incorporating. soil inertia forces; could they be elected, it will make the skation simpler for designers A more elegant solution to the problem is provided by the concept of bounéing surface in Which che loading parameters are teated as independent parameters, "To this end, the yield design theory provides = rigorous teatment of the problem (Salengon, 1983, 1994), This theory belongs to the category of Sint analysis methods. Alike any limit analysis method, the derivation of upper bound and lower bound Solutions allows to bracket the exact solution and possibly to determine it exactly when both bounds Enincide. A proper application of the yiekl design theory mguines the knowledge of = the problem geometry; in the following, the Foundation is assumed to be a stip footing resting on the surface of an hornogeneous halfspace: fhe materials strengths; they refer t0 the soil Iv are represented by a Tresea strength sive soil) or 8 Mobs-Covlomb strength criterion (@ry cobesionless soil) and to the soil foundation interface which is assumed without tensile strength to allow for uplift between the soi! and the Foundation; serengths wt certerion (ct the loading parameters; fve independent loading pamaneters are considered in the derivation of the bounding surface: the normal force N, the horas shear force T, the overturing moment Mand the soil inertia forces Fx C= pg ka) and Fy (© 9 & ky) in ‘the herizontal and vertical direction. “The set of admissible toads fs located within a surface, defined in the londing. parameters space, called the bouting surface. QIN TM FoR) 50 @ In the case where Fy = Fy = 0, experimental evidence of equation @) has been piven by FButterfie! - Gottard: (1994) and Kitazurme ~ Terasht (199), ‘This approach fas teen followed by Pecker Salengon (1991), Salengon Pecker (1995 (a) and (2), Paolucci Pecker (1997) 32. Dynamic epproach ‘As noted previously, the forces ting om the foundation or within the soll wass vary with tine, ‘They can exceed the avaiable resistance of the foundation soil-system for short periods withous leading to a general Faure of the foundation. This i fan essential diference berween static, pesmanen, Toading and dynamic, time-varying louding. Ia the fist instance, an excessive load generates a general failure, whareas the second situation induces permanent, isteversible displacements which Superimpose 10 the eyele displacements. Failure can therefore be to longer defined as a situation in which the safety factor deops below 1.0. Ke must rather ke defined a8 excessive permanent displacements which impede the proper functioning of the structure. This definition, fat introduced by Newmark (1965) has teen successfully applied t0 the design of dams, gravity retaining walls assimilating the potentially ‘unstable soil ass toa igi siding block. has also been used for the bearing capacity of foundations (Garmna- losseflis, 1990; Richards etal, 1993) This method has bees further extended, relaxing the condition of rigid soil blocks and considering 3 riore tealistic deformable body, as it is sctually Assumed in the computed fallure mechanisms. The soil foundation system is assumed to behave as an clastic perfectly plastic system, in which the bounding furface defined previously, is adopted as. the boundary for the apparition of plastic deformations. Using the kinetic energy theorem, the angular velocity of the foundation and is permar displacement can be computed (Pecker - Saleryon, 199%, Pecker 1996). Under the assumptions spelled above, the method permits a rigorous definition of failure in terms of unacceptable permanent displacements, The reader is referred to these references and also to Paolucci (1997) for additional Gerais on this topic which is not futher developed herein 4, _ SIMPLIFIED FORMULA FOR COHESIVE SOILS Solutions to the bearing capacity of shallow stip footings resting on the surface of a cohesive hnlfspace have been obcained by Pecker - Salengon (1991, Salengon - Pecker (1995 a and b) for a soi obeying a Tresca strength criterion with or without tensile strength. These solutions were derived from the static andthe kinematic approaches ofthe theany‘Wivoutupi Figute 1. Example of Kinematic Mects wipe anisms - Cohesive sis Figure 2. Skeletal View of the Bounding Surface for Cobesive Soils and it was shown that both, the lower bound and the fpper bound solutions, were very close to each Ther, giving therefore an almost exact solution 10 the problem ‘The most prominent kinematic tnechanisms used are presented in figore 1 in two ‘Sinatione: without uphft of the foundation and. with tpl The fist situation is prevailing for small toad ‘cocentticies or inclinations whereas the second one foverns when these to partmeters become Ginificant These mechanisms depend upon three feomettic parameters for which the optimum values, {Ohi minnie the maximum resisting work, are numerically determined. “A cimple dimensional analysis shows that he esos can be expressed in terms of the fee + MS opr c where C is the soil undained shear strength B the foundation width ard N, T, M, Fa, the four independent loading paraureters, since for a Tresea ‘tength criterion F, does not play any roe. nthe case where Fis ri and fora soil without tensile strength the bounding surface is presented in fgute 2, only the upper part of the surfice corresponding to M 20 is presented in igure 2 Inthe general ease, the folowing equation has been fount appropriate 19 define the bounding surface! 265in which the parameters a. § and. .. have dexermiped numerically 45070, b= 1.29, ¢ 44, gw 1.22, Equation (3 is valid under the constraints ocaR st. [isi When F = HM = T= 0, equation (3) reduces to the well known bearing eapacity formula: n+ CB ® When F = 0 and Mv 0, T «0, equation (©) can be viewed as an extension of Meyerhotts formula for eccentic- inclined loads With non zero values of F the soil inertia forces), the following conclusions can be derived (Pecker Salengon 1991, Pecker et al. 1995): + for normally encountered ground, accelerations, characterized by a value F 2, and for foundations for which Ns 25, ie, for fonndations with « safety factor higber than 2.0 under & vertical centered load, the effect of the sol seismic forces can be neplected without loss of accuracy. For foundations with lower safety ftctors, the sol seismic forces induce a drematic reduction in the bearing capacity. This i Hustrated in figure 3 Which presents cross-sections of the bounding surface for various values of F | Fae] 5.0. SIMPLIFIED FORMULA FOR DRY ‘COHESTONLESS SONS Solations for the cobestonless soil, obeying Coulora's strength erterion with or without tensile strength, have been obtained within the framework Of the Yiekl design theory (Salengon - Josseron, 1904), The kinematic mechanisms of the upper bound approach are similar 10 those presented in ‘gure 1, provided the arc of circles are replaced by log spi, Based on the results of Salengon-Josseron (1994), and on additional results using the same theory’ Paolaced Pecker, 1997), a simplified formula has been developed for the equation ofthe bounding. surface preserving the same general expression given by equation (3) Figure 3, Bounding Surfaces Restricting our presentation to the case of a purely cohesionless soil (C= 0) and intrndacing the aimmensional variables: in which Nox isthe ultimate load under a vertical centered force YBN, oy & be