1.

Approaches onConsidering Foundation

Susceptible to Vibration and Earthquake
1.1 Introduction
Foundations may be subjected to either static loads or a combination of static and dynamic loads.
The latter lead to motion in the soil and mutual dynamic interaction of the foundation and the
soil. The design of foundations subjected to dynamic forces is part of soil dynamics. ‘Soil
Dynamics’ may be defined as that part of soil mechanics which deals with the behavior of soil
under dynamic conditions. The effects of dynamic forces on soil are under this topic which is
relatively a new area of Geotechnical Engineering. The sources of dynamic load are numerous
types, such as earthquakes, bomb blasts, drilling and pilling operations, landing of aircraft in the
vicinity, the action of wind and running water may be other sources. Machinery of different
kinds induces different types of dynamic forces which act on the foundation soil. Most motions
encountered in Soil Dynamics are rectilinear (translational), curvilinear, rotational, two-
dimensional, or three-dimensional, or a combination of these. Dynamic forces impart energy to
the soil grains, several changes take place in the soil structure, internal friction, and adhesion.
Shock and vibration may induce liquefaction of saturated loose sand, leading to instability. The
primary aim of Soil Dynamics is to study the engineering behavior of soil under dynamic forces
and to develop criteria for the design of foundations under such conditions. The fields of
application of Soil Dynamics are varied and diverse, and include

(i) vibration and settlement of structures, and of foundations of machinery,

(ii) densification of soil by dynamic compaction and vibration,
(iii) penetration of piles and sheet piles by vibration or impact,
(iv) dynamic and geophysical methods of exploration,
(v) effects of blasting on soil and rock materials, and
(vi) Effects of earthquakes and earthquake-resistant design of foundations.

The increasing use of heavy machinery, of blasting operations in construction practice, and of
various kinds of heavy transport in the context of industrial and technological progress point to
the importance of ‘Soil Dynamics’. ‘Dynamics of Bases and Foundations’ forms an important
part of ‘Industrial Seismology’, a branch of mechanics devoted to the study of the effects of
shocks and vibrations in the fields of engineering and technology; in fact, the former phrase
happens to be the title of a famous book on the subject by Professor D.D. Barkan in Russian
(English Translation edited by G.P. Tschebotarioff and first published by McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, in 1962). This is a monumental reference book on the subject, based
on the original research in Barkan’s Soil Dynamics Laboratory. The Book “Vibration Analysis
and Design of Foundations for Machines and Turbines” by Alexander Major (1962) also ranks as
an excellent and authoritative reference on the subject, while a more recent Book “Vibrations of
Soils and Foundations” by Richart, Hall and Woods (Prentice Hall, Inc., New York, 1970) is also
an excellent treatise.

The effect of dynamic load in foundation

A foundation exposed to dynamic load such as load from machine vibration and earthquake
shock may clarify to different failures due to:

Decrease of bearing capacity of the foundation soil

Decrease shear strength of foundation soil
It causes Settlement of the foundation
Causes to liquefaction specially if the foundation soil is a loose sand

Hence the foundation should design for dynamic load in order to prevent these failures.

1.2 Machine foundation

Machine foundation being of a special kind, fall into a separate class of their own. For example
the general criteria for insuring stability of a machine foundation are rather different from those
for other foundations. Also the design approach and method and analysis are totally different in
view of the dynamic nature of the forces. The types of machine foundations are also different.
Responsibility for satisfactory performance of a machine is divided between the machine designer, who is
usually a mechanical engineer, and the foundation designer, who is usually a civil engineer, more
specifically a geotechnical engineer. The latter’s task is to design a suitable foundation consistent with the
requirements and tolerance limits imposed by the machine designer. It is therefore imperative that the
machine designer and the geotechnical engineer work in close co-ordination right from the stage of
planning until the machinery is installed and commissioned for its intended use. Until recently, design of
machine foundations has been mostly based on empirical rules, before the evolution of Soil Dynamics as
a discipline. With the developments in the fields of structural and soil dynamics, sound principles of
design were gradually established. The relevant aspects with regard to the design of machine foundations
will be dealt with in the subsections that follow.

Types of Machines and Machine Foundations

Machines may be classified as follows, based on their dynamic effects and the design criteria:
(i) Those producing periodical forces—reciprocating machines or engines, such as
compressors.
(ii) Those producing impact forces—forge hammers and presses.
(iii) High speed machines such as turbines and rotary compressors.
(iv) Other miscellaneous kinds of machines.

Based on their operating frequency, machines may be divided into three categories:

(a) Low to medium frequency machines up to 500 rpm: Large reciprocating engines, compressors, and
blowers fall in this category. Usual operating frequencies range from 50 to 250 rpm.

(b) Medium to high frequency machines- 300 to 1000 rpm. Medium-sized reciprocating engines such as
diesel and gas engines come under this category.

(c) Very high frequency machines-greater than 1000 rpm: High-speed internal combustion engines,
electric motors, and turbo-generators fall in the category. Machine foundations are generally classified as
follows, based on their structural form:

 I–Block-type foundations, consisting of a pedestal of concrete on which the machine rests (Fig. 1
(a)). Reciprocating machinery falling into category (a) above are supported on block-type
foundations with large contact area with the soil.
 Reciprocating machinery of category (b) above may also be supported on block-type foundations,
but these are made to rest on springs or suitable elastic pads to reduce their natural frequencies.
 High-speed machinery of category (c) above may also be supported on massive block
foundations; small contact surfaces with suitable isolation pads are desirable to reduce the natural
frequencies.
 II–Box or caisson type foundations, consisting of a hollow concrete block (Fig 1 (b)). III–Wall-
type foundations, consisting of a pair of walls which support the machinery on their top (Fig.
1(c))
 IV–Framed-type foundations, consisting of vertical columns supporting on their top a horizontal
frame work which forms the seat of essential machinery.
  Turbo-machinery requires this type of foundations, which accommodate the necessary auxiliary
equipment between the columns.

Some machines such as lathes, which induce very little dynamic forces, do not need any foundations;
such machines may be directly bolted to the floor.

Fig. 1.1: Types of machine foundations

1.3 Design Approach for Machine Foundation
The dimensions of machine foundations are fixed according to the operational requirements of
the machine. The overall dimensions of the foundation are generally specified by the
manufacturers of the machine. If there is choice to the foundation designer, the minimum
possible dimensions satisfying the design criteria should be chosen. Once the dimensions of the
foundation are decided upon, and site conditions are known, the natural frequency of the
foundation-soil system and the amplitudes of motion under operating conditions have to be
determined. The requirements specified in the previous subsection should be satisfied to the
possible extent for a good design. Thus, the design procedure is one of ‘trial and error’. The
specific data required for design vary for different types of machines. However, certain general
requirements of data may be given as follows:

i) Loading diagram, showing the magnitudes and positions of static and dynamic loads
exerted by the machine.
ii) Power and operating speed of the machine.
iii) Line diagram showing openings, grooves for foundation bolts, details of embedded
parts, and so on.
iv) Nature of soil and its static and dynamic properties, and the soil parameters required for
the design.

Vibration Analysis of a Machine Foundation Although the machine foundation has six-degree
freedom, it is assumed to have single degree of freedom for convenience of simplifying the analysis
Fig.1.2 shows a machine foundation supported on a soil mass.Mf is the lumped mass of the machine and
of the foundation, acting at the center of gravity of the system. Along with Mf, a certain mass, Ms, of soil
beneath the foundation will participate in the vibration. The combined mass M (the sum of Mf and Ms) is
supposed to be lumped at the center of gravity of the entire system.
Fig.1.2

The system is taken to be undergoing purely vertical vibrations and thus considered to be a system with
single degree of freedom. The vibration analysis of a machine foundation may be performed based on
either one of the broad approaches, namely, the Elastic Half-space theory and the Mass-spring-dash pot
model. Depending upon the approach selected the values of the appropriate soil parameters have to be
determined by a suitable method. However, it may be noted that, unfortunately, there is no rational
method to determine the magnitude of the mass of soil participating in the vibration. A general guideline
is to choose this value to be ranging between zero and the magnitude of the mass of machine and of the
foundation. In other words, the total mass, M, is taken to be varying between Mf and 2 Mfin most cases.
Empirical approaches, based on different criteria such as type, speed or power of the machine have been
advanced by some research workers; however, all such approaches may now be considered to be obsolete.

1.4 General Criteria for Design of Machine Foundations

The following criteria should be satisfied by a machine foundation:

I. The foundation should be able to carry the superimposed loads without causing shear
failure. The bearing capacity under dynamic loading conditions is generally considered to
be less than that for static loading, the reduction factor ranging from0.25 to 1.0.
II. The settlement should be within permissible limits.
 III. The combined center of gravity of machine and foundation should be, to the extent
possible, in the same vertical line as the center of gravity of the base line.
IV. Resonance should be avoided; hence the natural frequency of the foundation-soil system
should be far different from the operating frequency of the machine. For low-speed
machines, the natural frequency should be high and vice-versa. The operating frequency
must be either less than 0.5 times or greater than 1.5 times the resonant frequency so as to
ensure adequate margin of safety.
V. The amplitude under service conditions should be within the permissible limits, generally
prescribed by the manufacturers.
VI. All rotating and reciprocating parts of the machine should be so balanced that the
unbalanced forces and moments are minimized. (This, of course, is the responsibility of
the mechanical engineers).
VII. The foundation should be so planned as to permit subsequent alteration of natural
frequency by changing the base area or mass of the foundation, if found necessary
subsequently. From the practical point of view, the following additional requirements
should also be fulfilled:
VIII. The ground water table should be below the base plane by at least one-fourth of the
width of the foundation. Since ground-water is a good conductor of waves, this limits
the propagation of vibration.
IX. Machine foundations should be separated from adjacent building components by
means of expansion joints.
X. Any pipes carrying hot fluids, if embedded in the foundation, must be properly isolated.
XI. The foundation should be protected from machine oil by means of suitable chemical
treatment, which is acid-resistant.
XII. Machine foundations should be taken to a level lower than the level of foundations of
adjoining structures. In this connection, it is perhaps pertinent to remember Richart’s
chart.
1.5 Foundation for impact machine
Hammers are typical examples of impact type machines. The design principles of
foundations for hammers are entirely different from those for reciprocating machinery hammer, a ram
falls from a height on the anvil executing either forging or stamping a material
placed on the anvil.Hammer foundations are generally reinforced concrete block type of construction
(Fig.
1.3). The anvil on which the tup falls repeatedly is usually placed on an elastic layer which may
be of timber grillage or cork. The foundation may be placed directly on soil or on a suitable
elastic layer, the purpose of which is to isolate the vibration and minimise the harmful effects of
the impact.

The frame of the hammer may either rest directly on the foundation or it may be supported
from outside depending on the convenience. The frame is essentially to guide the ram and house
the arrangement for the movement of the ram. The practice of design of the foundation for
hammers has been to provide a massive block foundation
Fig.1.3: Schematic of a typical hammer foundation (IS 2974-1980)

Special Considerations

The following are the special considerations in planning the foundation for impact machines:

i. The center line of the anvil and the centroid of the base area should lie on the vertical line
passing through the common center of gravity of the machine and its foundation.
ii. Where elastic pad is used under the anvil and the base of the foundation, care should be
taken to ensure uniform distribution of loading and protection of the pad against water,
oil, etc. It is recommended that the foundation be laid in a reinforced concrete trough
formed by retaining walls on all sides. The foundation may be separated from the side
walls by means of an air gap.
iii. If timber is used for elastic pad, the timber joists should be laid horizontally in the form
of a grillage. The joists must be impregnated with preservative for protection against
moisture.
iv. The thickness of the elastic pad is governed by the permissible stresses in the respective
materials. Guidelines in this regard are given in Table 1.1 (Major, 1962):
v. When two adjacent foundations are laid at different depths, the straight line connecting
edges should form an angle not exceeding 250to the horizontal. However, if
foundations are too close, they may be laid to the same depth and a common raft
provided as base.

Table 1.1 Thickness of timber pads under anvil (after major, 1962)
 Dynamic Analysis of Foundation for Impact Machines

The hammer-anvil-pad-foundation-soil system is assumed to have two degrees of

freedom. The elastic pad is taken to be an elastic body with spring constant k2 and the soil below
the foundation another elastic body with a spring constant k1.
This model for dynamic analysis is (shown in fig4). The impact caused by the ram (tup) of
the hammer causes free vibrations in the system. Since the soil has also damping effect, the
system undergoes free vibrations with damping. The equations of motion may be written as
follows using Newton’s laws or D’ Alembert’s Principle:

And

……………………………………………………………………1.1

Where
Z1,Z2 = displacements of foundation and anvil from their equilibrium positions,
Mf= mass of the foundation,
k1 = soil spring constant.
k2 = spring constant of elastic pad
Fig. 4: Model for analysis of a hammer foundation

K1=Cu’A1…………………………………………………………………………………1.2a

𝐸𝑝𝐴𝑝
K2= …………………………………………………………………………………1.2b
𝑡𝑝
Where Cu’= coefficient of elastic uniform compression of soil under impact,
A1 = contact area of foundation,
Ap= base area of pad,
Ep= Young’s modulus of the material of the pad,
and tp= thickness of pad.
Starting with possible solutions for Z1 and Z 2

Such as Z=C1sin𝜔nt and ……………………………………………………………………1.3a

Z2=C2sin𝜔nt…………………………………………………………………………………1.3b
1.3 Foundation subjected to earthquake
A major earthquake produces a strong ground motion in the sub soil; consequently, underground
and surface structures supported on the soil mass will be induced to move and take dynamic
forces. The magnitude of the inertia forces are proportional to the acceleration at depth at which
the foundation structure is placed. Their action in the foundation structure may be estimated
knowing the subsoil behavior. For this purpose, the maximum displacement, stresses, and
acceleration should be determined in the soil mass.
The damage resulting from the earth quake may be influenced in a number of ways by the
characteristics of the soil in the affected area. Where the damage is related to a gross instability
of the soil, resulting in large permanent movement of the ground surface, associating of the
damage with the local soil conditions is readily apparent. Thus, for example, deposits of loose
granular soils may be compacted by the ground vibrations induced by the earthquake, resulting
in large settlements differential settlement of the ground surface. The magnitude of the inertia
forces are proportional to the acceleration at the depth at which the foundation structure is
placed.
. Earthquake Resistant Design of Shallow Foundation

A bearing capacity failure is a foundation failure. This foundation failure occurs when the shear stresses
in the soil exceed the shear strength of soil. For both static and seismic cases, bearing capacity failure is
grouped into three categories (Vesic, 1973). They are called general, local and punching shear failure. In
general shear failure, there is complete rupture of underlying soil. Furthermore, soil is pushed up on
both sides. There is complete shear failure of soil. General shear failure takes place in soils which are in
dense or in hard state. In punching shear failure, there is compression of soil directly below the footing.
There is vertical shearing as well. Furthermore, soil outside the loaded area remains uninvolved.
However, there is minimum movement of soil on both sides of footing. It occurs in soils that are in loose
or soft state. Local shear failure can be considered as a transition phase between general shear and
punching shear. There is rupture of soil only immediately below footing in this type of shear failure.
There is small soil bulging on both sides of footing. Local shear failure takes place in soils which are in
medium or firm state.
Compared to damage by earthquake-induced settlement, there are fewer damage by earthquake-
induced bearing capacity failure. There are several reasons for it. In most cases, settlement is found to
be governing factor. Consequently, foundation bearing pressures recommended are based on limiting
the amount of expected settlement. This recommendation is applicable to static as well as seismic
conditions. There have been extensive studies of both static and seismic bearing capacity failure of
shallow foundations. This has lead to development of bearing capacity equations. It has been suggested
that for the evaluation of bearing capacity for seismic analysis, the factor of safety should often be in the
range of 5 to 10. Larger footing size lowers the bearing pressure on soil. It also reduces potential for
static or seismic bearing capacity failure.

Usually, there are three factors causing failure during earthquake. Overestimation of shear strength, as
well as loss of shear strength due to liquefaction during earthquake is one factor. Secondly, earthquake
causes rocking of the structure. Resulting structural overturning moments produce significant cyclic
vertical thrusts on foundation. This increases the structural load. Thirdly, altered site due to earthquake
can also produce bearing capacity failure. The most common cause of a seismic bearing capacity failure
is liquefaction of underlying soil. For static analysis, soil involved in bearing capacity failure extends to a
depth equal to footing width. However, this depth of bearing capacity failure might exceed for
earthquake induced loading.
It is recommended that the allowable bearing pressure be increased by a factor of one third under
earthquake conditions. This recommendation is for seismic analysis under massive crystalline bedrock,
sedimentary rock, dense granular soil or heavily overconsolidated cohesive soil conditions. However,
this increase is not recommended for foliated rock, loose soil under liquefaction, sensitive clays and soft
clays. Since, in these cases there is weaking of soil and hence allowable bearing pressure has to be
reduced during earthquake.
1.1 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFIED SOIL
Table 7.1 summarizes the requirements and analyses for soil susceptible to liquefaction.
Table 1.1 Requirements and analyses for soil susceptible to liquefaction
Requirements and analyses Design conditions

1. Bearing location of foundation: The

Requirements foundation must not bear on soil that will
liquefy during earthquake.
2. Surface layer: There must be adequate
thickness of un liquefiable soil layer to
prevent damage due to sand boils and surface
Settlement analysis fissuring.

1. Lightweight structures: Settlement of

lightweight structures (wood-frame building
on shallow foundation)

2. Low net bearing stress: Settlement of any

other kind of structure imparting low net
bearing pressure.
3. Floating foundation: Settlement of floating
foundation below bottom of foundation
provided zone of liquefaction is below
foundation base and there is no net stress.
4. Heavy structure with deep liquefaction:
Settlement of heavy structures provided zone
Bearing capacity analysis of liquefaction is deep enough that stress
increase caused by structural load is low.
5. Differential settlement: Differential
settlement if structure contains deep
foundation supported by strata below zone of
liquefaction.

1. Heavy building with underlying liquefied

 soil: Use adequate bearing capacity analysis
assuming soil is liquefied due to earthquake.
Foundation load will cause it to punch or sink
Special consideration in liquefied soil.
2. Check bearing capacity: Perform bearing
capacity analysis whenever footing imposes
net pressure into soil and underlying soil
layer is susceptible to liquefaction during
earthquake.
3. Positive induced pore pressures: Perform
bearing capacity analysis when soil will not
liquefy during earthquake but there is
development of excess pore pressure.

1. Buoyancy effects: To be considered for

buried storage tank, large pipelines which
may float on surface when soil liquefies.
2. Sloping ground condition: Determine if the
site is susceptible to liquefaction induced
flow slide.

In punching shear analysis, during earthquake loading it is assumed that load causes foundation to
punch straight downward through upper unliquefiable soil layer down into liquefied soil layer. Factor of
safety is considered as follows:
2T  f
For strip footing: FS = 𝑃
…………………………………………………………………………1.4a

2(B+L)T  f
For spread footing: FS = 𝑃
……………………………………………………………………….1.4b

Where, T = vertical distance from bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer.
 f = shear strength of unliquefiable soil layer.
B = width of footing. L = length of footing.
P = footing load (dead, live, seismic loads and self weight of footing)
FS = factor of safety.
Shear strength of unliquefiable soil layer is determined using conventional techniques. This technique is
applicable for cohesive as well as for cohesionless soils.
For cohesive Soil:
 f =Su…………………………………………………………………………………….1.5a
or  f =c +  h tan 
……………………………………………………………………..1.5b

For cohesionless soil:  f =ko  ,vo tan  , ……………………………………………………………………1.5c

Where Su=undrained shear strength of soils
C,  = undrained shear strength parameters.

 h = horizontal total stress.

K0= coefficient of earth pressure at rest.

 , vo = vertical effective stress (at T/2 + footing depth from ground surface).
 , = effective friction angle of cohesionless soil.
For local and general shear failure conditions, Terzaghi bearing capacity equation is used. Furthermore,
the basic equation is modified for different type of footing and loading conditions (Terzaghi, 1943 and
Meyerhof, 1951)). For the situation of cohesive soil layer overlying sand which is susceptible to
liquefaction, a total stress analysis is performed. Following equations are used:
For strip footing qult = su Nu……………………………………………………………………1.6a
𝐵
For spread footing qult = su Nu (1+0.3 𝐿 )………………………………………………………..1.6b

Where, su= undrained shear strength.

Nc = bearing capacity factor for the condition of a unliquefiable cohesive soil layer
overlying a soil layer that is expected to liquefy during design earthquake.
B = footing width.
L = footing length.
For liquefied soil layer, the shear strength value is zero (C2 = 0 in Fig. 1.4a). Using qult, either from Eq.
(1.6a) or from Eq. (1.6b), ultimate load Qult is determined by multiplying qult with footing dimensions.
Factor of safety (FS) is determined as follows:
𝑄
FS= 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1.7
There are other considerations in the determination of bearing capacity of soil that will liquefy during
design earthquake. Distance of bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer is one important
consideration. This parameter is difficult to determine for soil that is below groundwater table and has
factor of safety against liquefaction that is slightly greater than 1. The reason being, earthquake might
induce liquefaction of the upper layer as well.
In addition to vertical loads, footing might also be subjected to static and dynamic lateral loads during
earthquake. They are dealt with separately. In conventional analysis, vertical load is applied at center of
footing. For earthquake loading, footing is often subjected to a moment.
This moment is represented by a load having some eccentricity (Meyerhof, 1953). There are standard
techniques to determine eccentricity. Eccentrically loaded footing induces higher bearing pressure
under one side of footing than on the other side. The largest and the smallest bearing pressures are
determined as follows:
𝑄(𝐵+6𝑒)
q’ = 𝐵2
……………………………………………………………………………………1.8
𝑄(𝐵−6𝑒)
q’’= 𝐵2 ……………………………………………………………………………………..1.9
where q’ = largest bearing pressure under footing
 q’’ = smallest bearing pressure under footing.
Q = load per unit length of footing. This includes dead, live and seismic loads acting on
footing as well as its self weight.
e = eccentricity of footing.
B = footing width.

It has been suggested that Q should be located within middle one-third of the footing (Eccentricity
should be within middle one-third of footing). It has also been suggested that q′ should not exceed
allowable soil pressure. These suggestions have been made from safety point of view of the foundation.
Factor of safety FS is determined as follows using q′:
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡
FS= 𝑞′ …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1.10
qult in Eq. (7.11) is determined using Eq. (7.6) for strip footing and Eq. (7.7) for spread footing.

Fig. 7.1 Bearing capacity factor Nc for two layer soil system
Calculation of eccentricity and reduction of area is illustrated in Fig. 7.2. Reduction in footing dimension
in both dimensions is applicable only for the cases where footing is subjected to moment along long
dimension of footing as well as across the footing. If the footing is subjected to moment only in one
direction, footing dimension is reduced only in that direction. These reduced footing dimensions are
then used to determine bearing capacity. Factor of safety FS is also determined using Fig. 7.2 as follows:
𝑄
FS= 𝑄𝑢𝑙𝑡…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1.11
Qult in Eq. (7.12) is determined by multiplying qult with reduced footing dimensions. qult is determined
using Eq. (7.6) and Eq. (7.7) with reduced footing dimensions.
Special design techniques are available for sloping ground conditions under earthquake loading
conditions. Special design techniques are also for inclined base of footing under earthquake loading
conditions. Methods have also been developed to determine allowable bearing capacity of foundations
at top of slopes.

Fig. 7.2 Reduced area method for a footing subjected to a moment

These methods should be used with caution when dealing with earthquake analysis of soil that will
liquefy during design earthquake. The site could be impacted by liquefaction induced lateral spreading
and flow slides. Even if the general vicinity of the site is relatively level, the effect of liquefaction on
adjacent slopes or retaining walls should be included in the analysis. If the site consists of sloping
ground, a slope stability analysis should also be performed. Similarly, if there is retaining wall adjacent
to site, a retaining wall analysis should also be performed. Charts have been developed to determine the
bearing capacity factors for footings having inclined bottoms. During the earthquake, the inclined
footing could translate laterally along the sloping soil or rock contact. If a sloping contact of underlying
hard material will be encountered during excavation of footing, the hard material should be excavated
in order to construct a level footing that is entirely founded within hard strata.
7.3 GRANULAR SOIL WITH EARTHQUAKE INDUCED PORE WATER PRESSURE
Sometimes due to earthquake, granular soil doesn’t liquefy. However, there is reduction in its shear
strength due to increase in pore pressure. This situation is applicable to granular soils below
groundwater. Furthermore, factor of safety against liquefaction should be between 1 and 2 for the
analysis presented in this subsection.
Following equations are used.
For strip footing qult = 0.5(1-ru)γbB Nγ…………………………………………………………………..1.12
For spread footing qult = 0.4(1-ru)γbB Nγ ………………………………………………………………………1.13
where, ru = pore water pressure ratio. It is determined by determining factor of safety against
liquefaction of soil below footing base. Its value should be in between 1 and 2. When factor of safety
against liquefaction is greater than 2, Terzaghi bearing capacity equation can be applied by
incorporating the effect of ground water table to determine pore water pressure ratio (Wallace, 1961).

Fig. 7.3 Bearing capacity factors

γb = buoyant unit weight of soil below footing.

B = footing width
Nγ = bearing capacity factor based on effective friction angle as per Fig. 7.3.
Factor of safety FS is determined as follows:
𝑞
FS=𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...1.14
𝑎𝑙𝑙

qult in Eq. 1.14 is determined using Eq. 1.12 or 1.13. qall in Eq. 1.14 is allowable bearing capacity.

7.4 BEARING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FOR COHESIVE SOIL WEAKENED BY

EARTHQUAKE

Cohesive soils as well as organic soils can also be susceptible to a loss of shear strength during the
earthquake. In dealing with such soils, it is often desirable to limit the stress exerted by the footing
during the earthquake. The stress exerted should be less than the maximum past pressure of the
cohesive or organic soils. This prevents the soil from squeezing out. It also prevents soil from deforming
laterally from underneath footing.
 It is often very difficult to predict the amount of earthquake induced settlement for foundations
bearing on cohesive or organic soils. Consequently, in one approach adequate factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure of foundation is ensured. Ultimate bearing capacity is determined as follows:

For strip footing:

qult = 5.5su…….(16)
For spread footing
𝐵
qult = 5.5su (1+0.3 𝐿 )…..(7.17)
su is undrained shear strength, B is footing width and L is footing length. Factor of safety FS is
determined as follows:
𝑞
FS= 𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡…..(7.18)
𝑎𝑙𝑙
qult in Eq. (7.18) is determined using Eq. (7.16) or (7.17). qall in Eq. (7.18) is allowable bearing
capacity.
There are standard guidelines in terms of undrained shear strength that should be utilized for
earthquake engineering analysis (Triandafilidis, 1965). This guideline for selection of undrained shear
strength is given in subsections below.
7.4.1 Cohesive soil above groundwater table
These soils above groundwater table have negative pore pressures. This is due to capillary tension.
This tends to hold soil particles together. It also provides additional strength Undrained shear strength
should be determined by performing unconfined compression or vane shear tests under these
conditions. Due to negative pore pressure, a future increase in water content will tend to decrease
undrained shear strength of partially saturated cohesive soil. Consequently, possible change in water
content in future should also be considered. Ultimate strength obtained during unconfined compression
test should be used in bearing capacity analysis.
7.4.2 Cohesive soil below groundwater table having low sensitivity
Sensitivity is ratio of undrained shear strength of undisturbed soil to undrained shear strength of
completely remolded soil. Consequently, it represents loss of strength as cohesive soil is remolded.
Earthquake also tends to shear the soil back-forth. Furthermore, it also remolds it. For low sensitivity
soils (sensitivity < 4), reduction of undrained shear strength during earthquake is small. Consequently,
undrained shear strength from unconfined compression
or vane shear test should be used for bearing capacity analysis.
7.4.3 Cohesive soil below groundwater table having high sensitivity
For high sensitivity soils (sensitivity > 8), earthquake-induced ground shaking could lead to significant
shear strength loss during earthquake shaking. The stress-strain curve from an unconfined compression
test on such soils exhibits peak shear strength developed at low vertical strain. This is followed by
dramatic drop-off in strength with continued straining. Estimated reduction in undrained shear strength
due to earthquake shaking should be included in analysis. Most critical condition develops when such
soil is subjected to high static shear stress. If sum of static shear stress and seismic induced shear stress
during earthquake shaking exceeds undrained shear strength, there is significant reduction in shear
strength (Cunny and Sloan, 1961). Cohesive soils having sensitivity in between 4 and 8 tend to be
intermediate case.
 There are other factors also which may be considered in bearing capacity analysis. Peak ground
acceleration and earthquake magnitude is such factor. Higher the peak ground acceleration and higher
the magnitude of earthquake, greater the tendency for cohesive soil to be strained and remolded by
earthquake shaking. Undrained shear strength, sensitivity, maximum past pressure and stress-strain
behavior are other important soil behavior parameters, which should be included in the analysis.
Increase in shear stress due to dynamic loading should also be included in analysis. Lightly loaded
foundations tend to produce small dynamic loads. On the other hand heavy and tall buildings subject
foundation to high dynamic loads due to rocking. Finally it can be concluded that since so many
variables are involved, it takes considerable judgement in selection of undrained shear strength to be
used in Equations (7.16) and (7.17).

Finally, based on results of settlement analysis and bearing capacity analysis for both static and
dynamic conditions design recommendations such as minimum footing dimensions, embedment
requirements and allowable bearing capacity values are provided. Consequently, the objective of
earthquake resistant design of shallow foundations is achieved to support varied civil engineering
structures.

Mitigations for foundation susceptible to dynamic load

These general approaches for the mitigation of liquefaction hazards when designing or
constructing new buildings or other structures such as bridges, tunnels, and roads can be
summarized as follows:

1. Avoid liquefaction-susceptible soils: The first option is to avoid construction on liquefaction-

susceptible soils. Those sites that have thick deposits of soils that have a low
factor of safety against liquefaction can be set aside as parks or open-space areas.
Buildings and other facilities would be constructed in those areas that have more favorable
subsurface conditions.
2. Remove or improve the soil: The second option involves mitigation of the liquefaction
hazards by removing or improving the soil. For example, the factor of safety against liquefaction
can be increased by densifying the soil and/or by improving the drainage characteristics of the
soil. This can be done using a variety of soil improvement techniques;
such as removal and replacement of liquefiable soil; in situ stabilization by grouting,
densification, and dewatering; and buttressing of lateral spread zones.
3. Build liquefaction-resistant structures: For various reasons, such as the lack of available land,
a structure may need to be constructed on liquefaction-prone soils. It may be
possible to make the structure liquefaction-resistant by using mat or deep foundation
systems.

An important part of the grading of the site often includes the compaction of fill.
Compaction is defined as the densification of a fill by mechanical means. This physical
process of getting the soil into a dense state can increase the shear strength, decrease the
compressibility, and decrease the permeability of the soil.
Some examples of activities that can be performed during grading to mitigate earthquake effects
include the following:

1. Slope stabilization: Examples are the flattening of the slope, decreasing the height
of the slope, or increasing the factor of safety of the slope by constructing a fill buttress or
shear key.

2. Liquefaction-prone soils: If the liquefaction-prone soils are shallow and the groundwater table
can be temporarily lowered, then these soils can be removed and replaced with
different soil during the grading operations. Another option is to remove the potentially
liquefiable soil, stockpile the soil and allow it to dry out (if needed), and then recompact the
soil as structural fill.

3. Earthquake-induced settlement: one approach for level ground sites that can be used to reduce
the potential for liquefaction-induced ground damage, such as surface fissuring and sand boils, is
to add a fill layer to the site.
This operation could be performed during the grading of the site. It should be mentioned that this
method will provide relatively little benefit for sloping ground since it will not prevent structural
damage and surface fissuring due to lateral spreading.

4. Volumetric settlement and rocking settlement: Loose soils and those types of soils
that are susceptible to plastic flow or strain softening can be removed and replaced during the
grading operations. Another option is to remove the soil, stockpile the soil and allow it to dry
out, and then recompact the soil as structural fill.

Instead of removing and recompacting the soil during grading, another approach is to
use precompression, which is often an effective method of soil improvement for soft clays
and organic soils. The process consists of temporarily surcharging the soils during the grading
operations in order to allow the soils to consolidate, which will reduce their compressibility and
increase their shear strength.
5. Earthquake-induced bearing capacity: Similar to the options for settlement, poor
bearing soils can be removed and replaced or surcharged during the grading operations.
6. Drainage and dewatering systems: Drainage systems could be installed during the
grading operations.

For satisfactory design of machine foundation the geotechnical must:

 Establish the soil profile including, layering and depth to bedrock, physical
characteristics and classification of each layers, elevation of water table and groundwater
condition, and extent of lateral homogeneity.
 Determine with in-situ or laboratory tests the low strain value of shear modulus Gmax and
select proper value for poissons ratio v and damping ratio βo

The dynamic response of foundations and structures depends on the magnitude, frequency,
direction, and location of the dynamic loads. Furthermore, it also deals with the geometry of
the soil-foundation contact system, as well as the dynamic properties of the supporting soils
and structures.

Elements in a seismic response analysis are: input motions, site profile, static soil
properties, and dynamic soil properties, constitutive models of soil response to loading and
methodsof analysis using computer programs. The contents include: earthquake response spectra;
site
seismicity; soil response to seismic motion, design earthquake, seismic loads on structures,
liquefaction potential, lateral spread from liquefaction, and foundation base isolation.
Some special problems in geotechnical engineering dealing with soil dynamics and
earthquake aspects are discussed in the later chapters. Its contents include: liquefaction
potential of soil, foundation settlement, dynamic bearing capacity of foundations, stone columns
and displacement piles, dynamic slope stability and dynamic earth pressure in the context of
earthquake loading.

Earthquake actions differ from other structural actions in several important respects:
a) Earthquake actions are caused by ground accelerations with characteristics that
vary greatly from one earthquake to another and that are impossible to
accurately predict. Instead, ground accelerations base on probabilistic analysis are
used for design. There is always a residual risk that the earthquake actions will be
greater than the code specified design actions and buildings (including
foundations) should be made sufficiently robust to accommodate such
 ‘overloading’ in a progressive manner, so as to avoid sudden collapse (a
requirement of nZs1170.5).
b) The ground accelerations must be transmitted into the building by the
foundations. Compliance and yielding of the foundations may reduce the dynamic
response of the building by lengtheningthe natural period and increasing damping
(so calledsoil-structure-interaction effects).However, the resulting relative
displacements may damage the foundations and building service connections, and
the foundation rotations may increase the building displacements and place
additional demands on the superstructure.
c) Earthquake shaking may reduce the strength and stiffness of the founding soils and
the load bearing capacity of the foundations. Certain soils may lose
almost all of their strength and stiffness (i.e. liquefy). The resulting degradation in
foundation performance may jeopardize the stability and integrity of the building
structure and must be carefully considered (i.e. within the site assessment and
foundation selection process.
d) Earthquake shaking causes shear deformations within the ground below the
surface that induce bending strains in buried foundation elements, especially deep
piles, including both time dependent and permanent strains (i.e.kinematic loads in
deep foundations). These strains are in addition to those caused by inertial loads
from the building and may damage the piles such that they can no longer safely
carry the weight of the building. Kinematic effects are most pronounced where
deep piles pass through liquefied soil layers.
e) The inertial response of the building induces dynamic, cyclic loading of the
foundations thatincrease settlements by a process of ‘ratcheting’.
f) Earthquake actions include lateral loads from building inertia applied at the
foundation level (and sometimes moment loads), simultaneous with vertical load.
The lateral and moment loads may reduce the vertical bearing capacity of shallow
foundations and cause structural damage to deep foundations the overturning
forces may result in a net uplift load being applied to individual foundation
elements. Deep foundations may be used to resist these uplift loads.All of these
effects place demands on foundation performance that are additional to those
 from the gravity and other load combinations and require careful consideration
and evaluation. Performance of the site and site subsoil during earthquake shaking
are critically important to meeting foundation performance objectives.

DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

Design Parameters

In evaluating the soil behavior under earthquake motion, it is necessary to know the
magnitude of the earthquake. It is also necessary to describe the ground motion in terms
that can be used for further engineering analysis. Historically, design earthquake waves
were specified in terms of the peak acceleration. However, more modern techniques use
the response spectrum or one or more time histories of motion. It has been concluded that
the most reliable method for accomplishing this is to base the studies on data obtained at
the site. A second choice is to find another site similar in geologic and seismic setting
where ground motion was measured during a design level magnitude earthquake.
However, this will usually not be possible, and estimates of ground motion based on
correlations and geologic and seismologic evidence for the specific site will become
necessary.

Factors Affecting Ground Motion: Factors that affect strong ground motion include:

(a) Wave types:S and P waves that travel through the earth, as well as the surface
waves that propagate along the surfaces or interfaces.

(b) Earthquake magnitude: there are several magnitude scales. Even a small magnitude
event may produce large accelerations in the near field. Consequently, a wide variety
of acceleration for the same magnitude may be expected.
(c) Distance from epicenter or from center of energy release.
(d)Site conditions.
(e) Fault type, depth, and the recurrence interval.
 Fig. 5.3 Example of attenuation relationships in rock

Engineers can define a design earthquake for a site in terms of the earthquake magnitude,
M. It is also defined in terms of the strength of ground motion. Factors influencing the
selection of a design earthquake are the length of geologic fault structures, relationship
between the fault and the regional tectonic structure, the rate of displacement across the
fault, the geologic history of displacement along the structure, and the seismic history of the
region. The design earthquake in engineering terms is a specification of levels of ground
motion. At this level of ground motion, the structure is required to survive successfully with
no loss of life, acceptable damage, or no loss of service. A design earthquake on a statistical
basis considers the probability of the recurrence of a historical event.
Earthquake magnitudes can be specified in terms of a design level earthquake.
This level of earthquake can reasonably be expected to occur during the life of the
structure. As such, this represents a service load that the structure must withstand
without significant structural damage or interruption of a required operation. A second
level of earthquake magnitude is a maximum credible event for which the structure
must not collapse. However, significant structural damage can occur. The inelastic behavior
of the structure must be limited to ensure the prevention of collapse and catastrophic
loss of life during earthquake.


.