International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

on partially liquefiable saturated sand

M. F. Mansour, M. A. Abdel-Motaal & A. M. Ali

To cite this article: M. F. Mansour, M. A. Abdel-Motaal & A. M. Ali (2016) Seismic bearing
capacity of shallow foundations on partially liquefiable saturated sand, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 10:2, 123-134, DOI: 10.1179/1939787915Y.0000000020

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1939787915Y.0000000020

Published online: 04 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 29

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20

Download by: [Dr Mohamed Mansour] Date: 15 May 2016, At: 05:24
 Seismic bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on partially liquefiable saturated
sand
M. F. Mansour*1, M. A. Abdel-Motaal1 and A. M. Ali2
The seismic bearing capacity of partially liquefiable saturated sand is investigated by numerical analysis.
An empirical correlation in the literature assumes a punching shear mechanism, which underestimates
the seismic bearing capacity due to omission of the q-term. In this paper, the effects of the footing width,
soil relative density, foundation depth, and maximum seismic acceleration on the seismic bearing capacity
of partially liquefiable saturated sands are investigated. The results show that the foundation depth has
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

a remarkable effect on the seismic bearing capacity. Hence, the failure mode is not likely punching. The
seismic bearing capacity of partially liquefiable saturated sands is redefined with new seismic bearing
capacity factors, Nq and Nγ. The paper presents also a guideline to estimate the allowable seismic bearing
capacity considering both the ultimate and serviceability limit states.
Keywords: Seismic bearing capacity, Shallow foundations, Partially liquefiable saturated sand, Punching shear mechanism, Finite element analysis, Post-
earthquake settlement

Introduction
The behavior of loose to medium saturated sands subjected
to seismic loads is quite complex. These soils suffer from the
generation of excess pore pressures, which causes a reduction
in the soil shear strength. Seed and Idriss (1971) defined the
factor of safety against liquefaction (FSliq) as the ratio between
the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and the cyclic stress ratio
(CSR). Very loose and loose saturated sands have FSliq lower
than unity; i.e. they lose their shear strength during seismic
excitation and completely liquefy. On the other side, dense
and very dense sands experience low excess pore pressures,
and the shear strength is not affected by the seismic shaking.
Day (2010) considered that saturated sands are completely
safe against liquefaction when FSliq is higher than 2.0. In the
intermediate zone of partially liquefiable soils; i.e. FSliq lies
between 1.0 and 2.0, the excess pore pressures lead to decreas-
ing the effective stresses, and, hence, the shear strength and
seismic bearing capacity are reduced (Day 2010). Dickenson et
al. (2002) indicated that full liquefaction should be considered
to occur when FSliq is lower than 1.1. They indicated also that
for FSliq higher than 1.4, the excess pore pressures are very
low, and, hence, the sand shear strength should not be reduced.
The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) recommended
that FSliq of 1.5 is appropriate for building sites (BSSC 1997).
1
Ain Shams University, Egypt
2
Engineering Consultants Group S. A. (ECG), Egypt
The Euro Code states that sands with FSliq lower than 1.25 are
susceptible to liquefaction (Eurocode 8 – Part 5, 1998).
The seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting
on partially liquefiable sands did not receive the deserved atten-
tion in the literature. Many researchers investigated the problem
of the seismic bearing capacity of liquefiable sand overlain by
a non-liquefiable clay crust. Naesgaard et al. (1998) assumed
that punching shear failure will occur in the clay crust along
with a wedge-type failure within the liquefiable sand layer,
and developed an equation to calculate the factor of safety
against bearing capacity failure. Cascone and Bouckovalas
(1998) investigated the same problem, and proposed a formula
to compute the degraded internal friction angle of the liquefia-
ble sand due to excess pore pressure generation. Bouckovalas,
Valsamis and Andrianopoulos (2005) suggested a modifica-
tion to the expression of the degraded internal friction angle
by Cascone and Bouckovalas (1998) to include the effect of
the residual shear strength of the liquefied sand. Karamitros,
Bouckovalas, Chaloulos and Andrianopoulos (2013) conducted
an effective stress finite difference analysis to study the bear-
ing capacity degradation of liquefiable sand overlain by a clay
crust. Karamitros et al. (2013) presented a relationship between
the clay crust thickness and the footing width in order to avoid
the hazard of soil liquefaction.
Day (2010) derived an expression to calculate the seismic
bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting directly on
partially liquefiable saturated sand. According to Day (2010),
partially liquefiable sand corresponds to FSliq in the range of
1.0–2.0. Day (2010) assumed that the likely mode of failure is

*Corresponding author, email Mohamed.Mansour@eng.asu.edu.eg

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

Received 23 June 2015; accepted 15 August 2015
DOI 10.1179/1939787915Y.0000000020 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering    2016  VOL. 10  NO. 2 123
 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
punching shear. Hence, the q-term of the bearing capacity equa-
tion is omitted, as shown in equation (1)
1 The groundwater table is taken at the foundation level. A rela-
qult = B𝛾 N (1 − ru ) (1)
2 sub 𝛾
where B is the footing width, γsub is the buoyant unit weight
of the soil beneath the footing, Nγ is the bearing capacity factor,
which was suggested by Day (2010) to be taken equal to the
static value, and ru is the pore pressure ratio (the ratio between
the excess pore pressure and the effective stress). Day (2010)
recommended determining the pore pressure ratio from the
charts developed by Marcuson and Hynes (1990).
In this paper, the validity of Day's assumptions is investigated
by numerical analysis. The seismic bearing capacity of partially
liquefiable saturated sands without an overlying clay crust is
investigated. The most adverse consequence of partially lique-
fiable sands is the value of the permanent settlement after the
end of an earthquake episode. Several researchers indicated
that post-earthquake deformations are actually driven by static
forces rather than dynamic forces (Finn, Yogendrakumar, Lo and
Yoshida 1988; Law et al. 2005; Kourkoulis, Anastasopoulos,
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
Gelagoti and Gazetas 2010; US Bureau of Reclamation, 2012).
USBR (2012) pointed out that many observations of embank-
ment instability from seismic loading indicated that most of
the deformation occurs after the end of the seismic episode.
Therefore, the permanent deformation of saturated sands should
be calculated by redistributing the unbalanced stresses during
the earthquake using a static numerical analysis.
An extensive parametric study is conducted where the ulti-
mate seismic bearing capacity of partially liquefiable sand is
determined from the stress–settlement curve. Different footings
widths, foundation depths, soil density conditions, and input
motion intensities are investigated. The conducted analyses are
two-dimensional plane strain analyses. Hence, strip footings
only are investigated. A non-linear dynamic constitutive model
is adopted to characterize the soil response. The output of the
seismic analysis is introduced into a static load-deformation
analysis to redistribute the seismic stresses and calculate the
permanent deformations.
Soil profile
The soil under study is partially liquefiable sand, i.e. with a
factor of safety against liquefaction ranging from 1.0 to 2.0
according to Day (2010). Preliminary calculations are per-
formed to determine the range of the standard penetration test
corrected blows count (NSPT) that corresponds to the range of
factor of safety of 1.0–2.0. The factor of safety against lique-
faction is calculated using the simplified procedure by Seed and
Idriss (1971). Three peak ground accelerations of 0.10, 0.15,
and 0.20 g are applied at the bottom of a 15 m-deep saturated
sand deposit. At each peak acceleration value, the upper and
lower bounds of NSPT, which correspond to factors of safety of
1.95 and 1.05, respectively, are back calculated. The results
are shown in Fig. 1. The figure shows that partially liquefiable
sands correspond to NSPT range of 10–30, which is the range
of medium dense sands. Therefore, NSPT of 10, 15, 20, 25, and
30 are chosen for the parametric study.
The soil profile beneath the footing consists of 10.0 m-thick
medium dense sand layer followed by a 15.0 m-thick dense
124 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO.
sand layer, which overlies a very dense sand layer having a
thickness of 15.0 m. The soil profile is illustrated in Fig. 2.
tively big thickness of the medium dense sand layer is adopted
to simulate an extended deposit beneath the foundation level.
Hence, the seismic bearing capacity and the post-earthquake
settlement are conservatively estimated.
Parametric study
Four strip footings widths are investigated: 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, and
7.0 m. The relative density (Dr) is varied according to NSPT of 10,
15, 20, 25, and 30. The corresponding relative density values
are 35.0, 42.5, 50.0, 57.5, and 65.0%. The effect of the foun-
dation depth (Df) is investigated by comparing the behavior of
surface footings (Df = 0.0 m) with that of footings founded at
1.5 m below the ground surface. Therefore, the primary study
involves 40 analyses. In each analysis, the stress–settlement
curve is constructed by varying the applied pressure at the
foundation level and calculating the permanent post-earthquake
settlement after the end of the seismic shaking.
Methodology
The numerical analyses are conducted in three steps using the
finite element program GeoStudio 2007. The three steps are
explained as follows:
1. The initial effective static stresses due to the soil own
weight and the footing pressure are established by con-
ducting a two-dimensional plane strain finite element
analysis. The lower boundary is fixed in the horizontal
and vertical directions. The side boundaries are restrained
in the horizontal direction, as shown in Fig. 2. The ele-
ment size around the footing is taken 0.5 m, and the mesh
gets coarser towards the lower and side boundaries. For
surface footings, i.e. zero foundation depth, the footing
is simulated as a beam element. For 1.5 m-deep footings,
the footing is simulated as a solid element.
2. A seismic finite element analysis is conducted based on
the output of the static analysis. The input earthquake
motion is applied at the lower boundary of the model
(horizontal and vertical fixation). The side boundaries are
restrained in the vertical direction only to ensure that the
earthquake waves are not radiated back into the investi-
gated domain. Preliminary sensitivity analyses have indi-
cated that a boundary distance of six times the footing
width ensures a minimal effect of the model boundaries
on the results (see Fig. 2). The finite element mesh has
the same configuration as the static mesh except for the
side boundary conditions.
3. The seismic shear stresses and excess pore pressures are
calculated from the seismic analysis. The results are used
as input for a static finite element analysis to calculate the
permanent post-earthquake deformation resulting from
the exceedance of the shear strength by the seismic shear
stresses.
A stress–settlement relationship is plotted by varying the
applied stress and calculating the post-earthquake settlement.
Typically, four to eight points are used to plot each stress–set-
tlement curve.
2
 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

1 Ranges of NSPT values corresponding to peak accelerations of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 g
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

2 Geometrical configuration of the numerical model showing the finite element mesh

Input motion
The input motion used to perform the seismic analysis is an
artificial earthquake acceleration–time history based on the
standard response spectrum of the Uniform Building Code
(Abdel-Motaal 1999), as shown in Fig. 3. The acceleration–
time history is applied at the lower boundary of the model.
Preliminary analyses are conducted to determine the peak
ground acceleration at the lower boundary of the model such
that the peak acceleration response (amax) at the foundation level
equals 0.15 g. The artificial earthquake duration is taken 20 s.
Additional numerical simulations are conducted to investigate
the effect of changing the earthquake intensity on the ultimate
seismic bearing capacity. Mokhtar, Abdel-Motaal and Wahidy
(2014) concluded that the lateral seismic displacement of piles
in liquefiable soils is slightly affected when the earthquake
duration increases from 20 to 40 s. Hence, the earthquake dura-
tion is taken 20 s in the conducted analyses.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2 125

 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

definitions of the excess pore pressure variation and the vol-

umetric changes that occur due to the seismic shaking. These
parameters are discussed in the following sections.

Maximum shear modulus (Gmax )

The empirical formula proposed by Seed and Idriss (1970) is
used, in SI units, to calculate the maximum shear modulus, as
shown in equation (2)
( )0.5
Gmax = 218.79 ∗ K2,max ∗ 𝜎m� (2)
where Gmax is the maximum shear modulus (kPa), K2,max is a unit-
less factor that depends on the value of the relative
) density, and
3 Artificial earthquake acceleration–time history with
𝜎m′ is the mean principal stress 𝜎v� + 2 ∗ K0 𝜎v� ∕3 (kPa) (kPa).
(
duration of 20 s and peak ground acceleration of 0.15 g
Seed and Idriss (1970) provided guide values for the factor
(after Abdel-Motaal 1999)
K2,max, based on the relative density. Seed, Wong, Idriss and
Tokimatsu (1984) reported that the value of K2,max for gravels
ranges from 80 to 180. Table 2 shows the K2,max values used
Table 1 Strength and deformation parameters in the static
analyses
in this study. The values of Gmax are defined in the numerical
model as a function of the effective vertical stress.
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

Internal friction Elastic deformation

Soil layer angle,φ (degrees) modulus, E (MPa)
Medium 32, 33, 34, 35, and 40.0 Damping and maximum damping ratios
dense sand 36
Dense sand 37 75.0 The damping ratio is calculated from the correlation developed
Very dense 40 150.0 by Ishibashi and Zhang (1993). The correlation accounts for
sand the effects of the mean principal stress, the plasticity index (for
cohesive soils), and the modulus reduction factor (G/Gmax), as
shown in equation (3)
Constitutive models and material
[ )2 ]
1 + exp(−0.0415PI1.3 ) G G
(
𝜉 = 0.333 0.586 − 1.547 +1 (3)
2 Gmax Gmax
properties
This section presents the constitutive models adopted in the where
static and seismic analyses, and the values of the material prop- G ( )m(𝛾,PI)−m0
erties of the different soil types. = K(𝛾, PI) 𝜎m� (3.a)
Gmax

Static conditions { [ ( )0.4 ]}

0.000102 + n(PI)
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion is used to define the constitu- K(𝛾, PI) = 0.5 1 + tanh In
𝛾 (3.b)
tive behavior under static conditions; i.e. the constitutive law
is elastic-perfectly plastic. The investigated materials have no
cohesion. Poisson's ratio (ν) is taken 0.33 for all layers. Table
1 summarizes the strength and deformation parameters used { [ ( )0.4 ]}
0.000556
in the static analyses. m(𝛾, PI) − mo = 0.272 1 − tanh In
𝛾
exp(−0.0145PI1.3 ) (3.c)

Seismic conditions 0.0 for PI = 0

3.37 ∗ 10−6 PI1.404 for 0 < PI ≤ 15 (3.d)
The non-linear dynamic constitutive model is selected to sim- n(PI) =
7.0 ∗ 10−7 PI1.976 for 15 < PI ≤ 70
ulate the soil behavior in the seismic analysis. The non-linear 2.7 ∗ 10−5 PI1.115 for PI >70
dynamic model computes the excess pore pressures at each time
step during the earthquake shaking, and, hence, can simulate
Table 2 Values of K2,max
the generation of the excess pore pressure and the subsequent
decrease in the effective stress during the earthquake. Soil type NSPT (unitless) K2max (unitless)
The stress–strain relationship in the non-linear dynamic
Medium dense sand 10 31
model can be approximated by a hyperbolic curve (Kramer 15 40
1996; Kramer and Elgamal 2001). The curve is defined by two 20 50
parameters; the slope at zero strain (the maximum shear mod- 25 60
30 69
ulus, Gmax) and the asymptotes at large strains (the maximum Dense sand 30–50 70
shear strength, τ). The non-linear dynamic model requires also Very dense sand >50 80

126 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2


Excess Pore Pressure (Δu) function
Several methods are available in the literature to define the
excess pore pressure function. The methods are based on stress
path models, volumetric strain models and empirical models
(Ishihara, Tatsuoka and Yasuda 1975; Martin, Finn and Seed
1975; Seed, Idriss and Arango 1983; Wu 1996; Wu 2001). The
volumetric strain model by Martin et al. (1975) is adopted in
this study. Martin et al. (1975) defined the excess pore pressure
Δu, as shown in equation (4)
Δu = Er ⋅ Δ𝜀vd (4)
where Δu is the excess pore pressure, Er is the rebound or the
recoverable modulus, and Δεvd is the incremental plastic volumet-
ric strain that would occur under drained cyclic loading conditions.
The approach by Martin et al. (1975) relates the volumetric
strain resulting from a simple shear test on a soil specimen
under drained cyclic loading conditions and the excess pore pres-
sure generated under undrained cyclic loading conditions. The
adopted dynamic constitutive model requires definitions of the
recoverable modulus (Er) and the incremental plastic volumetric
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
strain (Δεvd). Hence, the excess pore pressure (Δu) is calculated.
Martin et al. (1975) calculated the rebound modulus (Er) from the
results of unloading tests in the oedometer apparatus. Hence, the
recoverable or rebound modulus is taken equal to the unloading–
reloading modulus (Eur). The value of Eur for sandy soils is taken
three times the secant modulus at 50% of the failure stress (E50).
According to Schanz, Vermeer and Bonnier (1999), the value of
E50 can be determined from equation (5), as follows
( � )m
𝜎3
E50 = Eref ⋅ (5)
pref
where 𝜎3′ is the effective confining pressure, which equals the
at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) times the effective vertical
stress (𝜎v′ ), pref is the reference pressure (100 kPa), m is a stress
exponent and equals 0.5 for cohesionless soils (Janbu 1963),
and Eref is the modulus corresponding to the reference pressure.
The value of Eref is taken equal to NSPT in units of megapascals
(Schanz and Vermeer 1998).
Martin et al. (1975) developed a four constants equation to
calculate the plastic volumetric strain increment (Δεvd), as
shown in equation (6)
C3 𝜀2vd
Δ𝜀vd = C1 𝛾 − C2 𝜀vd +
( )
𝛾 + C4 𝜀vd
The volume change constants, C1, C2, C3, and C4, are related to
the soil density. The plastic volumetric strain increment (Δεvd)
is a function of the total accumulated volumetric strain (εvd)
and the amplitude of the current shear strain (γ). Bhatia (1982)
conducted extensive laboratory tests to determine the volume
change constants for sand with relative densities of 45, 54,
60, and 68%. Interpolation is used to estimate the values of
the volume change constants that correspond to the relative
densities investigated in this study (35.0, 42.5, 50.0, 57.5, and
65.0%), based on Bhatia (1982) results. The volumetric strain
functions for the different values of NSPT are shown in Fig. 4.
Steady-state strength (Css)
Sladen, D'Hollander and Krahn (1985) defined the collapse
surface as the line passing through the peaks of the effective
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO.
Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
stress paths of triaxial specimens subjected to undrained mono-
tonic loading, and truncated at the steady-state strength (Css).
The collapse surface is defined by two parameters; the collapse
surface angle and the steady-state strength (Css). Its slope is
taken two-thirds the critical state or the steady-state line slope
(Kramer 1996). The steady-state strength (Css) is computed by
the equation developed by Stark and Mesri (1992), based on
the initial effective stress and the corrected SPT blows number
equivalent to clean sand condition (N160-cs), as shown in equation
(7)
Sr
= 0.0055 N1 60−cs (7)
( )
�
𝜎vo
where Sr is the residual strength, and 𝜎vo
′
is the effective vertical
stress.
Stark and Mesri (1992) computed the “Residual strength” (Sr)
not the “Steady-state strength” (Css). The “Residual strength”
is defined as the shear strength that can be mobilized by an ele-
ment of soil when strained monotonically to very large strains
(Kramer and Elgamal 2001). In this study, the steady-state
strength (Css) is considered equal to the residual strength (Sr).
Analysis results
This section presents the results of the numerical analysis
conducted to calculate the ultimate seismic bearing capacity
of partially liquefiable sands. The investigated parameters are
the footing width (B), the relative density (Dr) represented by
the corrected SPT blows count (NSPT), the foundation depth
(Df), and the peak acceleration response at the foundation level
(amax).
A stress–settlement curve is constructed for each case by
applying different contact stresses, running static and seis-
mic finite element analyses, and calculating the permanent
post-earthquake deformation. The ultimate stress is defined
as the value above which the settlement tends to be infinite.
Graphically, two tangents are drawn from the first and last
points on the curve. The intersection of the two tangents defines
the ultimate seismic bearing capacity, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
Ultimate Seismic bearing capacity
Table 3 summarizes the values of the ultimate seismic bearing
(6)
capacity obtained from the numerical model (called hereinafter
4 Volumetric strain functions at a shear strain amplitude
of 0.2% considering different NSPT values (by
interpolation of Bhatia 1982 results)
2 127
 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

that extends to a depth of B below the foundation level. Table

4 shows the values of the pore pressure ratio (ru). The case
of Df = 0.0 m is used to calculate the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity based on Day (2010) equation, because the equation
assumes a nil effect of the foundation depth on the ultimate
seismic bearing capacity (punching shear failure assumption).
Examining the results shown in Figs. 7–11, the following
can be established •:
1. The numerical seismic bearing capacity increases in
general with the footing width, not according to a per-
fect linear relationship like the ultimate static bearing
capacity. This is attributed to the effect of the excess
pore pressure, which does not increase linearly with the
footing width.
5 Stress–settlement curves for NSPT = 20 and B = 3.0 m 2. The numerical seismic bearing capacity for a foundation
depth of 1.5 m is always larger than the corresponding
value for a surface footing. This indicates that the founda-
the numerical seismic bearing capacity). Samples of the stress– tion depth affects the seismic bearing capacity of medium
settlement curves are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the cases of dense saturated sands. The effect of the foundation depth
NSPT = 20 and footing widths of 3.0 and 5.0 m. Each figure shows is investigated in more detail in the following section.
two curves; one for the case of a foundation depth (Df) of 0.0 m, 3. In comparison with the numerical results, the empiri-
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

and the other for the case of Df = 1.5 m.
Effect of the footing width (B)
Figures 7–11 show the effect of the footing width on the ulti-
mate static and seismic bearing capacity. The numerical seismic
bearing capacity is compared with the ultimate static bearing
capacity and the ultimate seismic bearing capacity calculated
assuming punching shear failure (Day 2010).
The ultimate static bearing capacity (qult-net) is calculated
from the general bearing capacity equation, which is expressed
as follows for a strip footing resting on a cohesionless soil
1 that the seismic bearing capacity factor, Nγ, should not
qult-net = q.Nq + B𝛾2 N𝛾 − q (8)
2 be taken equal to the static value, as suggested by Day
where q is the effective overburden stress at the foundation
level. The bearing capacity factors, Nq and Nγ, are calculated
from the following equations
( )
𝜑�
Nq = e𝜋 tan 𝜑 tan2 45 +
�
(8 – a)
2
N𝛾 = Nq − 1 ⋅ tan (1.4𝜑� )
(8 – b)
( )
In order to calculate the ultimate seismic bearing capacity
from Day (2010) equation, the pore pressure ratio (ru) should
be determined. The pore pressure ratio is calculated from the
output of the seismic analysis as the average value in the zone
cal equation by Day (2010) overestimates the ultimate
seismic bearing capacity of surface footings. The over-
estimation increases with both the footing width and the
soil relative density (or NSPT). For footings founded at a
depth of 1.5 m, the empirical equation underestimates
the ultimate seismic bearing capacity for NSPT = 10, 15,
and 20. For NSPT = 25 and 30, the empirical equation
underestimates the ultimate seismic bearing capacity
for footing widths smaller than 6.0 and 5.0 m, respec-
tively, whereas it overestimates the ultimate seismic
bearing capacity for greater footing widths.
4. The overestimation of the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity of surface footings by Day's equation suggests
(2010). This observation is confirmed by comparing
the slopes of the curves of the static and numerical
seismic bearing capacity. The slopes of the numerical
seismic bearing capacity curves are 0.48–0.54 times the
corresponding static bearing capacity slopes. The slope
of the ultimate bearing capacity versus footing width
relationship reflects the combined effects of the buoyant
unit weight of the soil beneath the footing, the bearing
capacity factor Nγ, and the pore pressure ratio, ru.
5. The numerically calculated pore pressure ratios in Table
4 are smaller than those determined from Marcuson
and Hynes (1990) charts. For example, for the cases of
NSPT = 10 and 15, the factor of safety against liquefaction
calculated by the simplified procedure of Seed and Idriss

Table 3 Numerical seismic bearing capacity, qult(s), (kPa)

B = 1.0 m B = 3.0 m B = 5.0 m B = 7.0 m

NSPT Df = 0.0 m Df = 1.5 m Df = 0.0 m Df = 1.5 m Df = 0.0 m Df = 1.5 m Df = 0.0 m Df = 1.5 m

10 58 230 150 350 230 470 320 630
15 78 290 180 440 290 570 390 750
20 85 505 210 600 335 710 470 780
25 110 550 270 640 370 770 500 880
30 120 600 300 700 460 840 670 1000

128 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2


6 Stress–settlement curves for NSPT = 20 and B = 5.0 m
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
7 Effect of footing width on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 10)
8 Effect of footing width on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 15)
(1971) for a peak ground acceleration of 0.15 g is < 1.0
(refer to Fig. 1). This corresponds to a pore pressure ratio
of 1.0, i.e. zero seismic bearing capacity. For the cases
of NSPT = 20, 25, and 30, the values of the factor of safety
against liquefaction based on the simplified procedure
equal 1.1, 1.4, and 2.3, respectively. The corresponding
ru values equal 0.6, 0.2, and 0.05, according to Marcuson
and Hynes (1990) charts. The numerical analysis yields
smaller values of the pore pressure ratio, except for the
case of NSPT = 30 where the empirical and numerical val-
ues are in practical match.
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO.
Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
9 Effect of footing width on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 20)
10 Effect of footing width on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 25)
11 Effect of footing width on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 30)
The results shown in Figs. 7–11 indicate that the empirical
equation suggested by Day (2010) neglects the effect of the
foundation depth, which leads to a remarkable underestimation
of the ultimate seismic bearing capacity of partially liquefiable
sands. Regarding the γ-term, the equation overestimates the
value of the bearing capacity factor Nγ, which overestimates
the bearing capacity, i.e. on the unsafe side. Moreover, Day
(2010) suggested the use of Marcuson and Hynes (1990) charts
to determine the pore pressure ratio. The numerical results show
that Marcuson and Hynes (1990) charts overestimate the value
of the pore pressure ratio.
2 129
 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Table 4 Pore pressure ratio (ru) deduced from the seismic numerical analysis

Df = 0.0 m Df = 1.5 m

NSPT B = 1.0 m B = 3.0 m B = 5.0 m B = 7.0 m B = 1.0 m B = 3.0 m B = 5.0 m B = 7.0 m

10 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.34
15 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.27
20 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.16
25 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.13
30 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06

Effect of the foundation depth (Df)

The numerical analysis results indicate that the ultimate seis-
mic bearing capacity of footings founded at a depth of 1.5 m is
greater than the ultimate seismic bearing capacity of surface
footings. Additional numerical analyses are conducted for the
cases of NSPT = 20 and NSPT = 25 with a foundation depth of 2.5 m,
as shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. These figures show
that the numerical seismic bearing capacity versus foundation
depth relationship can be approximated by a linear trend line.
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

The slope is nearly the same for both footing widths, and is
about 0.38–0.50 the slope of the ultimate static bearing capacity
curve.
12 Effect of foundation depth on the ultimate static and
seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 20)
Seismic bearing capacity factors
The results shown in the previous two sections indicate that
the ultimate seismic bearing capacity should include a q-term
in addition to the γ-term. Hence, the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity equation can be written in the following form:
1
qult = q.Nq + B ⋅ 𝛾sub ⋅ N𝛾 ⋅ 1 − ru (9)
( )
2
This section analyzes the study results in order to estimate
representative values of the seismic bearing capacity factors,
Nq and Nγ. Considering that the seismic bearing capacity versus
foundation depth relationship can be approximated by a linear
trend line (see Figs. 12 and 13), the results shown in Table
3 can be used to determine the value of the seismic bearing
capacity factor, Nq. The slope of the seismic bearing capacity 13 Effect of foundation depth on the ultimate static and
versus foundation depth relationship for a strip footing equals seismic bearing capacity (NSPT = 25)
γ1*Nq. The unit weight above the foundation level (γ1) is taken
18.0 kN m− 3 in the conducted analyses. Therefore, the value of
the seismic bearing capacity factor Nq for the studied medium lower than the static value. This indicates a reduced contribu-
dense saturated sand can be calculated as follows tion of the q-term to the ultimate seismic bearing capacity, but
q − Df = 1.5 − qult − Df = 0.0 not a zero effect, as assumed by Day (2010).
Nq = ult The calculation of the seismic bearing capacity factor, Nq,
𝛾1 ⋅ D f and the pore pressure ratio, ru, for each of the investigated cases
(10)
qult − Df = 1.5 − qult − Df = 0.0 enable calculating the seismic bearing capacity factor, Nγ. The
= calculated Nγ values are plotted against the internal friction
18 ∗ 1.5
Equation (10) assumes that the pore pressure ratio is the same angle in Fig. 15. As for the Nq results, the seismic bearing capac-
for foundation depths of 0.0 and 1.5 m. Referring to Table 4, the ity factor, Nγ, is smaller than the corresponding static value.
differences in the pore pressure ratio values between the Df = 0.0 The predictive capability of the deduced equation and the
and 1.5 m cases are not expected to have a big impact on the seismic bearing capacity factors is checked by calculating the
calculated values of Nq from equation (10). Figure 14 shows a ultimate seismic bearing capacity from equation (9), based on
plot of the minimum, maximum, and average seismic bearing the average Nq and Nγ values from Figs. 14 and 15, and the ru
capacity factor, Nq, versus the internal friction angle φ. The values from Table 4. The predicted values are compared with
figure shows also the static bearing capacity factor Nq for com- the values deduced from the stress–settlement curves (Table
parison. The seismic bearing capacity factor Nq is considerably 3). The error is within ± 20%.

130 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2

 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

Allowable seismic bearing capacity where;

The allowable seismic bearing capacity is the important output
that concerns the design engineer rather than the ultimate bear-
ing capacity. Under static conditions, the minimum allowable
factor of safety ranges from 2.5 to 3.0, and could be greater
to satisfy the allowable settlement tolerance (serviceability
requirements). Under seismic conditions, the calculation of
the post-earthquake permanent deformation cannot be usually
quantified with high certainty. This leads to conservative esti-
mates of the factor of safety against seismic bearing capacity
failure. Day (2010) recommended a factor of safety of 5.0
against seismic bearing capacity failure.
The numerical analyses conducted in this paper yield stress–
settlement curves for the investigated cases. The calculated
numerical seismic bearing capacity values correspond to con-
siderably high values of settlement. Obviously, these values
cannot be accepted from a serviceability point of view.
Using the suggested factor of safety by Day (2010) as a
guide, the allowable seismic bearing capacity versus settle-
ment relationships are developed by considering safety factors
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
qult(a) is the ultimate seismic bearing capacity at the desired
peak acceleration response (kPa).
qult(0.15 g) is the ultimate seismic bearing capacity at a peak
acceleration response of 0.15 g (kPa).
a is the peak acceleration response at the foundation level
(g).
m is the slope of the linear relationship.
The value of the slope m varies with NSPT and the footing
width, as shown in Fig. 23.
Discussion
The study focuses on saturated sands with FSliq in the range of
1.0–2.0. Hence, the investigated sands may not be completely
liquefiable but experience excess pore pressures during seismic
excitation that may lead to a drop in the effective stresses and,
hence, the seismic bearing capacity. The literature is not con-
sistent with respect to the definition of FSliq above which the
sand is said to be completely safe against liquefaction, as sum-
marized in the Introduction section. This study covers a range of

starting from 3.0 and up to 12.0. The results are shown in Figs. FSliq that encompasses the limits defined by different codes and
16–20 for the case of a foundation depth of 1.5m, since the case investigators. The results show that both excess pore pressures
of a surface footing is investigated only to check the assump- and post-earthquake deformations control the value of the safe
tions of the empirical equation by Day (2010). The curves can FSliq above which the sand is safe against liquefaction.
be used to determine the stress corresponding to the specified
allowable post-earthquake settlement by the design code.
It has to be noted that the above results are applica-
ble for the case of a peak acceleration response at the
foundation level of 0.15 g, and a medium dense sand layer
thickness of 10 m. The medium dense sand layer thickness
has a significant effect on the settlement value. Additional
analyses are conducted for a 5 m-wide footing resting on
varying thicknesses of the medium dense sand layer, i.e.
10.0, 7.0, and 4.0 m. The value of NSPT of the medium dense
sand is taken 20. The applied stress equals 100 kPa. The
results are shown in Fig. 21. The settlement is significantly
reduced when the medium dense sand layer thickness is
decreased.

Effect of the peak acceleration response (amax) 14 Bearing capacity factor, Nq, of medium dense sand
for static and seismic conditions
All the previous analyses are conducted by applying an artificial
earthquake acceleration–time history at the lower boundary,
such that the peak acceleration response at the foundation level
(amax) equals 0.15 g. Additional analyses are conducted in order
to investigate the effect of the peak acceleration response (amax)
on the value of the ultimate seismic bearing capacity. Footing
widths of 3.0 and 5.0 m founded at 1.5 m, and NSPT of 15, 20,
and 25 are selected for the additional study. Peak acceleration
responses of 0.3 and 0.4 g are investigated. Figure 22 shows
the effect of the peak acceleration response on the ultimate
seismic bearing capacity for the studied cases. As expected,
the ultimate seismic bearing capacity decreases as the peak
acceleration response increases. A linear trend equation may
mathematically express the degradation of the ultimate seis-
mic bearing capacity. Therefore, the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity at peak accelerations >0.15 g can be estimated from
the following equation
15 Bearing capacity factor, Nγ, of medium dense sand
qult(a) = qult(0.15g) − m ∗ (a − 0.15) (11) for static and seismic conditions

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2 131

 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations

16 Stress–settlement curve for different footing widths 18 Stress–settlement curve for different footing widths
(NSPT = 10, Df = 1.5 m) (NSPT = 20, Df = 1.5 m)
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016

17 Stress–settlement curve for different footing widths 19 Stress–settlement curve for different footing widths
(NSPT = 15, Df = 1.5 m) (NSPT = 25, Df = 1.5 m)

The terms related to liquefaction susceptibility need to be

clearer in the literature. The threshold above which complete
liquefaction occurs is different from the threshold that causes
the excess pore pressures to reduce the seismic bearing capacity.
Karamitros et al. (2013), for example, investigated the seismic
bearing capacity of saturated sands, overlain by clay crust, with
relative densities of 40, 50, and 60%, and they described the
sand as “liquefiable.” The results by Karamitros et al. (2013)
indicate that this sand is not completely liquefiable but rather a
partially liquefiable sand that experiences excess seismic pore
pressure leading to bearing capacity decrease. The Euro Code
definition does not clearly indicate whether sands with FSliq
higher than 1.25 are completely safe against liquefaction such 20 Stress–settlement curve for different footing widths
that the seismic excess pore pressures are to be ignored or not. (NSPT = 30, Df = 1.5 m)
The study results show that each of the footing width, the
soil relative density, and the foundation depth affects the ulti-
mate seismic bearing capacity. Hence, the q-term should not seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations on partially
be ignored as Day (2010) assumed. Both the q-term and γ-term liquefiable saturated sands. The design procedure is summa-
contribute to the ultimate seismic bearing capacity, but with rized in the following steps:
reduced values of the seismic bearing capacity factors, Nq and a. Use equation (9), the average values of the seismic bear-
Nγ. The ultimate seismic bearing capacity of partially liquefi- ing capacity factors, Nq and Nγ, from Figs. 14 and 15,
able sands can be written in the form shown in equation (9). respectively, and the pore pressure ratio values in Table
The study presents also charts to enable calculating the 4 to calculate the ultimate seismic bearing capacity.
stress corresponding to the allowable post-earthquake settle- b. According to the expected peak acceleration response
ment. Therefore, the conducted study provides a simple frame- at the foundation level, calculate the corrected ultimate
work to enable the design engineer to determine the allowable seismic bearing capacity from equation (11).

132 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO. 2


21 Effect of medium dense sand thickness on the
footing settlement (q = 100 kPa, NSPT = 20, B = 5 m, and
Df = 1.5 m)
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
22 Effect of the peak acceleration response at the
foundation level on the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity for the cases of NSPT = 15, 20, 25; B = 3.0,
5.0 m; and Df = 1.5 m
23 Variation of the slope m with the footing width and NSPT
c. Calculate an allowable seismic bearing capacity by divid-
ing the ultimate value obtained in (b) by a factor of safety
of 5.0, as suggested by Day (2010).
d. According to the specified tolerable post-earthquake
settlement by the design code, use the charts in Figs.
16–20 to obtain another value of the allowable stress that
corresponds to the allowable settlement.
e. The design allowable seismic bearing capacity is the
smaller value obtained from (c) and (d).
 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO.
Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
The deduced bearing capacity equation overcomes the lim-
itations of the equation suggested by Day (2010), which can be
summarized in the following points:
– The equation assumes a punching shear failure, and,
hence, the q-term is ignored.
– The bearing capacity factor, Nγ, is taken equal to the static
value.
– The pore pressure ratio is greater than the values predicted
by numerical analysis.
Conclusion
The conclusions of the conducted study can be summarized in
the following points:
– The ultimate seismic bearing capacity of partially lique-
fiable sands should be calculated by superposition of both the
q-term and γ-term.
Charts are developed to calculate the seismic bearing capacity
factors, Nq and Nγ, based on the internal friction angle value in
the medium dense range.
– The estimated values of the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity correspond to a peak acceleration response of 0.15 g
at the foundation level. An equation is developed to estimate
the corresponding ultimate seismic bearing capacity at higher
peak acceleration responses.
– Additional correction may be required to account for the
partially liquefiable sand layer thickness. The values proposed
in this study correspond to a thickness of 10.0 m below the
foundation level.
– simple design framework is developed to enable the
design engineer to determine the allowable seismic bearing
capacity considering both the ultimate and serviceability limit
states.
References
Abdel-Motaal, M. A. 1999. Soil effect on the dynamic behavior of framed
structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt..
Bhatia, S. K. 1982. The verification of relationships for effective stress method
to evaluate liquefaction potential of saturated sands. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada..
Bouckovalas, G. D., Valsamis, A. I. and Andrianopoulos, K. I. 2005. Pseudo
static vs. performance based seismic bearing capacity of footings on
liquefiable soil. In: Proceedings of the TC4 Satellite Conference, 16th
ICSMGE. Osaka. pp. 22–29..
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). 1997. NEHRP recommended
provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures,
Washington, DC, Commentary Prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
Cascone, E. and Bouckovalas, G. D. 1998. Seismic bearing capacity of
footings on saturated sand with a clay cap. In: Proceedings of the 11th
European Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Paris. Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema..
Day, R. W. 2010. Foundation engineering handbook – design and construction
with the 2009 international building code, 2nd ed, McGraw Hill.
Dickenson, S., McCullough, N. J., Barkau, N. J. and Wavra, B. J. 2002.
Assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards to bridge approach
embankments in Oregon, Washington, DC, Federal Highway Administration.
Eurocode 8 – Part 5. 1998. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of
structures. Part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.
British Standards Institution..
Finn, W. D. L., Yogendrakumar, M., Lo, R. C. and Yoshida, N. 1988. Direct
computation of permanent seismic deformations. In: Proceedings of the
9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan,
VIII. pp. 219–224..
2 133
 Mansour et al. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations
Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X. 1993. Unified dynamic shear moduli and damping
ratios of sand and clay, Soils and Foundations, 33, (1), 182–191.
Ishihara, K., Tatsuoka, F. and Yasuda, S. 1975. Undrained deformation and
liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses, Soils and Foundations, 15, (1),
29–44.
Janbu, N. 1963. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial
tests. In: Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Wiesbaden. pp. 19–25.
Karamitros, D. K., Bouckovalas, G. D., Chaloulos, Y. K. and Andrianopoulos,
K. I. 2013. Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced bearing capacity
degradation of shallow foundations on a two-layered soil profile, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 44, 90–101.
Kourkoulis, R., Anastasopoulos, I., Gelagoti, F. and Gazetas, G. 2010.
Interaction of foundation-structure systems with seismically precarious
slopes: numerical analysis with strain softening constitutive model, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, 1430–1445.
Kramer, S. L. and Elgamal, A. W. 2001. Modeling soil liquefaction hazards
for performance-based earthquake engineering. Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) Report. Available at: < http://peer.
berkeley.edu/publications/peer_reports/reports_2001/0113.pdf> [Accessed
June 2015].
Kramer, S. L. and Hall, W. J. eds 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering,
in Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics,
Law, K. T., Refahi, K., Ko, P., Lam, T. and Hassan, P. 2005. Seismic deformation
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed Mansour] at 05:24 15 May 2016
of Waba Dam. In: Conference Proceeding: Canadian Dam Association,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada..
Marcuson, W. F. and Hynes, M. E. 1990. Stability of Slopes and Embankments
during Earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Geotechnical Seminar Sponsored
by ASCE and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Hershey, PA..
Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. L. and Seed, H. B. 1975. Fundamentals of liquefaction
under cyclic loading, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
101, (GT5), 423–438.
Mokhtar, A. A., Abdel-Motaal, M. A. and Wahidy, M. M. 2014. Lateral
displacement and pile instability due to soil liquefaction using numerical
model, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 5, (4), 1019–1032.
134 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering  2016  VOL. 10   NO.
Naesgaard, E., Byrne, P. M. and Ven Huizen, G. 1998. Behaviour of light
structures founded on soil ‘crust’ over liquefied ground, in Geotechnical
earthquake engineering and soil dynamics III, geotechnical special
publication no. 75, (eds. Dakoulas P., et al.). 422–433, Seattle, USA, ASCE.
Schanz, T. and Vermeer, P. A. 1998. Pre-failure deformation behaviour
of geomaterials, Institution of Civil Engineers, 383–387,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pdbog.26421.
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A. and Bonnier, P. G. 1999. Formulation and verification
of the Hardening-Soil model, in Beyond 2000 in computational geotechnica,
(ed. Brinkgreve R. B. J.., 281–290, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Balkema.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic
response analyses, Berkeley, CA, USA, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California [Report EERC 70-10].
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
97, (9), 1249–1273.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I. 1983. Evaluation of liquefaction
potential using field performance data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 109, (3), 458–482.
Seed, H. B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I. M. and Tokimatsu, K. 1984. Moduli and
damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, (11), 1016–1032.
Sladen, J. A., D'Hollander, R. D. and Krahn, J. 1985. The liquefaction of sands, a
collapse surface approach, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 22, (4), 564–578.
Stark, T. D. and Mesri, G. 1992. Undrained shear strength of sands for stability
analysis, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 118, (11), 1727–1747.
US Bureau of Reclamation. 2012. Seismic risks for embankments. Available
at: < http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/Risk/BestPractices/27-
SeismicEmbankment20121207.pdf> [Accessed June 2015].
Wu, G. 1996. Volume change and residual pore water pressure of saturated
granular soils to blast loads, Canada, Research Report Submitted to
NSERC. Available at: < http://www.wutecgeo.com/downloads/Wu_NSERC-
BLAST(2).pdf> [Accessed June 2015].
Wu, G. 2001. Earthquake-induced deformation analyses of the Upper San
Fernando Dam under the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 38, (1), 1–15.
2