reduction in the foundation bearing capacity ‘ontcomes from the load inclination and eccentricity fon the foundation and not fiom the soil ineria forces (Dormieux -Pecker, 195). 3, GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE FOUNDATION BEARING CAPACITY Assuming tha ll he factors listed under paragraph 2 fare properly accounted for, the dynamic. bearing Capacity of surficial foundation can be examined from ‘wo different approaches. Probably, the most rigorous approach woul be to develop & global model (inte clement’ model) including both the soil andthe structure. Obviously, ifthe analysis is meant to be sigaifeant, a realistic nonlinear constitutive soil model must be used ‘Owing to this last constraint, 0 eompater limitations and also to the fact that development of a globst inodel would require competence in geotechnical cogineering, stroctaral engineering, soilstructre interaction, masrerical analysis, such an approach is seldom used in everyday practice. ‘The alternative approach, which represents the stats of practice today, is fo uncouple the evaluation fof dynamic loads (a structural engineer task), from the verification of the bearing capacity (a geetechnical engineer task). This Js x so-called Substructure approach which saffers the following shortcomings which, up t0 now, have not clearly been evaluate: the evaluation of the dynam loads is based on an clastic analysis ofthe soibstructre syste, at most, some degree of non-linearities can be accounted for in an approximate manner, but how the dynamic loads are affected by yielding of the foundation is ‘sually not evaluated; recently, Paolucci (1997) has shown that the base shear’ transmitted by the superstructure may differ from that predicted from a classical linear elastic soll structure interaction analysis, if sil yielding is accounted for, the bearing capacity # checked using @ pseudo- Static approach, in which only the maximamt loads acting on the foundations are considered, 3 Pseudo-Static Exaluations Up to very recently, the seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations was checked using. classical bearing expacity formulae in which te seismic action is regarded as an equivalent static force and loa eccentricity and inclination are tested as correction factors (S and i) to the Ny Ne and Ny bearing capacity factors. The ultimate bearing capacity L YBS iN, + C8. iEN, +45, ig Ng (DD 2 Recently, methods based on limit equilibriam analyses (Chen 1990, Salengon 1983) have emerged taking into account the soil inertia foces (Sarma, Isossfelis 1990, Budo, AL-Kami 1993, Richards et 31 1993), All those methods, although they present Sgnifcant improvements on’ the preceding bearing capacity equation, suffer limitations which restric: she significance oftheir findings: the horizontal accelerations of the soll and of the structure are assured to have the same, magnitude and to act in the same direction, this is e severe limitation sce there is no reason why both the structure and the sil should respond in an identical snare t a given motion; + resus aze based on an assumed feilre surface ‘which is similar co an asyermetric Prancis mechanism (Sarma, Iossfels) or a simpliled version oft (Richards etal). This mechanism does nat allow for any uplift of the foundation which can be significant fr high horizontal accelerations; «all these methods are upper bound solutions to the true bearing capacity problem, but no indicotion of their goodness is given by comparison with lower bound estimates. Based on their results, all authors conclude that the incorporation of inertia forces in thc soil esuts in ‘2 dramatic reduction in the bearing capacity of a foundation, However, as shown by Dormieux Pecker (1995), the major reduction outeores from the load inclination and eccentricty on the foundation; the incorporation of the inertia forces in the soils only contributes for an vxkltionsl stall redaction (for a Coolomb's material). This result tmay have important implications for seismic building odes, since only few solutions are avalebie 263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