Ijgee 2015070102

12 International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 12-34, July-December 2015
Pseudo-Dynamic Bearing
Capacity of Shallow Strip
Footing Resting on c-Φ Soil
Considering Composite
Failure Surface:
Bearing Capacity Analysis Using
Pseudo-Dynamic Method
Arijit Saha, NIT Agartala, Agartala, India
Sima Ghosh, NIT Agartala, Agartala, India
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of bearing capacity of shallow strip footing under seismic loading condition is an important
phenomenon. This paper presents a pseudo-dynamic approach to evaluate the seismic bearing capacity of
shallow strip footing resting on c-Φ soil using limit equilibrium method considering the composite failure
mechanism. A single seismic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) presents here for the simultaneous resistance
of unit weight, surcharge and cohesion, which is more practical to simulate the failure mechanism. The ef-
fect of soil friction angle(Φ), soil cohesion(c), shear wave and primary wave velocity(Vs, Vp) and horizontal
and vertical seismic accelerations(kh, kv) are taken into account to evaluate the seismic bearing capacity
of foundation. The results obtained from the present analysis are presented in both tabular and graphical
non-dimensional form. Results are thoroughly compared with the existing values in the literature and the
significance of the present methodology for designing the shallow strip footing is discussed.
Keywords: Composite Failure Mechanism, c-Φ Soil, Limit Equilibrium Method, Pseudo-Dynamic Analysis,
Shallow Strip Footing, Single Bearing Capacity Coefficient
INTRODUCTION
The seismic bearing capacity problem is one of the greatest challenges to the Civil Engineers and
various methods have been extensively applied towards the challenge given by the Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineers. Many researchers have investigated the problem of bearing capacity of
foundation using different mechanisms. The pioneering works in determining the bearing capacity
DOI: 10.4018/IJGEE.2015070102
Copyright © 2015, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 12-34, July-December 2015 13
in static condition were done by Prandtl, 1921; Terzaghi, 1943; Meyerhoff, 1957, 1963; Vesic,
1973; Saran and Agarwal, 1991 and many others. For foundation of structures built in seismic
areas, the demands to the sustain load and deformation during an earthquake will probably be
the most severe in their design life. Thus the design of foundation in seismic areas needs special
considerations compared to the static case. A number of researcher had analysed the seismic
bearing capacity of shallow strip footings using pseudo-static approach with the help of different
solution techniques such as method of slices, limit equilibrium, method of stress characteristics
an upper bound limit analysis. Budhu and Al-karni, 1993; Soubra, 1993, 1997, 1999; Richards
et al. 1993; Choudhury and Subha Rao, 2005; Kumar and Ghosh, 2006; and many more had
considered the effect of earthquake on the bearing capacity of a surface to a shallow strip footing
under pseudo-static method using different approaches. IS 6403:1981 also gives a formulation of
ultimate bearing capacity for different types of foundation in different types of soils considering
pseudo-static method. However, in the pseudo-static method, the dynamic nature of earthquake
loading is considered in a very approximate way without taking any effect of time and phase dif-
ference. To overcome this drawback, Steedman and Zeng, 1990; and Choudhury and Nimbalkar,
2005; developed the pseudo-dynamic solutions where the effects of both shear and primary waves
as well as the amplification of excitation were considered during the earthquake along with the
duration of earthquake and the period of lateral shaking to predict the seismic earth pressure
behind the vertical retaining wall. Recently, Ghosh, 2008; gives a solution of pseudo-dynamic
bearing capacity of shallow strip footing resting on cohesionless soil using limit analysis method
considering the Coulomb failure mechanism. But the solutions which were given for foundation
resting on c-Φ soil, three different bearing capacity coefficients are suggested for three different
failure mechanism. In Saha and Ghosh (2014), it is tried to take into account the simultaneous
resistance of unit weight, surcharge and cohesion considering linear failure surface using limit
equilibrium method. Here in this analysis, an attempt is made to solve this problem of pseudo-
dynamic bearing capacity of shallow strip footing resting on c-φ soil considering the composite
failure mechanism. A composite failure surface involving planar and log spiral surface is con-
sidered in the present analysis. To evaluate the bearing capacity under seismic loading condition,
the simultaneous resistance of unit weight, surcharge and cohesion is taken into account. Results
are presented in both tabular and graphical non-dimensional form including comparison with
other available methods. Effects of wide range of variation of parameters like soil friction angle
(φ), cohesion factor (2c/γB0), depth factor (Df/B0) and horizontal and vertical seismic accelera-
tions (kh, kv) along with primary wave and shear wave velocity on the pseudo-dynamic bearing
capacity coefficient (Nγe) have been studied.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Here an attempt is made to give a formulation of pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity of a shallow
strip footing resting on c-φ soil using limit equilibrium method. The homogeneous soil of effec-
tive unit weight γ has Mohr-Coulomb characteristic c-φ and can be considered as a rigid plastic
body. Let us consider a shallow strip footing of width (B0) resting below the ground surface at
a depth of (Df) over which a load (P) of column acts. For shallow foundation (Df ≤ B0), the
overburden pressure is idealized as a surcharge (q=γDf) which acts along the length of BC. The
classical two-dimensional slip-line field obtained by Prandtl, 1921; is the traditional failure
mechanism which has three regions such as active zone, passive zone and logarithmic radial-fan
transition zone. In this composite failure mechanism, half of failure is assumed to occur along
the surface AEDC, which is composed of a triangular elastic zone ABE, triangular passive Ran-
kine zone BDC and in between them a log spiral radial shear zone BDE shown in Fig.1. It is a
log-sandwich mechanism that is defined by the angular parameters α1, α2, β. Fig.2 and 3 shows
the detail free body diagram of elastic zone ABE and composite passive Rankine zone and log
spiral shear zone BEDC respectively. The soil on the right side of the failure plane AE gets
partially mobilized and this is characterised by a mobilization factor m. The shear strength of
the soil is expressed as τ = mc + σ tan ϕ m where, ϕ m = tan ( m tan ϕ )
−1
Figure 1. Composite failure mechanism
Figure 2. Elastic wedge
Figure 3. Log-spiral zone
The radial log-spiral shearing zone BED is bounded by a log-spiral curve ED, where the
θ tan ϕ
equation for the curve in polar coordinates (r, θ) is r = r0 e . The Centre of this log-spiral
ED is at point B and the radius r0 is the length of the line BE where,
B0 sin α 2
r0 =
sin (α1 + α 2 )
and, α 2 = tan −1 ( m tan α1 ) and width of the footing, AB = B0 ,

In pseudo-dynamic analysis, a finite shear and primary wave velocity can be developed by
assuming that the shear modulus G is constant with depth and the phase, not the magnitude of
acceleration varies. In the present study, both shear wave velocity (Vs) and primary wave veloc-
ity (Vp) of the earthquake waves through soil medium are assumed to act within the soil mass
during earthquake as shown in Fig.2 and 3. The analysis includes a period of lateral shaking, T.
Here, Vs = G / ρ and V p = 2G (1 − µ ) / ρ (1 − 2 µ ) and T = 2π / ω Where, ρ , µ and
ω are density, Poisson’s ratio and angular frequency respectively.
BEARING CAPACITY EXPRESSION

Elastic Wedge
The bearing capacity expression is developed by considering the equilibrium of elastic wedge
ABE. The forces acting on the wedge include uniformly distributed column load PL on AB,
horizontal and vertical inertia forces (Qh and Qv), earth pressure Pp and Pm and cohesion c and
cm ( cm = mc ) acting on the sides BE and AE respectively and weight of the wedge ABE,
γ 2 sin α1 sin α 2
W= B0 (1)
2 sin (α1 + α 2 )
If the base of the wedge is subjected to harmonic horizontal and vertical seismic accelera-
tion of amplitude ahg and avg respectively, the acceleration at any depth z and time t, below the
top of the surface can be expressed as,
 r sin α1 − z 
ah ( z , t ) = ah sin ω  t − 0  (2)
 Vs 
 r sin α1 − z 
av ( z , t ) = av sin ω  t − 0  (3)
 Vp
 
The mass of a thin element of the elastic wedge at depth z is
γ 1 1 
m(z) =  +  ( r0 sin α1 − z ) dz (4)
g  tan α1 tan α 2 
The total horizontal and vertical inertia force acting within the elastic zone can be expressed
as follows,
r0 sin α1
 1 1   r sin α1 − z 
Qh = γ kh  + 
 tan α1 tan α 2  0
∫ ( r sin α
− z ) sin ω  t − 0
0

1
Vs
 dz

γ B0 λ kh sin α1 sin α 2  1
2 2 2
1 
=  + 
2π r0 sin α1 sin (α1 + α 2 )  tan α1 tan α 2 
2
  t r0 sin α1  r0 sin α1   t r0 sin α1  t 

cos 2π  − + sin 2π  −  − sin 2π T  (5)
 T λ  2πλ  T λ  
 1 1 
r0 sin α1
 r sin α1 − z 
Qv = γ kv  + 
 tan α1 tan α 2 
∫ ( r sin α
− z ) sin ω  t − 0
0  1
Vp
 dz
0  
γ B0 η kv sin α1 sin α 2  1
2 2 2
1 
=  + 
2π r0 sin α1 sin (α1 + α 2 )  tann α1 tan α 2 
2
  t r0 sin α1  r0 sin α1   t r0 sin α1  t 

cos 2π  − + sin 2π  −  − sin 2π  (6)
 T η  2πλ  T η  T 
Considering the vertical force equilibrium on the elastic wedge ABE
∑V = 0
PL B0 + W − Qv − c sin α1 − cm sin α 2 − PP sin(90 − α1 + ϕ ) − Pm sin(90 − α 2 + ϕ m ) = 0 (7)
PP cos(α1 − ϕ ) + Pm cos(α 2 − ϕ m ) − W + Qv c sin α1 sin α 2 (1 + m)

So, PL = + (8)
B0 sin(α1 + α 2 )
Where, Pp = Ppγ + Ppq + Ppc and Pm = Pmγ + Pmq + Pmc

Passive earth pressures Ppγ, Ppq, and Ppc are determined by considering the moment equilib-
rium of the forces which are acting on the soil mass BEDCH are shown in Fig.3.
Passive Rankine Zone
1 1
Weight of the passive Rankine zone, BDH, W1 = HD.BH = r0 2 sin ρ p cos ρ p e 2 β tan ϕ (9)
2 2
HD = BD sin ρ p = r0 e β tan ϕ sin ρ p and BH = BD cos ρ p = r0 e β tan ϕ cos ρ p
Where, BD = r0 e β tan ϕ
π
ρp = −ϕ −ξ
2
And as per Choudhury and Subha Rao, 2005,
  −1  kh   
 sin  tan   
π ϕ 1 −1  kh  1 −1    1 − kv   
ξ = − + tan   − sin   (10)
4 2 2  1 − kv  2 sin ϕ
 
 
Similarly, as elastic zone the acceleration at any depth z1 and time t, below the top of the
surface can be expressed as,
 HD − z 1 
ah (z 1, t ) = ah sin ω t −  (11)
 Vs 
 HD − z1 
av ( z1 , t ) = av sin ω  t −  (12)

 V p 
The mass of a thin element of the passive Rankine zone at depth z1 is
γ ( HD − z1 )
m ( z1 ) = dz1 (13)
g tan ρ p
The total horizontal and vertical inertia force acting within this zone can be expressed as
follows,
HD
γ kh  HD − z1 
Qh1 =
tan ρ p ∫ ( HD − z ) sin ω  t −
0
1
Vs 
 dz1
γ B0 λ kh sin α 2 cos ρ p e β tan ϕ   t HD  λ   t HD  t 

= cos 2π  − + sin 2π  −  − sin 2π  (14)
2π sin (α1 + α 2 )  T λ  2π HD  T λ  T 
 HD − z1 
HD
γ kv
Qv1 =
tan ρ p ∫ ( HD − z ) sin ω  t −
1
V p 
 dz1
0 
γ B0η kv sin α 2 cos ρ p e β tan ϕ   t HD  η   t HD  t 
= cos 2π  − + sin 2π  −  − sin 2π  (15)
2π sin (α1 + α 2 )  T η  2π HD  T η  T 
Log Spiral Shear Zone

β
1 2 r0 2 ( e 2 β tan ϕ − 1)
Weight of the log spiral shear zone BDE, W2 = ∫ r0 dθ = (16)
20 4 tan ϕ
The log-spiral zone BDE is divided into ‘n’ number of slices which makes the angle of log-
spiral centre β into ‘n’ number of dβ angles ie. β = nd β is shown in Fig. 4.
Mass of strip on the ith slice of the log-spiral zone BDE,
Hi
γ 2π d β
m( z )i =
g 360° sin (α + ( i − 0.5 ) d β )
2 ∫ z ( dz )
0
i i
(17)
r0 (i −1)d β tan ϕ id β tan ϕ

Where, Hi =
2
e ( +e )
sin (α + ( i − 0.5 ) d β )
Figure 4. Generalized slice and centre of gravity of Log-spiral zone
The acceleration at any depth zi and time t of any ith slice of the log spiral shear zone, below
the top of the surface can be expressed as,
 H −z 
ah ( z , t )i = kh g sin ω  t − i i  (18)
 Vs 
 H − z i 

av (z, t ) = kv g sin ω t − i  (19)
i  Vp 
The horizontal and vertical inertia force acting within this ith slice can be expressed as follows,
Hi
2πγ d β kh  H i − zi 
( Qh )i = ∫ z sin ω  t −  ( dz )i
360° sin (α + ( i − 0.5 ) d β )
i
2
0
Vs 
( )
2
γ d β kh λ r0 2 e(i −1)d β tan ϕ + eid β tan ϕ  λ  t  t Hi  t
=  sin 2π − sin 2π  −   − cos 2π  (20)
360° * 4 H i  H i 2π  T  T λ   T 
2πγ d β kv
Hi
 H i − zi 
( Qv )i = ∫ z sin ω  t −  ( dz )i
360° sin (α + ( i − 0.5 ) d β )
i
2
0  Vp 
( )
2
2 ( i −1) d β tan ϕ id β tan ϕ
γ d β kvη r0 e +e  η  t  t H  t
= °  n 2π − sin 2π  − i   − cos 2π 
sin (21)
360 * 4 H i  H i 2π  T  T η  T 
Now total horizontal and vertical inertia force acting on log spiral shear zone is expressed as
n n
Qh 2 = ∑ ( Qh )i and Qv 2 = ∑ ( Qv )i (22)
i =1 i =1
Taking moment of the forces acting on the failure zone BEDCH about the centre of the log
spiral (B), are enumerated as follows:
Weight of the soil mass BDH, W1 acts vertically downward at the centre of gravity of soil
mass BDH. So, moment due to weight W1
2 3 β tan ϕ
2 γ 2 sin α 2 e sin 2 ρ p cos ρ p
M W 1 = W1 BH = B0 r0 (23)
3 2 3 sin 2 (α1 + α 2 )
Vertical inertia force of the soil mass BDH, Qv1 acts vertically downward at the centre of
gravity of soil mass BDH. So, moment due to vertical inertia force Qv1
2
MQv 1 = Qv 1 BH
3
γ 2 sin2 α2 2kve 3 β tan ϕ η sin ρp cos2 ρp
= B0 r0
2 sin2 (α1 + α2 ) 3πHD
 t     
 cos 2π  − HD  + η sin 2π  t − HD  − sin 2π t  (24)
  
 T η  2πHD  T η  T 
Horizontal inertia force of the soil mass BDH, Qh1 acts horizontally at the centre of gravity
of soil mass BDH. So, moment due to horizontal inertia force Qh1
1
M Qh1 = Qh1 HD
3
3 β tan ϕ
γ 2 sin 2 α 2 kh e λ sin 2 ρ p cos ρ p
= B0 r0
2 sin 2 (α1 + α 2 ) 3π HD
  t HD  λ   t HD  t 
cos 2π  − + sin 2π  −  − sin 2π  (25)
 T λ  2π HD  T λ  T 
The centre of gravity of the log spiral shear zone BDH is denoted by O shows in the Fig.4.
The horizontal and vertical distance of the centre of gravity from the centre of the log spiral
zone B is expressed as OX and OY. The expression of OX and OY are as follows (Hijab, 1956)
4 tan ϕ {e3 β tan ϕ ( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1} sin α 2 

OX = r0   (26)
3 (1 + 9 tan 2 ϕ ) ( e 2 β tan ϕ − 1)  − {e3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β } cos α 2 
 
4 tan ϕ
OY = r0
3 (1 + 9 tan ϕ ) ( e 2 β tan ϕ − 1)
2
{e3 β tan ϕ ( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1} cos α 2 + {e3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β } sin α 2  (27)
 
Weight of the soil mass BDE, W2 acts vertically downward at the centre of gravity of soil
mass BDE. So, moment due to weight W2
2
M W 2 = W2 OX
3
γ 2 2 sin 2 α 2 1
= B0 r0
2 3 sin (α1 + α 2 ) (1 + 9 tan 2 ϕ )
2
{e3 β tan ϕ ( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1} sin α 2 − {e3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β } cos α 2  (28)
 
Vertical inertia force of the soil mass BDE, Qv2 acts vertically downward at the centre of
gravity of soil mass BDE. So, moment due to vertical inertia force Qv2
MQv 2 = Qv 2OX
γ 2 sin2 α2 2ηd βkv tan ϕ
= B0 r0
2 (
sin (α1 + α2 ) 3 * 360°H i 1 + 9 tan
2
)(
n2 ϕ e 2 β tan ϕ − 1 )
     n
 η sin 2π t − sin 2π  t − H i  − cos 2π t 
2
 
 2πH i  T T

 
η 
∑
T  i =1
e (
(i −1)d β tan ϕ
+ e id β tan ϕ
)
 
{
 ) } 2 {
 e 3 β tan ϕ 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β + 1 sin α − e 3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − coss β cos α 
( 2

} (29)
Horizontal inertia force of the soil mass BDE, Qh2 acts horizontally at the centre of gravity
of soil mass BDE. So, moment due to horizontal inertia force Qh2
M Qh 2 = Qh 2OY
γ 2 sin 2 α 2 λ 2d β kh tan ϕ
= B0 r0
2 sin (α1 + α 2 ) 3 * 360° H i (1 + 9 tan
2
n 2 ϕ ) ( e 2 β tan ϕ − 1)
2
 λ  t  t Hi  t  n (i −1)d β tan ϕ id β tan ϕ
 sin 2π − sin 2π  −
 2π H i  T
  − cos 2π  ∑ e
 T λ  T  i =1
+e ( )
{e3 β tan ϕ ( 3 tan ϕ sin β − coss β ) + 1} cos α 2 + {e3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β } sin α 2  (30)
 
The intensity of surcharge q = γ D f , where γ is the density of soil and Df is the depth of
footing, acts uniformly distributed over BH. So, moment due to surcharge load q
BH 2 γ 2 D f sin α 2
Mq = q = B0 r0 e 2 β tan ϕ cos 2 ρ p (31)
2 2 B0 sin (α1 + α 2 )
Cohesive force C acting along the log spiral arc DE. So, moment due to cohesion C
γ 2 2c sin α 2 ( e − 1)
β 2 β tan ϕ
M c = ∫ cr0 dθ = B0 r0
2
(32)
0
2 γ B0 2 sin (α1 + α 2 ) tan ϕ
Adhesive force Ca acting along the BE and the moment due to adhesion Ca is zero.
The moment of the reaction force F gets eliminated, since it passes through the centre of
the log spiral zone BDE.
Passive earth pressure (Pγ)Static due to weight of soil CHD acts horizontally at height 2HD/3
from the point H. So, moment due to (Pγ)Static
γ 2 HD 2 γ 2 2 sin 2 α 2
M pγ Static = BH = B0 r0 e3 β tan ϕ sin 2 ρ p cos ρ p (33)
2 3 2 3 sin (α1 + α 2 )
2
Passive earth pressure (Pγ)Decrement due to weight of soil CHD acts horizontally at height HD/3
from the point H. So, moment due to (Pγ)Decrement
γ HD 2
M p γDecrement =
2
BH
3
(K p )Decrement
γ 1 sin2 α2
= B02r0 e 3 β tan ϕ sin2 ρp cos ρp (K p ) (34)
2 3 sin2 (α1 + α2 ) Decrement
Passive earth pressure (Pq)Static due to surcharge on CH acts horizontally at a height HD/2
from the point H. So, moment due to (Pq)Static
HD γ 2 1 D f sin α 2
M pqStatic = γ D f BH = B0 r0 e 2 β tan ϕ sin 2 ρ p (35)
2 2 2 B0 sin (α1 + α 2 )
Passive earth pressure (Pq)Decrement due to surcharge on CH acts horizontally at a height HD/3
from the point H. So, moment due to (Pq)Decrement
HD
M pqDecrement = γ D f BH
3
( K p )Decrement
γ 2 1 Df sin α 2
= B0 r0 e 2 β tan ϕ sin 2 ρ p ( K p ) (36)
2 3 B0 sin (α1 + α 2 ) Decrement
Passive pressure (Pc)Static due to cohesion on soil mass CHD acts horizontally at a height
HD/2 from the point H. So, moment due to (Pc)Static
HD γ 2 1 2c sin α 2
M pcStatic = cHD = B0 r0 e 2 β tan ϕ sin 2 ρ p (37)
2 2 2 γ B0 sin (α1 + α 2 )
Passive earth pressure Ppγ acting on face BE acts at a lower third point of the side BE at an
angle φ. So, moment due to Ppγ
2
M pγ = Ppγ r0 cos ϕ (38)
3
Passive earth pressure Ppq acting on face BE acts at the midpoint of the side BE at an angle
φ. So, moment due to Ppq
1
M pq = Ppq r0 cos ϕ (39)
2
Passive earth pressure Ppc acting on face BE acts at the midpoint of the side BE at an angle
φ. So, moment due to Ppc
1
M pc = Ppc r0 cos ϕ (40)
2
Taking moment equilibrium due to weight, surcharge and cohesion about the centre of the
log-spiral (i.e., at the edge of footing B) we get Ppγ, Ppq and Ppc respectively.
Total moment due to weight equal to zero
M pγ = M W 1 + M W 2 + M pγ Static − M Qh1 − M Qh 2 − M Qv1 − M Qv 2 − M pγ Decrement (41)
Total moment due to surcharge equal to zero
M pq = M q + M pqStatic − M pqDecrement (42)
Total moment due to cohesion equal to zero
M pc = M c + M pcStatic (43)
Solving the Eqn (41) and after simplifying we can get Ppγ
γ 2 sin2 α2
Pp γ = B0
2 2 cos ϕ sin2 (α1 + α2 )
       
   cos 2π  t − HD  + λ   
  kh λ sin ρp  T     
  λ  2πHD   
 2 cos ρp + 2 sin ρp −  
  πHD  t
 HD  t   
   sin 2 π  − 
 − sin 2 π     
 3 β tan ϕ T
 λ  T   

 
 
e sin ρp cos ρp   
   t    
   cos 2π  − HD  + η   
      
  2kv η cos ρp  T η  2πHD  − sin ρ (k )  
 −   p decremeent 
 π HD  t HD 
 − sin 2π  t  p  
  sin 2π  −  
   T   
   η  T 
  
       
 2 

( ) 
n
(i −1)d β tan ϕ

 2
e
 { 3 β tan ϕ
( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 sin α2  } 2 d β tan ϕ ∑ e + e id β tan ϕ


+   − i =1

 ( ) {
 1 + 9 tan2 ϕ − e 3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β cos α2  } 
360 ° (1 + 9 tan 2
ϕ )(
e 2 β tan ϕ
− 1 ) 

   e 3 β tan ϕ (3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 cos α  
λkh  λ 

t t
sin 2π − sin 2π  − i  − cos 2π  
H  t  { } 
 
2
 H  2πH  T T λ  T   + e{ 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β }
s in α  
 i  i 
   2  

 ηkv  η 
+
  t  t
sin 2π − sin 2π  − i  − cos 2π  
H 


 t
 
 e{ 3 β tan ϕ
( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 }sin α  
2 
   
 H  2πH 
 i  i 
 T T η 

 T 

− { e 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β }
cos α 2
 
 

 
 
(44)
Solving the Eqn (42) and after simplifying we can get Ppq
2 β tan ϕ
γ 2 D f 2 sin α 2 cos ρ p e   2 
Ppq =
2
B0
B0 cos ϕ sin (α1 + α 2 ) cos ρ p + sin ρ p 1 − 3 ( K p ) Decrement  (45)
  
Solving the Eqn (43) and after simplifying we can get Ppc
γ 2 2c sin α 2  ( e 2 β tan ϕ − 1) 
Ppc = B0  + e 2 β tan ϕ sin 2 ρ p  (46)
2 γ B0 cos ϕ sin (α1 + α 2 )  tan ϕ 

Pp = Ppγ + Ppq + Ppc (47)
Putting the values of Ppγ, Ppq and Ppc from Eqn (44), (45) and (46) in the Eqn (47), we can get Pp
γ 2 sin2 α2
Pp = B0
2 2 cos ϕ sin2 (α1 + α2 )
       
  cos 2π  t − HD  + λ   
      
  kh λ sin ρp  T λ  2πHD   
 2 cos ρp + 2 sin ρp −    
   
  π HD sin 2π  − t HD  − sin 2π  t 
    
 3 β tan ϕ 
  T λ  T   
e sin ρp cos ρp   
   t HD  η   
   
cos 2π  −  +  
 
  2k η cos ρ  
T η  2πHD   
 −
v p   − sin ρ (k ) 
        
 
  πHD   t HD  t  p p decremen n t

 sin 2 π  − 
 − sin 2π  
  T η  T  
 
    
 2 

( ) 
n
( )
 e 3 β tan ϕ 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β + 1 sin α  2d β tan ϕ ∑ e
i −1 d β tan ϕ
 + e id β tan ϕ 

+
2  { ( ) } 2
− i =1 

 
 (
 1 + 9 tan ϕ − e 2
 ) { 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β cos α2  }  (
360° 1 + 9 tan ϕ e 2
)( 2 β tan ϕ
−1 ) 

  
λkh  λ 
  sin 2 π
t
− sin 2π π
  

 t − H i  − cos 2π t  

{
  e 3 β tan ϕ
( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) +} 1 cos α 
2 





     

 H  2πH 
 i  
i 
T T 
λ 

T  + e
  { 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β sin α2   }  

   e 3 β tan ϕ (3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 sin α  
 ηkv  η 
+ t t
 H 
 t {  } 2 
sin 2π − sin 2π  −  − cos 2π    
i
 H  2πH 
 i  
i 
T 
T η 
 
 T  

−{ e 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos }β cos α 2
 
 

 Df 4 sin (α1 + α2 ) cos ρpe 2 β tan ϕ
  2  
+  cos ρ + sin ρ 1 − (K )  
 B  p Decrement  
sin α2 
p p
 3 
 0  
 
 2c 2 sin (α1 + α2 )  e
+
( 2 β tan ϕ − 1
) 
 

 + e 2 β tan ϕ sin2 ρp 
 γB sin α2  tan ϕ  
 0   
 
 
(48)
The values of passive earth pressure Pmγ ,

Pmq and Pmc at a mobilization factor m can be
obtained by substituting the angle Φ by Φ m and changing the wedge angle α1 to α 2 and
α 2 to α1 in the Eqns of Ppγ , Ppq and Ppc .
Pm = Pmγ + Pmq + Pmc (49)
Putting all the values of W, Qv, Pp and Pm in equation (8) we get PL
γ
Again, PL = B0 Nγ (50)
2
Where, Nγ= Single bearing capacity coefficient

Now,
cos (α1 − ϕ) sin2 α2

Nγ =
2 cos ϕ sin2 (α1 + α2 )
       
   cos 2π  t − HD  + λ   
 k λ sin ρ  T    
 
 h p  λ  2 π HD   
 2 cos ρp + 2 sin ρp −        
  πHD 
 sin 2 π  t − HD  − sin 2π t   
   
 
    
 3 β tan ϕ 
  T λ  T 
    
e sin ρp cos ρp   
       
   cos 2π  t − HD  + η   
 2k η cos ρ  
    
 T η  2 π HD 





−
v
π HD
p 
 
 t HD  t 


 − sin ρ p (k p )decrrement 
  

  sin 2π  −  − sin 2π   
  
T η     
   T   

 2 

( 
)
n
(i −1)d β tan ϕ
 e 3 β tan ϕ 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β + 1 sin α  2d β tan ϕ ∑ e
d β tan ϕ
id
 +e 

+
2  { ( ) } 2
− i =1 

 
 (
 1 + 9 tan ϕ − e 2
 ) { 3 β tan ϕ
− 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β cos α2  } 
360 ° 1(+ 9 tan 2
ϕ e 2
)(β tan ϕ
− 1 ) 

   e 3 β tan ϕ (3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 cos α  
λkh  λ 
 t 
 t H 




 t  { } 2 
sin 2π − sin 2π  −  − cos 2π    
i
 H  2πH  T T λ  {
T  + e 3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β sin α2   }
 i  
i     
   e 3 β tan ϕ (3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1 sin α  
 ηkv  η 

+ t t
 H i  t  { } 2 
 H  2πH 
sin 2π − sin 2π  −  − cos 2π    
 i  
i 
T T η 
  {
T  − e 3 β tan ϕ − 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β cos α2   }  

 Df 4 sin (α1 + α2 ) cos ρpe 2 β tan ϕ  
 2 
 
+  cos ρ + sin ρ 1 − (K )    
 B  p Decrement  
sin α 
p p

 3 

 0 2 
 
 2c
+
2 sin ( α 1
+ α 2)  (
e 2 β tan ϕ
− 1 ) 2 β tan ϕ 2

 

 +e sin ρp 
 0   
 
 
cos (α2 − ϕm ) sin2 α1 (51)
+
2 cos ϕ sin2 (α1 + α2 )
 
       
 
  cos 2π  t − HD  + λ   
 
 kh λ sin ρp  T 
λ  2πHD   


     
  2 cos ρp + 2 sin ρp −    
  
 

πHD   − t HD 

t 
    
 
  sin 2 π T λ 
 − sin 2 π
T
    
 3 β tan ϕm
e sin ρp cos ρp 

    

     
 
 t HD  + η 
 
   cos 2π  −   
  2 k η cos ρ  
    
 T η  2πHD 
− sin ρp (k p )
 p   
  −
v
 
  π HD  
 t HD  t 
  decrement  
 
  sin 2 π 
 − 
 − sin 2 π   
 
   T     
  η  T  
 
  
 
 
 2

( )
n
(i −1)d β tan ϕm
m∑
id β tan ϕm


+
2
e


3 β
{ tan ϕ m
(3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β ) + 1 sin α1  }  −
2 d β tan ϕ
i =1
e +e 


 (
 1 + 9 tan2 ϕ − e
m 

) { 3 β tan ϕm
− 3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β cos α1  }  (
360° 1 + 9 tan2 ϕm e )( 2 β tan ϕm
−1 ) 

 
 
λkh  λ 


sin 2π t − sin 2π  t − H i 
 
 − cos 2π t   e
 
{3 β tan ϕm
(3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β ) + 1 cos α1   } 

         

 H i  2πH i 

 



T 
T 
λ 


T + e
  {
3 β tan ϕm
− 3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β sin α1   }  





 


+
ηkv  η  

sin 2 π
t
− sin 2 π
t

 −
H i 

 − cos 2π

t  e


{
3 β tan ϕ m
(3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β ) + 1 sin α1  } 
 



   
 H i  2πH i 

  


T T η  



T  − e
  { 3 β tan ϕm
− 3 tan ϕm sin β − cos β cos α1   } 
 



 
 Df 4 sin (α1 + α2 ) cos ρpe
2 β tan ϕm
   
+  cos ρ + sin ρ  1 − (K p )
2 
  
 B  p  Decrement 
 
sin α1 
p


 3 

 0 
 
 2c 2 sin (α1 + α2 ) 
+ 
(
 e 2 β tan ϕm − 1
)
+e
2 β tan ϕm
sin2 ρp 

 

 0  m  
 
 
 
sin α1 sin α2
+
sin (α1 + α2 )
    
 cos 2π  t − r0 sin α1  + r0 sin α1  
    T  
 ηkv sin α1 sin α2  1 + 1   
 η   2πλ 
−1 + c (1 + m ) +     
 πr0 sin α1 sin (α1 + α2 )  tan α1 tan α2   t r sin α 
 t 
 
 sin 2 π  − 0
T
1
 − sin 2 π  

   η  T 
 

 

 
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

After optimization of bearing capacity coefficient (Nγ) w.r.t. β and t/T by iterative technique we
find out the optimized resistance which is given here as (Nγe). From the global concave curve
the minimum value is taken as optimized value. These optimized bearing capacity coefficient
(Nγe) are presented in Table 1, 2 and 3 for kh=0, 0.1 and 0.2 respectively considering
r0 sin α1 HD H i r sin α1 HD H i
, , = 0.3 and 0 , , = 0.16 .
λ λ λ η η η
Table 1. Static bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0, kv=0
Static Condition
Df/B0
Ø 2c/γB0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 4.274 8.362 12.318 15.571
20° 0.25 6.491 10.538 13.312 16.464
0.5 8.695 12.644 14.261 17.357
0 26.95 35.43 43.394 51.143
30° 0.25 30.04 38.289 46.175 53.885
0.5 33.017 41.117 48.941 56.62
0 136.33 161.97 187.13 212
40° 0.25 142.09 167.56 192.68 217.5
0.5 147.73 173.16 198.21 222.98
Table 2. Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0.1
kv=0 kv=kh/2 kv=kh
Ø 2c/γB0 Df/B0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 2.767 6.205 9.592 12.60 2.372 5.677 8.946 12.06 1.972 5.139 8.282 11.344
20° 0.25 4.891 8.311 11.601 14.178 4.494 7.786 11.002 13.614 4.09 7.249 10.36 13.035
0.5 6.159 9.609 12.891 15.441 5.85 9.172 12.44 14.929 5.528 8.715 11.879 14.403
0 22.086 29.91 37.003 43.871 20.562 28.425 35.256 41.841 18.873 26.908 33.486 39.786
30° 0.25 25.274 32.693 39.694 46.521 24.022 31.229 37.954 44.49 22.679 29.743 36.19 42.439
0.5 28.212 35.435 42.37 49.16 27.024 33.984 40.632 47.132 25.806 32.512 38.873 45.082
0 116.91 140.29 163.17 185.72 110.59 132.76 154.41 175.75 104.19 125.15 145.58 165.69
40° 0.25 122.5 145.75 168.55 191.05 116.21 138.23 159.82 181.09 109.82 130.65 150.98 171.05
0.5 128.6 151.21 173.92 196.37 121.77 143.69 165.19 186.41 115.42 136.1 156.38 176.37
Table 3. Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0.2
kv=0 kv=kh/2 kv=kh
Ø 2c/γB0 Df/B0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0 0.854 3.555 6.252 8.932 - 2.305 4.651 6.996 - 0.951 2.899 4.845
20° 0.25 2.875 5.577 8.269 10.842 1.948 4.297 6.642 8.989 0.942 2.887 4.829 6.761
0.5 4.897 7.598 10.279 12.33 3.935 6.283 8.629 - 2.871 4.806 - -
0 16.39 24.315 30.551 36.511 12.549 21.001 26.813 32.166 8.358 16.266 22.878 27.644
30° 0.25 20.244 27.057 33.161 39.075 16.733 23.917 29.44 34.724 12.701 20.308 25.563 30.201
0.5 23.364 29.728 35.749 41.626 20.643 26.635 32.033 37.266 16.933 23.394 28.171 32.744
0 97.776 118.91 139.47 159.68 84.672 103.34 121.36 139.04 71.008 87.337 102.83 117.91
40° 0.25 103.27 124.24 144.75 164.87 90.243 108.7 126.62 144.21 76.779 92.755 108.1 123.09
0.5 108.72 129.56 149.94 170.06 95.742 114.02 131.84 149.38 82.392 98.117 113.33 128.25
The variations of parameters are as follows:

φ =20°, 30° and 40°;
kh= 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3;
kv=0, kh/2 and kh;
2c/γB0=0, 0.25 and 0.5;
Df/B0=0.25, 0.75, 0.5, 1;
m=0.6, 0.8, 1;
Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of φ
It is seen that normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) increases with increase in soil friction angle
(φ). Due to increase in φ, the internal resistance of the soil particles will be increased which
resembles the fact that increase in seismic bearing capacity factor.
Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of 2c/γB0
It is seen that normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) increases with increase in cohesion factor (2c/
γB0). Due to increase in cohesion, seismic bearing capacity factor will be increased as increase in
cohesion causes increase in intermolecular attraction among the soil particle which offers more
resistance against shearing failure of foundation.
Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of Df/B0
It is seen that normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) increases with increase in depth factor (Df/
B0). Due to increase in depth factor (Df/B0) surcharge weight increases which increases the pas-
sive resistance and hence increase in seismic bearing capacity factor.
Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of Seismic Accelerations (kh and kv)
From Fig.5 to 10. it is seen that the normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) decreases along with
increase in horizontal seismic acceleration (kh).
It is seen that normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) decreases with the increase in vertical
seismic acceleration (kv) also. Due to increase in seismic acceleration, the disturbance in the
Figure 5. shows the variations of normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) with respect to horizon-
tal seismic acceleration (kh) at different soil friction angles (φ=20°, 30°, 40°) for 2c/γB0=0.25,
Df=0.5 and kv=kh/2
Figure 6. shows the variations of normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) with respect to seismic
acceleration (kh) at different cohesion factors (2c/γB0= 0, 0.25, 0.5) for φ=30°, Df=0.5 and kv=kh/2
Figure 7. shows the variations of normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) with respect to seismic ac-
celeration (kh) for different depth factors (Df/B0=0.25, 0.5, 1) for φ=30°, 2c/γB0=0.25 and kv=kh/2
Figure 8. shows the variations of normalized reduction factor (Nγe/Nγs) with respect to seismic
acceleration (kh) at different vertical seismic accelerations (kv=0, kh/2, kh) for φ=30°, Df=0.5
and 2c/γB0=0.25
Figure 9. shows the variations of bearing capacity coefficient with respect to seismic acceleration
(kh) at different mobilization factors (m=0.6, 0.8, 1) for φ=30°, 2c/γB0=0.25, Df=0.5 and kv=kh/2
Figure 10. shows the comparison of Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficients obtained
from present analysis with previous seismic analyses at different seismic accelerations (kh= 0.1,
0.2, 0.3) for φ=30°
soil particles increases, which allows more soil mass to participate in the vibration and hence
decrease its resistance against bearing capacity.
Effect on Nγe Due to the Variation of m
It is seen that bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) increases with increase in mobilization factor
(m). Due to increase in mobilization factor the difference between active wedge angles decreases
and hence increases in bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe).
COMPARISON OF RESULT
To broaden the perspectives of different authors on same or similar type of works with different
approaches with the present analysis that has been compared here.
It has been seen that the results obtained from the present analysis is in lesser than pseudo-
static analysis such as Budhu and Al-karni, 1993; Choudhury and Subba Rao, 2005; Soubra,
1997 (M1 and M2). In this plot, one pseudo-dynamic limit analysis, Ghosh, 2008 also compared
which shows the present analysis gives the lesser values of bearing capacity coefficients in
comparison to Ghosh, 2008. The reason behind it limit analysis method is used considering the
linear failure surface in Ghosh, 2008, whereas, in the present analysis limit equilibrium method
is used considering composite failure surface.
CONCLUSION
By considering pseudo-dynamic approach, the effect of shear wave and primary wave veloci-
ties travelling through the soil layer and the time and phase difference along with the horizontal
and vertical seismic acceleration are studied. A mathematical model is suggested and using
limit equilibrium method for simultaneous resistance of unit weight, surcharge and cohesion
is evaluated. A composite failure mechanism which includes both planer and log spiral zone
is considered here to develop this mathematical model for the shallow strip footing resting on
c-φ soil. Optimization of single bearing capacity coefficient is done and results are presented in
tabular non-dimensional form. The effect of various parameters such as soil friction angle (φ),
seismic accelerations (kh and kv), cohesion factor (2c/γB0), depth factor (Df/B0) and mobiliza-
tion factor (m) are studied here. It is seen that, the pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient
(Nγe) increases with the increase in φ, 2c/γB0, Df/B0 and m but it decreases with the increase in
Table 4. Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for variation of m [kv=kh/2, Df/B0
=0.5, 2c/γB0 =0.25]
Ø=20° Ø=30° Ø=40°

kh
m=0.6 m=0.8 m=1 m=0.6 m=0.8 m=1 m=0.6 m=0.8 m=1
0.1 6.612 25.124 36.894 17.254 24.644 35.134 59.484 91.732 149.35
0.15 5.838 24.124 34.438 15.602 22.277 31.734 53.923 83.26 135.82
0.2 4.979 22.371 31.934 13.904 19.84 28.231 48.319 74.702 122.12
0.25 3.978 - - 12.145 17.312 24.603 42.64 66.04 108.24
0.3 - - - 10.5 14.664 20.8 36.885 57.248 94.162
horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration (kh, kv). The values obtained from the present analy-
sis are thoroughly compared with available pseudo-static analysis as well as pseudo-dynamic
analysis and it is seen that the values obtained from the present study are in the lower side in
comparison to the available analysis.
Notification
2c/γB0 = Cohesion factor

B0=Width of the footing
C = Cohesion of soil
Ca = Adhesion of soil
Df = Depth of footing below ground surface
Df/B0 = Depth factor
F=Reaction force
g = Acceleration due to gravity
G = Shear modulus of soil
kh, kv = Horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations
m = mobilization factor
Nγe = Optimized single seismic Bearing capacity coefficient
Nγe/Nγs=Normalized reduction factor
Nγs= Optimized single static Bearing capacity coefficient
PL = Uniformly distributed column load
Pp =Earth pressure
q = Surcharge loadings
r0, r =Initial and Final radius of the log-spiral zone, (i.e. BE and BD) respectively.
t = Time of vibration
T= Period of lateral shaking
Vp= Primary wave velocity
Vs = Shear wave velocity
α1, α2=Base angles of triangular elastic zone under the foundation
β=Angle that makes the log spiral part in Log Spiral mechanism
γ = Unit weight of soil medium
ρ = Mass density of the soil medium
υ = Poisson’s ratio of the soil medium
φ = Angle of internal friction of the soil
ω = Angular frequency
REFERENCES
Budhu, M., & Al-Karni, A. (1993). Seismic bearing capacity of soils. Geotechnique, 43(1), 181–187.
doi:10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.181
Choudhury, D., & And Nimbalkar, S. (2005). Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method.
Geotechnique, 55(9), 699–702. doi:10.1680/geot.2005.55.9.699
Choudhury, D., & Subba Rao, K. S. (2005). Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Strip Footings. Geotech-
nical and Geological Engineering, 23(4), 403–418. doi:10.1007/s10706-004-9519-9
Indian Standard Code. (1981). Indian Standard Code of Practice for Determination of Bearing Capacity of
Shallow Foundations. Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi.
Ghosh, P. (2008). Upper Bound Solutions of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing By Pseudo-Dynamic Ap-
proach. Acta Geotechnica, 3(2), 115–123. doi:10.1007/s11440-008-0058-z
Hijab, W. (1956). A Note on the Centroid of a Logarithmic Spiral Sector. Geotechnique, 4(2), 96-99.
Kumar, J., & Ghosh, P. (2006). Seismic bearing capacity for embedded footings on sloping ground. Geo-
technique, 56(2), 133–140. doi:10.1680/geot.2006.56.2.133
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mech. and Found. Engi., London (pp. 384–386).
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 1(1), 16–26. doi:10.1139/t63-003
Prandtl, L. (1921). Uber die eindringungstestigkeit plastisher baustoffe und die festigkeit von schneiden[in Ger-
man]. Zeitschrift Fur Angewandt Mathematik und Mechanik, 1(1), 15–30. doi:10.1002/zamm.19210010102
Richards, R., Elms, D.G., & Budhu M. (1993). Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlements Of Foundations.
J. Geotech. Eng., 119(4), 662-674.
Saha, A., & Ghosh, S. (2014). Pseudo-dynamic Analysis for Bearing Capacity of Foundation Resting on
c-Φ Soil. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
Saran, S., & Agarwal, R. K. (1991). Bearing Capacity of Eccentrically Obliquely Loaded Footing. Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 117(11), 1669–1690.
Soubra, A.H. (1993). Discussion on Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlements of Foundations. J. Geotech.
Eng., 120(9), 1634-1636.
Soubra, A. H. (1997). Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Strip Footings in Seismic Conditions. Proc.
Instn. Civil Engrs. Geotech. Engr., 125(4), 230–241. doi:10.1680/igeng.1997.29659
Soubra, A. H. (1999). Upper bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(1), 59–69. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:1(59)
Steedman, R. S., & Zeng, X. (1990). The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pres-
sure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique, 40(1), 103–112. doi:10.1680/geot.1990.40.1.103
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 99(1), 45–43.

Ijgee 2015070102

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijgee 2015070102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 12-34, July-December 2015

Figure 1. Composite failure mechanism

Figure 2. Elastic wedge

Figure 3. Log-spiral zone

and, α 2 = tan −1 ( m tan α1 ) and width of the footing, AB = B0 ,

BEARING CAPACITY EXPRESSION

The mass of a thin element of the elastic wedge at depth z is

  t r0 sin α1  r0 sin α1   t r0 sin α1  t 

  t r0 sin α1  r0 sin α1   t r0 sin α1  t 

Considering the vertical force equilibrium on the elastic wedge ABE

PP cos(α1 − ϕ ) + Pm cos(α 2 − ϕ m ) − W + Qv c sin α1 sin α 2 (1 + m)

Where, Pp = Ppγ + Ppq + Ppc and Pm = Pmγ + Pmq + Pmc

Passive Rankine Zone

And as per Choudhury and Subha Rao, 2005,

The mass of a thin element of the passive Rankine zone at depth z1 is

γ B0 λ kh sin α 2 cos ρ p e β tan ϕ   t HD  λ   t HD  t 

Log Spiral Shear Zone

r0 (i −1)d β tan ϕ id β tan ϕ

Figure 4. Generalized slice and centre of gravity of Log-spiral zone

4 tan ϕ {e3 β tan ϕ ( 3 tan ϕ sin β − cos β ) + 1} sin α 2 

M pγ = M W 1 + M W 2 + M pγ Static − M Qh1 − M Qh 2 − M Qv1 − M Qv 2 − M pγ Decrement (41)

Total moment due to surcharge equal to zero

M pq = M q + M pqStatic − M pqDecrement (42)

Total moment due to cohesion equal to zero

Pp = Ppγ + Ppq + Ppc (47)

The values of passive earth pressure Pmγ ,

Pm = Pmγ + Pmq + Pmc (49)

Putting all the values of W, Qv, Pp and Pm in equation (8) we get PL

Where, Nγ= Single bearing capacity coefficient

cos (α1 − ϕ) sin2 α2

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Static bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0, kv=0

Table 2. Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0.1

kv=0 kv=kh/2 kv=kh

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Table 3. Pseudo-dynamic bearing capacity coefficient (Nγe) for kh=0.2

kv=0 kv=kh/2 kv=kh

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

The variations of parameters are as follows:

Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of φ

Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of 2c/γB0

Effect on Nγe/Nγs Due to the Variation of Df/B0

Effect on Nγe Due to the Variation of m

Ø=20° Ø=30° Ø=40°

2c/γB0 = Cohesion factor

You might also like