98 PAOLUCCI AND PECKER two methods in the case of centered and eccentric (e/ B=0.25) inclined loads. The results are shown in Figs. (a) and 5(b) respectively. Qualitative good agreement of the predictions, both in terms of shape and dimensions of the velocity fields, can be noted, In addition, under ec- centric load, the uplift of the foundation is predicted by both methods. Applying the kinematic approach to the previous foun- dation system, the interaction curve illustrated in Fig. 6 was obtained, representing the combinations of horizon- tal (H) and vertical (V) loads which cause the failure of the system. For low values of vertical load, the interac- tion curve tends to coincide with the line H=Vand, indicating a sliding failure mechanism. The results provided by static finite element analyses for several cases of inclined and eccentric loads are illustrated by dots in, the same figure. Generally, the limit loads obtained by finite elements are ~ 10-15% larger than those provided by the kinematic approach, due to the greater rigidity of the finite element mesh. It is well known that for cohesionless soils the hypothe- sis of an associative flow rule, implicitly required to give a sense to the kinematic approach (in terms of upper ‘bound solution), gives rise to unrealistically large volu- metric strains and to the overestimation of the ultimate load (see e.g. Chen and Liu, 1990). Compared to the ex- treme case of @ non-associative flow rule with dilation prevented, our finite element analyses show that the as- sociative assumption leads to an overestimation of the ul- timate load by ~40% (Fig. 6), with volumetric strains at failure approximately two times greater than those ob- tained in the non-associative case. Obviously, the latter are of a purely elastic nature. COMPARISON WITH RECENT EXPERIMENTAL DATA Several experimental researches (e.g. Ingra and Beacher, 1983; Zadroga, 1994) have shown that the N, values calculated by the classical solutions of the theory of plasticity are generally much lower (up to ~ 100%) than those obtained from laboratory models. Due to the ‘uncertainty upon the accurate evaluation of N,, it is meaningful to present the results in a format normalized o) WAN ANAS SASS Fig. oad, Same as a) but foram eccentric load H (MP0) V (MPa) Fig. 6, Solid line interaction curve derived by the kinematic approach on a Mohr-Coulomb soil with e=80 kPa, 630°, 615° ‘and eccentricity ratio e/ B=0 lett), e/ B= 0.25 (right). Small squares indicate the ultimate bearing capacity ob Bosdm, no lateral overburde a) Velocity fields predicted by stale finite element analysis (up) and assumed in the present kinematic approach (down). Case of centred 2.0 18) tel ¢/8=0.25 14! ° 4 8 12 v (MPa) ISKN/m?, {ained by finite element simulations with associated (Glled) and non-assocated flow rues (empty)SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY 9 by the ultimate bearing capacity (Vau=qu- B) under verti- cal centered load. This permits the study of the seismic effects on the bearing capacity merely in terms of reduc- tion factors with respect to the static case, neglecting the problem of the accurate evaluation of the NY, factor (or Vos) This approach was followed by Butterfield and Gottardi (1994), who proposed, based upon accurate laboratory tests, an analytical expression of the three- dimensional interaction curve for shallow foundations on sands, subjected to inclined and eccentric loads. As confirmed also by the experimental work of Nova and Montrasio (1991), the failure locus is approximately in- dependent of the soil density Effect of Load Eccentricity ‘According to Butterfield and Gottardi, the bearing capacity reduction due to load eccentricity, for the case of dry sands, is determined by: e 035-B V/ Vea. Equation (7a) is illustrated in Fig. 7, together with the curve provided by the present method, and the curve of equation (7a) co) which matches the results of the kinematic approach. The agreement with the experimental curve is good, at least for eccentricity ratios e/B<0.3. Effect of Load Inclination ‘The interaction curves in the hv plane (=H Vass)s as determined by Butterfield and Gottardi (1994) and by the present method, are compared in Fig. 8, together with the experimental points derived from the works of Nova and Montrasio (1991) and Gottardi and Butterfield (1993). These points lie approximately between the two curves. The results of the kinematic approach, for a co- 12 Kinematic approech 1.0] Equation (7a) Equation (7b) Vox o 1 2 3 4 5 eccentricity ratio «/8 ig. 7. Bearing capaclty reduction due to load eccentricity on co- Iesionlesssolls without lateral overburden eet cee ‘> Goltordi end Butterfield (7995) Nowa end Montraso (1981) Butterfield ond Gottardi (1994) cquation (8) Fig. 8. Comparison of the h—pinteraction curves obtained by labora- ‘tory tests and by the present method hesionless material, are approximated rather accurately by the equation: h=0.850(1 V0) ® It should be noted that (8), apart from the 0.85 factor, follows directly a well-known formula for the bearing capacity reduction factor due to load inclination, in the case of a cohesionless material (see e.g. Vesic, 1975), namely: 0 EFFECT OF SOIL INERTIA ON BEARING CAPACITY ‘As already mentioned in the introduction, the previous studies of the seismic effects on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations did not clearly identify the effect of soil inertia, acting alone. The method discussed herein ‘was applied to study the reduction of the bearing capaci- ty factors due to the application of a horizontal volume force f= ks fy f, being the weight of the soil and ky a seis- mic coefficient. The results are presented in terms of the ratios 2.=Ne/ Ny Z=Nee/ Non 2)=Nye/ Nps Between the seismic (Ne Ngo, Nye) and the static (Ne, Non Nj») bear- ing capacity factors (Fig. 9). Whereas z. was found to be independent of the friction angle, z, and z, can be approx- imated by the following equation: 1 ky/tan oy" (ao) ‘These results were also confirmed by static finite ele- ment analyses and clearly indicate that, at least for a range of reasonable values of the pseudo-static seismic coefficient (k,<0.3), the bearing capacity reduction due to the effects of the inertia of the soil is small and does not exceed ~ 15-20%. It should also be noted that the kinematic approach predicts the failure of the founda- tion for k,=tan@, which corresponds to the general fluidization level according to Richards etal. (1990).