Dynamic Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Foundation

References

Das BM, Fundamentals of soil dynamics, Elsevier, 1983.

Day RW, Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Ishihara K, Soil behavior in earthquake engineering, Oxford Science Publications, 1996.

1
 Content

1. Three types of shallow foundation failure

2. Static bearing capacity of shallow foundation

3. Dynamic bearing capacity of shallow foundation in clay

4. Dynamic bearing capacity of shallow foundation in sand

5. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient vertical load

6. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient horizontal load

2
 1. Three types of shallow foundation failure (1)

1) General shear failure (see Fig. 1)

Continuous shear failure surface from below the footing to the ground surface.
Soil is pushed up around the footing.
Occur usually in a dense or hard soil.

Figure 1 General shear failure

3
 1. Three types of shallow foundation failure (2)
2) Punching shear failure (see Fig. 2)
Compression of soil directly below the footing and vertical shearing of soil
around the footing perimeter.
The soil outside the loading area remains relatively uninvolved, and there is
minimum movement of soil on both sides of the footing.
Occur usually in a loose or soft soil.

Figure 2 Punching shear failure

4
 1. Three types of shallow foundation failure (3)

3) Local shear failure (see Fig. 3)

Local shear failure surface forms below the footing, but don’t form a continuous failure
surface, it is a transitional phase between the above the two failures.
Not significant soil bulging occurs at the both sides of the footing.
Occurs usually in a medium or firm soil.

Figure 3 Local shear failure

5
0  RD  0.67

2. Static bearing capacity of shallow foundation

1) Ultimate static bearing capacity for the general shear failure (see Fig. 4)
1
qu  cN c Sc dc  qN q Sq d q   BN S d
2
where qu :ultimate bearing capacity (ultimate load per unit area of the foundation)
γ : effective unit weight of soil below the foundation
q=γ Df : the soil surcharge pressure above the bottom of the foundation
Df: depth of the foundation
B: width of the foundation
Nc, Nq, Nr: bearing capacity factors only related to soil friction angle
(Reissner, 1924; Vesic, 1973)
Sc, Sq, Sr : shape factors (Debeer, 1970; Hanson, 1970)

dc,,dq,,dr: depth factors (Debeer, 1970; Hanson, 1970)

2) Local or punching shear failure

( 0  RD  0.67 )

  tg 1  (0.67  RD  0.75RD2 )tg ( )  6

Figure 4 Scheme of general shear failure surface
0  RD  0.67

3. Dynamic bearing capacity of shallow foundation in clay

1) Foundation resting on saturated clay, undrained condition with c  cu ,   0is used:
qu  cu N c Sc d c  q
2) Determination of undrained cohesion cu
Effect of strain velocity (see Fig. 5), Carrol (1963) suggested cu ( dyn ) cu ( stat )  1.5 for strain
rate   50% / sec.
Effect of cyclic loading on dynamic strength (see Fig. 6).
Soil with high sensitivity weaken by earthquake: residual strength is used.

Figure 5 Unconsolidated-undrained triaxial test Figure 6 Cyclic loading test on clay 7

results on Buckshot clay-Effect of shear rate
4. Dynamic bearing capacity of shallow foundation in cohesionless soil(1)

1) Ultimate bearing capacity for general shear failure in sand (c=0)

1
qu  qN q S q d q   BN  S d 
2

2) Ultimate bearing capacity for foundation underlain

by liquefied soil with punching shear failure (Fig. 7)
Qu  2T f (Strip foundation)
Qu  2( B  L)T f (Rectangular foundation)
Figure 7 Punching shear failure on an
unliquefied soil underlain by liquefied soil layer
where T is the vertical distance from the bottom of the foundation to the top of the liquefied soil
layer; is the shear strength of the unliquefiable upper soil layer.

3) Ultimate bearing capacity for foundation on cohesive soil layer underlain by liquefied soil
with general shear failure
qu  cu N c Sc d c
where Nc is determined based on Fig. 8, c 1=cu is the undrained shear strength of the upper soil
layer, and c2 is the undrained shear strength of the underlain liquefied soil layer with c 2=0

8
 4. Dynamic bearing capacity of shallow foundation in cohesionless soil(2)
4) Granular soil with earthquake-induced pore water pressure
Factor of safety against liquefaction (FS≤1)
The soil is expected to liquefied during the design earthquake with no shear strength.
FS>2: The pore water pressure generated by the earthquake is usually small enough, and
earthquake can be assumed to have no influence on soil strength.
1
1<Fs ≤2: qu  (1  ru ) BN  S d where ru  u   is the
2
pore water pressure ratio (the ratio of excess pore water
pressure to the effective stress obtained from Fig. 9)

Figure 8 Ultimate bearing capacity for foundation on cohesive Figure 9 Factor of safety against liquefaction 9
soil layer underlain by liquefied soil with general shear failure FSL verus the pore water pressure ratio ru
 5. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient vertical load (1)

1) Solution by Triandafilidis (1965) for dynamic

response of continuous footing supported
by saturated cohesive soil ( c  cu ,   0 )
2) Vertical transient stress (see Fig. 10a)
qd  q0 e   t   qu e   t
where qu is the static bearing capacity of the
continuous footing,
q0   qu
is peak intensity of the stress pulse,
and is overload factor.
3) Basic assumptions: Figure 10 Transient vertical load on
The saturated cohesive soil behaves as a rigid foundation (Rotational mode of failure)

plastic material.
The failure surface of soil is cylindrical with center located in Fig. 10b.
c  cu ,   0 and static bearing capacity is given by qu  5.54cu .
Influence of strain rate on the strength is not considered.
Weight of foundation is not included.
10
Rotational angle less than 15-20 degrees.
 5. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient vertical load (2)

4) Equation of motion
Moment of driving forces about point O=moment of restoring forces about point O.
1 1
Moment due to driving force qd. M d  qd ( B  1)  ( B)  qd B
2

2 2 1 1
Resisting moment due to strength along the failure surface. M r1  qu ( B 1)( B)  qu B 2
WB 2 2 2
Resisting moment due to soil inertia M r 2  J 0  1.36 g 
where  is angular acceleration,
WB 2
J0 
1.36 g is polar mass moment of inertia,
W  0.31 B 2 is the weight per unit length of the cylindrical soil mass PQR,
g is the gravity acceleration, and is the unit weight of the soil.
Restoring moment due to displaced soil mass PQR M r 3  WR sin 
Equation of motion: M d  M r1  M r 2  M r 3 , by assuming   sin 
3g 0.68 g
   qu   e   t  1
B W

5) Solutions of the motion equation

W T2   2T 2   2 t  T  2 t  t  2T 2 
 2 1     cos   sin    e   1
0.68 gqu 4   2T 2  4 2   T  2  T  4 2  11
 6. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient horizontal load (1)

1) Solution by Prakash and Chummar (1967)

for dynamic response of continuous
footing resting on c-Φ cohesive soil
2) Foundation is subjected to vertical
constant load Q, horizontal transient load
Qd with Qdmax=λQ (Fig. 11a), where λ is
overload factor.
3) Basic assumptions:
The cohesive soil behaves as a rigid plastic
material.
The failure surface of soil is a logarithmic Figure 11 Transient horizontal load on
spiral with center located at the corner of the foundation with rotational mode of failure
foundation base (see Fig. 11b).
1
The static bearing capacity is given by qu  cN c   BN 
2

N c   e 2 tg  1 tg , N   4tg  e 3 tg  1   9tg 2  1
Influence of strain rate on the strength is not considered.
Weight of foundation is not included. 12
 6. Rigid plastic analysis of foundation under transient horizontal load (2)
4) Equation of motion
Moment of driving forces about point O=moment of restoring forces about point O
1
Moment due to vertical load Q M d 1  QB
2 Q Ht
Moment due to horizontal force Qd M d 2  Qd H  d max
td cB 2 2 tg
Resisting moment due to strength along the failure surface M r1 
2tg
 e  1
Mr2  0
Resisting moment due to the frictional resistance along the failure surface
Resisting moment due to the weight of the soil mass PQR
 1  2  tg  e3 tg  1
M 3r    2  rd  r   3 r cos       B 3
0 9tg 2  1

Resisting moment due to displacement of the center of the soil mass PQR:
tg  e3 tg  1
M 4 r  W x    B3 sin   
3 9tg 2  1
 B 4  e 4 tg  1
Resisting moment due to soil inertia:
M r 5  J   
16 g  tg
Equation of motion M d 1  M d 2  M r1  M r 2  M r 3  M r 4  M r 5 by assuming   sin 
4 tg
g  sin  g  Qd max Ht 1  e 1
   4   QB  E  where  
B  B   td 2  16tg
e 2 tg  1 2 tg  e  1
3 tg

E cB   B3 13
5) Solutions of the motion equation 2tg 9tg   1
2