27/12/2020

Dynamic Bearing
Capacity of Shallow
Foundation
Ahmad Safuan A Rashid

Introduction
• The function of a foundation is to transmit load from superstructure to
substructure, i.e. soil. Before a foundation can be designed, it is
essential to understand the theory of ultimate bearing capacity, qu.
Ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the smallest pressure that
causes shear failure to soil supporting the foundation. Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity equations and Meyerhof’s general bearing capacity equations
will be discussed in this chapter. In addition, it will be assumed that the
soil supporting the footing is homogeneous and relatively dense or firm,
and the failure mode of the soil is categorized as general shear failure.
• Two important aspects must be considered in foundation design,
• the load applied to the foundation should not cause shear failure to
soil supporting it
• the foundation should not undergo excessive settlement.
• In most cases however, settlement is the governing factor in foundation
design.

1
 27/12/2020

Introduction
• The static bearing capacity of shallow foundations has been extensively
studied and reported in literature.
• However, foundations can be subjected to single pulse dynamic loads
which may be in vertical or horizontal directions.
• The dynamic loads due to nuclear blasts are mainly vertical.
• Horizontal dynamic loads on foundations are due mostly to
earthquakes.
• These types of loading may induce large permanent deformation in
foundations.
• Isolated column footings, strip footings, mat footings, and even pile
foundations all may fail during seismic events.
• Such failures are generally attributed to liquefaction (a condition where
the mean effective stress in a saturated soil reduces to zero).
• However, a number of failures have occurred where field conditions
indicate there was only partial saturation or a dense soil and therefore
liquefaction alone is a very unlikely explanation.

Introduction
• Rather, the reason for the seismic settlements of these foundations
seems to be that the bearing capacity was reduced (Richards et
al.,1993).
• Though large amount of information on the dynamic bearing capacity of
foundations is available in literature, it is mostly based on theoretical
procedures and not supported by field data.
• However, one must keep in mind that, during the analysis of the time
dependent motion of a foundation subjected to dynamic loading or
estimating the bearing capacity under dynamic conditions several
factors need to be considered.
• Most important of these factors are
a) nature of variation of the magnitude of the loading pulse,
b) duration of the pulse, and
c) strain-rate response of the soil during deformation

2
 27/12/2020

Introduction
Shallow foundation is a foundation whose depth below the surface, z, is
equal to or is less than its least dimension, B. z ≤B.
 Type of shallow foundation:
a) Pad footing
b) Strip/Continuous footing
c) Raft/ Mat foundation

Introduction
a) Pad footing
Generally an individual foundation designed to carry a single column load
although there are occasions when a pad foundation supports two or more
columns.

3
 27/12/2020

Introduction
b) Strip / Continuous footing
Often termed a continuous footing this foundation has a length significantly
greater than its width. It is generally used to support a series of columns or a
wall.

Introduction
c) Raft / Mat foundation
This is a generic term for all types of foundations that cover large areas. A
raft foundation is also called as a mat foundation.

4
 27/12/2020

Introduction
 Factors in the design:
 Adequate depth
 Limiting settlement
 Safe against shear failure

Introduction
 Adequate depth
 The depth of footing must be sufficient to prevent any changes in surface
conditions, horizontal loads and strong overturning moments.
 To prevent frost action and volume change effect, the depth of footing
should more than 1.2 m and 1.5 m respectively.

10

5
 27/12/2020

Introduction
 Limiting Settlement
 Guidelines to limiting settlement by Skempton and MacDonald, 1956:

 Sand - Maximum total settlement 40 mm

 Clay - Maximum total settlement 60 mm

11

Introduction
 Safe against shear failure
 Shear failure occurs when the soil divides into separate blocks or zones
which move fully or partially and tangentially with respect to each other,
along slip surfaces.
 Conventionally, the factor of safety to use in design against shear failure is
more than 3.0.

12

6
 27/12/2020

Modes of Shear Failure

13

Modes of Shear Failure

 General shear failure
 This occurs when a clearly defined slip surface forms under the footing
and develops outward towards one or both sides and eventually to the
ground surface.

14

7
 27/12/2020

Modes of Shear Failure

 Local shear failure
 Significant vertical movement may take place before any noticeable
development of shear plane occurs.

15

Modes of Shear Failure

 Punching shear failure
 This is a downward movement of the foundation caused by soil shear
failure only occurring along the boundaries of the wedge of soil
immediately below the foundation.

16

8
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity of Soil

17

Bearing Capacity of Soil

• Shape factor

• Depth factors (Df/B ≤ 1)

• Depth factors (Df/B > 1)

• Inclination factors (b = inclination angle of load with respect to vertical plane)

18

9
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity of Soil

• Both Terzaghi’s and Meyerhof’s ultimate bearing capacity equations, qu
consist of three terms, i.e.
• c term ~ cNc (c is referred to soil cohesion below the base of footing),
• q term ~ qNq (q is referred to overburden due to soil above the base of
footing) and
• γ term ~ γBNγ (γ is referred to the unit weight of soil below the base of
footing).

19

Bearing Capacity of Soil

• Consider the diagram of a shallow foundation as shown. Calculate the
allowable bearing capacity using Meyerhof’s equation for the following
conditions assuming vertical load will be applied. Use a safety factor FS
= 3.0.
• The ground water table is at the base of the footing
• The ground water table is 1.3 m below the ground surface

20

10
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity of Soil

21

Bearing Capacity of Soil

22

11
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity of Soil

23

Bearing Capacity of Soil

24

12
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity of Soil

25

Bearing Capacity in Sand

• The static ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations subjected to vertical loading can be
given by the equation

• In sands, with c = 0, becomes

26

13
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity in Sand

27

Bearing Capacity in Sand

• The preceding equations for static ultimate bearing capacity evaluation are valid for dense sands
where the failure surface in the soil extends to the ground surface as shown in Figure 6.1.
• This is what is referred to as the case of general shear failure.
• For shallow foundations (i.e., Df /B ≤1), if the relative density of granular soils RD is less than
about 70%, local or punching shear failure may occur.
• Hence, for static ultimate bearing capacity calculation, if 0 ≤ RD ≤ 0.67, the values of φ in should
be replaced by the modified friction angle.

28

14
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity in Sand

• This, in effect, corresponds to a decrease in the angle of friction of soil by about 2o when the
loading velocity reached a value of about 50.8 × 10-3 mm/s.

29

Example
• A square foundation with dimensions B × B has to be constructed on a dense sand. Its depth is Df
= 1 m. The unit weight and the static angle of friction of the soil can be assigned representative
values of 18 kN/m3 and 39o, respectively. The foundation may occasionally be subjected to a
maximum dynamic load of 1800 kN increasing at a moderate rate. Determine the size of the
foundation using a safety factor of 3.

30

15
 27/12/2020

Example

31

Bearing Capacity in Clay

32

16
 27/12/2020

Bearing Capacity in Clay

• The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations resting on saturated clay soils can be estimated by
using Equations provided the strain-rate effect due to dynamic loading is taken into
consideration in determination of the undrained cohesion.
• Unlike the case in sand, the undrained cohesion of saturated clays increases with the increase of
the strain rate.
• Based on those results, Carroll (1963) suggested that cu(dyn) /cu(stat) may be approximated to be
about 1.5.
• Definition of strain rate under a foundation

33

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Buckingham P-Theorem

34

17
 27/12/2020

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
• Dimensional analysis is a method for deducing elements of the form of a
theoretical relationship from consideration of the variables and parameters
that make up that relationship.
• Dimensional analysis of a problem then leads to a reduction in the number of
variables that must be studied in order to understand the problem.
• The key is to create dimensionally homogeneous equations whose form does
not depend on the units of measurement.
• Governing equations cannot just be plucked from the air: they must come
from an underlying insight into the phenomenon that is being modelled

35

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
• The theory of dimensional analysis is encapsulated in Buckingham's theorem
• Buckingham ' s π theorem states that:
• If there are n variables in a problem and these variables contain m primary
dimensions (for example M, L, T) the equation relating all the variables will
have (n-m) dimensionless groups.
• Buckingham referred to these groups as π groups.
• πl = f(π2, π3 ,….. πn-m )
• The π groups must be independent of each other and no one group should be
formed by multiplying together powers of other groups.

36

18
 27/12/2020

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
• This method offers the advantage of being more simple than the method of
solving simultaneous equations for obtaining the values of the indices (the
exponent values of the variables).
• In this method of solving the equation, there are 2 conditions:
• a. Each of the fundamental dimensions must appear in at least one of the m
variables
• b. It must not be possible to form a dimensionless group from one of the
variables within a recurring set. A recurring set is a group of variables forming
a dimensionless group.

37

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
• Fundamental quantities most commonly employed are based on Newton’s
second law which states that the rate of change in momentum of a body is
proportional to the applied force. This give,

Force  Change of momentum / time

Since
momentum = mass x velocity
and
acceleration = velocity / time

Therefore
Force  mass x acceleration

38

19
 27/12/2020

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
Making unity out of constant value,

Force = mass x acceleration

The relation above if expressed dimensionally will give,

[F] = [M][LT-2]

where
[F] dimension of force [M] dimension of mass
[L] dimension of length [T] dimension of time

39

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
• The equation relates four dimensions, [F], [M], [L] and [T].
• Therefore while [L] and [T] is fundamental dimensions required for geometry
and kinematics, the thirds fundamental dimensions in dynamics can be either
force [F] or mass [M](resistance of accelaration).
• The choice of these quantities depends upon the measuring system i.e
whether to employ the MLT system (SI system) or the FLT system (British
system).
• However, in this work, since mass is the fundamental physical quantity, the
latter are employed in deriving the dimensionless value of the equations.

40

20
 27/12/2020

BUCKINGHAM’S P-THEOREM
• Selection of the relevant independent parameters can be quite difficult,
the resolution of relate problem required sufficient experience.
• Dimensional analysis associate with Buckingham’s pi-theorem provide
useful hint in determining the various factors that involved in the
analysis and relevant data to be collected.

41

SLOPE IN COHESIVE SOIL

• An example - the factor of safety (Fs) of a slope formed in purely cohesive soil.
• f (Fs,H , θ, cu, γ, D) ; n = 6
• f ([1] ,[L],[1], [FL-2],[FL-3],L) ; m =2
• f (Fs, cu/γH, θ, D/H) ; n– m = 4

Slope in cohesive soil

42

21
 27/12/2020

SLOPE IN COHESIVE SOIL

43

FALL CONE
• The fall-cone used as a quick measure of undrained strength in the
laboratory.
• f (d, W, cu, α) ; n = 4
• f ([L], [F], [FL-2], [1]) ; m =2
• f (cud2/W, α); n-m = 2

44

22
 27/12/2020

BEARING CAPACITY
• Relationship ultimate load on a footing
• f (Pu, L, B, d, cu, ϕ,γ) ; n = 7
• f ([F], [L],[L],[L],[FL-2], [1],[FL-3]) ; m = 2
• f (Pu/γB2L, L/B, d/B, cu/γB,ϕ); n-m= 5

45

VERTICAL CUT
• f(Fs, α, γ, cu, h) ; n = 5
• f([1], [1], [FL-3], [FL-2], [L]); m = 2
• f(Fs, α,cu/γh); n-m = 3

cu
h γ

46

23
 27/12/2020

Behavior of Foundations Under

Transient Loads
• A limited number of laboratory tests for observation of load-settlement
relationships of foundations under transient loading are available (Cunny and
Sloan, 1961; Shenkman and McKee, 1961; Jackson and Hadala, 1964; Carroll,
1963).
• Load-settlement observations of square model
footings resting on sand and clay and subjected to
transient loads have been presented by Cunny and
Sloan (1961).
• The model footings were of varying sizes from 114.3-
228.6 mm squares and were placed on the surface of
the compacted soil layers.
• The transient loads to which the footings were
subjected were of the nature.
• The nature of the settlement of footings with time
during the application of the dynamic load is also
shown in the same figure.

47

Behavior of Foundations Under

Transient Loads
• In general, during rise time, tr of the dynamic load, the settlement of a footings
increases rapidly. Once the peak load,Qd(max) is reached, the rate of settlement
with time decreases.
• However, the total settlement of a footing continues to increase during the
dwell time of the load, tdw and reaches a maximum value, Smax at the end of the
dwell time.
• During the decay period of the load, tde the footing rebounds to some degree.
• These facts show that, for a limiting settlement condition, a foundation can
support higher load under dynamic loading conditions than those observed
from static tests.

48

24
 27/12/2020

Dynamic Load versus Settlement

Prediction in Clayey Soils
• Jackson and Hadala (1964) reported several
laboratory model tests on 114.3- 203.2 mm
square footings resting on highly saturated,
compacted, plastic Buckshot clay.
• The tests were similar in nature to those
described previously in this section.
• Based on these results, Jackson and Hadala
have shown that there is a unique
nondimensional relation between Qd (max) /B2
cu and Smax /B (cu is undrained shear
strength). Based on tdw = 0.
• However, for dynamic loads with tdw > 0, the
results would not be too different.

49

Dynamic Load versus Settlement

Prediction in Clayey Soils
• Jackson and Hadala (1964) have
recommended the following procedure for
that purpose:
1. Determine the static load Q versus
settlement S relationship for a foundation
from plate bearing tests in the field.
2. Determine the unconfined compression
strength of the soil quc in the laboratory.
quc = 2cu
3. Plot a graph of Q/B2cu versus Sstat /B .
4. For any given value of Sstat /B , multiply Q
/B2cu by the strain rate factor (≈1.5) and plot it
in the same graph. The resulting graph of Sstat
/B versus 1.5Q/B2cu will be the predicted
relationship between Qd (max)/B2cu and Smax /B .

50

25
 27/12/2020

Dynamic Load versus Settlement

Prediction in Clayey Soils

51

Dynamic Load versus Settlement

Prediction in Clayey Soils

52

26
 27/12/2020

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil
• Figure below shows a failure surface in soil assumed for the subsequent
analysis, under static conditions and under earthquake conditions.

53

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil
• According to this theory, the ultimate bearing capacities for continuous
foundations in granular soil are

54

27
 27/12/2020

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

55

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

56

28
 27/12/2020

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

57

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

58

29
 27/12/2020

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

59

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

60

30
 27/12/2020

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

61

Seismic Bearing Capacity and

Settlement in Granular Soil

62

31