Reliability Analysis of Bearing Capacity

of Shallow Foundations

Faiçal Bendriss and Zamila Harichane

Abstract Reliability-based analyses are therefore more rational

This paper presents a reliability analysis of the bearing
capacity of a shallow foundation by the FORM method
and Monte Carlo Simulations. A strip foundation posed
on a coherent soil exposed to a concentrated vertical load
was assumed. The probabilistic methods were used to
estimate the failure probability of the foundation. A nu-
merical example was conducted in order to test the
applicability of the two methods in problems dealing with
bearing capacity of foundations. The probability of failure
of foundations was successfully obtained with both
methods.
because they consider the natural (or random) uncertainty of
each dataset. Numerous studies have been carried out on the
reliability analysis of the bearing capacity of superficial
foundations over the last twenty years by different
researchers [5–7].
2 Probability of Failure
Reliability analyses offer a rational context for capturing
uncertainties in a foundation design [8]. Two variables are
commonly utilized for assessing the reliability: the reliability
index and the failure probability. Generally, a failure is given

Keywords
Reliability Bearing capacity Strip footing by a performance function g(
) [9]. The failure probability is
FORM Monte Carlo given as:
Z
pf ¼ Ig ð xÞfx ð xÞdx ð1Þ
gðxÞ\0
1 Introduction
where
Over the past 75 years, several theories have been proposed 
1 si GðxÞ  0
to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow founda- Ið xÞ ¼ ð2Þ
tions [1–4]. The bearing capacity of a shallow foundation 0 si Gð xÞ [ 0
can be assessed by deterministic as well as stochastic
methods. Deterministically, the existing equations and dia-
grams are used to evaluate the acceptable load capacity of 3 Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS)
foundations. The safety factor used in the deterministic
approach takes into account the natural variability of statis- The Monte Carlo simulations have been successfully used in
tical uncertainty, measurement errors and analytic model engineering applications. The probability of failure can be
limitations which is a tool to limit deformations. But this written as follows:
factor does not accurately reflect random uncertainty.
1X m  

pf ¼ Ig xðkÞ ð3Þ
m k¼1

where m is the number of samples.

F. Bendriss (&)
Z. Harichane
Geomaterial Laboratory, University Hassiba Benbouali of Chlef,
Ouled Farès, Algeria
e-mail: fa.bendriss@univ-chlef.dz

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 335

A. Kallel et al. (eds.), Recent Advances in Geo-Environmental Engineering, Geomechanics and Geotechnics,
and Geohazards, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01665-4_77
336
4 First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
The FORM method makes it possible to write the probability
of failure equation in terms of a normal cumulative distri-
bution function U(
):
pf ¼ 1  UðbÞ ¼ UðbÞ
5 Results and Discussion
A strip footing of width B = 4.51 m and length L = 25 m,
embedded in a soil mass at a depth Df = 1.8 m. The foun-
dation is subjected to a horizontal load Qh applied at a point
2.5 m above the base and vertical load applied to the center
with a value Qv. The unit weight of the soil equals
21 KN/m3. The input parameters c, u, Qh and Qv were
assumed lognormally distributed random variables with
mean values of 15; 25; 300 and 1100, respectively, and with
coefficients of variation (Cvs) equal to 0.20; 0.10; 0.15 and
0.10, respectively.
To study the bearing capacity failure, a performance
function (PerFunc) is defined as:
PerFunc ¼ qu  q
where
Qv
q¼
B0
1
qu ¼ cBNc Sc dc ic gc bc þ qNq Sq dq iq gq bq þ cNc Sc dc ic gc bc
2
In these equations, qu is the ultimate bearing capacity,
q the applied load. Nc , Nq and Nc are the bearing capacity
factors. Sc , Sq and Sc are shape factors. dc , dq and dc are
depth factors. ic , iq and ic are load inclination factors. gc , gq
and gc are soil inclination factors.
In a simple example, the probability of failure is obtained
with FORM method and Monte Carlo simulations by vary-
ing the vertical load values Qv while the other input
parameters vary randomly. As it may be observed in Fig. 1,
the two methods give similar results. The probability of
failure is low for relatively small vertical loads and increases
as the vertical load increases. Principally, this example was
achieved to make a comparative study between the two
probabilistic methods and how to apply them in geotechnical
calculations. However several applications may be carried
varying the different parameters governing the bearing
capacity and according to different models.
F. Bendriss and Z. Harichane
100%
Probability of failure (%)
80%
FORM
60%
MCS
40%
ð4Þ 20%
0%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
VerƟcal load Qv (KN/m)
Fig. 1 Probability of failure due to vertical load and random input
parameters
6 Conclusion
The reliability analysis of bearing capacity of shallow
foundations was carried in this study using two different
methods: FORM and MCS. Through the treated example
consisting in varying a vertical concentrated load and taking
into account the uncertainties in the input parameters
(c, u, Qh and Qv), it was found that both methods give
similar results. Also, as the vertical load increases the failure
probability increases. However a deeper study should be
ð5Þ
carried in order to make conclusions on the design of
foundations in media with random parameters due to
uncertainties made during measurements or due to inherent
variability of soil properties.
ð6Þ
References
ð7Þ
1. Terzaghi, K.: Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York (1943)
2. Meyerhof, G.G.: Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 1(1), 16 (1963)
3. Hansen, J.B.: A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing
Capacity. Bulletin No. 28. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copen-
hagen (1970)
4. Vesic, A.S.: Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99(1), 45 (1973)
5. Cherubini, C.: Reliability evaluation of shallow foundation bearing
capacity on c′, u′ soils. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 264–269 (2000)
6. Sivakumar Babu, G.L., Srivastava, A., Murthy, D.S.: Reliability
analysis of the bearing capacity of a shallow foundation resting on
cohesive soil. Can. Geotech. J. 43(2), 217–223 (2006)
7. Belabed, L., Bencheikh, M.: Analyse semi-probabiliste de la
capacité portante des fondations superficielles. Revue Française de
Géotechnique n° 124, 61–75 (2008)
8. Nadim, F.: Tools and strategies for dealing with uncertainty in
geotechnics. In: Probabilistic Methods in Geotechnical Engineering,
pp. 71–95, Italy (2007)
9. Bucher, C.: Computational Analysis of Randomness in Structural
Mechanics. Taylor & Francis, London (2009)