Bearing Capacity Analysis

for Earthquakes

Dr. G. Kalyan Kumar

• A bearing capacity failure is defined as a
foundation failure that occurs when the
shear stresses in the soil exceed the shear
strength of the soil.

• For both the static and seismic cases,

bearing capacity failures of foundations
can be grouped into three categories,
1. General shear failure;
• Involves total rupture of the underlying
soil.

• general shear failure ruptures and pushes

up the soil on both sides of the footing.
2. Punching shear failure;
• the soil outside the loaded area remains
relatively uninvolved, and there is minimal
movement of soil on both sides of the
footing.

• the bearing capacity is often defined as

the first major nonlinearity in the load-
settlement curve (open circle).
3. Local shear failure;
• local shear failure involves rupture of the
soil only immediately below the footing.

• There is soil bulging on both sides of the

footing, but the bulging is not as
significant as in general shear.
 Bearing Capacity Failures;
Compared to the number of structures
damaged by earthquake-induced settlement,
there are far fewer structures that have
earthquake-induced bearing capacity failures.
• Settlement governs;
1. Settlement due to the building loads must not
exceed tolerable values

2. There must be an adequate factor of safety

against a bearing capacity failure.
Extensive studies;

development of bearing capacity equations that are

routinely used in practice to determine the ultimate
bearing capacity of the foundation.
Factor of Safety;

•To determine the allowable bearing pressure qall, the

ultimate bearing capacity qult is divided by a factor of
safety.

•The normal factor of safety used for static bearing

capacity analysis is 3.
Minimum footing sizes;

•Building codes often require minimum footing sizes

and embedment depths.

•Larger footing sizes will lower the bearing pressure

on the soil and reduce the potential for static or
seismic bearing capacity failures.
Allowable bearing pressure;

•Building codes often have maximum allowable

bearing pressures for different soil and rock
conditions.

•In the case of dense or stiff soils, these allowable

bearing pressures often have adequate factors of
safety for both static and seismic cases.
Footing Dimensions;

•Usually the structural engineer will determine the

size of the footing by dividing the maximum footing
load by the allowable bearing pressure.

•The load that is used to proportion the footing also

contains a factor of safety, which is in addition to the
factor of safety that was used to determine the
allowable bearing pressure.
Bearing Capacity Failures during earthquakes
indicate that usually following three factors;
1. Soil shear strength;
• Common problems include an overestimation
of the shear strength of the underlying soil.

• There must be an adequate factor of safety

against a bearing capacity failure. Another
common situation leading to a bearing capacity
failure is the loss of shear strength during the
earthquake, because of the liquefaction of the
soil or the loss of shear strength for sensitive
clays.
2. Structural Load;

•structural load at the time of the bearing capacity

failure was greater than that assumed during the
design phase.

•This can often occur when the earthquake causes

rocking of the structure, and the resulting structural
overturning moments produce significant cyclic
vertical thrusts on the foundation elements and
underlying soil.
3. Change in site conditions;

•An altered site can produce a bearing capacity

failure.

•if the groundwater table rises, then the potential for

liquefaction is increased.

•the construction of an adjacent excavation, which

could result in a reduction in support and a bearing
capacity failure.
The most common cause of a seismic bearing
capacity failure is liquefaction of the
underlying soil.

•Although bearing capacity failures related to

liquefaction of underlying soils are most common,
there could also be localized failures due to punching
shear when the footing is overloaded, such as by the
building’s rocking back and forth.
Tilting of apartment buildings, Niigata (1964) 21
Source: wikipedia
The building suffered a liquefaction-induced bearing capacity failure during the Izmit
earthquake in Turkey on August 17, 1999. (Photograph from the Izmit Collection, EERC,
University of California, Berkeley.)
The building suffered a
liquefaction-induced punching
shear failure during the Izmit
earthquake in Turkey on August
17, 1999. (Photograph from the
Izmit Collection, EERC, University
of California, Berkeley.)
The building foundation shown was
constructed of individual footings that
were interconnected with concrete tie
beams. The building collapsed during
the Caracas earthquake in Venezuela
on July 29, 1967. When the
foundation was exposed, it was
discovered that the spread footings
had punched downward into the soil.
Note that the tie beam at the center of
the photograph was bent and pulled
downward when the footing punched
into the underlying soil. (Photograph
from the Steinbrugge Collection,
EERC, University of California,
Berkeley.)
 Shear Strength;
Because the bearing capacity failure involves
a shear failure of the underlying soil the
analysis will naturally includes the shear
strength of soil.
• For static bearing capacity analyses, it is
often assumed that the soil involved in the
bearing capacity failure can extend to a depth
equal to B (footing width) below the bottom of
the footing.
• for cases involving earthquake-induced liquefaction
failures or punching shear failures, the depth of soil
involvement could exceed the footing width.
For buildings with numerous spread footings
that occupy a large portion of the building
area, the individual pressure bulbs from each
footing may combine, and thus the entire
width of the building could be involved in a
bearing capacity failure.

• Either a total stress analysis or an effective stress

analysis must be used to determine the bearing
capacity of a foundation.
One-Third Increase in Bearing Pressure for
Seismic Conditions;

1. Massive crystalline bedrock and

sedimentary rock that remains intact during
the earthquake.

2. Settlement governs; Dense to very dense

granular soil.

3. Heavily overconsolidated cohesive soil, such as

very stiff to hard clays
These materials do not lose shear strength
during the seismic shaking, and therefore
an increase in bearing pressure is
appropriate.
Bearing Capacity Analysis for Liquefied Soil;
Steps are as follows;

1. Requirements;

a. Bearing location of foundation: The foundation must

not bear on soil that will liquefy during the design
earthquake. Even lightly loaded foundations will
sink into the liquefied soil.

b. Surface Layer: There must be an adequate

thickness of an unliquefiable soil surface layer H1 to
prevent damage due to sand boils and surface
fissuring. Without this layer, there could be damage
to shallow foundations, pavements, flatwork, and
utilities.
2. Settlement Analysis;

a. Light weight structures:

b. Low net bearing stress:

c. Floating foundation:

d. Heavy structures with deep liquefaction:

e. Differential settlement:
3. Bearing Capacity analysis;
Two different types
• shear failure where the footing punches into the
liquefied soil layer

• The second case uses the traditional Terzaghi

bearing capacity equation, with a reduction in the
bearing capacity factors to account for the loss of
shear strength of the underlying liquefied soil
layer.
4. Special considerations;

Special considerations may be required if the

structure is subjected to buoyancy or if there is a
sloping ground condition.
Punching Shear Analysis
• The soil layer portrayed by dashed lines
represents unliquefiable soil which is
underlain by a liquefied soil layer.

• For analysis, it is assumed that the load will

cause the foundation to punch straight
downward through the upper unliquefiable soil
layer and into the liquefied soil layer.
Assumed that there will be vertical shear surfaces in the soil
that start at the sides of the footing and extend straight
downward to the liquefied soil layer.

It is also assumed that the liquefied soil has no shear strength.

Factor of safety
Using the assumptions outlined above, the factor
of safety (FS) can be calculated as follows:
•For strip footing;

FS = R/P = 2Tτf/P

•For spread footing;

FS = R/P = 2 (B+L) Tτf/P

where R = shear resistance of soil.
For strip footings, R is the shear resistance per unit length of footing, (kN/m).
For spread footings, R is the shear resistance beneath entire footing perimeter, kN.
P = footing load.
For strip footings, P is the load per unit length of footing, kN/m.
For spread footings, P is total load of footing, kN.
The footing load includes dead, live, and seismic loads acting on footing as well as
weight of footing itself. Typically the value of P would be provided by the
structural engineer.
T = vertical distance from the bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer, m

τf = shear strength of unliquefiable soil layer, kPa

B = width of footing, m
L = length of footing, m
The shear strength of unliquefiable soil layer τf is

For an unliquefiable soil layer consisting of cohesive soil ;

τf = Su
or
τf = c + σh tanɸ
For an unliquefiable soil layer consisting of cohesionless
soil (e.g., sands),

τf = σh' tanɸ'

τf = k0 σv0' tanɸ'
shows the subsoil profile at a sewage disposal site in Niigata. Assume
a level-ground site with the groundwater table at a depth of 0.4 m
below ground surface, the medium to coarse sand has less than 5
percent fines, the total unit weight of the soil above the groundwater
table is 18.3 kN/m3 and the buoyant unit weight of the soil below the
groundwater table is 9.7 kN/m3.
Based on the spt data, the zone of liquefaction extends from a depth of
1.2 to 6.7 m below ground surface. Assume the surface soil (upper 1.2
m) shown in Fig. consists of an unliquefiable cohesive soil and during
construction, an additional 1.8-m-thick layer of cohesive soil will be
placed at ground surface. Use a peak ground acceleration amax of
0.20g.
Assume that after the 1.8-m-thick layer is placed at ground surface, it is
proposed to construct a sewage disposal plant. The structural engineer would
like to use shallow strip footings to support exterior walls and interior spread
footings to support isolated columns. It is proposed that the bottom of the
footings be at a depth of 0.5 m below ground surface. The structural engineer
has also indicated that the maximum total loads (including the weight of the
footing and the dynamic loads) are 50 kN/m for the strip footings and 500
kN for the spread footings.
It is desirable to use 1-m-wide strip footings and square spread footings that
are 2 m wide. For both the existing 1.2-m-thick unliquefiable cohesive soil
layer and the proposed additional 1.8-m-thick fill layer, assume that the
undrained shear strength su of the soil is equal to 50 kPa. Calculate the factor
of safety of the footings.
Terzaghi Bearing Capacity Equation
For a uniform vertical loading of a strip footing;

qult =
For a uniform vertical loading of a spread and
combined footing;
Bearing Capacity Equation for a Cohesive Soil
Layer Underlain by Liquefied Soil
For the situation of a cohesive soil layer
overlying a sand that will be susceptible to
liquefaction, total stress analysis performed.
For strip footing

For spreed footing

In case of shallow foundations
is small
For strip footing

For spread footing

Design considerations
Determination of T; This distance may be easy to
determine if the upper unliquefiable soil layer is a
cohesive soil, such as a fat clay.
more difficult to determine T for soil that is below the
groundwater table and has a factor of safety against
liquefaction that is slightly greater than 1.0.
Because if a lower layer liquefies, an upward flow of water
could induce liquefaction of the layer that has a factor of
safety slightly greater than 1.0. In addition, the shear
stress induced on the soil by the foundation can actually
reduce the liquefaction resistance of loose soil
Lateral loads; In addition to the vertical load acting on the
footing, it may also be subjected to both static and dynamic
lateral loads.

A common procedure is to treat lateral loads separately and

resist the lateral loads by using the soil pressure acting on
the sides of the footing (passive pressure) and by using the
frictional resistance along the bottom of the footing.
Moments and eccentric loads;
For earthquake loading, the footing is often subjected to a
moment. This moment can be represented by a load P that
is offset a certain distance (known as the eccentricity) from
the centre of gravity of the footing.

The usual procedure is to assume a rigid footing (hence

linear pressure distribution) and use the section modulus
(1⁄6 B2) to calculate the largest and smallest bearing
pressures.
For a footing having a width B, the largest q’
and smallest q” bearing pressures are;
A usual requirement is that the load Q be located
within the middle one-third of the footing, and
the above equations are valid only for this
condition. The value of q′ must not exceed the
allowable bearing pressure qall.
 Example Problem

1m
50 kN/m
0.5 m

3m Non-liquefiable clay layer

cu = 50 kPa

Liquefiable soil layer

Calculate the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure for the strip
footing shown in figure.

(i) Using punch shear analysis

(ii) Using bearing capacity equation with modified bearing capacity factor Nc

54
Sloping ground conditions;

The effect of liquefaction on adjacent slopes or retaining

walls must be included in the analysis.

If the site consists of sloping ground or if there is a

retaining wall adjacent to the site, then in addition to a
bearing capacity analysis, a slope stability analysis or a
retaining wall analysis should also be performed.
GRANULAR SOIL WITH EARTHQUAKE INDUCED
PORE WATER PRESSURES;

Granular soil that does not liquefy, rather there is a

reduction in shear strength due to an increase in pore
pressure.
For strip footing;

For spread footing;

If the factor of safety against liquefaction is
greater than 2.0, the earthquake-induced
excess pore water pressures will typically be
small enough that their effect can be neglected.
Bearing Capacity Analysis for Cohesive Soil
Layer Weakened by the Earthquake
Cohesive soils and organic soils can also be
susceptible to a loss of shear strength during the
earthquake. e.g., sensitive clays.
It is very difficult to predict the amount of
earthquake induced settlement of a foundation for
foundations bearing on cohesive and organic
soils.
To ensure that the foundation has an adequate
factor of safety in terms of a bearing capacity
failure.
For a relatively constant undrained shear strength
versus depth below the footing, the ultimate
bearing capacity is
For strip footing

For spread footing

Guidelines for the selection of the su as applied to bearing
capacity analysis are as follows.
• cohesive soil above GWT
The cohesive soil above the groundwater table will have
negative pore water pressures due to capillary tension of
the pore water fluid.
In some cases, the cohesive soil may even be dry and
desiccated. The capillary tension tends to hold together the
soil particles and to provide additional shear strength to the
soil.
For the total stress analysis, the undrained shear strength su
of the cohesive soil could be determined from unconfined
compression tests or vane shear tests.
cohesive soil below GWT having low sensitivity
Sensitivity st is defined as undrained shear strength of an
undisturbed soil specimen divided by the undrained shear
strength of a completely remoulded soil specimen.

The sensitivity represents the loss of undrained shear

strength as a cohesive soil specimen is remolded.

For cohesive soil having low sensitivity st ≤ 4, the

reduction in the undrained shear strength during the
earthquake should be small.
cohesive soil below GWT having high sensitivity
For highly Sensitivity quick clays st > 8. For these types of
soils, there could be a significant shear strength loss during
the earthquake shaking.

The stress-strain curve from an unconfined compression

test performed on a highly sensitive or quick clay often
exhibits a peak shear strength that develops at a low
vertical strain, followed by a dramatic drop-off in strength
with continued straining of the soil specimen.
During the earthquake, the
sum of the static shear
stress and the seismic
induced shear stress
exceeds the undrained
shear strength of the soil,
then a significant
reduction in shear strength
is expected to occur.
Other factors in the bearing capacity analysis;
• Earthquake parameters; higher the peak ground acceleration
and the higher the magnitude of the earthquake, greater tendency
for the cohesive soil to be strained and remolded by the
earthquake shaking.
• Soil behavior; important soil properties for the bearing
capacity analysis are the undrained shear strength S u, sensitivity
St, maximum past pressure σvm’, and the stress-strain behaviour
of the soil.
• Rocking; Lightly loaded foundations tend to produce the
smallest dynamic loads, while heavy and tall buildings subject
the foundation to high dynamic loads due to rocking.