International Journal of Geomechanics

Seismic response of strip footing on two-layered soil

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: GMENG-7624

Full Title: Seismic response of strip footing on two-layered soil

Manuscript Region of Origin: INDIA

Article Type: Technical Paper

Manuscript Classifications: Geomechanics; Geotechnical structures; Mining engineering

Funding Information:

Abstract: This paper represents the analytical, numerical and the experimental study of strip
footing on two layered c-ϕ soil. A pseudo-static approach to the problem of bearing
capacity into the Mohr-Coulomb layered half space has been developed, based on the
kinematic approach of limit analysis. A kinematically admissible plane-strain failure
mechanism for typical two-layered system is presented. Numerical study is conducted
by using Plaxis 2D. Small scale shake table tests are conducted to evaluate the
different parameters like vertical settlement, (Root mean square amplification) RMSA
factor, and total stress at different levels of layered soil. Test results revealed that
increase in moisture content up to the optimum moisture content level reduces all the
above parameters. Further addition of moisture content increases the above
parameters. Inclusion of reinforcement tends to reduce of all the above parameter but
is more effective in reduction of maximum RMSA amplification and deformation. The
results obtained from the present analytical, numerical and experimental study are
compared with previous researcher’s value and it is seen that the ultimate bearing
capacity obtained from the proposed approaches compares well with the available
literature.

Corresponding Author: Litan Debnath, Ph.D Research Scholar

National Institute of Technology Agartala
AGARTALA, Tripura INDIA

Corresponding Author E-Mail: litandbnth4@gmail.com

Order of Authors: Litan Debnath, Ph.D Research Scholar

Sima Ghosh

Suggested Reviewers:

Opposed Reviewers:

Additional Information:

Question Response

The flat fee for including color figures in No

print is $800, regardless of the number of
color figures. There is no fee for online
only color figures. If you decide to not
print figures in color, please ensure that
the color figures will also make sense
when printed in black-and-white, and
remove any reference to color in the text.
Only one file is accepted for each figure.
Do you intend to pay to include color
figures in print? If yes, please indicate
which figures in the comments box.

Authors are required to attain permission No

to re-use content, figures, tables, charts,

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
maps, and photographs for which the
authors do not hold copyright. Figures
created by the authors but previously
published under copyright elsewhere may
require permission. For more information
see
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/978
0784479018.ch03. All permissions must
be uploaded as a permission file in PDF
format. Are there any required
permissions that have not yet been
secured? If yes, please explain in the
comment box.

ASCE does not review manuscripts that No

are being considered elsewhere to include
other ASCE Journals and all conference
proceedings (see next question for
expanded conference proceeding
requirements). Is the article or parts of it
being considered for any other
publication? If your answer is yes, please
explain in the comments box below.

Is this article or parts of it already No

published in print or online in any
language? ASCE does not review content
already published (see next questions for
conference papers and posted
theses/dissertations). If your answer is
yes, please explain in the comments box
below.

Has this paper or parts of it been No

published as a conference proceeding? A
conference proceeding may be reviewed
for publication only if it has been
significantly revised and contains 50%
new content. Any content overlap should
be reworded and/or properly referenced. If
your answer is yes, please explain in the
comments box below and be prepared to
provide the conference paper.

ASCE allows submissions of papers that No

are based on theses and dissertations so
long as the paper has been modified to fit
the journal page limits, format, and
tailored for the audience. ASCE will
consider such papers even if the thesis or
dissertation has been posted online
provided that the degree-granting
institution requires that the thesis or
dissertation be posted.

<p>Is this paper a derivative of a thesis or

dissertation posted or about to be posted

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
on the Internet? If yes, please provide the
URL or DOI permalink in the comment
box below.

Each submission to ASCE must stand on No

its own and represent significant new
information, which may include disproving
the work of others. While it is acceptable
to build upon one’s own work or replicate
other’s work, it is not appropriate to
fragment the research to maximize the
number of manuscripts or to submit
papers that represent very small
incremental changes. ASCE may use
tools such as CrossCheck, Duplicate
Submission Checks, and Google Scholar
to verify that submissions are novel. Does
the manuscript constitute incremental
work (i.e. restating raw data, models, or
conclusions from a previously published
study)?

Authors are expected to present their Yes

papers within the page limitations
described in <u><i><a
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/978078447
9018" target="_blank">Publishing in
ASCE Journals: A Guide for
Authors</a></u></i>. Technical papers
and Case Studies must not exceed 30
double-spaced manuscript pages,
including all figures and tables. Technical
notes must not exceed 7 double-spaced
manuscript pages. Papers that exceed the
limits must be justified. Grossly over-
length papers may be returned without
review. Does this paper exceed the ASCE
length limitations? If yes, please provide
justification in the comments box below.

If yes, please provide justification in the Respected sir, In present study analytical, numerical and experimental observation are
comments box below.
shown. Many Figures and analytical expressions are included in the manuscript. These
<br/>&emsp;as follow-up to "Authors are
expected to present their papers within are the important parts in the study which cannot be remove from the manuscript . Due
the page limitations described in to these reason page limitation is exceeded . Respected sir, please consider the page
<u><i><a limitation.
href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/978078447
9018" target="_blank">Publishing in
ASCE Journals: A Guide for
Authors</a></u></i>. Technical papers
and Case Studies must not exceed 30
double-spaced manuscript pages,
including all figures and tables. Technical
notes must not exceed 7 double-spaced
manuscript pages. Papers that exceed the
limits must be justified. Grossly over-
length papers may be returned without
review. Does this paper exceed the ASCE
length limitations? If yes, please provide
justification in the comments box below.
"

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
All authors listed on the manuscript must No
have contributed to the study and must
approve the current version of the
manuscript. Are there any authors on the
paper that do not meet these criteria? If
the answer is yes, please explain in the
comments.

Was this paper previously declined or No

withdrawn from this or another ASCE
journal? If so, please provide the previous
manuscript number and explain what you
have changed in this current version in
the comments box below. You may
upload a separate response to reviewers
if your comments are extensive.

Companion manuscripts are discouraged

as all papers published must be able to
stand on their own. Justification must be
provided to the editor if an author feels as
though the work must be presented in two
parts and published simultaneously.
There is no guarantee that companions
will be reviewed by the same reviewers,
which complicates the review process,
increases the risk for rejection and
potentially lengthens the review time. If
this is a companion paper, please indicate
the part number and provide the title,
authors and manuscript number (if
available) for the companion papers along
with your detailed justification for the
editor in the comments box below. If there
is no justification provided, or if there is
insufficient justification, the papers will be
returned without review.

Is this manuscript being submitted as part No

of a special collection? You can find
active calls for papers for special
collections in ASCE Journals here.

Recognizing that science and engineering

are best served when data aremade
available during the review and discussion
of manuscripts andjournal articles, and to
allow others to replicate and build on
workpublished in ASCE journals, all
reasonable requests by reviewers
formaterials, data, and associated
protocols must be fulfilled. If you are
restricted from sharing your data and
materials, please explain below.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Papers published in ASCE Journals must In present study analytical, numerical and experimental study is presented for better
make a contribution to the core body of understanding the bearing capacity in layered soil
knowledge and to the advancement of the
field. Authors must consider how their
new knowledge and/or innovations add
value to the state of the art and/or state of
the practice. Please outline the specific
contributions of this research in the
comments box.

When submitting a new and revised d. Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the study are
manuscript, authors are asked to include proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions.
a Data Availability Statement containing
one or more of the following statements,
with specific items listed as appropriate.
Please select one or more of the
statements below that apply to your
manuscript. Also, please include the
selected statements in a separate "Data
Availability Statement" section in your
manuscript, directly before the
acknowledgments or references. The
statement(s) listed in your manuscript
should match those you select in your
response to this question.

Please describe which data are numerical analysis

proprietary or confidential and what
restrictions apply.
as follow-up to "When submitting a new
and revised manuscript, authors are
asked to include a Data Availability
Statement containing one or more of the
following statements, with specific items
listed as appropriate. Please select one or
more of the statements below that apply
to your manuscript. Also, please include
the selected statements in a separate
"Data Availability Statement" section in
your manuscript, directly before the
acknowledgments or references. The
statement(s) listed in your manuscript
should match those you select in your
response to this question."

If there is anything else you wish to

communicate to the editor of the journal,
please do so in this box.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Manuscript.docx

1 Seismic response of strip footing on two-layered soil

2 Litan Debnath1, Sima Ghosh2
1
3 Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Agartala,
4 PIN-799046, INDIA, (Corresponding author) Email- litandbnth4@gmail.com, Mobile- (+91)
5 8732873529
2
6 Associate professor, Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Agartala,
7 PIN- 799046, INDIA, Email- sima.civil@nita.ac.in, Mobile- (+91) 9862472558
8
9 Abstract
10 This paper represents the analytical, numerical and the experimental study of strip footing on two
11 layered c-ϕ soil. A pseudo-static approach to the problem of bearing capacity into the Mohr-
12 Coulomb layered half space has been developed, based on the kinematic approach of limit
13 analysis. A kinematically admissible plane-strain failure mechanism for typical two-layered
14 system is presented. Numerical study is conducted by using Plaxis 2D. Small scale shake table
15 tests are conducted to evaluate the different parameters like vertical settlement, (Root mean
16 square amplification) RMSA factor, and total stress at different levels of layered soil. Test results
17 revealed that increase in moisture content up to the optimum moisture content level reduces all
18 the above parameters. Further addition of moisture content increases the above parameters.
19 Inclusion of reinforcement tends to reduce of all the above parameter but is more effective in
20 reduction of maximum RMSA amplification and deformation. The results obtained from the
21 present analytical, numerical and experimental study are compared with previous researcher’s
22 value and it is seen that the ultimate bearing capacity obtained from the proposed approaches
23 compares well with the available literature.
24 Keywords
25 Pseudo-static, Shake table, Root mean square amplification, Upper bound limit analysis, Particle
26 swarm optimization, Layered soil, Bearing capacity, c   soil

27 Introduction
28 Soil is the basis of construction, so the study of bearing capacity of foundation is very important
29 to soil mechanics and foundation engineering. At earlier study many researchers extensively
30 analyzed the bearing capacity of foundation on the basic concept of homogeneous soil. But,
31 naturally soil are heterogeneous. Foundation resting on layered soil are analyzed by various
32 researchers such as (Michalowski and Shi (1995), Bowels (1988), Chu et al. (2008); Huang
33 (2005); Huang and Chen (2004); Hyodo et al. (2012); Koseki et al. (2012); Nakamura et al.
34 (2014); Pradel et al. (2005); Tatsuoka et al. (1998)). Based on limit equilibrium considerations
35 bearing capacity was analyzed by these researchers like Meyerhof (1974), Reddy and Srinivasan
36 (1967), more rigorous limit analysis approaches are applied by (Chen and Davidson (1973),
37 Florkiewicz(1989), Michalowski and Shi (1993)). Upper-bound and lower bound solutions can
38 be found for ultimate loads over non-homogeneous soil layers which were used by (Mandel and
39 Salencon (1953); Florkiewicz (1989); Michalowski and Shi (1995); Michalowski (2002)).
40 Mosallanezhad and Moayedi (2017) is investigated ultimate bearing capacity of layered soil
41 according to different conventional techniques. Experimental study done by (Brown and
42 Meyerhof (1969), Meyerhof and Hanna (1978), Button (1953)). These study Shows how the ratio
43 of the top layer thickness to the footing width affects the total bearing capacity for layered soil.
44 Laboratory experiments have also been conducted to calculate the seismic response of certain
45 soil structures. Such experiments have used tilting box tests (Koseki et al. 1998; Horng, and
46 Charng 2008a, 2008b), dynamic (or cyclic) centrifuge tests (Dashti et al. 2010; Enomoto and
47 Sasaki 2015; Kagawa et al. 2004; Kokkali, Abdoun, and Anastasopoulos 2015), large-scale
48 shaking table tests (Antonellis et al. 2015; Kagawa et al. 2004; Ling et al. 2005), and reduced-
49 scale shaking table tests (Koseki et al. 1998; Wartman, Seed, and Bray 2005; Nova-Roessig and
50 Sitar 2006; El-Emam and Bathurst 2007; Huang et al. 2011a, 2011b; Drosos et al. 2012; Guler
51 and Selek 2013; Taha, Hesham El Naggar, and Turan 2015; Shinoda et al. 2015; Karimi and
52 Dashti 2016). A certain number of shaking table tests has been conducted for investigating the
53 seismic bearing capacity and settlement of footings. Al-Karni and Budhu (2001) performed
54 shaking table tests to investigate the influence of the magnitude and frequency of the horizontal
55 ground acceleration and other material and footing parameters on the seismic bearing capacity of
56 footings placed on horizontal ground. The result was that the critical ground acceleration defined
57 as the intensity of ground acceleration that initiates vertical settlements or overturning of the
58 foundation is generally 2-9 times larger than those obtained using the predictive formulas
59 reported by Sarma and Iossifelis (1990), Richards et al. (1991), and Budhu and Al-Karni (1993).
60 The stress characteristics lines method introduced by Sokolovski (1960), Booker, Davis (1977)
61 and Atkinson (1981) is one of the most effective numerical methods used for the estimation on
62 bearing capacity of strip foundations. The stress characteristics method uses only stress field,
63 rather than strain field and perform it’s computation with higher speed and simplicity. Although
64 upper and lower bound collapse loads are not obtained from stress characteristics method. If a
65 stress field is found in the non-plastic zone, and does not breach the failure criteria (Mohr-
66 Coulomb), the obtained response can thus be said to have a lower limit to the collapse load.
67 While many researchers have been analyzed the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing resting
68 on layered soil but most of the works are for the calculation of bearing capacity under static
69 loading conditions. Only Debnath and Ghosh(2018), Debnath and Ghosh (2019) has given the
70 solutions of seismic bearing capacity by using limit equilibrium method with pseudo-static
71 approach. In the present study, the bearing capacity factors of strip footing over two layered c-ϕ
72 soils are calculated using pseudo-static limit analysis approach. The kinematical approach of
73 limit analysis is used in this paper to determine the upper bound of limit load for the problem of
74 bearing capacity of strip footings of a layered Mohr-Coulomb half space (Fig.1). Experimental
75 and numerical studied are conducted to validate the proposed algorithm. In the end, detailed
76 comparative study is shown to illustrate its practical application.
77

78 Kinematic approach of limit analysis

79 The theorems of limit analysis are based on the assumption of perfectly plastic behavior of the
80 material and the associated flow rule
f
81 ij   ; 0 (1)
 ij

82 Where ij and  ij are strain rate and stress tensors, respectively.  is a non-negative scalar

83 multiplier. It is assumed that the soil under consideration obeys the standard Mohr-Coulomb
84 yield condition f  f ( ij ) . The theorems of limit analysis have been used extensively in soil

85 mechanics (Chen 1975). Limit analysis has divided into two theorem (a) lower bound theorem b)
86 upper bound theorem. In present analysis upper bound theorem will be used. Application of this
87 theorem requires that a kinematically admissible mechanism of plastic deformation be
88 constructed. The upper bound to the true limit load is then obtained from the balance of external
89 work and internal energy dissipation within the material.
90 Rigid motion block mechanisms will be considered in the present analysis. The interfaces
91 between the sliding blocks can be taken as thin layers of Mohr-Coulomb material and energy
92 dissipation rate D per unit area of the interface can be expressed as (Chen 1975)
 93 D  c V cos  (2)

94 Where c is the cohesion of the material, ϕ is the internal friction angle, and V  represents the
95 velocity difference between the two blocks separated by the interface. It should be noted that for
96 material with the flow rule associated with the Mohr-Coulomb yield condition, V  is inclined at
97 angle ϕ to the discontinuity surface (interface between blocks). This is a consequence of the
98 associated flow rule, which predicts dilation in frictional materials. In the advanced stage of
99 plastic deformation, soils are known to flow at a constant volume (critical state) and thus, the
100 validity of the flow rule associated with the Mohr-Coulomb yield condition can be questioned.
101 However, it is rigorously proven that if the associated flow rule is used in the analysis, the
102 estimation of the limit load (bearing capacity) will still be the upper bound to the true limit load.
103 The assumption of the associated flow rule (Chen, 1975) is necessary for the theorems of the
104 limit analysis to be valid.
105

106 kinematically admissible deformation pattern for a layered media

107 The fundamental difficulty in determining limit loads for layered soils is the construction of a
108 kinematically admissible failure mechanism. Examples of admissible pattern of deformation in
109 regions with jump non-homogeneity are shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3. Such pattern can be
110 incorporated into global failure mechanism of layered soils. Following the piece-wise
111 approximation of sliding surface, AB, the deformation pattern in region HAB consists of rigid
112 motion blocks. The geometrical shape of blocks of area S i , S i* is described by angles  i ,  i and

113  i .Velocities of individual blocks Vi , Vi* and the differences between these velocities

114 Vi1  , Vi 2  , Vi 3  can be determined as function of known geometrical parameters  i ,  i and  i
     
115 and material parameters 1 , 2 , using geometrical relations on hodograph. Hodographs are
116 geometrical representation of velocity vectors where directions of these vectors are parallel to the
117 actual velocities in the physical space and lengths of these vectors are proportional to the
118 velocity magnitude.
119 Deformation patterns for the cases when 1  2 and 1  2 are shown in Fig. 2 and 3

120 respectively. The two cases are different in that vectors Vi 3  have different direction.

121
122 Bearing capacity of a two-layer system
123 The upper bound to the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footing was determined for a two-
124 layer system with an inclined interface between the layers. The boundary conditions and the
125 arrangement of the soil layers are shown in Fig.4. Surcharge load is shown in both side of the
126 boundary layer (Fig.4). Material parameters of the two layers are marked with indices 1 and 2,
127 respectively.
128 Upper bound to the Limit load
129 The failure mechanism under the strip footing and the hodograph are shown in Fig.5. Using
130 energy balance equation with work dissipation along discontinues describe by Eqn.2. , the
131 specific expression for the limit load pK can be written as

 M N M T 1 N
1 
     b [V
1 1
pk  c1 cos 1  aiVi  aiVi  bi [Vi11 ]  (bi  hi )[Vi11 ]  i i 1 ]  c2 cos 2
V0 B0  1 T 1 1 M 1 T 
132
 T T 1 T


 M 1
a V
i i M 1
h [V 2
i i 1 ]  
M 2
ri [Vi 3 ]   1 * 1   2 *  2  qbNVN sin(  1   N   N )(1  kv )  cos(  1   N   N )kh 

133 (3)

134 Where ai , bi , hi and ri are length of particular discontinuities shown in Fig.5. S i , S i* are areas of
135 blocks, and Vi , Vi* are their velocities. Velocity differences between the rigid blocks are denoted
136 by Vi1  , Vi 2  , Vi3  along discontinuities bi or ( bi - hi ) in layer I, hi in layer II and hi in layer II
137 respectively. Length of discontinuities ai , bi , hi and ri can be expressed as a function of the width
138 of footing B0 and angles  i ,  i . kh , kv , are the pseudo-static seismic coefficients. After
139 optimization of eqn.3 yield the upper bound limit load, the minimum value of pk will be sought
140 after optimization.

141 1  2 , are the dimensionless equations. The details equations of 1 1 are given in Appendix I

142 PSO application on limit load pk

143 Particle swarm optimization algorithm has been applied to optimize the bearing capacity. In this
144 approach limit load pK was minimized where the angles  i are the varying parameters. The
145 minimizing procedure were repeated for all possible combinations of 1 and  M 1 from the range
M
146 1 (ϕ1,  / 2  1 ) and  M 1 (  i     ,  M   M  1  2 ).
1
147 Angle M  (1  2  3  ..........   N )  1800 was kept constant. The number of blocks

148 Chosen is depending upon the angles  i . The flowchart of PSO algorithm has shown in Fig.6.
149 A failure mechanism under a strip footing, corresponding to the minimum limit force pk is shown
150 in Fig. 7. The footing is indented with vertical velocity component V0. Displacements of blocks
151 corresponding to the hodograph (Fig. 7b) are shown to visualize the failure pattern. Material and
152 geometrical parameters are presented in Fig.7 (a).
153

154 Numerical Modeling

155 To perform numerical analysis a 2D model was created and analyzed in plaxis 2D software.
156 Matsui T and San KC (1988) considered the strength reduction technique in finite element
157 analysis.Duncun J M (1992) considered elastic stress strain relationship to evaluate the
158 dependence of behavior of soil on shear strength parameters. Ugai K and Leshchinsky D (1996)
159 performed a comparison between 3 dimensional limit equilibrium method and finite element
160 method. Griffiths DV and Lane PA described different finite element methods and compared
161 them against each other. Lane P and Griffiths DV (1995) used finite element method to evaluate
162 factor of safety under different drawdown condition. In this section, finite element analysis has
163 been done in Plaxis2D in order to study the effect of different parameters of 2 layered soils as
164 experimented.
165

166 Geometry of Finite Element model foundation

167 Fig 8 shows the geometric model developed in the Plaxis 2D. A full fixity boundary condition is
168 considered and the earthquake boundary condition is generated at the base.
169

170 Loading
171 In this study, gravitational load as well as the dynamic behavior of foundation has been
172 generated by applying cyclic loading with amplitude and frequency for 10s to simulate the
173 vibration at the base as per the experimental test done on the shaking Table. Only .3g base
174 shaking conditions are validated for unreinforced, two layered Geogrid and two layered
175 geotextile reinforced soils.
176
177 Material properties
178 The Mohr coulomb failure criterions are used for modeling the foundation on two layered soils.
179 Table 1 represents the soil properties and Table 2 represents the properties of Geogrids and
180 Geotextiles reinforcements which are used for modeling in numerical analysis.
181 Generation of Mesh
182 The foundation model into divided into a number of 6noded triangular elements and each node
183 has three degree freedom i) horizontal ii) vertical & iii) rotational.
184

185 Numerical Results and Discussion

186 Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 shows the deformed mesh of unreinforced and two layered Geogrid
187 reinforced layered soil due to dynamic loading at air dried (1%), .3g base acceleration with 3
188 HZ frequency. It is revealed that pattern of deformation of the reinforced layered soil is lesser
189 than the Unreinforced layered soils for all cases.
190 Figures 13 and 14 shows the acceleration-time response at top of the layered soil for
191 unreinforced and two layer Geogrid foundation soil at air dried (1%) and 5 % moisture content
192 respectively, at constant base shaking frequency of 3 Hz. It reveals that unreinforced soil
193 foundation accelerates more than the reinforced soil. It also reveals that as the moisture content
194 of the soil increases from air dried (1%) to 5 %, acceleration at top of the soil reduces.
195

196 Experimental study

197 Testing materials and Methodology
198 Shake Table:
199 In the present experimental study, an uniaxial shake table is used which consists of a base plate
200 of 1m x 1m fitted on smooth wheels at bottom which can move in horizontal direction on two
201 parallel rails. A slotted disk made up of mild steel is attached with another disk of same diameter
202 (Fig.15). Crank shaft is connected to the slotted disk and end of the crank shaft is connected to
203 the reciprocating rod. The stroke length of the rod is 150mm which gives a peak frequency 50 Hz
204 so that it can produce sinusoidal motion. The amplitude of the sinusoidal motion can be changed
205 by changing the radial position of the slotted disc. The frequency of base shaking can be adjusted
206 by electrical variant (electrical speed control of the actuator/motor).
207
208 Soil used:
209
210 Strip Footing is resting on two layered soil consisting of soil type 1, soil type 2. Soil type 1 and
211 soil type 2 are the typical c-ϕ soils. These are classified as Silty clay as per IS classification. The
212 property of each soil is tabulated in Table 1. Grain size distribution curve is shown in Fig.16.
213
214 Reinforcement Used:
215 Biaxial Geogrids and Geotextiles are used as reinforcement materials. Fig.17 provides the
216 dimensional details of Geogrid. The ultimate tensile strength of the Geogrid is determined as per
217 the provisions of ASTM D 6637 and ASTM D 4595 respectively. The properties of Geogrids and
218 Geotextiles are tabulated in Table 2.
219
220 Model Construction and Methodology
221 The model is constructed in a Perpex box which is 12mm thick and of size 55cm×35cm×30cm
222 (l×b×h).The sides of the Perpex box are fixed with wooden planks to prevent horizontal
223 movement. Schematic diagrams of typical reinforced single, two layered foundation soil is
224 shown in Fig.18 (a) & (b). Construction process in sequence is shown in Fig 19. Each model is
225 constructed by using 2 types of soil (soil type 1 at top, soil type 2 at bottom). Approximately 45
226 kg of soil is used for each model consisting of 25 kg of soil type 1, 20 kg of soil type 2.
227 Reinforcement (Geogrid/Geotextile) is provided at a height of150 mm and 200 mm from the
228 base of the single layer, two layer reinforcement respectively as shown in Fig. 18(a)&(b).
229 Layered soil is tested with varying moisture content. Base accelerations are varied as 0.1g, 0.2g
230 and 0.3gwith frequencies 1 Hz, 2 Hz and 3 Hz respectively. Accelerometers (A1, A2) of type
231 4507 B and K are used. A1 at the shake table and A2 on the strip footing which is 100 mm above
232 the Type 1 soil layer. The Bruel and Kjaer pulse 6.1 set up is used for data acquisitions.
233
234 Experimental results by shake table test and discussion:
235 Twenty eight different shaking table tests on unreinforced and reinforced layered soil foundation
236 models are performed in this study. These tests are performed to understand the effects of
237 moisture content, quantity of reinforcement, various base shakings and responses at different
238 frequencies on the stability of soils against the foundation failure i.e. on the total deformation,
239 RMSA amplification .
240
241 Effect of moisture content:
242 Variation of maximum vertical deformation with respect to different moisture contents (1 %, 5
243 %, 10 %, 15% & 18 %) for unreinforced and reinforced soil for a base shaking of 0.3g and 3 Hz
244 frequency are measured by carrying out test on the shake table. Fig 20(a), (b), (c) shows the
245 variation of maximum vertical deformation (at the interface of soil 1 and soil 2) w.r.t different
246 moisture contents for the reinforced foundation soil along with the unreinforced soil. It is
247 revealed that there is a reduction in the vertical deformation due to the increase in moisture
248 content up to OMC of soil and thereafter there is an increase in vertical deformation due to
249 increase in moisture content for unreinforced & reinforced foundation soil.
250 It reveals that reinforcement has significant effect on the acceleration amplification on the
251 foundation soil but type of reinforcement has very little effect.
252
253 Effect of quantity of reinforcement:
254 The test is performed by varying the quantity of reinforcement, with single & two layers of
255 Geogrids and Geotextiles reinforcements at a base shaking of 0.3g and 3 Hz frequency. Effect of
256 quantity of reinforcement on foundation model are presented with reinforcement of single & two
257 layers of Geogrids and Geotextile at base shaking of .3g and 3 Hz frequency. Fig. 21 (a-c) shows
258 the effect of quantity of reinforcement on vertical deformation of the foundation model.
259 Maximum vertical displacement (at the interface of soil 1 and soil 2) decreases with the increase
260 in reinforcement quantity.
261 It is seen from Fig.22. (a-c) that acceleration amplification is greatly reduced on quantity of
262 reinforcement. Reduction of RMSA amplification is observed in the range of 10-34 % for two
263 layered geotextile reinforced soil and 42% for two layered Geogrid reinforced soil. Fig 10(a),(b)
264 shows the acceleration response (acceleration-time) curve at top layer of the soil at air dried
265 (w=1%) condition for base shaking .3g,3Hz
266
267 Response of the foundation model at different frequencies:
268 In this section a study has been carried out in order to observe the effect of reinforcement on the
269 soil of different parameters like Vertical deformation, RMSA subjected to varying frequencies of
270 1 Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz at a base shaking of .3g. Fig. 23. (a-c) shows that vertical deformation
271 increases with the increase of frequency. Values are 8.9cm, 8.8cm and 9cm, for unreinforced soil
272 at normalized height of 0.66 of 1Hz, 2Hz and 3Hz frequencies respectively. The corresponding
273 values for 3 layer Geogrid reinforced soil foundation are 8.4 cm, 8.3 cm and 8.2 cm whereas 8.3
274 cm, 8.1 cm and 7.9 cm are the values for 3 layer geotextile soil foundation. Thus it can be
275 concluded that provision of reinforcement has effect on the deformation for all frequencies
276 though in smaller magnitude but type of reinforcement has very little effect on the foundation
277 soil as observed.
278

279 Comparison of numerical values with experimental, analytical data

280 A comparison of present experimentally and numerically analysis is done at base shaking of 0.3g
281 at air dried condition (w=1 %) with frequencies 1, 2 and 3Hz and is presented in Table 3.
282 Graphical comparisons of the results obtained from the experiment with the output of plaxis
283 2D(numerical) on the parameters of maximum vertical deformation and horizontal deformation
284 vs normalized height for both unreinforced and three layered Geogrid reinforced foundation
285 soil are presented in Figs. 24-27. From the comparison it is seen that both experimental and
286 numerical results fit good. Analytical results were compared with previous researcher’s values.
287 Only horizontal layers were considered, as no experimental and analytical results for inclined
288 layers are available. A computer programming software ‘MATLAB’ code has been developed
289 utilizing PSO algorithm to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity, qult for various combinations
290 of soil properties in each layer. Table 4 presents the comparison of the average limit pressure
291 calculated utilizing the proposed method to the experimental tests performed by Purushothamaraj
292 et al. (1973), Carlson and Fricano (1961), Koizumi(1965), Desai and Reese (1970). From this
293 table it has been observed the present analysis getting virtually more closure value with other
294 researchers. Table.5 represent a comparison of the present results with the experimental data
295 from Khatri et al. (2017), Kumar et al. (2007) for the strip footing with four different series of
296 experimental data. Table 6 has shown a comparison between present analyses with Eskavari et
297 al. (2019). From Table 6 it is visually perceived that present analysis getting higher upper bound
298 values than Eskavari et al. (2019). To demonstrate the potentiality of the present analysis, Finite
299 element (FE) analysis has been compared with present values. FE analyses have been performed
300 by Ghazavi and Eghbali (2008) utilizing PLAXIS. The physical and mechanical properties of
Df
301 soil for each layer are depicted in Table 8, while ratios for different geometries are evinced
B0
302 in Table 7. Table 9 compares present analysis of values with analytical and FE values obtained
303 by Ghazavi and Eghbali (2008). Values obtained by present method are higher than FE analysis.
304 The advantage of the upper-bound solution to the limit equilibrium solution is that the
305 kinematics are completely verified and the solution is obtained for an associated flow-rule
306 material. As optically discerned, the results obtained from the present analysis relatively well
307 comparable.
308 Conclusions

3091 The technique presented in present analysis allows one to determine the upper bound to the
310 bearing capacity (or limit load) of strip footing over a layered soil. Although the present study
311 include only two-layer system (most often the case in practice), the technique of constructing the
312 failure patterns allows one to account for a large number of layers. Inclusion of reinforcement in
313 layered soil foundation is very effective for reducing the parameters affecting the soil stability
314 like maximum vertical deformation, maximum amplification factor. Geogrid reinforcement is
315 slightly better than Geotextile reinforcement for reducing the soil stability parameters like,
316 maximum vertical deformation, and maximum amplification factor. Results obtained from the
317 present studies are compared and they have good agreement with each other. Comparison of the
318 results with the available experimental, numerical and analytical data suggests that the method
319 could be recommended for practical calculations.
320 Data availability statement

321 The authors confirm that some data and code generated during this study are proprietary or
322 confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions e. g.

323 (a) MATLAB Code

324 (b) Particle Swarm optimization code

325 References
326
327 Atkinson, J. H. (1981) “Foundations and slopes”. In: An introduction to applications of critical
328 state soil mechanics. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York
329 Booker, J. R., Davis, E. H. (1977) “Stability analysis by plasticity theory”. In: Desai CS,
330 Christian J T (eds) Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. McGraw Hill, New York, pp
331 719–748
332 Bowles, J. E. (1988) Foundation analysis and design, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
333 Brown, J. D., Meyerhof, G. G. (1969) “Experiment study of bearing capacity in layered clays”.
334 In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
335 Mexico, vol 2, pp 45–51
336 Button, S. J. (1953) “The bearing capacity of footing on two-layer cohesive subsoil”. In:
337 Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
338 vol 1, pp 332–335
339 Carlson, E. D., and Fricano, S. P. (1961) “Tank foundation in eastern Venezuela”. J. Soil Mech.
340 Found. Div. ASCE, 87, 69-90.

341 Chen, W. F., Davidson, H. L. (1973) “ Bearing capacity determination by limit analysis”. J Soil
342 Mech Found Div 99(6):433–449.
343 Chen, W.F. (1975) “Limit analysis and soil plasticity”. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
344
345 Debnath and Ghosh (2018) “Pseudo-static analysis of shallow strip Footing resting on Two-
346 Layered Soil.” Int. J. Geomech.,DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001049.Div., 107(7),
347 915–927.

348 Debnath and Ghosh (2019) Pseudo-static bearing capacity analysis of Shallow strip footing over
349 two-layered soil considering punching shear failure. Geotech. and Geol. Engg., DOI:
350 10.1007/s10706-019-00866-5.
351
352 Desai, C. S., and Reese, L. (1970) “Ultimate capacity of circular footing on Layered soils”. J.
353 Indian Nat. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 96(1), 41-50.
354
Eshkevari, S. S., Abbo, J. A. and Kouretzis, G. (2019). “Bearing capacity of strip footings on
355
Layered sands”. Computers and Geotechnics., DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103101.
356 Florkiewicz, A. (1989) “Upper bound to bearing capacity of layered soils”. Can Geotech J
357 26(4):730–736
358 Ghazavi, M., Eghbali,A.H. (2008). “A simple limit equilibrium approach for calculation of
359 ultimate bearing capacity of Shallow foundations on Two-Layered Granular Soils”, Geotech
360 Geol Eng, DOI: 10.1007/s10706-008-9187-2, 26(5), 535-542.

361 Khatri, N.V., Kumar, J. and Akhtar, S. (2017). “Bearing Capacity of Foundations with Inclusion
362 of Dense Sand Layer over Loose Sand Strata.”Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
363 5622.0000980.06017018-1.
364 Koizumi, Y. (1965). Discussion on session 4-Division 3. Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Soil Mech.
365 Found. Engg., Montreal, Que. 3. pp. 413-415.

366 Kumar, A., Ohri, M. L., and Bansal, R. K. (2007).“Bearing capacity tests of strip footings on
367 reinforced layered soil.”Geotech. Geol. Eng., 25(2), 139–150.
368 Mandel and Salencon(1972) “Force portante d’un sol surune assise rigide 9etude theoretique.”
369 Geotechnique, 22: 79-93

370 Meyerhof , G. G. (1974) “ Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand layer overlying clay”.
371 Can Geotech J., 11:223–229
372 Meyerhof, G. G, Hanna, A. M. (1978) “Ultimate bearing capacity of foundation on layered soil
373 under inclined load”. Can Geotech J., 15(4):565–572
374
Michalowski, R. L. (2002) “Collapse loads over two-layer clay foundation soils.” Soils and
375
Foundation, vol. 42, No.1, pp.1-7.

376 Michalowski, R. L., Shi, L. (1993) “Bearing capacity of non-homogeneous clay layers under
377 embankments”. J Geotech Eng ASCE, 119(10):1657–1669
378 Michalowski, R. L., Shi, L. (1995) “Bearing capacity of footings over two-layer foundation
379 soils”. Part J Geotech Eng., 121(5):6647
380
381 Mosallanezhad, Mand Moayedi, H (2017) “Comparison Analysis of Bearing Capacity
382 Approaches for the Strip Footing on Layered Soils.” Arab J Sci Eng.42(9),3711–3722.
383
384
Purushothamaraj, P., Ramiah, K. B. and Venkatakrishna, N. K. (1973) “Bearing Capacity of
385
Strip Footings in Two Layered Cohesive-friction Soils”. Can. Geotech. J., Vol.11, pp. 32-45.
386 Reddy, A. S., Srinivasan, R. J. (1967) “Bearing capacity of footings on layered clays”. J Soil
387 Mech Found Div ASCE, 93(2):83–99
388 Sokolovski, V. V. (1960) “ Statics of soil media”. Butterworths, London
389 Al-Karni, A. A., and Budhu, M. (2001). “An experimental study of seismic bearing capacity of
390 shallow footings.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
391 Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri- Rolla 1: 1–11.
392
393 Antonellis, G., Gavras, A. G., Panagiotou, M., Kutter, B. L., Guerrini, G., Sander, A. C., and
394 Fox, P. J. (2015). “Shake table test of large-scale bridge columns supported on rocking shallow
395 foundations.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141 (5), 1–12.
396
397 Azzam, W. R. (2015). “Finite element analysis of skirted foundation adjacent to sand slope under
398 earthquake loading.” Housing and Building Research Center Journal 11 (2), 231–39.
399
400 Budhu, M.., and Al-Karni, A.. (1993). “Seismic bearing capacity of soils.” Géotechnique 43 (1),
401 181–87.
402
403 Casablanca, O., Cascone, E., and Biondi, G.. (2016). “The static and seismic bearing capacity
404 factor N for footings adjacent to slopes.” Procedia Engg., 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.464.
405
406 Charkraborty, D., and Kumar, J. (2015). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow embedded
407 foundations on a sloping ground surface.” Int. Journ. of Geomechanics, 15 (1), 1–8.
408
409 Choudhury, D., and Subba Rao, K. S.. (2006). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip
410 footings embedded in slopes.” Int. Journ. of Geomechanics, 10.1061/(ASCE) 1532-
411 3641(2006)6:3(176).
412
413 Chu, D. B., Stewart, J. P., Boulanger, R. W., and Lin, P. S. (2008). “Cyclic softening of low-
414 plasticity clay and its effect on seismic foundation performance.” Journ. of Geotech. and
415 Geoenvironment. Engg., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1595).
416
417 Cinicioglu, O., and Erkli, A. (2018). “Seismic bearing capacity of surficial foundations on
418 sloping cohesive ground.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engg., 10.1016/j.
419 soildyn.2018.04.027.
420
421 Dashti, M., Bray, J. D., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M., and Wilson, D. (2010). “Mechanisms of
422 seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil.” Journ.
423 of Geotech. and Geoenvironment. Engg., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.19435606.0000179.
424
425 Drosos, V., T., Georgarakos, M., Loli, I., Anastasopoulos, O., Zarzouras, and Gazetas., G.
426 (2012). “Soilfoundation-structure interaction with mobilization of bearing capacity:
427 Experimental study on sand.” Journ. of Geotech. and Geoenvironment. Engg.,10.1061/
428 (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000705.
429
430 Duncan, J. M. (1996). “State of the art: limit equilibrium and finite element analysis of
431 slopes”. J. Geotech. Engg., 122(7), 577–596

432 El-Emam, M. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2007). “Influence of reinforcement parameters on the
433 seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls.” Geotextile and
434 Geomembranes 25 (1), 33–49.
435
436 Enomoto, T., and Sasaki, T. (2015). “Several factors affecting seismic behaviour of
437 embankments in dynamic centrifuge model tests.” Soils and Foundations,
438 10.1016/j.sandf.2015.06.013.
439
440 Guler, E., and Selek, O. (2013). “Reduce-scale shaking table tests on geosythetic-reinforced soil
441 walls with modular facing.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140
442 (6), 1–11.
443
444 Huang, C. C. (2005). “Seismic displacement of soil retaining walls situated on slope”. Journal of
445 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE) 1090-
446 0241(2005)131:9(1108).
447
448 Huang, C. C., and Kang., W. W. (2008b). “Seismic bearing capacity of a rigid footing adjacent
449 to a cohesionless slope.” Soils and Foundations, 10.3208/sandf.48.641.
450
451 Huang, C. C., and Chen, Y. H.. (2004). “Seismic displacement of soil retaining walls situated on
452 slope.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE) 1090-
453 0241(2004)130:1(45).
454
455 Huang, C. C., Horng, J. C., and Charng., J. J. (2008a). “Seismic stability of reinforced slopes:
456 Effects of reinforcement properties and facing rigidity”. Geosynthetics International,
457 10.1680/gein.2008.15.2.107.
458
459 Huang, C. C., Horng, J. C., Chang, W. J., Chiou, J. S., and Chen, C. H.. (2011a). “Dynamic
460 behavior of reinforced walls: Horizontal acceleration response.” Geosynthetics International,
461 10.1680/gein.2010.17.4.207.
462
463 Huang, C. C., Horng, J. C., Chang, W. J., Chiou, J. S., and Chen, C. H.. (2011a). “Dynamic
464 behavior of reinforced walls- Horizontal displacement response.” Geotextiles and
465 Geomembranes, 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.006.
466
467 Hyodo, M., Noda, S. O., Furukawa, S., and Furui, T. (2012). “Slope failures in residential land
468 on valley fills in Yamamoto town”. Soils and Foundations, 52 (5), 975–86.
469
470 Kagawa, T., Minowa, C., Abe, A., and Tazoh, T. (2004). “Centrifuge simulations of large-scale
471 shaking table tests: Case studies.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
472 130 (7), 663–72.
473
474 Karimi, Z., and Dashti, S. (2016). “Seismic performance of shallow founded structures on
475 liquefiable ground: Validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments.” Journal
476 of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142 (6), 1–13.
477
478 Kokkali, P., Abdoun, T., and Anastasopoulos, I. (2015). “Centrifuge modeling of rocking
479 foundations on improved soil.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
480 141 (10), 1–15.
481
482 Koseki, J., Koda, M., Masuo, S., Takasaki, H., and Fujiwara, T. (2012). “Damage to railway
483 earth structures and foundations caused by the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku
484 Earthquake”. Soils and Foundations, 10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.009.
485
486 Koseki, J., Munaf, Y., Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., and Kojima, K. (1998). “Shaking table and
487 tilting tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall and conventional-type retaining wall
488 models.” Geosynthetics International, 10.1680/gein.5.0115.
489
490 Kourkoulis, R., Anastasopoulos, I., Gelagoti, F., and Gazetas, G.. (2010). “Interaction of
491 foundation structure systems with seismically precarious slopes: Numerial analysis with strain
492 softening constitutive model.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 10.1016/j.
493 soildyn.2010.05.001.
494
495 Kumar, J., and Ghosh, P. (2006). “Seismic bearing capacity for embedded footings on sloping
496 ground”. Géotechnique, 56 (2), 133–40.
497
498 Kumar, J., and Rao, M. V. B. K. (2003). “Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on slopes.”
499 Géotechnique, 53 (3), 347–61.
500
501 Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., and Liu, H.. (2005). “Large-
502 scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls.” Journal of
503 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(465).
504
505 Matsui, T., San, K. C. (1992). “Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction
506 technique”. Soils Found , 32(1), 59–70
507 Nakamura, S., Wakai, A., Umemura, J., Sugimoto, H., and Takeshi, T. (2014). “Earthquake-
508 induced landslides: Distribution, motion and mechanism”. Soils and Foundations,
509 10.1016/j.sandf.2014.06.001.
510
511 Nova-Roessig, L., and Sitar, N.. (2006). “Centrifuge model studies of the seismic response of
512 reinforced soil slopes”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
513 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:3(388)
514
515 Pasternack, S. C., Gao, S. (1988). “Numerical methods in the stability analysis of slopes”.
516 Comput Struct 30(3), 573–579
517
518 PLAXIS 2D 8.2 (Computer software). Plaxis, Delft, the Netherlands. www.plaxis.com

519 Pradel, D., Smith, P. M., Stewart, J. P., and Raad, G. (2005). “Case history of landslide
520 movement during the Northridge Earthquake”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
521 Engineering, ASCE , 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1360).
522
523 Richards, R., Elms, G. D., and Budhu, M.. (1991). “Soil fluidization and foundation behavior”.
524 Proc. 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
525 Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri- Rolla 1: 719–23.
526
527 Richards, R., Elms, G. D., and Budhu, M.(1993). “Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of
528 foundations”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE , 10.1061/(ASCE) 0733-
529 9410(1993)119:4(662).
530
531 Sarma, S. K., and Iossifelis, I. S.. (1990). “Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow strip
532 footings”. Géotechnique, 10.1680/geot.1990.40.2.265.
533
534 Sawada, T., Nomachi, S. G., and Chen, W. F.. (1994). “Seismic bearing capacity of a mounded
535 foundation near a down-hill slope by pseudo-static analysis”. Soils and Foundations,
536 10.3208/sandf1972.34.11.
537
538 Shinoda, M., Watanabe, K., Sanagawa, T., Abe, K., Nakamura, H., Kawai, T., and Nakamura, S..
539 (2015). “Dynamic behavior of slope models with various slope angles”. Soils and Foundations,
540 10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.010.
541
542 Soubra, A. H. (1999). “Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations”. Journal of
543 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 (1999)125:1(59).
544
545 Taha, A., Naggar, El. H. M. and Turan, A.. (2015). “Experimental study on the seismic behavior
546 of geosythetic-reinforced pile-foundation system”. Geosynthetics International ,
547 10.1680/gein.15.00004.
548
549 Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Munaf, Y., and Hori, K.. (1998). “Seismic stability
550 against high seismic loads of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining structures”. Keynote Lecture,
551 Proc. 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, GA, 103–42.
552
553 Ugai, K. , Leshchinsky, D. (1995). “Three dimensional limit equilibrium and finite element
554 analyses: a comparison of results”. Soils Found 35(4)

555 Wartman, J., Seed, R. B., and Bray, J. D.. (2005). “Shaking table modeling of seismically
556 induced deformations in slopes”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
557 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:5(610).
558
559 Yamamoto, K. (2010). “Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations near slopes using the
560 upper-bound method”. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
561 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.02.255-267.
562
563

564 Appendix I (Analytical function of eqn.3)

565
   nM
  

 M


 sin  i  (

 i 1  ....   n )  1  (1  kv ) 
 



i 1
 siVi   
 1   nM
  
   cos  i  (

 i 1  ....   n )  1  kh

 
  i  1  
   n  M 1
  

 I
  sin  M 1  (  i  ....   n )  2  (1  kv )  
    * *
T


i 1
 sM 1VM 1   s i Vi 
   n  M 1
  M 2 
   cos  M 1  (

 1  ....   n )  2  kh

 
  i 1  
  1  VM 1   

1
 sin  * sin(2  1  2   M 1   M 1    
  
 iV 
  
1   sin   (1  kv )   
  nM
  

 
  M 1  (  i  ....   n )  2  
  
   i 1    
  
  1  VM 1
1

 
sin  * sin(2  1  2   M 1   M 1   
    
  cos   i 
V
k  
   h 
 nM
 


 
  M 1  (   i  ....   n )  2 


  

 i 1  
 
566    n N
  
 N sin 1   i  (
 
 1  ....   n 1 )  (1  kv ) 
 

 

i 1
siVi  
  n N
 
 
 T 1
   cos 

 1   i  
( 1  ....   n 1 ) 

k h 


 i 1 

567

   n  M 1
    n N
 

 II
sin
 

  M 1  (   i  ....   n )   2

(1  k v 
)

T
sin
 
2   i  (  1  ....   n 1 )  (1  kv ) 
 

i 1 i 1
 s M 1VM 1    siVi  
   n  M 1
  M 2   n N
 
  cos  M 1  (

 1  ....   n )  2  kh 
 

 cos 2   i  ( 1  ....   n 1 )  kh 

 i 1   i 1 
568 2  
   n T
  

 T *II  
 
sin 2   i  ( 1  ....   n )  (1  kv ) 
 



i 1
 s i Vi   
 M 2   n T
  



 cos 2   i  ( 1  ....   n )  kh 


  i 1  
569
Table Click here to access/download;Table;Table.docx

Table 1: Properties of soil 1 and soil 2

Parameters Soil type 1 Soil type 2
Specific gravity 2.59 2.6
D10, D30, D60 0.125,0.25,0.32 0.25,0.30,0.40
Coefficient of curvature 1.56 1.68
Coefficient of curvature 2.56 2.62
USCS classification Clayey sand Clayey sand

Table 2: Properties of Geogrids and Geotextiles

Parameter Geogrid Geotextile
Ultimate tensile strength(KN/m) 55 9.47
Yield point strain 16.60 38
Aperture size(mm) 10 x 10 NA
Aperture shape Square NA
Thickness(mm) 2-3 1
Secant modulus at 2% strain(KN/m2) 219 162
Secant modulus at 5% strain(KN/m2) 169 155.8
Mass per unit area(kg/m2) .22 0.21

Table 3: Comparison of present experimental and numerical observation (0.3g)

Experimental Numerical

Reinfor- Frequency
Maximum vertical Maximum vertical
cement Type (Hz)
Deformation deformation
(cm) (cm)

1 9.0 8.5
Un reinforced 2 8.9 8.0
3 8.8 7.5
1 8.8 7.8
1 layer Geotextile 2 8.7 7.7
3 8.6 7.6
1 8.6 7.5
2 layer Geotextile 2 8.5 7.4
3 8.4 7.3
 1 8.9 7.8
1 layer Geogrid 2 8.8 7.7
3 8.7 7.6
1 8.5 7.6
2 layer Geogrid 2 8.4 7.5
3 8.3 7.4

Table 4. Comparison with Field and Experimental values

Bearing
pressure(tons/ft2)
Source Footing type d/b c2/c1 ϕ(degrees) Observed Present
method
Carlson and Circular tank(150ft 0.087 0.18 1.37 1.65
Fricano (1961) dia)
Koizumi (1965) Circular(2 in. dia.) 0.8 0.33 0.0 6.00b 5.98
Desai and Reese Circular(3 in. dia.) 0.55 1.80 0.0 2.50b 2.75
(1970b)
Purushothamaraj Strip footing 0.49 0.50 2.0 0.46 0.60
et al. (1973)
bFrom plate load test

qu
TABLE 5. Comparison of values in Four series with Experimental data from Kumar et al. (2007)
 1 B0
and Khatri et al. (2017) for Rough Strip Footing on Two-Layered soil

Khatri et al. (2017) Kumar Present

et al. Analysis
Test Series h1/B0 L.B U.B (2007) (ɛ=1800)

0.5 13.04 13.5 14.14 14.5435

1 15.99 16.57 14.98 17.3471
1. ф1=350, ф2=320,γ1=16.24kN/m3, γ2=15.05kN/m3
1.5 16.73 17.42 15.46 19.6001
2 19.54 20.35 16.22 21.1253
0.5 19.59 20.35 22.47 21.1538
2. ф1=370, ф2=350,γ1=16.44kN/m3, γ2=15.15kN/m3
1 22.69 23.63 23.32 23.6043
 1.5 23.78 24.85 24.33 25.3011
2 23.75 24.84 25.47 29.7838
0.5 24.97 26.05 30.17 28.4622
1 30.55 31.9 31.62 33.0822
3. ф1=390, ф2=360,γ1=16.35kN/m3, γ2=15.25kN/m3
1.5 34.09 35.87 33.27 34.7438
2 34.01 35.85 34.8 35.8682
0.5 31.78 33.24 37.19 32.5145
1 40.74 42.62 39.26 43.1436
4. ф1=410, ф2=370,γ1=16.76kN/m3, γ2=15.58kN/m3
1.5 48.94 51.12 41.37 49.8574
2 49.69 52.51 43.24 54.2934

Table 6. Comparison with numerical values

Ultimate Bearing capacity qu (kPa)

Eskavari et al. (2019) Present Analysis (ɛ=1800)
h1/B0 ϕ2=27.5, ϕ2=30, ϕ2=32.5, ϕ2=35, ϕ2=27.5, ϕ2=30, ϕ2=32.5, ϕ2=35,
ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40 ϕ1=40
0.6 L.B 360 510 700 970
425.54 551.77 821.377 965.89
U.B 400 530 720 1050
0.9 L.B 400 540 730 1020
478.765 564.15 884.41 1173.90
U.B 440 560 800 1150
1.2 L.B 470 560 780 1100
556.58 682.70 1005.94 1537.72
U.B 500 620 870 1200
1.5 L.B 520 600 800 1200
582.814 716.612 1097.117 1723.35
U.B 540 680 910 1260

TABLE 7.Various soil and footing

Geometries for comparative studies (Ghazavi and Eghbali, 2008)
B0 q overburden h1/B0
2
Footing Pressure (KN/m )
Width
(m)
1 10 For all three
2 17.5 cases h1/B0
varies from 0.1
3 25
up to 1
 TABLE 8 .Properties of soil of each layer used in comparative studies (Ghazavi and Eghbali, 2008)

Case Friction angle Unit weight γ Elasticity Poisson's

φ (KN/m3) modulus E ratio ν
(KN/m2)
1 30 19 17,500 0.333
2 31 19.3 20,000 0.327
3 33 19.9 25,000 0.313
4 34 20.1 27,500 0.306
5 36 20.5 35,000 0.291
6 37 20.7 40,000 0.285
7 39 20.9 50,000 0.27
8 42 21.1 65,000 0.249

TABLE 9. Comparisons of bearing capacity results obtained from present analysis with other authors and PLAXIS
analysis

No h1/B0 Ghazavi Plaxis Present

and (ɛ=1800)
Eghbali
(2008)
B0=1m 1 0.25 475 572 588.07
2 0.5 450 498 500.11
3 0.75 424 456 490.10
4 1 396 385 479.78
5 1.25 368 382 467.4
B0=2m 1 0.25 904 992 1050.74
2 0.5 856 860 950.05
3 0.75 806 835 845.47
4 1 754 776 829.37
5 1.25 699 766 789.56
B0=3m 1 0.25 1333 1403 1699.0
2 0.5 1263 1210 1208.9
3 0.75 1189 1263 1093.34
4 1 1111 991 1074.03
5 1.25 1029 969 996.34
Figure Click here to access/download;Figure;Figure.docx

q
B0

Layer I

Layer II

Layer III
Z
Fig. 1. An infinity long punch over layered subsoil

(a) H
R
β1
βi
s1 β2
A
Vi1
ϕ1 V1
layer 1 V21
si*
γ1, c1, ϕ1 δi
V2 Vi2
ϕ2
Vi3
layer 2 αi B
γ2, c2, ϕ2 Vi

(b)

Vi
Vi*
*
V1 Vi -1 Vi3
Vi2
Vi1
V2 V21

Fig. 2. Two layer system, case 1  2 : a) rigid block deformation pattern b) hodograph
 (a) H
R
β1
βi
s1 β2
A
V21 Vi1
ϕ1 V1
layer 1 si* 3
γ1, c1, ϕ1 δi Vi
V2 Vi2
ϕ2
layer 2 αi B
γ2, c2, ϕ2 Vi

(b)

O Vi*
Vi Vi3
Vi1
Vi-1
Vi2

V2

V1
V21

Fig. 3. Two layer system, case 1  2 : a) rigid block deformation pattern b) hodograph
 q
B0

X

Z0

Layer I: γ1 c1, ϕ1

Layer II: γ2 c2, ϕ2

Z
Fig. 4. Strip footing on a two-layer subsoil, and boundary condition

(a)
Pk (1±kv)
Pk . k h
B0
V0
bN
α1 b1 β1 βN
s1 β2 VN i=N
a1 ϕ1 V1 ϕ1 b2 ϕ1 sN ϕ1
V11 b3 βi
α2 s2 bi-hi αN aN
a2
ϕ1 V2 ϕ1 sI*I ϕ1
V21
2 α3 s3 ϕ1
s IM+1 Vi1
a3 ϕ V3 ϕ1 ɛ
1
ϕ1 T
Vi3 hi ϕ2
ϕ1 sI*II
Layer I: γ1 c1, ϕ1 ϕ1
ϕ
s IIM+1 2 Vi2 Vi r i
M ϕ2 αi ai

hi
Layer II: γ2 c2, ϕ2
 (b) VN

Vi*
Vi Vi3
Vi1
Vi-1
Vi2

V2
V0
V1
V21

Fig. 5. Two layered system (a) Failure mechanism (b) Hodograph

 Start

k 1
Initialize xi (k ), vi (k )
Compute f ( xi (k ))

Reorder the particles

Generate neighborhoods

i 1

Determine best particle

in neighborhood i

Compute xi (k  1)
i  i 1 K  k 1
Compute f ( xi (k  1))

Update previous best if

necessary

yes i  NI

no

kK no

yes

Stop

Fig.6. Flowchart of PSO algorithm

 Pk=186.87 kN kh=0.1, kv= kh/2
(a)
B0=1.5m
V0
B b10 X m
A
α1 b1 β1 β10
s1 β2 V91 V10
a1 ϕ1 V1 ϕ1 1 b2 β3 β9 b9 ϕ1 s10 ϕ1
V1 b3 β4 β7 β 8
α2 s2 *I b α10
b4 β5 β6 s7
8
a2 ϕ1 V81
ϕ1 V2 V21
b5 b 7 V 7
1 ϕ 1 s9
2 α3 s3 ϕ1 V 1 ϕ1 s8* V9 ϕ1 a10
3 b 6 V 6
1
a3 ϕ V3 ϕ1 V41 ϕ1 α9 a9
V8* 3
Layer I 1
s4 1 V7 ϕ1
α4 ϕ1 V5 V7* T
c1=0 s5 V 8
γ1=17kN/m 3 V V 3
ϕ 2 ϕ 2 a8
a4 ϕ1 4α5 6
ϕ2 V7 *I 2V7
ϕ1=340 V5 s6 ϕ s 7 α 8
a5 ϕ1 6
α V6 2sV62 ϕ2
ϕ2 α 6 a I
M a6 7 7
h7
Layer II c2, ϕ2 h6
r
c2=5 kPa
γ2=18kN/m3
ϕ2=380
Z m
 (b)
V91
V10

V9 V81
V8 V83
V8*
V82
V7 V71
V73
V7*
V72
V61
V6
V5 V51
V4
V3 V41
V0 V2 V31
V1
V21
V11

Fig. 7. Failure mechanism (a) incremental displacement for 10 strip (b) Hodograph

Reinf.Ist Layer Soil type 1

Reinf. 2nd Layer

Fig. 8. Geometry of the Numerical modeling (PLAXIS 2D)

 Fig.9. Unreinforced deformed mesh ( 0.2g, 2 Hz), extreme displacement 3.47 mm Fig.10. Reinforced deformed mesh ( 0.2g, 2 Hz),
extreme displacement 3.42 mm

Fig.11. Unreinforced deformed mesh ( 0.2g, 3 Hz), extreme displacement (4.50mm) Fig.12. Reinforced deformed mesh ( 0.2g, 3 Hz),
extreme displacement (4.43 mm)

30 Unreinforced
2 L Geogrid
20

10
Acceleration

.0
(m/s2)

-10

-20

-30
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Time(s)

Fig. 13. Acceleration response at top layer at base

shaking frequency 3 Hz, air-dried (1%) condition
 15
Unreinforced
10
2L Geogrid
Acceleration

0
(m/s2)

-5

-10

-15
0 .05 1.0 1.5 2.0

Time(s)
Fig. 14. Acceleration response at top layer at base
shaking frequency 3 Hz, water content (5%)

Fig.15. Shake table attached with Crank Shaft and slotted disk
 60

50

40

% finer
30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1
Particle size(mm)

60

50
%finer by weight

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1
Particle size(mm)

Fig.16. Grain size distribution curve for soil type 1 and type 2

Fig.17. Dimensional details of Geogrid

 Strip footing

Perspex
Reinforcement layer A1 box

300 mm
Soil type-1 300200
mmmm
A2
Shake table
150 mm
1m x 1m Soil type-2 150 mm
A3
500 mm
Fig.18 (a) Schematic diagram of one layer reinforced
foundation soil

Strip footing

Perspex
Reinforcement layer A1 box

300 mm
Soil type-1 200 mm
A2
Shake table
150 mm
1m x 1m Soil type-2 150 mm
A3
500 mm
Fig.18 (b) Schematic diagram of two layered reinforced
foundation soil
Fig.19. Construction process of model foundation (a) Shake Table set up (b)
accelerometer connected at top and bottom of shake table
 9.0
9.0

8.5
8.5 Un reinforced Un reinforced

Maximum vertical deformation

Maximum vertical deformation(cm)

1 layer geotextile 2 layer geotextile

8.0 2 layer geogrid
8.0
1 layer geogrid
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.0
5.5
5.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 (b) Water content(%)
Water content(%)
(a)

9.0

8.5 Un reinforced
Maximum vertical deformation(cm)

3 layer geotextile
8.0
3 layer geogrid

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(c) Water content(%)

Fig 20: Effect of moisture content on vertical

deformation.

(a) Single layer reinforcement

(b) Two layer reinforcement
(c) Three layer reinforcement
 0.80
0.8
0.75
Un reinforced
0.70 Un reinforced 0.7 2 layer geotextile
0.65 1 layer geotextile 2 layer geogrid

Normalized Elevation (z/H)

Normalized Elevation(z/H)

0.60 1 layer geogrid 0.6

0.55
0.50 0.5
0.45
0.40 0.4
0.35
0.30 0.3
0.25
0.20 0.2
0.15
0.10 0.1
0.05
0.00 0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(a) Vertical deformation Vertical Deformation
(b)

.3g,3Hz
0.8

Un reinforced
3 layer geotextile
0.6 3 layer geogrid
Normalized elevation

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(c) Vertical deformation

Fig. 21. Effect of quantity of reinforcement on vertical

deformation

(a) One layer reinforcement

(b) Two layer reinforcement
(c) Three layer reinforcement
 1.1

1.0 1.0
Un reinforced Un reinforced
1 layer geotextile 0.9 2 layer geotextile
0.8 1 layer geogrid 0.8 2 layer geogrid
Vertical deformation

Vertical deformation
0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1

0.0 0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
RMSA value RMSA Value
(a) (b)

1.0

Unreinforced
3 layer geotextile
0.8 3 layer geogrid

.3g,3Hz
Vertical deformation

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
RMSA value
(c)

Fig. 22. Effect of quantity of reinforcement on RMSA

value (Root mean square amplification)

(a) One layer reinforcement

(b) Two layer reinforcement
(c) Three layer reinforcement
 0.8
.3g,2Hz
0.8 .3g,3Hz

Normalized elevation(z/H)
Un reinforced
Un reinforced 0.6 3 layer geotextile
0.6 1 layer geotextile 3 layer geogrid
Normalized elevation

1 layer geogrid

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (b) Vertical displacement
(a) Vertical deformation

.3g,1Hz
0.8

Un reinforced
3 layer geotextile
0.6 3 layer geogrid
Normalized elevation

0.4

0.2

0.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(c) Vertical deformation

Fig 23. Variation of normalized elevation with vertical deformation at different

frequency

(a) 1 Hz frequency
(b) 2 Hz frequency
(c) 3 Hz frequency
Fig 24: Comparison of Fig 25: Comparison of
experimental and numerical experimental and numerical
analysis of maximum vertical analysis of maximum vertical
deformation for unreinforced soil deformation for 3 layer Geogrid
reinforced soil

Vertical deformation Vertical deformation

Fig.27: Comparison of
Fig.26: Comparison of
experimental and numerical
experimental and numerical
analysis of elevation with vertical
analysis of elevation with vertical
deformation for 3 layered Geogrid
deformation for unreinforced soil
reinforced soil