinear soil behavior model proposed by Duncan and
Chang (1970) has been incorporated in the FE program
developed for this purpose. The model (Eq. 1) has been
adopted because of its easy adaptability, familiarity with
geotechnical researchers, easily determined model param-
eters using conventional triaxial tests and it is particularly
suitable for incremental simulation (Al-Shayea et al. 2003).
   n
Rf ð1  sin /Þðr1  r3 Þ 2 r3
Et ¼ 1  Kpa ;
2c cos / þ 2r3 sin / pa
 n ð1Þ
r3
Eur ¼ Kur pa
pa
where Et = tangent modulus; Eur = unloading–reloading
modulus; Rf = failure ratio; K = primary loading modulus
number; Kur = unloading–reloading modulus number;
n = modulus exponent; c and / = Mohr–Coulomb
strength parameters (cohesion and friction angle of soil); r1
and r3 = major and minor principal stresses; pa = atmo-
spheric pressure. Rf, K, Kur and n are non-dimensional
parameters.
The model has the capability to represent accurately the
stress–strain behavior of a wide variety of soils, e.g., clay,
silt, sand, gravel, rock-fill and municipal solid wastes. In the
present analysis, the soil model parameters for dense and
loose sands that have been used for computations are
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
considered from the experimental results as reported by
Duncan and Chang (1970): dense sand (e0 = 0.5,
Dr = 100%): c = 0 kN/m2, / = 36.50, K = 2000,
Kur = 2120, Rf = 0.91, n = 0.54, density (c) = 17 kN/m3,
Poison’s ratio (l) = 0.35 and loose sand (e0 = 0.67,
Dr = 38%): c = 0 kN/m2, / = 30.40, K = 295,
Kur = 1090, Rf = 0.90, n = 0.65, c = 14 kN/m3,
l = 0.35. Other parameters used in the analysis are: coef-
ficient of earth pressure at rest (K0) = 0.625,
pa = 101.325 kN/m2, BL = 1.0 m and BR = a * BL
(a = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0).
It may be noted that the results are dependent on the
constitutive model parameters adopted for the soil and
results cannot be generalized to any type of soil and for the
foundations of any type and size. However, the same
analysis can be implemented for any soil if the model
parameters are estimated for that particular soil.
Figure 1 shows the distance of the boundaries from the
outer edges of the left and right footings in x and z
directions, boundary conditions and mesh as chosen for
computations. The whole foundation soil domain is dis-
cretized with finite number of 4-noded iso-parametric
rectangular elements; appropriate boundary conditions
(Potts and Zdravkovic 1999) are prescribed along the
boundaries of the soil domain. In the vicinity of the foot-
ings, a finer uniform square mesh (each element of size
0.25 m 9 0.25 m) is considered, and in the rest of the
domain, the element size is increased with an aspect ratio
of 1.2. The applied incremental pressure on the footings is
chosen as 5.0 kN/m2. These values are chosen after sen-
sitivity studies keeping in mind computational time,
accuracy of the results and memory required for compu-
tations. However, for the sake of brevity and space
restriction the detailed studies as made are not presented.
3 Result and Discussion
Using MATLAB R2008a, a FE computer code has been
developed for finding the response of interfering footings
adopting piecewise incremental solution technique to take
into account the nonlinear stress–strain relationship (Dun-
can and Chang 1970) in the analysis. The correctness of the
developed FE computer program has been established by
calibrating and validating the results obtained by present
analysis with those reported by Evgin and Morgenstern
(1986); the computed results obtained from the present FE
analysis matched very closely with those reported by them.
Thus, the developed FE computer program is found com-
putationally reliable and can be used with confidence for
further studies. Parametric studies related to the interfer-
ence of footings are presented as follows.
201
Settlements of the left and the right footings are com-
puted by averaging the values of the settlement at various
nodes below the respective footing. From the computed
pressure–settlement (p–d) curves, the interaction factors for
allowable settlement and allowable pressure are computed
for the left and the right footings. The allowable settlement
(da) is defined as the maximum settlement allowed irre-
spective of the footing type and size. As per Indian stan-
dard code (IS 1904-1986), maximum allowable settlement
is recommended as 5.0 cm for isolated foundations in sand
and hard clay for steel as well as reinforced concrete
structures and, as per EUR 26227 EU 2013, the limiting
values of settlement for framed buildings and reinforced
load bearing walls are in the range of 5.0–7.5 cm for sands
and 7.5–13.5 cm for clays, respectively. Therefore, maxi-
mum allowable settlement of 5.0 cm is considered in the
present analysis. The allowable pressure (fa) is defined as
the pressure corresponding to the maximum allowable
settlement considered for the isolated footing. Figure 2
shows the p–d curves for isolated strip footings of widths,
B = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m placed on the surface of dense sand
(DS), and presents the schematic view of the definitions
stated above. With the definitions made, the interaction
factors for pressure are defined in Eqs. 2a and 2b, where
the respective pressure appearing in the expression corre-
spond to prescribed allowable settlement. The interaction
factors for settlement are defined in Eqs. 3a and 3b. In
equations, n and f represent pressure-interaction factor and
settlement-interaction factor, respectively, wherein sub-
script L and R correspond to the left and the right footing,
respectively, and the superscript corresponds to the
allowable condition. From the computed p–d data, the
allowable pressure (fa) for different width of isolated
footing (B) on dense and loose sands is calculated corre-
sponding to the allowable settlement (da). The computed fa
corresponding to da = 5.0 cm is 205.91, 226.07 and
240.97 kN/m2 for B = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m, respectively, for
Fig. 2 p–d curves for isolated strip footings on dense sand (DS)
123
202
dense sand and that for the loose sand is 58.84, 59.47,
59.82 kN/m2 for B = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 m, respectively. This
allowable pressure is calculated making use of linear
interpolation, as the stress–strain variation is linear within
any incremental pressure step.
Pressure of left footing in presence of right footing
naL ¼
Pressure of isolated footing with properties of left footing
ð2aÞ
Pressure of right footing in presence of left footing
naR ¼
Pressure of isolated footing with properties of right footing
ð2bÞ
Settlement of interfering left footing; corresponding to allowable
pressure of isolated footing with same properties of left footing
faL ¼
Allowable settlement
ð3aÞ
Settlement of interfering right footing; corresponding to allowable
pressure of isolated footing with same properties of right footing
faR ¼
Allowable settlement
ð3bÞ
3.1 Symmetrical Footings on Dense Cohesionless
Soil Medium
Analysis is performed for two symmetrical interfering strip
footings (a = 1.0), resting on the surface of dense sand
(DS) medium at different clear spacing ratio (S/BL)
between the left and the right footings. The p–d data
obtained are found to be identical for both the footings. The
vertical stress contours corresponding to a pressure level of
205 kN/m2 are obtained, and it is noted that when two
footings are placed very close to each other (say S/
BL = 0.5), the pressure isobars developed below the
interacting footings interfere to form a single isobar and the
same can be seen in Fig. 3a. However, when the spacing
ratio between the footings is higher (say S/BL = 6), the
pressure isobars may or may not interfere to form a com-
mon isobar, rather the two stress isobars do not coalesce.
Figure 4 presents the effect of spacing ratio on the p–d
behavior of two symmetrical footings along with that of an
isolated footing under similar conditions. It can be seen
(Fig. 4) that the settlement increases continuously with
increase in the pressure and all the p–d curves are almost
identical up to pressure less than or equal to 110 kN/m2
beyond which the p–d curves for the interfering footings lie
above that of an isolated footing. It can be also observed
that at a particular settlement (2.5 cm and above), the
bearing pressure of interfering footings increases with
decrease in S/BL ratio. However, the settlement at a par-
ticular pressure (150 kN/m2 and above) increases with
increase in S/BL ratio and this is in contrast to that of
linearly elastic soil where the settlement increases with
decrease in S/BL ratio (Nainegali et al. 2013a) predicting
123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
exactly opposite behavior. This highlights the importance
of considering the nonlinear nature of the soil in predicting
the engineering behavior of foundation structures. The
variation can be clearly visualized by the interaction
factors.
Figure 5a, b (a = 1.0) shows, respectively, the effect of
S/BL ratio on the pressure-interaction factors (naL or naR ) and
settlement-interaction factors (faL or faR ) for symmetrical
footings. Pressure-interaction factors have been evaluated
for allowable settlement of 5.0 cm (maximum recom-
mended value as per IS 1904-1986) and 2.5 cm (conven-
tionally assumed in practice); however, the one at
da = 5.0 cm has been presented. It can be noted (Fig. 5a,
a = 1.0) that naL or naR is greater than 1.0 at S/BL = 0.5,
indicating the bearing pressure of two interfering strip
footings is higher compared to that of an isolated footing
having the *-same properties. Thereafter, with increase in
S/BL ratio, naL or naR decreases continuously approaching a
value equal to one at greater S/BL ratio, signifying the two
interfering footings behave as isolated at that particular S/
BL ratio and for the given value of da. Kumar and Bhoi
(2009) reported similar response from small-scale labora-
tory model tests. However, this is in contrast to the
response of such footings when the foundation soil medium
is considered to be linearly elastic (Ghosh and Sharma
2010; Nainegali et al. 2013a). Comparing bearing pressure
in the allowable/working range, at the ultimate failure and
footings on linear-elastic soil, it is worth noting that the
bearing pressure of the interfering footings at a specified
settlement (working range) or at the ultimate failure
(Mabrouki et al. 2010) is higher compared to that of the
isolated footing and that for linear-elastic soil it is lesser.
Similarly, settlement-interaction factors (faL or faR ) for
f corresponding to da = 5.0 cm and 2.5 cm for both the
a
footings have been evaluated and the one for fa at
da = 5.0 cm has been shown. It can be observed
(Fig. 5b, a = 1.0) that faL is equal to faR and is less than
one at S/BL = 0.5; however, the same increases with
increase in S/BL ratio till the value reaches unity.
Decrease in the settlement for interfering footings
compared to isolated footing having same properties and
subject to the same intensity of loading may be due to
increase in the strength of the foundation soil in the zone
where the interference is more (at lower S/BL), wherein
the displacement of soil under the left footing is
restricted by the presence of the right footing and vice
versa, resulting in the development of compression zone.
Consequently, pressure corresponding to specified set-
tlement will be higher for two interfering footings
compared to that of isolated footing. As the spacing
between the two interfering footings increases, confining
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206 203

Left footing Right footing kPa

(a) 220
1
200
2
180
3
160
4 140
Depth, m

5 120

6 100

80
7
60
8
40
9
20
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance, m

Left footing Right footing kPa

(b)
220
1
200
2
180
3
160
4
140
Depth, m

5 120

6 100

7 80

60
8
40
9
20
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance, m

Fig. 3 Vertical stress contour for interfering footings placed at S/BL = 0.5 on DS a symmetrical footings (a = 1.0) and b asymmetrical footings
(a = 2.0)

pressure around the compressed zone decreases and the
footing settlement increases.
It has been noted that for footings on linearly elastic
soils, settlement-interaction factors are greater than 1.0
representing the settlement induced by interference is
greater than that of an isolated footing and this decreases
continuously with increase in S/BL ratio. Moreover, the
variation is similar for the settlement observed at the ulti-
mate failure (Kumar and Bhoi 2009; Ghosh and Kumar
2011).
Comparison of the variations of pressure-interaction
factors and settlement-interaction factors for linearly
elastic soil, nonlinearly elastic soil (working range) and at
ultimate failure condition shows that generally the varia-
tion of pressure-interaction factors obtained for the pres-
sure in the working/allowable range is similar to that
measured at the ultimate failure condition; however, the
variation of the same is different when measured for
footings on linearly elastic foundation soil. On the con-
trary, the variation of settlement-interaction factors is
similar for footings resting on linearly elastic soil and also
for that measured at the ultimate failure condition; how-
ever, the variation of the same is different for that mea-
sured in the working/allowable range.

123
204
Fig. 4 p–d curves for different S/BL ratios for symmetrical interfering
footings placed on DS
Fig. 5 Variation of interaction factors with S/BL ratio for different a
on DS a pressure-interaction factors corresponding to da = 5.0 cm,
b settlement-interaction factors corresponding to fa at da = 5.0 cm
3.2 Asymmetrical Footings on Dense
Cohesionless Soil Medium
Studies have been performed for two interfering asym-
metrical surface strip footings, varying the width of the
right footing with respect to that of the left footing
(BR = a * BL, where a [ 1.0). Typical variations in the p–
d behavior of the left and the right footings are presented in
Fig. 6 for a = 2.0 and S/BL = 0.5; the p–d curves of
123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
Fig. 6 p–d curves for asymmetrical footings with a = 2.0 placed on
DS at S/BL = 0.5
isolated footings as well as symmetrical interfering foot-
ings (a = 1.0) are also presented in this figure for com-
parison purpose. It can be noted that in the range of loading
intensity 150–350 kN/m2 the p–d curves show that for a
given pressure the corresponding settlement of the left
(BL = 1.0 m) footing is lower than that of the right
(BR = 2.0 m) till the settlement is approximately equal to
7.0 cm where the curves cross each other and a reverse
trend is observed. This signifies that, at settlements less
than the critical value (7.0 cm in this case), the bearing
capacity of the smaller footing (left) is higher compared to
that of the larger footing (right); conversely, the settlement
at a specified pressure is lesser for the smaller footing and
greater for the larger footing. However, it has been
observed that, at higher spacing, i.e., at S/BL C 1.5, the
footings do not exhibit the similar trend of behavior.
Studies on the vertical stress contours for two different
spacing of the footings show that the responses of different
size interfering footings (simultaneously loaded with same
pressure, fa = 205 kN/m2) are different and the pressure
exerted under the right footing is higher in comparison with
that of the left footing. As an example, the vertical stress
contour obtained at S/BL = 0.5 for a = 2.0 is presented in
Fig. 3b.
For a = 1.5 and 2.0, the variation of pressure-interac-
tion factors (corresponding to da = 5.0 cm) and settle-
ment-interaction factors (at fa corresponding to
da = 5.0 cm) with respect to S/BL ratio is presented in
Figs. 5a, b, respectively. Both naL and naR (Fig. 5a, a = 1.5
and 2.0) are found to be greater than 1.0 signifying the
pressure carried by the interfering asymmetrical footings is
greater than that of the respective isolated footing. For S/
BL = 0.5–1.5, naL is found to be almost constant with
increase in a (increase in size of the right footing), while in
contrast naR decreases. Beyond S/BL = 1.5, both naL and naR
show a decreasing trend with increase in a value. This
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
signifies that, in the zone of major interference (S/
BL = 0.5–1.5), with increase in the width of the right
footing, the increase in the bearing pressure of the left
footing compared to the isolated footing is almost constant,
while the increase in the bearing pressure of the right
footing compared to the respective isolated footing
decreases. The effect of the larger footing on the smaller
footing is more compared to that of the smaller footing on
the larger one because the stress isobars of the large size
footing are larger. For some values of S/BL ratio (approx-
imately 0.5–1.5), naL is greater than naR indicating the
pressure carried by smaller left footing is higher compared
to that of the larger right footing. At S/BL greater than 1.5,
the magnitude of naL is higher for lower a values. However,
for all a, naL attains a value equal to one for S/BL ratio
greater than six.
Similarly, it is found that the magnitude of faL and faR
(Fig. 5b, a = 1.5 and 2.0) is less than 1.0, which signifies
that the settlement of interfering footings is lesser as
compared to the respective isolated footing. The higher the
values of faL or faR , the lesser the effect of interference on
the settlement. faL and faR increase continuously with
increase in spacing between the two footings attaining a
value one at higher spacing. However, faL and faR show a
decline at S/BL = 1.0, indicating a lower settlement value
at that particular S/BL ratio.faR is found to be higher com-
pared to faL , which signifies that the interference effect on
the settlement of footing with larger footing (right) is lesser
as compared to that of smaller footing (left). Moreover, it
can be seen that at S/BL = 0.5, the magnitude of faR and faL
increases with increase in a value; however, increase in the
magnitude of faL is quite low. This represents the reduction
in the interference effect on the settlement with increase in
a value.
Comparing to that of respective isolated footing, at S/
BL = 0.5, the percentage increase in the bearing pressure
of interfering footings measured at allowable settlement,
da = 5.0 cm (IS 1904-1986) for all chosen a value (1.0, 1.5
and 2.0) is 60, 59 and 58% for the left footing and that for
the right footing is 60, 41 and 31%, respectively. Similarly,
percentage decrease in the settlement (obtained fa corre-
sponding to da = 5.0 cm) of the left footing is 65, 63 and
62% and that for the right footing is 65, 53 and 43%,
respectively.
3.3 Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Footings
on Loose Cohesionless Soil Medium
Similar to the case of footings on dense sand, studies have
been performed for footings on loose cohesionless soil
deposits (LS); the parameters used are highlighted in
205
analysis section. The observations made are presented
briefly.
From the p–d curves of symmetrical interfering footings,
it is seen that for S/BL = 0.5, the allowable bearing pres-
sure corresponding to any settlement (& 4 cm and above)
is higher compared to that of isolated footing; however, for
S/BL C 2, increase in the bearing pressure is not signifi-
cant. For asymmetrical interfering footings (a [ 1.0), at S/
BL = 0.5, the p–d response of the left and the right inter-
fering footings is almost linear and the bearing pressure
corresponding to da = 5.0 cm is marginally higher for the
left footing. This is not the case as observed for asym-
metrical interfering footings on dense sand, as the footings
have shown a notable distinction in p–d curve. At S/
BL = 6.0, the p–d curves of the left and the right footings
almost coincide with that of respective isolated footing.
The variation of pressure-interaction factors and settle-
ment-interaction factors for a = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 has been
observed. The variation of both pressure-interaction factor
and settlement-interaction factor with respect to S/BL ratio
is unlike that reported earlier for footings on dense cohe-
sionless soil medium. Here at S/BL = 0.5, naL and naR are
found to be greater than 1.0, whereas faL and faR are seen to
be less than 1.0. The smaller (left) footing experiences
more bearing pressure and less settlement than those of the
larger (right) footing; the observation made is similar to
that observed for footings on dense sand, differing only in
their magnitude. At S/BL = 0.5 and for a = 1.0, 1.5 and
2.0, the percentage increase in the bearing pressure of the
left footing compared to the isolated footing is 15, 14 and
12% and that for the right footing is 15, 8 and 4%,
respectively. Similarly, percentage decrease in the settle-
ment of the left footing compared to the isolated footing is
19, 17 and 15% and that for the right footing is 19, 11 and
6%, respectively. This signifies that the effect of interfer-
ence on the bearing pressure as well as on the settlement is
not significant for the footings on loose sand compared to
those for the footings on dense sand as reported in the
above section.
It is to be noted that in the case of interacting footings on
loose sand, the interference phenomenon is more pro-
nounced at higher settlement of footing, say 10 cm and
above, which is beyond the scope of concern as per the
recommendation of Indian standard IS 1904-1986.
4 Conclusions
Based on the studies reported above, the following con-
clusions are drawn:
• Bearing pressure/capacity and settlement behavior of
two interacting footings resting on nonlinearly elastic
123
206
soil medium are quite different from those of footings
resting on linearly elastic solution.
• The variation of pressure-interaction factors computed
for pressure in the working/allowable range is found to
be similar to that measured at the ultimate failure
condition; however, the variation of the same is
different for linearly elastic soil.
• The variation of settlement-interaction factors is seen to
be similar for linearly elastic soil and for that measured
at the ultimate failure condition; however, the variation
of the same is different for the pressure in the working/
allowable range.
• For asymmetrical interfering strip footings when S/
BL B 1.0, for all considered values of a, the effect of
interference on the left small size footing is more
pronounced than on the right large size footing.
• At S/BL = 0.5, a = 1.0 for footings on dense and loose
sands, the percentage increase in the bearing pressure of
interfering footings corresponding to da = 5.0 cm is
found to be 60 and 15%, respectively, compared to that
of the isolated footing, whereas the percentage decrease
in the settlement (for fa corresponding to da = 5.0 cm)
is 65 and 19%, respectively. Thus, the effect of
interference for footings resting on loose sand is not
as predominant as has been observed for footings on
dense sand.
References
Al-Shayea N, Abduljauwad S, Bashir R, Al-Ghamedy HN, Ibrahim A
(2003) Determination of parameters for a hyperbolic model of
soil. Proc Inst Civil Eng Geotech Eng 156(2):105–117
Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain
in soils. J Soil Mech Found Div (ASCE) 96(SM5):1629–1653
EUR 26227 EU 2013 Eurocode 7: geotechnical design worked
examples. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, Dublin
Evgin E, Morgenstern NR (1986) A nonlinear soil model in ADINA.
Comput Struct 24(4):581–587
123
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2018) 42:199–206
Ghazavi M, Lavasan AA (2008) Interference effect of shallow
foundations constructed on sand reinforced with Geosynthetics.
Geotext Geomembr 26:404–415
Ghosh P, Kumar SR (2011) Interference effect of two nearby strip
surface footings on cohesionless layered soil. Int J Geotech Eng
5(1):87–94
Ghosh P, Sharma A (2010) Interference effect of two nearby strip
footings on layered soil: theory of elasticity approach. Acta
Geotech 5(3):189–198
IS 1904-1986 (reaffirmed 2006) Indian standard code of practice for
design and construction of foundations in soils: general require-
ments. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi
Kouzer KM, Kumar J (2010) Ultimate bearing capacity of a footing
considering the interference of an existing footing on sand.
Geotech Geol Eng 28(4):457–470
Kumar J, Bhattacharya P (2013) Bearing capacity of two interfering
strip footings from lower bound finite elements limit analysis. Int
J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37(5):441–452
Kumar J, Bhoi MK (2009) Interference of two closely spaced strip
footings on sand using model tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
135(4):595–604
Lee J, Eun J (2009) Estimation of bearing capacity for multiple
footings in sand. Comput Geotech 36:1000–1008
Lee J, Eun J, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2008) Strain influence diagrams
for settlement estimation of both isolated and multiple footings
in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(4):417–427
Mabrouki A, Benmeddour D, Frank R, Mellas M (2010) Numerical
study of the bearing capacity for two interfering strip footings on
sands. Comput Geotech 37(4):431–439
MATLAB-MATrix LABoratory, Version R2008a, The MathWorks,
Inc., US Patents, Natick, Massachusetts, USA
Naderi E, Hataf N (2014) Model testing and numerical investigation
of interference effect of closely spaced ring and circular footings
on reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 42:191–200
Nainegali LS, Basudhar PK (2011) Interference of two closely spaced
footings: a finite element modeling. In: ASCE geotechnical
special publications, geo-frontiers: advances in geotechnical
engineering, Dallas, Texas GSP, vol 211, pp 3726–3735
Nainegali LS, Basudhar PK, Ghosh P (2013a) Interference of two
asymmetric closely spaced strip footings resting on nonhomo-
geneous and linearly elastic soil bed. Int J Geomech (ASCE)
13(6):840–851
Nainegali LS, Basudhar PK, Ghosh P (2013b) Interference of two
closely spaced strip footings resting on linearly elastic Gibson
soil. In: 18th southeast Asian geotechnical conference cum
inaugural AGSSEA conference, Singapore, pp 1019–1025, ISBN
978-981-07-4949-1
Potts DM, Zdravkovic L (1999) Finite element analysis in geotech-
nical engineering: theory/application. Thomas Telford, London
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.