Dynamic Bearing Capacity

of Shallow Foundation
Introduction
• The function of a foundation is to transmit load from superstructure to substructure, i.e.
soil. Before a foundation can be designed, it is essential to understand the theory of
ultimate bearing capacity, qu. Ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the smallest
pressure that causes shear failure to soil supporting the foundation. Terzaghi’s bearing
capacity equations and Meyerhof’s general bearing capacity equations will be discussed
in this chapter. In addition, it will be assumed that the soil supporting the footing is
homogeneous and relatively dense or firm, and the failure mode of the soil is
categorized as general shear failure.
• Two important aspects must be considered in foundation design,
• the load applied to the foundation should not cause shear failure to soil supporting
it
• the foundation should not undergo excessive settlement.
• In most cases however, settlement is the governing factor in foundation design.
Introduction
• The static bearing capacity of shallow foundations has been extensively studied and reported in
literature.
• However, foundations can be subjected to single pulse dynamic loads which may be in vertical or
horizontal directions.
• The dynamic loads due to nuclear blasts are mainly vertical.
• Horizontal dynamic loads on foundations are due mostly to earthquakes.
• These types of loading may induce large permanent deformation in foundations.
• Isolated column footings, strip footings, mat footings, and even pile foundations all may fail
during seismic events.
• Such failures are generally attributed to liquefaction (a condition where the mean effective stress
in a saturated soil reduces to zero).
• However, a number of failures have occurred where field conditions indicate there was only
partial saturation or a dense soil and therefore liquefaction alone is a very unlikely explanation.
• Rather, the reason for the seismic settlements of these foundations seems to be that the bearing
capacity was reduced (Richards, Elms and Budhu,1993).
Introduction
• Though large amount of information on the dynamic bearing capacity of foundations is available
in literature, it is mostly based on theoretical procedures and not supported by field data.
• However, one must keep in mind that, during the analysis of the time dependent motion of a
foundation subjected to dynamic loading or estimating the bearing capacity under dynamic
conditions several factors need to be considered.
• Most important of these factors are
a) nature of variation of the magnitude of the loading pulse,
b) duration of the pulse, and
c) strain-rate response of the soil during deformation
 Introduction
⚫ Shallow foundation is a foundation whose depth below the surface, z,
is equal to or is less than its least dimension, B. z ≤B.
⚫ Type of shallow foundation:
a) Pad footing
b) Strip/Continuous footing
c) Raft/ Mat foundation
Introduction
a) Pad footing
Generally an individual foundation designed to carry a single column
load although there are occasions when a pad foundation supports
two or more columns.
Introduction
b) Strip / Continuous footing
Often termed a continuous footing this foundation has a length
significantly greater than its width. It is generally used to support a series
of columns or a wall.
Introduction
c) Raft / Mat foundation
This is a generic term for all types of foundations that cover large areas.
A raft foundation is also called as a mat foundation.
 Introduction
⚫ Factors in the design:
⚫ Adequate depth
⚫ Limiting settlement
⚫ Safe against shear failure
 Introduction
⚫ Adequate depth
⚫ The depth of footing must be sufficient to prevent any changes in surface conditions, horizontal
loads and strong overturning moments.
⚫ To prevent frost action and volume change effect, the depth of footing should more than 1.2 m
and 1.5 m respectively.
 Introduction
⚫ Limiting Settlement
⚫ Guidelines to limiting settlement by Skempton and MacDonald,
1956:

⚫ Sand - Maximum total settlement 40 mm

⚫ Clay - Maximum total settlement 60 mm
 Introduction
⚫ Safe against shear failure
⚫ Shear failure occurs when the soil divides into separate blocks or zones which move fully or
partially and tangentially with respect to each other, along slip surfaces.
⚫ Conventionally, the factor of safety to use in design against shear failure is more than 3.0.
Modes of Shear Failure
 Modes of Shear Failure
⚫ General shear failure
⚫ This occurs when a clearly defined slip surface forms under the footing and develops outward
towards one or both sides and eventually to the ground surface.
 Modes of Shear Failure
⚫ Local shear failure
⚫ Significant vertical movement may take place before any noticeable development of shear
plane occurs.
 Modes of Shear Failure
⚫ Punching shear failure
⚫ This is a downward movement of the foundation caused by soil shear failure only occurring
along the boundaries of the wedge of soil immediately below the foundation.
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
Bearing Capacity of Soil
• Shape factor

• Depth factors (D f/B ≤ 1)

• Depth factors (D f/B > 1)

• Inclination factors (b = inclination angle of load with respect to vertical plane)

Bearing Capacity of Soil
• Both Terzaghi’s and Meyerhof’s ultimate bearing capacity equations, qu consist of three terms, i.e.

• c term ~ cNc (c is referred to soil cohesion below the base of footing),

• q term ~ qNq (q is referred to overburden due to soil above the base of footing) and
• γ term ~ γBNγ (γ is referred to the unit weight of soil below the base of footing).
Bearing Capacity of Soil
• Consider the diagram of a shallow foundation as shown. Calculate the allowable bearing
capacity using Meyerhof’s equation for the following conditions assuming vertical load will be
applied. Use a safety factor FS = 3.0.
• The ground water table is at the base of the footing
• The ground water table is 1.3 m below the ground surface
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
 Bearing Capacity of Soil
•
Bearing Capacity in Sand
• The static ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations subjected to vertical loading can be
given by the equation

• In sands, with c = 0, becomes

Bearing Capacity in Sand
Bearing Capacity in Sand
• The preceding equations for static ultimate bearing capacity evaluation are valid for dense sands
where the failure surface in the soil extends to the ground surface as shown in Figure 6.1.
• This is what is referred to as the case of general shear failure.
• For shallow foundations (i.e., Df /B ≤1), if the relative density of granular soils RD is less than
about 70%, local or punching shear failure may occur.
• Hence, for static ultimate bearing capacity calculation, if 0 ≤ RD ≤ 0.67, the values of φ in should
be replaced by the modified friction angle.
Bearing Capacity in Sand
• This, in effect, corresponds to a decrease in the angle of friction of soil by about 2 o when the
loading velocity reached a value of about 50.8 × 10 -3 mm/s.
Example
• A square foundation with dimensions B × B has to be constructed on a dense sand. Its depth is Df
= 1 m. The unit weight and the static angle of friction of the soil can be assigned representative
values of 18 kN/m3 and 39o, respectively. The foundation may occasionally be subjected to a
maximum dynamic load of 1800 kN increasing at a moderate rate. Determine the size of the
foundation using a safety factor of 3.
Example
Bearing Capacity in Clay
Bearing Capacity in Clay
• The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations resting on saturated clay soils can be estimated by
using Equations provided the strain-rate effect due to dynamic loading is taken into consideration
in determination of the undrained cohesion.
• Unlike the case in sand, the undrained cohesion of saturated clays increases with the increase of
the strain rate.
• Based on those results, Carroll (1963) suggested that cu(dyn) /cu(stat) may be approximated to be
about 1.5.
• Definition of strain rate under a foundation
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
Buckingham Π-Theorem
 DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS
• Dimensional analysis is a method for deducing elements of the form of a theoretical
relationship from consideration of the variables and parameters that make up that relationship.
• Dimensional analysis of a problem then leads to a reduction in the number of variables that
must be studied in order to understand the problem.
• The key is to create dimensionally homogeneous equations whose form does not depend on
the units of measurement.
• Governing equations cannot just be plucked from the air: they must come from an underlying
insight into the phenomenon that is being modelled
 BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
• The theory of dimensional analysis is encapsulated in Buckingham's theorem
• Buckingham ' s π theorem states that:
• If there are n variables in a problem and these variables contain m primary dimensions (for
example M, L, T) the equation relating all the variables will have (n-m) dimensionless groups.
• Buckingham referred to these groups as π groups.
• π l = f(π 2, π 3 ,….. π n-m )
• The π groups must be independent of each other and no one group should be formed by
multiplying together powers of other groups.
 BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
• This method offers the advantage of being more simple than the method of solving
simultaneous equations for obtaining the values of the indices (the exponent values of the
variables).
• In this method of solving the equation, there are 2 conditions:
• a. Each of the fundamental dimensions must appear in at least one of the m variables
• b. It must not be possible to form a dimensionless group from one of the variables within a
recurring set. A recurring set is a group of variables forming a dimensionless group.
 BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
• Fundamental quantities most commonly employed are based on Newton’s second law
which states that the rate of change in momentum of a body is proportional to the applied
force. This give,

Force ∝ Change of momentum / time

Since
momentum = mass x velocity
and
acceleration = velocity / time

Therefore
Force ∝ mass x acceleration
 BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
Making unity out of constant value,

Force = mass x acceleration

The relation above if expressed dimensionally will give,

[F] = [M][LT-2]

where
[F] dimension of force [M] dimension of mass
[L] dimension of length [T] dimension of time
 BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
• The equation relates four dimensions, [F], [M], [L] and [T].
• Therefore while [L] and [T] is fundamental dimensions required for geometry and kinematics,
the thirds fundamental dimensions in dynamics can be either force [F] or mass [M](resistance
of accelaration).
• The choice of these quantities depends upon the measuring system i.e whether to employ the
MLT system (SI system) or the FLT system (British system).
• However, in this work, since mass is the fundamental physical quantity, the latter are
employed in deriving the dimensionless value of the equations.
BUCKINGHAM’S Π-THEOREM
• Selection of the relevant independent parameters can be quite difficult, the resolution
of relate problem required sufficient experience.
• Dimensional analysis associate with Buckingham’s pi-theorem provide useful hint in
determining the various factors that involved in the analysis and relevant data to be
collected.
 SLOPE IN COHESIVE SOIL
• An example - the factor of safety (Fs ) of a slope formed in purely cohesive soil.
• f (F s,H , θ, cu, γ, D) ; n = 6
• f ([1] ,[L],[1], [FL-2],[FL-3],L) ; m =2
• f (F s, cu/γH, θ, D/H) ; n– m = 4

Slope in cohesive soil

SLOPE IN COHESIVE SOIL
 FALL CONE
• The fall-cone used as a quick measure of undrained strength in the laboratory.
• f (d, W, cu, α) ; n = 4
• f ([L], [F], [FL -2], [1]) ; m =2
• f (c ud2/W, α); n-m = 2
 BEARING CAPACITY
• Relationship ultimate load on a footing
• f (P u, L, B, d, cu, ϕ,γ) ; n = 7
• f ([F], [L],[L],[L],[FL -2], [1],[FL -3]) ; m = 2
• f (Pu/γB2L, L/B, d/B, c u/γB,ϕ); n-m= 5
 VERTICAL CUT
• f(F s , α, γ, cu, h) ; n = 5
• f([1], [1], [FL -3], [FL -2], [L]); m = 2
• f(F s , α,cu/γh); n-m = 3

cu

h
γ

α
Behavior of Foundations Under Transient
Loads
• A limited number of laboratory tests for observation of load-settlement relationships of
foundations under transient loading are available. (Cunny and Sloan, 1961; Shenkman and McKee,
1961; Jackson and Hadala, 1964; Carroll, 1963).
• The experimental evaluations of these tests are presented in this section.
Load-settlement observations of square model footings
resting on sand and clay and subjected to transient loads
have been presented by Cunny and Sloan (1961).
The model footings were of varying sizes from 114.3-228.6
mm squares and were placed on the surface of the
compacted soil layers.
The transient loads to which the footings were subjected
were of the nature.
The nature of the settlement of footings with time during the
application of the dynamic load is also shown in the same
figure.
Behavior of Foundations Under Transient
Loads
• In general, during rise time (tr ) of the dynamic load, the settlement of a footings increases rapidly.
• Once the peak load [Qd(max)] is reached, the rate of settlement with time decreases.
• However, the total settlement of a footing continues to increase during the dwell time of the load (tdw)
and reaches a maximum value (Smax) at the end of the dwell time.
• During the decay period of the load (tde), the footing rebounds to some degree.

• These facts show that, for a limiting settlement condition, a foundation can support higher load under
dynamic loading conditions than those observed from static tests.
 Dynamic Load versus Settlement Prediction
in Clayey Soils
• Jackson and Hadala (1964) reported several laboratory
model tests on 114.3- 203.2 mm square footings resting
on highly saturated, compacted, plastic Buckshot clay.
• The tests were similar in nature to those described
previously in this section.
• Based on these results, Jackson and Hadala have shown
that there is a unique nondimensional relation between
Q d (max) /B 2 c u and Smax /B (cu is undrained shear strength).
• Based on t dw = 0. However, for dynamic loads with t dw >
0, the results would not be too different.
Dynamic Load versus Settlement Prediction
in Clayey Soils
• Jackson and Hadala have recommended the
following procedure for that purpose.
1. Determine the static load Q versus settlement S
relationship for a foundation from plate bearing
tests in the field.
2. Determine the unconfined compression
strength of the soil quc in the laboratory.
quc = 2cu
3. Plot a graph of Q/B2 cu versus Sstat /B .
4. For any given value of Sstat /B , multiply Q /B 2 cu
by the strain rate factor (≈1.5) and plot it in the
same graph. The resulting graph of Sstat /B versus
1.5Q/B2 cu will be the predicted relationship
between Qd (max)/B2 cu and Smax /B .
Dynamic Load versus Settlement Prediction
in Clayey Soils
Dynamic Load versus Settlement Prediction
in Clayey Soils
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
• Figure below shows a failure surface in soil assumed for the subsequent analysis, under static
conditions and under earthquake conditions.
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
• According to this theory, the ultimate bearing capacities for continuous foundations in granular
soil are
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement in
Granular Soil