See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331036642

Finite element analysis of foundation on layered and homogeneous soil

deposit under dynamic loading

Conference Paper · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 446

2 authors, including:

Abhay Kumar Verma

Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi
7 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A REVIEW ON NANOTECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING View project

Finite Element Analysis of Foundation on Layered and Homogeneous Soil Deposit under Dynamic Loading View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhay Kumar Verma on 12 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Finite element analysis of foundation on layered and homogeneous
soil deposit under dynamic loading
Abhay Kumar Verma & Supriya Mohanty
Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi 221005, India.

ABSTRACT
An earthquake force causes severe damages to civil engineering structures and their foundations. Geographical
statistic shows that almost 54% area of India vulnerable to earthquake. Hence, it is very important to analyze
dynamic response of foundation. In the present study an attempt has been made to study the behavior of foundation
resting on layered and homogeneous soil deposit under dynamic loading condition. Two types of soil systems have
been considered for the analysis; one is the layered soil system consisting of loose sand at the top, soft clay at the
bottom and medium sand in between and the other one is the homogenous soil system with soft clay. The effect of
water table on soil foundation system of both layered and homogeneous soil systems have also been studied. The
foundation considered for the analysis is shallow foundation (continuous footing). The dynamic loading considered
for the analysis is of recent Nepal earthquake (Mw-7.8). The modeling of the soil foundation system has been carried
out using 2-dimensional finite element software CyclicTP. The response of shallow foundation resting on layered
and homogeneous soil deposit under dynamic loading condition are presented in the form of horizontal and vertical
displacement; ground acceleration; excess pore pressure and excess pore pressure ratio; and shear stress versus
shear strain at various locations. The results have been compared to understand the effect of layered and
homogeneous soil on dynamic response of soil foundation system.

1 INTRODUCTION shallow foundation placed in sand. “Militano and

Ground motions can be induced by various natural and
human-made activities. These seismic motions give
very adverse effect on structures. These motions are
also responsible for soil liquefaction and severe
foundation damages. Reasons mentioned above are
made dynamic response study quite essential for
different soil domains and for various seismic motions.
Dynamic response analysis can give a better idea to
engineers to design earthquake-resistant structures.
Many researchers have already made their attempt
to analyze the dynamic response of foundations placed
on different types of soil. “Reddy et al. (2018)”
investigated layered soil deposit under Bhuj and Nepal
earthquake motions. “Reddy and Mohanty (2017)”
studied the seismic behavior of black cotton soil
reinforced with the granular column. “Asgari et al.
(2014)” carried out a numerical simulation to find
seismic responses of shallow foundation placed on silt
and sand. Many researchers also did the experimental
study to find the settlement and pattern of pore
pressure generation on various seismic motions.
“Yoshimi and Tokimatsu (1977)” conducted a shake
table test to find settlement and pore pressure near
building during earthquake motion. “Ueng et al.
(2000)”, “Paul and Dey (2007)” conducted a series of
cyclic triaxial test to find dynamic responses of sands
and partially saturated soil. “Liu et al. (2017)” studied
different modes of pore pressure generation in the
loose saturated soil during liquefaction. “Mohanty and
Patra (2014), (2016)” conducted extensive experimental
and numerical research over Indian pond ash to find its
dynamic behavior and liquefaction potential. “Lui and
Dobry (1997)” studied about dynamic response of
Rajapakse (1999)” studied the dynamic response of a
pile in a multi-layered soil. “Nath et al. (1987)” carried
out a nonlinear dynamic response study on doubly
curved shallow shell on elastic foundation.
In the present study an attempt has been made to
study the behavior of foundation resting on layered and
homogeneous soil deposit under dynamic loading
condition. The peak responses and their comparisons
have been made in the following sections.
2 PARAMETERS CONSIDERED:
Following data are used in the present analysis.
2.1 Foundation details
For the present study shallow footing is considered.
Foundation is having a depth of 1 m below the ground
surface, and 2 m height above the ground surface. The
width of the foundation is considered as 2 m. The
elastic modulus of concrete is 25x106 kPa. The
Poisson’s Ratio and density are taken as 0.3 and 2300
kg/m3.
2.2 Details of Soil Strata
The analysis is carried out for two different cases of soil
domains. In Case-I homogenous soil domain is
analyzed. It is having width and depth 15m each. A
Multi-layered soil stratum having the same dimensions
has been analyzed in Case-II. At 15m depth, hard rock
has been considered for both the cases. Dynamic
analysis for each case is carried out at full saturation
condition (0m GWT), 1m GWT, and 2m GWT. Details of
both the cases are given in Table-1.

1
Table-1 Detail of Soil Domain.

Case Layer Thickness Type of Soil (Vs in

m/sec)
1 5 Cohesive Soft (100)
I 2 5 Cohesive Soft (100)
3 5 Cohesive Soft (100)
1 5 Loose Sand (185)
II 2 5 Medium Sand (205)
3 5 Cohesive Soft (100)

2.3 Input Earthquake Motion

Figure 2. Typical diagram of FEM based mesh
generated of the soil-foundation system (for Case II)
For dynamic analysis, an input motion of Nepal
earthquake 2015 (Mw=7.8,) is considered. Peak
3 CONVERGENCE STUDY
acceleration of 0.1639g is observed at 49.31 sec for
Nepal Earthquake. Figure-1 shows the input motion of
Before starting the actual analysis, a convergence study
Nepal Earthquake motion considered for the present
has been carried out to find the optimum number of
study.
element for the soil foundation system. Soil-Foundation
domain is analysis on denser element mesh until the
peak responses start converging. This is done for every
water table condition in both cases. Figure-3 shows a
typical convergence graph for 0 m GWT for Case-I. The
optimum number of element for Case I are found to be
2384, 3156 and 2916 for 0m, 1m and 2m respectively.
Similarly, the optimum number of element for Case II
are found to be 812, 1042 and 1042 for 0m, 1m and 2m
respectively.

Figure 1. Acceleration vs. time plot for Nepal

Earthquake (Mw-7.8)

3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

The modeling of the soil domain and the shallow

foundation is done using 2-dimensional FEM (finite
element method) based software CyclicTP. The
CyclicTP act as dynamic site-response simulator. The
Figure 3. A typical convergence graph for 0m Ground
program operates in the time domain, allowing for linear
water table in Case-I
and nonlinear studies. Using CyclicTP a nonlinear finite
element analysis of soil foundation system has been
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
carried out here. For analyzing different cases, the soil-
foundation system is divided into the finite number of
The 2-dimensional dynamic response results are
elements. In the finite element modeling of the soil-
represented in terms of the peak observed values of
foundation domain, 4-4 noded element are considered.
horizontal acceleration, lateral displacement, vertical
The software is programmed to find approximate values
displacement, excess pore pressure and excess pore
of unknowns, by minimizing the errors at the discrete
pressure ratio. In the following sections the analyzed
number of points over the domain. Typical diagram of
results are discussed:
FEM based mesh generated of the soil-foundation
system (for Case II) is shown in Figure-2.
4.1 Acceleration Response

At the different depths of the soil domain, the peak

ground acceleration (PGA) are recorded. Variations of
peak horizontal acceleration (or PGA) with depth for
each water table condition for Case-I & Case-II are
shown in Figure-5 to 10. According to the present
analysis, it is found that the value of peak acceleration
is more in the layered soil, i.e., in Case-II (Ref. Table-2).
It is also observed that the horizontal acceleration value

2
is higher at top and bottom of soil stratum, horizontal
acceleration is less in comparison at the middle of soil
domain in both cases (Ref. Figure 5-10). The maximum
value of PGA is found in Case-II, i.e., 4.376 m/sec2 at
0m GWT, 2B m left from footing center. (‘B’ denotes
width of footing)

Figure 6. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation

system (1m GWT Case-I)

Figure 4. Typical horizontal acceleration variation with

time for soil foundation system (At: 1m depth, 0m GWT,
Case-I)

Table 2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration (PGA) values at

different distance from footing centre.

Ca GWT
PGA (m/s2)
se Depth
Distance
from footing 4 B1 2B Footing 2B 4B
Centre (L) (L) Centre (R) (R)
Figure 7. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation
0m 1.631 1.608 1.608 2.528 1.631 system (2m GWT Case-I)
I 1m 1.608 1.608 1.608 1.608 1.608
2m 1.608 1.608 1.608 1.608 1.608
0m 1.469 4.376 1.683 3.895 1.848
II 1m 1.965 2.811 1.935 2.782 1.965
2m 2.338 2.011 2.148 2.012 2.338
1Width of footing

Figure 8. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation

system (0m GWT Case-II)

Figure 5. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation

system (0m GWT, Case-I)

Figure 9. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation

system (1m GWT Case-II)

3
Figure 10. Acceleration vs. Depth for soil foundation Figure 13. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil
system (2m GWT Case-II) foundation system (2m GWT Case-I)

4.2 Lateral Displacement Response

Lateral displacement response has been recorded at

different locations of the foundation soil system. In the
complete analysis maximum value of lateral
displacement is found to be 0.370m (Ref. Table 3). This
peak value is recorded in Case-II at full saturation
condition (0m GWT) under the Nepal earthquake
motion. From Figure-11 to 16 variations of lateral
displacements with depth at different locations from the
footing center for Case-I and II respectively, are
represented. Peak lateral displacements are found
almost the same for all saturation conditions, in both
cases (Ref. Table 3).
From the graphs shown in Figure-11 to 16, it can be Figure 14. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil
clearly seen that the value of lateral displacement is foundation system (0m GWT Case-II)
more at the surface, while it gradually decreases to a
lower depth.

Figure 15. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil

Figure 11. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil foundation system (1m GWT Case-II)
foundation system (0m GWT Case-I)

Figure 12. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil Figure 16. Lateral Displacement vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (1m GWT Case-I) foundation system (2m GWT Case-II)

4
Table 3. Peak lateral displacement values at different
distance from footing center.

Ca GWT Lateral Displacement (m)

se Depth
Distance 4B 2B Footing 2B 4B
from Centre (L) (L) Centre (R) (R)
footing
I 0m 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.116 0.117
1m 0.116 0.117 0.116 0.116 0.116
2m 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.116 0.116
II 0m 0.370 0.370 0.348 0.323 0.334
1m 0.344 0.348 0.349 0.343 0.344
2m 0.298 0.302 0.300 0.301 0.298

Figure 18. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil

4.4 Vertical Displacement Response foundation system (1m GWT Case-I)

Peak vertical displacement is also observed in Case-II,

i.e., 0.6319 m (Ref. Table 4). It is observed below the
footing center at full saturation condition (0m GWT)
under the Nepal earthquake motion. Variations of
vertical displacements for Case-I & Case-II with the
depth are presented in Figure-17 to 22. For both Cases,
values of peak vertical displacement are found to be
more at full saturation condition than in partially
saturated soil (Ref. Table 4).
As per the observations recorded (Table 3 & 4),
there are fair chances of lateral spreading, as lateral
displacement is higher than vertical displacement in
both cases and at all water table conditions.
From the graph in Figure-17, it can be seen that
vertical displacement is higher near the corners of the
foundation. In the partially saturated soil of Case-I
vertical displacement is more below the footing center.
(Figure-18,19). Figure 19. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil
In Case-II vertical displacement is higher below the foundation system (2m GWT Case-I)
footing center for all saturation condition (Figure-20-22).
Values of vertical displacement in both cases gradually
decrease at a lower depth of soil domain.

Figure 20. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil

foundation system (0m GWT Case-II)
Figure 17. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (0m GWT Case-I)

5
Figure 21. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (1m GWT Case-II) Figure 23. A typical graph of shear stress vs. shear
strain obtained from the center of the footing at 10.994
m depth from the ground surface (Case-I, 0m GWT)

4.6 Excess pore pressure & Excess Pore Pressure

Ratio Response

Excess pore pressure ratio is calculated by dividing

excess pore pressure at a location to initial effective
vertical stress at that particular location. It is known that
the soil is liquefiable at the point where excess pore
pressure ratio reaches unity. In the present analysis, for
finding the possibility of liquefaction excess pore
pressure ratio is calculated at different depth and
locations.
By the investigating the results, it can be that in
Case-I, the possibility of liquefaction occurs only in the
Figure 22. Vertical Displacement vs. Depth for soil condition of complete saturation (0m GWT) (Figure-26);
foundation system (2m GWT Case-II) soil domain is safe against liquefaction if it is partially
saturated (Figure 27, 28). Results show that soil is
prone to liquefaction at all location in Case-II (Figure-
Table 4. Vertical displacement values at different 29-31), irrespective of the saturation condition adopted
locations from footing center. for the study.
Table-5 shows the values of the peak values of
the excess pore pressure ratio at the different location
GWT for both the cases. The typical graphs are shown in
Case Vertical Displacement (meter) Figure-24 & Figure-25, represent the values of excess
Depth
pore pressure vs. depth for 0m GWT of Case-I & Case-
Distance Footin II respectively. Results of Excess pore pressure ratio
4B 2B 2B 4B vs. depth for Case-I and Case-II are exhibited in Figure-
from footing g
Centre (L) (L) (R) (R) 26 to 31.
Centre
0m 0.006 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.006 Figure 24 shows a typical trend of Excess pore
pressure at 0m GWT in Case-I. By these graphs, it can
I 1m 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.003
be seen that in Case 1, under high seismic motion the
2m 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.003 value of excess pore pressure reaches too high at just
0m 0.208 0.208 0.632 0.216 0.351 below the footing. The values are found higher again at
II 1m 0.149 0.038 0.246 0.053 0.149
a lower depth in Case-I.
In Figure-25 it can be seen that values of
2m 0.046 0.010 0.083 0.014 0.046
excess pore pressure are less near the footing, while
they are found to be more in the middle of the soil
stratum. Excess pore pressure again decreases at
4.5 Stress vs. Strain Response lower depth at all location in case-II.

Responses of shear stress vs. shear strain are

recorded at different depths and location from the
center of footing. In Figure-23 a typical graph of shear
stress vs. shear strain is shown. The typical graph
shown in Figure-5 recorded for Nepal Earthquake
Motion at a depth of 10.994 m for 2m GWT in Case-I.

6
Figure 24. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil Figure 27. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (0m GWT Case-I) foundation system (1m GWT Case-I)

Figure 25. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil Figure 28. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (0m GWT Case-II) foundation system (2m GWT Case-I)

Figure 26. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil Figure 29. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil
foundation system (0m GWT Case-I) foundation system (0m GWT Case-II)

7
  For both the cases PGA is recorded higher at the
sides of footing, it is then gradually decreases in
middle of soil domain and then again increases at
the bottom.
 The maximum value of PGA for Case-I is found
2.527 m/s2 on full saturation condition at 2B m right
of footing center. It is 4.376 m/s2, for case-II, in full
saturation condition at 2B m left of footing center.
 High lateral and vertical displacements are observed
at the top and gradually decrease to the bottom of
the soil domain.
 Highest values of lateral and vertical displacements
are recorded in Case-II, which are 0.370m &
0.6319m respectively at 0m GWT.
 Excess pore pressure values are found to be 30.94
Figure 30. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil kPa and 130.31 kPa respectively for Case-I and II
foundation system (1m GWT Case-II) respectively.
 Observation for excess pore pressure ratio shows
that soil foundation system may liquefy if it reaches
to the full saturation condition in Case-I, while there
is a danger of liquefaction in Case-II, at all the
considered water table conditions.
As the occurrence of an earthquake is
unpredictable, the above data and conclusions can
help engineers to get new insight for the seismic
design of structure in the layered soil conditions.

References.

Asgari, A., Golshani, A., and Bagheri, M. 2014.

Numerical evaluation of the seismic response of
shallow foundation on loose silt and silty sand,
Journal of Earth System Science, 123 (2): 365-379
Figure 31. Excess Pore Pressure vs. Depth for soil Liu, L. and Dobry, R. 1997. Seismic response of
foundation system (2m GWT Case-II) shallow foundation on liquefiable sand, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
123:557-567
Table 4 Variation of Excess pore pressure ratio at
different locations from footing centre. Liu, J. Guo, T. Zhang,G. Fu, H. 2017. Experimental
Case GWT Excess pore pressure ratio
study on pore pressure generation mode of
saturated remolded loess during dynamic
Depth
liquefaction, IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Distance 4B 2B Footing 2B 4B Environmental Science, (61):1-7
from (L) (L) Centre (R) (R)
footing
Centre
Militano, G. and Rajapakse, R.K.N.D. 1999. Dynamic
response of a pile in a multi-layered soil to transient
0m 3.597 0.488 11.315 1.817 2.485 torsional and axial loading, Geotechnique 49 (1):
I 1m 0.310 0.341 0.513 0.364 0.343 91-109
2m 0.330 0.330 0.401 0.347 0.202
0m 3.000 3.000 2.898 2.562 2.332
Mohanty, S. and Patra, N.R. 2014. Cyclic behavior
and liquefaction potential of Indian pond ash
II 1m 1.888 2.555 1.792 2.164 1.864 located in seismic zone III and IV, Journal of
2m 1.746 1.592 1.717 1.499 1.836 Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 26(7):
06014012

5. CONCLUSION Mohanty, S. and Patra, N. R. 2016. Liquefaction and

The present paper discusses comparisons of dynamic
responses for two different kinds of soil stratum under
the excitation of Nepal earthquake motion. The
comparisons have been made in terms of acceleration
(PGA), Peak lateral displacements, Peak vertical
displacement, excess pore pressure, and excess pore
pressure ratio for both soil domain. The present
analysis is concluded in the following points:
earthquake response analysis of Panipat pond
ash embankment in India, Journal of Earthquake
& Tsunami, DOI: 10.1142/S1793431116500093
Mohanty, S. and Patra, N. R. 2016. Dynamic
response analysis of Talcher pond ash embankment
in India, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 84:238–250

8
 Nath, Y. Mahrenholtz, O. and Varma, K.K. 1987.
Nonlinear dynamic response of a doubly curved
shallow shallow an elastic foundation, Journal of
Sound and Vibrations, 112(1): 53-61

Paul S. and Dey A.K. 2007. Cyclic triaxial testing of fully

and partially saturated soil at Silchar, Proceeding of
4th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, Paper No. 1194

Reddy, M.V.R.K. Mohanty, S. and Ramancharla, P.K.

2018. Comparative study of dynamic response
analysis of shallow foundation on layered soils,
Geotechnical Engineering, Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering 15: 92-99

Reddy, C. S. and Mohanty, S. 2017. Parametric study

on seismic behavior of black cotton soil reinforced
with granular column, Proceeding of Indian
Geotechnical Conference 2017: 1-4

Ueng, T.S. Wu, M.C. Lin, C.Y., and Yu., R.Y., 1997.
Pore water pressure changes in sands under
earthquake loading, 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 1285:1-7

Yoshimi, Y. and Tokimatsu, K. 1977. Settlement

of buildings on the saturated sand during
earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 17(1):23-
38

9
View publication stats