Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bearing Capacity Formura For Shallow Foundations During Earthquake. Yoshito Maeda Et Al. (2004) PDF
Bearing Capacity Formura For Shallow Foundations During Earthquake. Yoshito Maeda Et Al. (2004) PDF
SUMMARY
This paper proposes a formula widely applicable for calculating bearing capacity of shallow foundations,
which can evaluate both inclined load action of superstructure and inclined bearing stratum during
earthquake. The formula is derived using seismic coefficient method and admissible velocity field method
from upper bound theorem. Its applicability was verified by series of experiment. In practice, most bearing
capacity formulas assume only the influence of load inclination. However, it was found from the newly
proposed formula and experimental results that in case of strong earthquake most of the present formulas
might have risk of over-evaluating the bearing capacity.
INTRODUCTION
Generally, the inertia force during an earthquake varies with time and place. However, it is known that an
equivalent dynamic model can be made by considering inclined ground, which corresponds to the degree
of inertia (i.e. seismic intensity in seismic coefficient method).
On the other hand, it is typical to consider inclined loads only for inertia force of superstructure in seismic
load-capacity problem of shallow foundation. This is based on the assumption that the inertia of the
superstructure is dominant and the influence of bearing stratum is comparatively small, according to
Yamaguchi [1]. However, this is only valid for a relatively small horizontal seismic coefficient of about
0.2, as indicated in JRA [2]. Moreover, the range of horizontal seismic coefficient where the bearing
stratum can be ignored has never been studied. The seismic design of foundation is shifting to
performance-based-design-method in consequence of recent major earthquakes. Safety is checked for two
earthquake levels, i.e., the ordinary earthquake and the rarely occurring earthquake. Therefore, it is very
important to study the effect of inertia force of bearing stratum to bearing capacity of foundation.
The authors have already proposed a multiple-use bearing capacity formula that considers the inclination
of load and ground; refer to Maeda [3]. It uses the dynamic model of seismic coefficient method and
applies the admissible velocity field method in the upper bound theory of plasticity. In this paper, the
1
Professor, Kyushu Kyoritsu University, Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Email: maeda@kyukyo-u.ac.jp
2
Chief Engineer, CTI Engineering Co. Ltd., Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Email: irie@ctie.co.jp
3
Engineer, Oita Prefecture Office, Japan. Email: yokota-yasuyuki@pref.oita.lg.jp
applicability of the proposed formula, and the influence of load and grounds inclination to bearing
capacity are examined by comparing the formula with bearing capacity test results of a two-dimensional
plastic laminated body.
Breaking mechanism and bearing capacity type considering the load and dip of the ground
An equivalent dynamic model of the ground when inertia force in the supporting ground is uniform and
failure is determined by the horizontal seismic coefficient due to maximum inertia force of superstructure
is shown in Fig.1. The ground can be assumed inclined when the inertia force acts opposite to the
earthquake direction. Under such a condition, a shallow foundation failure mechanism, as shown in Fig.2,
can be obtained. Here, it is assumed that ab and cd are straight lines and bc is logarithmic spiral line.
Thus, the bearing capacity, which considers inclinations of load and ground at the same time, can be
determined.
tan = s / g (Equation 1)
tan = f / g
(Equation 2)
Moreover, in the case of s =f , the responses of the superstructure and bearing stratum are equal, and
= .
For the failure mechanism illustrated in Fig.2, an upper limit of the bearing capacity is found by equating
internal dispersion energy and external work. Also, the admissible velocity field method in this paper
assumes an associated flow rule (=) where the soils yield condition is defined by compatibility of the
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and plastic flow.
Internal dispersion energy can be computed as illustrated in Fig.2. The straight-line part is the product of
adhesive strength and a discontinuous quantity of admissible velocity. Its sum with dispersion energy of
internal area represents the transition zone; refer to Yamaguchi [4].
External work is the sum of the work due to the weight of ground, inclined load Q (q=Q/B) and surcharge
load p, where the ground consists of an active wedge zone, transition zone and passive soil pressure zone.
In the following, the inclined load q is obtained by equating the total internal dispersion energy and the
total external work.
1
q = cN c + pN q + BN
2 (Equation 3)
N c = c N c 0 , N q = q N q 0 ,
(
N = N 1 + N 2 ) (Equation 3-1)
Here, c, q, and are inclination coefficients of load and ground that can be found using equations
4, 5 and 6. Nc0 and Nq0 are the bearing capacity coefficients when the load and ground are not inclined, i.e.
==0. Since N contains both N1 and N2, N becomes N0 when ==0 in Equations 3-1. Equations 8, 9-
1 and 9-2 define these coefficients.
cos
c = q =
cos( ) (Equation 4)
cos
=
cos( ) (Equation 5)
= tan
(Equation 6)
1
N c0 =
tan( )
sin
+ {(1 + sin ) exp(21 tan ) 1}
sin( ) sin (Equation 7)
N 1 =
sin
cos sin ( )
[
cos 2 ( )
sin
+ { {3 tan cos( + 1 )
(9 tan 2
)
+ 1 cos
+ sin ( + 1 )}exp(31 tan ) + 3 tan cos( )
+ sin ( )}
sin
N 2 = [ sin ( ) cos( )
cos sin ( )
sin
+ {{3 tan sin ( + 1 )
(9 tan 2
)
+ 1 cos
cos( + 1 )}exp(31 tan ) 3 tan sin ( )
+ cos( )}
The bearing capacity component perpendicular to ground surface is expressed in equation 10.
In the above equations, represents the correction factor for ground weight. It corrects the bearing
capacity coefficient for ground weight N that is overestimated when using the general bearing capacity
equation based on Prandtls failure mechanism, as compared to precise values determined by stress
characteristic curve methods; refer to PWRI [5]. This paper assumes =1/2, which is suggested in Maeda
[6].
0 5 10 15 20
(deg)
Figure 3 Relation of bearing capacity reduction rate and inclination angle; ref. to Shioiri et al. [7]
Figure 4 shows the bearing capacity factor ratio when the load inclination angle is in the range of 0 to
30 and the internal friction angle is 30.
N /NN/N0
Nc/Nc0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0.8
0.8
Standard for road
coefficient ratio
0.8 Standard
for road
c
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
Bearing capacity
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 00 10 20
20 30
30 40
40
( (deg)
Load inclination angle ) Load inclinationangle
( ) (deg)
(a) Nc (b) N
N ()
Figure 4 Comparison of proposed formula and Japanese design standards
LABORATORY TEST ON BEARING CAPACITY
Experiment Outline
The laboratory test for bearing capacity uses a plastic rod, built-up in a two-dimensional soil layer with
dimensions of W=150cm wide, H=50cm high and L=23cm deep as shown in Fig.5. The loading apparatus
and ground can be rotated, making it possible to combine arbitrary inclination angles of ground () and
load (). The footing is B=10cm wide and L=20cm deep. The load position is adjusted so that the resultant
of applied load acts at the center of footing's base for all load inclination angles , as illustrated in Fig.6. In
order not to restrain displacement at right angles to the load axis, a load is set beforehand to balance the
weight of the apparatus for load inclination adjustment. The displacements taken at point of measurement
V0, H0, and at base of footing V, H are expressed in the following equations with reference to Fig.6.
The plastic rod has a diameter of 1.6mm, length of L=20cm and unit weight of d=11.5kN/m3. Its internal
friction angle and adhesive strength determined from laboratory shear testing are =21 and c=0kN/m2,
respectively. A displacement control system using screw jack is applied where the speed of inclined load
application is set to 2.5mm/min. Twenty five tests were performed, using combinations of =0, 5, 10, 20
and =0, 10, 20, 30, 40. The method used to evaluate bearing capacity in this paper is shown in Fig.7. In
this figure, bearing capacity is defined as the intersection of fit curve and the line that bisects the angle of
intersection of two lines tangent to the curve.
55
Horizontal(parallel) load PH(kPa)
5
0.8 0.80.8
Pv(kPa)
()P (kPa)
()P (kPa)
44 4
P (kPa)
P (kPa)
0.6 0.60.6
H
33 3
V
V
Vertical load
0.4 0.40.4
22 2
0.2 0.20.2
11 1
00 01 0 00
1 22
1 323 3 1 11 2 22
V(cm) V(cm)
()
()
H(cm) H(cm)
Vertical displacementv(cm) Horizontal(parallel) displacement H(cm)
Figure 7 Evaluation method of bearing capacity
Comparison of Experimental Results and Proposed Formula
In this experiment, the bearing capacity coefficient is related only to the weight of ground N, since the dry
plastic rod is set without embedment. Therefore, comparison according to weight of ground N is carried
out as follows.
The figures below show the influence of load and ground inclination to bearing coefficient N. The
vertical axis represents the ratio of bearing capacity coefficient Nt corresponding to load inclination angle
and bearing capacity coefficient N0 when =0. Figure 8(a) illustrates the variation of bearing capacity
coefficient with respect to load inclination angle where ground inclination angle is =0. It is clear from
the figure that bearing capacity decreases as load inclination angle increases. In addition, the figure shows
the test values, computed values according to the proposed equation and prescribed values in
Specifications for Highway Bridges. Comparison reveals that these three values coincide when =10 and
less. For =20, test values exceed computed values and prescribed values. It is conceivable that the
reason for this is the unstableness of the foundation. Since the internal friction angle of plastic is =21,
the foundation will starts to slide at =20. The prescribed value is slightly greater than the computed
value, which implies that Specifications for Highway Bridges gives safer values of bearing capacity
coefficient. This may be explained by the difference in slip planes.
Figure 8(b) illustrates the variation of bearing capacity coefficient with respect to ground inclination angle
where load inclination angle is =0. It shows that the bearing capacity coefficient decreases as ground
inclination angle increases. This suggests that the influence of the ground's inertial force is well
evaluated. The reduction rate of bearing capacity coefficient due to ground inclination angle is small
compared to that of load inclination angle . Moreover, the test and computed values coincide well, except
when =20.
Figure 8(b) Influence of ground inclination to N (=0)
Figure 8(c) illustrates the variation of bearing capacity coefficient when =. It is clear from this that
bearing capacity decreases in the case where inclination angles of load and ground are allowed to increase
independently. Moreover, the reduction ratio of the bearing capacity coefficient ratio increases compared
to the case where load and ground are allowed to vary independently. This is because the bearing capacity
coefficient, which is reduced according to inclinations of load and ground, is a summation of results.
Moreover, test values agree well with computed values.
Figure 10 shows the bearing capacity envelope curve for =, where load P is reduced to its vertical and
horizontal components (i.e., normal load PV and horizontal load PH). The figure reveals that the bearing
capacity envelope curve becomes small when inclination angles of load () and ground () become large,
and that the bearing capacity is dependent on these two factors.
In this paper, the properties and applicability of the bearing capacity equation are investigated in order to
evaluate the bearing capacity characteristics of shallow foundation during earthquake loading. The method
uses a dynamic model for seismic coefficient method and failure mechanism according to admissible
velocity field method. Results are summarized as follows.
2. The applicability of the proposed equation is confirmed, since the decrease of bearing capacity
coefficient according to the equation agrees with the test results from a two-dimensional model.
3. Based on two-dimensional bearing capacity model test results, the bearing capacity coefficient N
decreases according to inclinations of load and ground, similar to results from past studies. The rate
of decrease becomes large as the inclination angle increases.
4. In regards to reduction rate of bearing capacity N, the effect of load inclination is greater than that of
ground inclination. Furthermore, the reduction rate becomes slightly bigger in the case when
inclinations of load and ground are both considered, compared to the case when only inclination of
load is considered.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratitude is indebted to Prof. Dawn A. Shuttle of The University of British Columbia for her
great efforts and cooperation in reading and checking the contents of this paper.
REFERENCES