Inclination Factors for Seismic Bearing Capacity

K. L. Fishman, M.ASCE1; R. Richards Jr., M.ASCE2; and D. Yao3

Abstract: The classic approach for static analysis and design for the effect of shear forces transmitted by shallow foundations is to
modify the bearing capacity by introducing inclination factors to reduce the shear strength provided by cohesion, surcharge and self-
Downloaded from [Link] by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weight in the standard bearing capacity equation. These static inclination factors are usually based on empirically derived relationships
determined by laboratory and field tests. However, it is possible to derive them from limit analysis of a simple Coulomb-type mechanism
and thereby extend the concept of inclination factors to the dynamic case giving values for seismic design.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:9共861兲
CE Database subject headings: Bearing capacity; Shallow foundations; Shear strength; Seismic design.

Introduction retaining wall problems, however, it is better to present the reduc-

tion in bearing capacity due to shear at the footing interface in
In an earthquake, the inertial forces within the soil mass reduce terms of ‘‘n’’ 共rather than f 兲 defined as
the available soil strength and consequently the ultimate bearing
capacity of a shallow foundation. Shear transfer at the soil- Ph
n⫽ (1)
structure interface further reduces the bearing capacity. P v tan ␾
The seismic bearing capacity factors N cE , N qE , and N ␥E were
derived by Richards et al. 共1993兲 using a so-called Coulomb where the vertical force P v ⫽ P LE at failure. Not only does n
Mechanism shown in Fig. 1. Later Shi and Richards 共1995兲 in- eliminate the acceleration from the denominator so it does not
cluded variable shear transfer in the model. This work shows that, become undefined for zero values of acceleration, but it also re-
by using an angle of friction between the active and passive lates the bearing capacity reduction to the factor of safety relative
wedges of ␦⫽␾/2, results from the Coulomb Mechanism are es- to a sliding mode of failure. This is particularly important for
sentially the same as those found by either the method of charac- retaining walls and bridge abutments, where the lateral earth pres-
teristics or by a Prandtl-type mechanism with a logarithmic tran- sure and horizontal forces transferred from the bridge deck can
sition zone 共Richards 2001兲. The soil is considered unsaturated or easily give f ⬎3 for k h ⬍0.2 and, in fact, the range in possible f
dense so liquefaction is not a possibility. values is unbounded. Therefore, design charts presented in terms
The results for the ratio of the seismic to static bearing capac- of f often require extrapolation to estimate bearing capacity re-
ity factors N cE /N cS , N qE /N qS , and N ␥E /N ␥S are presented in duction factors for retaining wall problems. Alternatively, since
terms of a friction factor defined as f ⫽ P h /k h P v , where P h and n⫽ f k h /tan ␾, 0⭐n⭐1 and we can interpolate between values of
P v are the resultant shear and vertical forces at the base of the n provided in design charts rather than extrapolate. Moreover, as
foundation, and k h is the coefficient of the horizontal component we shall see, n is directly related to the standard definitions of
of acceleration. To illustrate, the curves for N ␥E /N ␥S for various static inclination factors.
angles of soil friction, ␾, are shown in Fig. 2. Using Shi’s 共1993兲 approach and replacing P h ⫽ f k h P v with
P h ⫽n P v tan ␾b , the seismic bearing capacity reduction factor in
terms of n can be derived. Only the side where the inertial forces
Seismic Shear Factor ‘‘n’’ act in the direction of impending slip is critical and shown in Fig.
This ‘‘f ’’ factor is an adequate parameter for describing the 1. From the free body diagram shown in Fig. 1, the equilibrium
mechanism of shear transfer for pier and column footings. For equations for the active wedge are

1
R A sin共 ␳ A ⫺␾ 兲 ⫹k h W A ⫹ P h ⫽ P AE cos ␦ (2)
Principal, McMahon and Mann Consulting Engineers, P.C., 2495
Main St., Suite 432, Buffalo, NY 14214. E-mail: kfishman@[Link] W A ⫹ P LE⫽R A cos共 ␳ A ⫺␾ 兲 ⫹ P AE sin ␦ (3)
2
Professor, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Civil,
Structural, and Environmental Engineering, 212 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY Solving these two equations
14260.
3
Research Associate, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of cos共 ␳ A ⫺␾ 兲
P AE⫽ 关共 P LE⫹W A 兲 tan共 ␳ A ⫺␾ 兲 ⫹k h W A ⫹ P h 兴
Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, 212 Ketter Hall, cos共 ␳ A ⫺␾⫺␦ 兲
Buffalo, NY 14260. (4)
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by and, substituting P h ⫽n P v tan ␾⫽nPLE tan ␾, P LE⫽p LEH cot ␳A ,
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing W A ⫽1/2␥H 2 cot ␳A

冉 冊
Editor. The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review
and possible publication on November 29, 2001; approved on November 2p LE H2 1
P AE⫽ ⫹␥ R ⫹ ␥H 2 k h R 2 ⫹np LEH tan ␾R 2 (5)
20, 2002. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and H 2 1 2
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 9, September 1, 2003.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2003/9-861– 865/$18.00. where

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 861

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 861-865

 冉 2p LE
H
⫹␥冊H2
2
1
R 1 ⫹ ␥H 2 k h R 2 ⫹np LEH tan ␾R 2
2

1
⫽ ␥H 2 K PE⫹qHK PE (10)
2
Rearranging
Fig. 1. Coulomb failure mechanism 共␦⫽␾/2兲 p LE共 R 1 ⫹n tan ␾R 2 兲 ⫽ 21 ␥H 共 K PE⫺R 1 ⫺R 2 k h 兲 ⫹qK PE (11)
and the ultimate load can be expressed with surcharge and self-
weight terms as
Downloaded from [Link] by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

p LE⫽qN qE ⫹ 21 ␥BN ␥E (12)

sin共 ␳ AE⫺␾ 兲 cot ␳ AE
R 1⫽ (6) Thus the seismic bearing capacity factors in terms of n are
cos共 ␳ AE⫺␾⫺␦ 兲
K PE⫺R 1 ⫺R 2 k h
cos共 ␳ AE⫺␾ 兲 cot ␳ AE N ␥E ⫽ tan ␳ AE (13)
R 1 ⫹n tan ␾R 2
R 2⫽ (7)
cos共 ␳ AE⫺␾⫺␦ 兲 K PE
For the passive wedge, where S Q ⫽Qk h , the passive thrust N qE ⫽ (14)
R 1 ⫹n tan ␾R 2
P PE is
1 The critical angle ␳ AE can be found by iteration. Since P AE
P PE⫽ ␥H 2 K PE⫹qHK PE (8) ⫽ P PE and P AE⫽1/2␥H 2 K AE⫹p LE(H)K AE
2
where K PE⫽seismic passive lateral earth pressure coefficient. P PE
K AE⫽ (15)
From the Mononabe–Okabe analysis 1
␥H 2 ⫹p LEH
cos2 a 2

冋 冑 册
K PE⫽ (9)
sin共 ␾⫹␦ 兲 sin a and ␳ AE is the angle giving the maximum K AE .
cos ␪ cos共 ␦⫹␪ 兲 1⫺ Figs. 3 and 4 show the seismic bearing capacity reduction
cos共 ␦⫹␾ 兲
factors in terms of n for different friction angles corresponding
⫺1
in which ␪⫽tan 关kh /(1⫺kv)兴; and a⫽␾⫺␪. exactly to the results in terms of f presented previously by Shi and
When the failure mechanism forms, P AE⫽ P PE , so Richards 共1995兲. However, the results in terms of n show more

Fig. 2. Bearing capacity reduction factor N␥e/N␥s for different values of f

862 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 861-865

Downloaded from [Link] by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Bearing capacity reduction factor Nqe/Nqs

Fig. 4. Bearing capacity reduction factor N␥e/N␥s

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 863

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 861-865

Downloaded from [Link] by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Separation of bearing capacity reduction factor into

components from inertial effect and shear transfer

Mechanism for the static case (k h ⫽0) since P h ⫽n P v tan ␾ or

P h / P v ⫽n tan ␾⫽tan ␪. The result is shown in Fig. 5.
For the seismic case, however, the reduction in bearing capac-
ity factors N qE /N qS , and N ␥E /N ␥S given by Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲
Fig. 5. Comparisons of static ultimate loading inclination factors
and represented by the n curves in Figs. 3 and 4 combine two
where p LS⫽i ␥ 1/2BN ␥s ⫹i q N qs . 共a兲 Self-weight, 共b兲 surcharge.
different shear effects: 共a兲 the inertial force due to seismic shear
stresses in the soil within the failure zone beneath the foundation,
and 共b兲 the surface shear traction, P h , at the foundation interface
clearly that the seismic bearing capacity goes to zero when k h
or inclination of the force resultant as accelerations increase. The
reaches the general fluidization value (k h ) f ⫽tan ␾ no matter what
effect of each, however, is apparent and easily calculated from the
the horizontal force 共Richards et al. 1990兲.
theoretical curves if, for some reason, a designer wants to sepa-
rate them.
Fig. 6 shows a typical n curve diagram for either N qE /N qS , or
Static and Seismic Inclination Factors
N ␥E /N ␥S at some value of n for a given soil. If n is zero, P h
Various empirical formulas are available for considering the effect ⫽n P v tan ␾⫽0 and we have only the inertial effect with no shear
of inclined loading on the bearing capacity for static loading. transfer. In other words the n⫽0 curve corresponds to perfect
These dimensionless correction or reduction factors determined base isolation where the degradation of bearing capacity is en-
from tests include tirely due to the inertial effect on the soil captured within the
1. Meyerhof 共1953, 1963兲 failure region. Thus, the difference between the n⫽0 and the

冉 冊 冉 冊
actual n curve computed from analysis using the design accelera-
␪ 2 ␪ 2 Ph tion, k dh , gives the loss in bearing capacity due to shear transfer or
i ␥ ⫽ 1⫺ ; i q ⫽ 1⫺ ; ␪⫽tan⫺1
␾ 90° Pv seismic load inclination. In fact, we could compute a seismic
2. Hansen 共1970兲 inclination factor, i E , in terms of the angle tan ␪⫽Ph /Pv

冉 冊 冉 冊
5 5 ⫽n tan ␾ to combine with another separate reduction factor for
0.7P h 0.5P h
i ␥ ⫽ 1⫺ ; i q ⫽ 1⫺ inertia, i I , to reduce the static value N E ⫽i E i I N S . This is, of
P v ⫹A e c a cot ␾ P v ⫹A e c a cot ␾ course, unnecessary and confusing since both effects are already
3. Vesic 共1975兲 combined in the analysis using the Coulomb Failure Mechanism.

冉
i ␥ ⫽ 1⫺
Ph
P v ⫹A e c a cot ␾ 冊 m⫹1
; 冉
i q ⫽ 1⫺
Ph
P v ⫹A e c a cot ␾ 冊 m

Conclusions
where i ␥ and i q ⫽load inclination reduction factors applied to the
self-weight and surcharge terms of the generalized bearing capac- The Coulomb Mechanism gives an easy analytic analysis for seis-
ity equation. In the Hansen and Vesic formulas m⫽(2⫹R BW )/(1 mic reduction in bearing capacity due to both shear transfer and
⫹R BW ) , R BW ⫽B/W, B and W⫽foundation width and length inertial effects in the soil. From this analysis, the failure planes
with P h parallel to B, A e ⫽effective contact area at the base of the become flatter and the volume of soil involved in the failure
foundation which considers the effect of load eccentricity, and mechanism becomes shallower as the shear traction and ground
c a ⫽adhesion of the foundation soil to the footing base. accelerations increase. Previously verified by agreement to other
With no cohesion (c a ⫽0), these different empirical formulas proposed failure mechanisms, the close correlation to experimen-
can be related directly to the analytical results from the Coulomb tal results for the reduction in static bearing capacity due to

864 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 861-865

 sheartransfer 共Fig. 5兲 further displays the power of the Coulomb References
Mechanism to generate accurate results with simple limit analysis
of sliding wedges. Hansen, J. B. 共1970兲. ‘‘A revised and extended formula for bearing ca-
It is a straightforward exercise to derive the equation for the pacity.’’ Danish Geotechnical Institute Bull. No. 28.
cohesive bearing capacity factor for N cE in terms of n using the Meyerhof, G. G. 共1953兲. ‘‘The bearing capacity of footing under eccentric
Coulomb Mechanism as was done for N ␥E and N qE and plot the and inclined loads.’’ Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
corresponding curves. Seldom, however, do retaining walls have Foundations Engineering, I, Zurich, Switzerland.
cohesive backfill and the bearing capacity ratio N cE /N cS in terms Meyerhof, G. G. 共1963兲. ‘‘Some recent research on the bearing capacity
of f for other foundations is satisfactory. of foundations.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 1共1兲, 16 –26.
It is also clear from this comparison that the static Meyerhof Richards, R. 共2001兲. Principles of Solid Mechanics, CRC, Boca Raton,
equations should not be used in practice. For example, consider- Fla., 425– 430.
Downloaded from [Link] by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing ␾⫽30° with an inclination angle of 20°, the Meyerhof factor Richards, R., Elms, D. G., and Budhu, M. 共1990兲. ‘‘Dynamic fluidization
for self-weight is too low by nearly 100% and too high for static of soils.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 116共5兲, 740–759.
Richards, R., Elms, D. G., and Budhu, M. 共1993兲. ‘‘Seismic bearing ca-
surcharge by roughly 40%.
pacity and settlements of foundations.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 119共4兲,
Finally, it should be noted that, although the results for the
662– 674.
seismic case using the n factor presented here and the f factor Shi, X. 共1993兲. ‘‘Plastic analysis for seismic stress fields.’’ PhD disserta-
used previously are identical, the n factor equation and curves are tion, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.
better. They are bounded between values of zero and one, inter- Shi, X., and Richards, R., Jr. 共1995兲. ‘‘Seismic bearing capacity with
polation between curves rather than extrapolation is easy, they variable shear transfer.’’ Bull. of the New Zealand Society for Earth-
converge at n⫽1 共or k h ⫽tan ␾) to the value of slip at P h quake Engineering, 28共2兲, 153–163.
⫽ P v tan ␾, and they correlate to the standard inclination factors Vesic, A. S. 共1975兲. Foundations engineering handbood, H. F. Winterkorn
in the static case. and H. Fang, eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2003 / 865

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(9): 861-865