Explorer les Livres électroniques

Catégories

Explorer les Livres audio

Catégories

Explorer les Magazines

Catégories

Explorer les Documents

Catégories

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

0 vues15 pagesSeismic bearing capacity of foundations on slopes

© © All Rights Reserved

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

0 vues15 pagesSeismic bearing capacity of foundations on slopes

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

3, 347–361

J. K U M A R a n d V. B. K . M O H A N R AO

The effect of pseudo-static horizontal earthquake body Nous avons évalué l’effet des forces corporelles d’un

forces on the bearing capacity of foundations on sloping séisme horizontal pseudo-statique sur la capacité porteuse

ground has been assessed using the method of stress de fondations dans un sol en pente en utilisant la méth-

characteristics. Two failure mechanisms were considered, ode des caractéristiques de contrainte. Nous avons exam-

based on the extension of the characteristics from the iné deux mécanismes de rupture, basés sur l’extension

ground surface towards the footing base from either one des caractéristiques de la surface du sol vers la base de

side or both sides. The magnitude of Nª based on the l’assise, soit d’un seul côté, soit des deux côtés. La

both-sides failure mechanism, for smaller values of earth- magnitude de N ª basée sur le mécanisme de rupture sur

quake acceleration coefficient (Æh ), has been found to be deux côtés, pour des valeurs plus petites du coefficient

significantly smaller than that obtained using the single- d’accélération du séisme (Æh ) est apparue considérable-

side mechanism; however, in the presence of Æh the both- ment plus petite que celle obtenue en utilisant le méca-

sides mechanism becomes kinematically inadmissible in nisme sur un seul côté; cependant, en présence de Æh le

many cases for higher values of . Only the single-side mécanisme sur deux côtés devient inadmissible sur le

mechanism was found statically admissible for computing plan de la cinématique dans de nombreux cas pour des

the bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq on sloping valeurs supérieures de . Nous avons trouvé que seul le

ground. All the bearing capacity factors reduce consider- mécanisme sur un seul côté était admissible du point de

ably with increase in Æh for various ground inclinations. vue statistique pour calculer les facteurs de capacité

porteuse N c et N q sur un sol en pente. Tous les facteurs

KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; earthquakes; footings/founda- de capacité porteuse diminuent considérablement quand

tions; plasticity; soil classification Æh augmente selon diverses inclinaisons du sol.

Structures such as retaining walls, transmission towers and lower than the available results in literature. In the present

bridge abutments often involve the construction of shallow paper, the method of characteristics has been extended to

footings on sloping ground. Most of the literature concerned determine the seismic bearing capacity of the foundations on

with the evaluation of the bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. In addition to the both-sides mechanism, the solution

slopes is available only for the static case (Meyerhof, 1957, for Nª has also been determined based on the single-side

1963; Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1973), but very limited informa- failure mechanism. The obtained values of Nc , Nq and Nª

tion is available to predict the response of foundations on were compared with the available theories in literature. The

inclined ground during an earthquake. Recently, by using an kinematic admissibility of the failure mechanisms is also

upper-bound limit analysis, Zhu (2000) has presented earth- addressed in the paper.

quake reduction factors for the bearing capacity factor Nª

on a sloping ground surface.

Most of the existing studies that do incorporate the effects Definition of the problem

of earthquake body forces are primarily available for founda- The objective of this study is to determine the ultimate

tions placed on horizontal ground (Sarma & Iossifelis, 1990; bearing capacity of a strip footing with width b in the

Budhu & Al-Karni, 1993; Richards et al., 1993; Dormieux presence of horizontal earthquake acceleration Æh g, as

& Pecker, 1995; Soubra, 1997, 1999; Kumar & Mohan Rao, shown in Fig. 1 ( g is the acceleration due to gravity). The

2002). Recently, Kumar & Mohan Rao (2002), using the footing is placed horizontally on an inclined ground surface

method of characteristics, have determined the seismic bear- having an inclination with the horizontal. It is assumed

ing capacity of foundations on horizontal ground surface. that the ground surface is loaded with a layer of soil

The magnitudes of Nc and Nq were determined by extending overburden having equal vertical thickness, d, on either side

the characteristics entirely from one side of the footing. It of the footing.

was seen that, in the presence of Æh (the magnitude of the

horizontal earthquake acceleration coefficient), only the sin-

gle-side failure mechanism (see Fig. 1(b)) was found to be BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

statically admissible for ª ¼ 0. By contrast, the magnitude Along ground surface

of Nª was computed by extending the characteristics from By using the equilibrium equations in the presence of

both sides of the footing; the both-sides mechanism (see vertical and horizontal body forces, the magnitudes of the

Fig. 1(a)) yields a much smaller magnitude of Nª than the normal and shear stresses n and nt along a semi-infinite

single-side failure mechanism. It was demonstrated that, for sloping ground surface on either side of the footing, due to

overlying soil strata, can be expressed by the following

equations:

Manuscript received 8 January 2002; revised manuscript accepted n ¼ q[cos2 Æh sin cos ] (1a)

18 July 2002.

Discussion on this paper closes 1 October 2003; for further details nt ¼ q[cos sin þ Æ h cos ]

2

(1b)

see p. ii.

Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science, where q ¼ ªd, and ª is the unit weight of the soil mass.

Bangalore. The state of the stress everywhere along the ground

347

348 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

Pult

γ αhPult

d V0 ω

αhγ

M Over burden strata y

ψ β γ

θ⫹µ V1L V10R αh γ σn

γ

ψ V1R

α hγ τnt d

(θ ⫺ µ) Ground surface

ψ

θ⫺µ

ψ σx

ψ

τxy

ψ (θ ⫹ µ)

b σy σy

characteristic

θ τxy

x

σ1 σx

Pult (a)

γ

d αhγ αhPult V0 ⫽ V1R

Over burden strata y

β γ

ψ V1R αhγ

γ d σn

αh γ τnt Ground surface

ψ θ⫺µ

ψ

ψ

ψ (θ ⫹ µ)

b characteristic

x

(b)

surface can be fully defined by satisfying the Mohr– 1 sin

Łf ¼ sin1 þ (6)

Coulomb failure criterion. The magnitude of Ł, the angle 2 sin

between the direction of the major principal stress ( 1 ) and

the positive x-axis (see Fig. 1), can then be expressed by the where ¼ tan1 Æh .

following formulae. Satisfaction of the Mohr–Coulomb failure condition and

For c ¼ 0 (in the determination of Nq and Nª ): equation (5) for c 6¼ 0 results in the following relationship:

sin sin 2Łf ¼ Æh [ (1 þ sin cos 2Łf ) H] (7)

ŁgR 1 sin k

¼ k sin1 (2)

ŁgL 2 sin where is the distance between the centre of the Mohr

circle and the point where Coulomb’s failure line joins the

where normal stress axis, and H ¼ c cot . Equations (6) and (7)

are exactly the same as those given by Kumar & Mohan

k ¼ þ tan1 Æh (3) Rao (2002), and therefore their derivations are omitted here.

For ª ¼ 0, q ¼ 0, c 6¼ 0 (in the determination of Nc ):

ŁgR

¼ (4) FAILURE MECHANISMS

ŁgL 2 The following two failure mechanisms were considered in

In the above equations ŁgL and ŁgR indicate the values of Ł carrying out the analysis.

along the sloping ground surface on the left and right sides

of the footing respectively. The derivation of the formulae

for ŁgL and ŁgR was carried out in a way similar to that Both-sides failure mechanism

explained in Kumar & Mohan Rao (2002). In this mechanism, starting from the known boundary

stresses on the sloping ground surface, the paths of the

characteristics were extended simultaneously from both sides

of the footing gradually towards the footing base, with the

Along footing–soil interface satisfaction of either equation (6) or equation (7), such that

The ratio of the shear to the normal stress everywhere the bearing pressure at the point of intersection of the two

along the surface of footing has been assumed to be equal plastic zones (point M in Fig. 1(a)) becomes exactly the

to Æh : that is, same from both sides. This mechanism is applicable for the

xy ¼ Æh x (5) computation of Nª with smaller values of Æh ; for higher

values of Æh the point M no longer exists. The mechanism

By satisfying (a) the failure criterion and (b) the above is statically admissible as it satisfies the boundary conditions

condition, the value of Ł along the footing surface (Łf ) can on the ground surface as well along the footing surface, and

be expressed by the following formula for c ¼ 0: it involves no discontinuous state of stress in the solution

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 349

except for the singularities along the edges of the footing. In left edge of the footing with increasing values of Æh and .

the determination of Nc and Nq, the pressure distribution Since the point M cannot extend beyond the left edge of the

along the footing base becomes uniform, and its magnitude footing, after some values of Æh and the point of peak

differs (except for ¼ Æh ¼ 0) depending on whether the pressure coincides with the left edge of the footing, and the

solution is obtained from the left or the right side of the bearing capacity in all such cases can be determined entirely

foundation: the point M therefore no longer exists in this from the right side of the footing. For the single-side failure

case, and the both-sides mechanism becomes statically inad- mechanism, the bearing capacity is always found to be

missible for footings on a sloping ground surface. smaller from the right side of the footing. The pressure

distributions below the footing surface entirely from the right

side of the footing for the above input parameters are also

Single-side failure mechanism shown as dotted lines in Fig. 2.

In this mechanism, starting from the known state of stress Failure patterns

along the ground surface, the characteristics were extended Figure 3 shows the changes in the geometry of the failure

towards the footing base entirely from one of the two sides patterns with increase in Æh using the both-sides failure

of the footing. The smaller of the two bearing pressure mechanism for values of q=(ªb) ¼ 0:01, c ¼ 0, ¼ 308 and

distributions obtained from each side of the footing was ¼ 108. It can be seen that, on either side of the footing,

used to determine the relevant bearing capacity. This there exists a zone of planar shear adjacent to the ground

mechanism remains applicable for all values of Æh in finding surface. With increase in Æh , the point M where the bound-

Nc , Nq and Nª . This mechanism is statically admissible as it aries of the two zones from either side of the footing

satisfies the boundary conditions along the footing surface coincide at its base shifts gradually from the centre towards

and on its appropriate side along the ground surface, and the left edge of the footing. For the single-side failure

again it involves no stress discontinuity except for the mechanism, for the same data as chosen above, the changes

singularity at the edge of the footing. in the geometry of failure patterns with increase in Æh are

shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the depth of the plastic

zone reduces gradually with increase in Æh . Note that the

ANALYSIS failure patterns illustrated in Figs 3 and 4 were drawn by

Owing to the difference in the magnitudes of Łf and Łg, choosing a relatively small number of characteristics,

the direction of the principal stresses along the footing base whereas in finding the bearing capacity factors the computa-

becomes different from that along the ground surface. There- tions were performed by using a much larger number of

fore a singularity exists in the solution at the edges of the characteristics: the total number of (Ł

) and (Ł þ

)

footing. Starting from the ground surface along the right characteristics used for obtaining the bearing pressures var-

side of the footing, all the (Ł þ

) characteristics converge ied from 200 to 1000.

about the right edge of the footing and then join at the

footing surface, where

¼ =4 =2. Similarly, all the

(Ł

) characteristics emerging from the ground across Bearing capacity factors

the left side of the footing bend about the left edge of the The ultimate bearing capacity ( pult ) of the foundation was

footing before terminating along the surface of the footing expressed in the form of Terzaghi (1943)’s standard bearing

(see Fig. 1). From the known state of stress along the capacity expression:

ground, equation (6) or equation (7), as the case may be, pult ¼ cN c þ qNq þ 0:5ªbNª (8)

can then be satisfied to obtain the pressure distribution along

the base of the footing for the appropriate failure mechan- For Æh ¼ 0, closed-form formulae exist for the bearing

ism. The various approximations made in the analysis, and capacity factors Nc and Nq . However, with Æh . 0 the

the computational details of obtaining Nc , Nq and Nª with closed-form solution can be obtained only for the bearing

the method of characteristics (Sokolovski, 1960) are de- capacity factor Nq. The formula for Nq in the presence of

scribed by Kumar & Mohan Rao (2002), and therefore are Æh and is

not repeated here.

Nq ¼ (1 þ sin cos 2Łf )

" ( ) #

(cos2 Æh sin cos )

RESULTS 3 exp ln þ 2(ŁgR Łf ) tan

Vertical pressure distribution along footing surface (1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )

ª ¼ 0. In this case, the vertical pressure distribution along (9)

the surface of the footing becomes uniform. The magnitude

of the bearing pressure obtained from the right side of the The values of ŁgR and Łf are defined by equations (2) and

footing is found to be much lower than that obtained from the (6). The formula for Nq was developed based on the

left side of the footing; note that the bearing pressure for foundation pressure established entirely from the right side

¼ Æh ¼ 0 becomes exactly the same from both sides. of the foundation; the derivation of Nq is given in Appendix

Therefore the bearing capacity of the foundations on slopes 1. The pressure along the base of the footing computed from

for ª ¼ 0 can be obtained entirely from the right side of the the left side of the foundation is found to be much higher

footing, and hence only the single-side failure mechanism than that from the right side.

remains applicable for foundations on sloping ground. For Æh ¼ 0 the formula for Nc in the presence of is

ª . 0, c ¼ 0 and q ﬃ 0. In this case the vertical pressure Nc ¼ (1 þ sin )

distribution along the foundation surface becomes linear for

both types of failure mechanism. Fig. 2 represents typical cot

3 exp ln þ tan 2 tan cot

variations of the pressure distribution below the footing with (1 sin )

Æh for ¼ 08, 58 and 108 with ¼ 308. The pressure (10)

distribution in all cases is found to be triangular. In the both-

sides mechanism, the point on the footing surface relevant to The derivation of the above expression is also given in

the peak pressure (corresponding to point M on the footing Appendix 1.

base in Fig. 1(a)) shifts gradually from the centre towards the The variations of the obtained bearing capacity factors

350 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

20

Both-sides failure mechanism

15

αh ⫽ 0.0

0.1

0.2

pu/(γb)

10 0.3

αh

5

0

⫺1 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.6 ⫺0.4 ⫺0.2 0

y/b

(a)

15

Both-sides failure mechanism

αh ⫽ 0.0

10 0.1

0.2

0.3

pu/(γb)

5 αh

0

⫺1 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.6 ⫺0.4 ⫺0.2 0

y/b

(b)

12

Both-sides failure mechanism

10 Single-side failure mechanism

8 αh ⫽ 0.0

0.1

0.2

pu/(γb)

6 0.3

αh

4

0

⫺1 ⫺0.8 ⫺0.6 ⫺0.4 ⫺0.2 0

y/b

(c)

Fig. 2. Variation of pressure distribution along footing base with Æh and for 308,

q/(ªb) 0·01 and c 0: (a) 08; (b) 58; (c) 108

Nc , Nq and Nª with Æh for different values of and are case; the load inclination factors were evaluated from the

shown in Figs 5–7. These figures clearly show that all the known vertical inclination of the resultant load, where

bearing capacity factors decrease considerably with increase ¼ tan1 (Æh ). The results in the presence of Æh and were

in the value of Æh . The magnitudes of the bearing capacity compared with those of Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973),

factors decrease further with increasing ground inclinations. Meyerhof (1957) and Zhu (2000). The comparison of the

For ¼ 0 and Æh ¼ 0, the magnitude of Nª obtained on results is presented in Figs 8–13. It can be seen that, in all

the basis of the both-sides mechanism becomes exactly half cases, the bearing capacity factors Nc and Nq compare quite

the corresponding value from the single-side mechanism. The favourably with the theories from literature, whereas the Nª

difference in the Nª values based on the two different failure values from the present analysis are seen to be generally

mechanisms reduces with increasing values of Æh and . lower than the reported values: the observed difference is

found to be greater wherever the effect of the horizontal

body forces is not considered. The values of Nª determined

COMPARISONS on the basis of the both-sides mechanism are seen to be

In the presence of Æh , for ¼ 0, the values of Nc , Nq and much lower than for the single-side failure mechanism,

Nª were compared with those obtained by Sarma & Iossife- especially for lower values of Æh and .

lis (1990), Budhu & Al-Karni (1993), Soubra (1999) and The obtained magnitudes of Nc , Nq and Nª for different

Zhu (2000). In addition, in order to make a comparison of values of with ¼ Æh ¼ 0 were also compared with the

the results in the presence of Æh and , the load inclination corresponding method of characteristics solution of Larkin

factors were employed for the available results of Meyerhof (1968) and Bolton & Lau (1993); the comparison is given in

(1957, 1963), Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1973) for the static Table 1. The solutions of (a) Bolton & Lau (1993) on the

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 351

αh direction

0

0.2

x /b

0.4

0.6

⫺1.5 ⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

y /b

(a)

αh direction

0

0.2

x /b

0.4

0.6

⫺1.5 ⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

y /b

(b)

αh direction

0

0.2

x/b

0.4

0.6

⫺1.5 ⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

y /b

(c)

αh direction

0

0.2

x/b

0.4

0.6

⫺1.5 ⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

y /b

(d)

Fig. 3. Variation of failure patterns with Æh using both-sides mechanism for q/(ªb)

0·01, 108, c 0 and 308: (a) Æh 0·0; (b) Æh 0·1; (c) Æh 0·2; (d) Æh 0·3

basis of the both-sides failure mechanism and (b) Larkin tables were utilised in the present study to compute Nª in

(1968) on the basis of single-side mechanism are both based the presence of Æh . The basis for the determination of Nª is

on the condition that that no shear stress develops along the illustrated in Fig. 14. A triangular trapped wedge ABC was

footing–soil interface; the present solution for Æh ¼ 0 is also considered below the footing surface. The interior angle at

based on exactly the same boundary conditions. It can be the point C was kept equal to =2 to ascertain that the

seen that the present results are almost the same as those logarithmic spiral arc CD joins tangentially to the straight

reported. The reported Nª values of Bolton & Lau (1993) line AC. Along the lines BC and AC, it was assumed that

with the inclusion of a symmetrical trapped triangular the shear strength of the soil mass is mobilised completely.

wedge, having its inclined sides at an inclination of Therefore the passive earth pressure, Pp , was determined for

(=4 þ =2) with the footing base, are found to be much the vertical inclination =2 ø2 of the wall having a wall–

higher than for the single-side mechanism; the bearing soil interface friction angle ; ø2 is the horizontal inclina-

capacity of the foundation was determined by considering tion of BC. Horizontal and vertical force equilibrium condi-

the vertical force equilibrium of the trapped wedge and with tions of the wedge ABC were then used to determine two

the assumption that the shear strength of the soil mass is unknown forces Pult and R, where R is the reaction along

mobilised completely along both the inclined sides of the the failure line AC making an angle with its normal

wedge. direction. The obtained Pult was then minimised with respect

By using an upper-bound limit analysis, Chen & Liu to kinematical admissible variation of the wall inclination,

(1990) have generated a set of tables for obtaining the ø2 . The values of Nª obtained in this manner for different

variation of the seismic passive earth pressure coefficients values of Æh for ¼ 308 and 408 with the horizontal ground

with changes in Æh for different wall inclinations and soil– surface are indicated in Figs 12 and 13. These values of

wall interface friction angles. These passive earth pressure Chen & Liu (1990) are found to be generally higher than

352 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

0 αh direction

0.2

0.4

x /b

0.6

0.8

⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

y/b

(a)

0 αh direction

0.2

0.4

x /b

0.6

0.8

⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

y/b

(b)

0 αh direction

0.2

0.4

x/b

0.6

0.8

⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

y/b

(c)

0 αh direction

0.2

0.4

x/b

0.6

0.8

⫺1 ⫺0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

y/b

(d)

Fig. 4. Variation of failure patterns with Æh using single-side mechanism for q/(ªb)

0·01, 108, c 0 and 308: (a) Æh 0·0; (b) Æh 0·1; (c) Æh 0·2; (d) Æh 0·3

those given by most of the other theories including the the footing surface becomes equal to zero, and therefore the

present one. It should be mentioned that Chen & Liu have results obtained for the static case can only be applicable for

provided passive earth pressure tables with a minimum wall a smooth footing provided the corresponding failure mechan-

inclination interval of only 158: therefore the minimisation ism is kinematically admissible as well. For Æh . 0, the

of Nª obtained in this manner will be only approximate. assumed shear stress along the footing–soil interface will

The comparison could not be made for footings on sloping always be greater than zero, and therefore the results cannot

ground because passive earth pressure coefficients were not be applicable for a smooth footing; the shear stress at the

available for downward slope inclinations. footing–soil interface can exist only for a rough footing.

However, for a rough footing in the presence of Æh , it cannot

be simply certified that the ratio of the shear to normal

DISCUSSION stress will remain constant everywhere along the footing–

Footing roughness soil interface as has been assumed in the present study. For

It is a known fact that the bearing capacity factor Nª is a rough footing in the static case, by using FLAC, it has

affected significantly by the roughness of the footing, been demonstrated by Frydman & Burd (1997) that the ratio

whereas the values of Nc and Nq remain almost independent of the shear to normal stress along the rigid footing–soil

of variation in the roughness of the footing–soil interface interface, with horizontal ground surface, varies in the

(Griffiths, 1982). It has been assumed in the present study manner indicated in Fig. 15. It can be seen that the value of

that everywhere along the footing–soil interface the ratio of the ratio xy = x remains equal to zero along the centre of

the shear to normal stress remains equal to Æh . For Æh ¼ 0, the footing (axis of symmetry), and it attains a maximum

the magnitude of the assumed shear stress everywhere along value at some distance before reaching the edge of the

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 353

β ⫽ 0º

6 9

β ⫽ 0º β ⫽ 0º 5º

5º 10º

5º

8 10º 15º

10º

5 15º 20º

15º

7 20º 25º

20º

25º 30º

25º

30º 35º

30º

6 35º 40º

4 35º 10

40º 45º

40º

45º 50º

45º

5 50º

50º

Nc

3

4

2

3

2 2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

β ⫽ 0º

β ⫽ 0º β ⫽ 0º

5º

5º 5º

10º

10º 10º

15º

15º 100 15º

20º

20º 20º

25º

25º 25º

30º

30º 30º

35º

35º 35º

40º

40º 40º

45º

45º 45º

50º

50º 50º

100

Nc

10

10

10

αh αh αh

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 5. Variation of Nc with Æh for different values of and : (a) 08; (b) 108; (c) 208; (d)

308; (e) 408; (f) 508

footing on either side. However, in the presence of Æh , the footing surface as (a) no shear stress at all can exist along

distribution of the ratio xy = x is unknown, and it cannot be the smooth footing–soil interface, and (b) the resultant load

simply established using the method of characteristics. It is, on the rough footing surface should be inclined at an angle

however, anticipated that the obtained Nª values for higher tan1 Æh with the vertical. Although the present analysis is

values of Æh are more likely to be applicable for a rough not based on the true distribution of the shear to normal

354 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

3 10 100

10

100

2 β ⫽ 0º

β ⫽ 0º β ⫽ 0º

β ⫽ 0º 5º

Nq

β ⫽ 0º 10º

5º 5º 15º

25º 20º 10

5º 15º 15º

10º 10º 10º 20º

5º

10

15º

35º 30º 25º 20º

45º 40º 35º 30º 25º

1 1 1.

0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 00 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4

αh αh αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 6. Variation of Nq with Æh for different values of and : (a) 108; (b) 208; (c) 308; (d) 408; (e) 508

100 1000

Both sides Both sides Both sides Both sides Both sides

Single side Single side Single side Single side Single side

10

1.00

15º 100

5º β ⫽ 0º β ⫽ 0º

10º β ⫽ 0º

0.10 β ⫽ 0º

10 5º

Nγ

25º β ⫽ 0º

20º 10º

5º 1

0.10 15º 15º

10

5º 20º

10º

35º 45º

30º 10º 40º 35º

25º 30º 25º

5º

20º

15º

1

0.01 . 0.01 . 0.1 1

00 0.1 00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4

αh αh αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 7. Variation of Nª with Æh for different values of and : (a) 108; (b) 208; (c) 308; (d) 408; (e) 508

stress ratio along the rough footing–soil interface, the zone (Drucker, 1952). The determination of the kinematic

resultant load on the footing–soil interface does make an admissibility of the characteristics is addressed in detail by

angle tan1 Æh with the vertical in the presence of earthquake Lee & Herington (1972). The kinematic admissibility of the

acceleration. chosen failure surfaces for the passive earth pressure pro-

blem is also examined by Kumar & Subba Rao (1997). In

the present paper only the kinematic admissibility of the

Kinematic admissibility outermost stress characteristics paths along the footing–soil

The results presented in this paper have been obtained interface is examined; the kinematic admissibility of the

with the help of two different types of failure mechanism. It characteristics everywhere within the plastic domain is not

has been demonstrated earlier that for finding Nc and Nq for checked. Two different flow rules—(a) an associated flow

footings on a sloping ground surface only the single-side rule and (b) a non-associated flow rule with dilatancy angle,

failure mechanism remains statically admissible, whereas for ł ¼ 0—were considered for examining the kinematic admis-

Nª both types of failure mechanism are found to be sibility. For a kinematically admissible rupture surface, the

statically admissible for lower values of Æh . However, for direction of the resultant plastic velocity should incline at an

higher values of Æh only the single-side failure mechanism angle ł with the corresponding rupture/velocity discontinu-

remains statically admissible (see Fig. 7). A failure mechan- ity path: this is indicated in Fig. 1. If no slip is allowed

ism will be kinematically admissible provided the rate of between the footing and the underlying soil mass (i.e. a

plastic work remains positive everywhere within the plastic rough interface), then the outermost slip lines (Ł þ

charac-

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 355

35 35 30

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

Soubra (1999) Vesic (1973)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993) Vesic (1973)

Hansen (1970) Present study Present study

30 Vesic (1973) 30

Meyerhof (1963) 25

Present study

25 25

20

20 20

Nc

15

15 15

10

10 10

5

5 5

0 0 0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Comparison of Nc with Æh and for 308: (a) 08; (b) 108; (c) 208

80 70

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

Soubra (1999)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993) Vesic (1973) Vesic (1973)

75 Hansen (1970) Present study Present study

70

Vesic (1973) 60

Meyerhof (1963)

Present study

65 60

50

50

55

40

Nc

40

45

30

30

35 20

20

25 10

10

15 0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Comparison of Nc with Æh and for 408: (a) 08; (b) 158; (c) 308

teristics as shown in Fig. 1(b)) for the single-side failure interface, the horizontal component of V10 should be direc-

mechanism become kinematically admissible for all values ted towards left, as indicated in Figs 16(b)–(d); however, for

of Æh and both with ł ¼ 0 and . The both-sides Æh ¼ 0, either direction of V10 will be kinematically admis-

mechanism, on the other hand, necessitates the generation of sible as no shear stress will develop along the interface

slip along the footing–soil interface. The relative velocity (smooth foundation). Let the direction of the velocity V0 of

V10 of the soil mass just lying below the footing–soil inter- the footing make an angle ø with the vertical, as shown in

face, with respect to the velocity of the footing, must incline Fig. 16(d). The velocity hodographs with respect to the

at an angle ł with the horizontal. In accordance with the outermost characteristics at point M on either side of the

direction of the assumed shear stress on the footing–soil footing are indicated in Fig. 16. In this figure, V1L and V1R

356 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

15 8

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

Soubra (1999) Vesic (1973)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993) Vesic (1973)

Hansen (1970) Present study Present study

20

Vesic (1973)

Meyerhof (1963)

Present study

6

10

15

4

Nq

10

2

5

0 0

0. 0.05 0.1 0.15

00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Comparison of Nq with Æh and for 308: (a) 08; (b) 108; (c) 208

15

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

70 Soubra (1999) Vesic (1973) Vesic (1973)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993)

Hansen (1970) Present study Present study

Vesic (1973) 30

Meyerhof (1963)

60 Present study

50 10

20

40

Nq

30

5

10

20

10

0. 0 0

00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. Comparison of Nq with Æh and for 408: (a) 08; (b) 158; (c) 308

are the velocities of the soil mass just below the footing– failure mechanism is statically admissible only for the

soil interface on the left and right sides of the point M computation of Nª . For a kinematically admissible failure

respectively, and V10L and V10R are the relative velocities of mechanism, the direction of V0 should lie on the right side

the underlying soil mass on the left and right sides of the of the direction of V1R , as shown in Fig. 16(c). This

point M with respect to the velocity of the footing. The condition can be fulfilled provided ø > (Łf þ

) þ ł, with

directions of V1L and V1R will be inclined at angles the obvious requirement that 908 . ø > 0. In addition, for a

(Łf

) þ ł and (Łf þ

) þ ł respectively with the verti- failure mechanism to be kinematically admissible all the

cal, as shown in Figs 16(b) and 16(c); Łf is defined by interior angles of the velocity hodograph triangles OLF and

equation (6), since for footings on slopes the both-sides OFR should remain positive.

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 357

30 16 10

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

Soubra (1999) Vesic (1973) Vesic (1973)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993) Zhu (2000) Zhu (2000)

Hansen (1970)

Vesic (1973) Meyerhof (1957, 1963) Meyerhof (1957, 1963)

25 Zhu (2000) Present study Present study

Meyerhof (1957, 1963) 8

Present study

Chen & Liu (1990) 12

20

Nγ

15 8

Single side 4

Both sides

10

4 Both sides

2

5 Both sides

00 0 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 12. Comparison of Nª with Æh and for 308: (a) 08; (b) 108; (c) 208

160

Sarma & Iossifelis (1990) 80 25

Soubra (1999) Hansen (1970) Hansen (1970)

Budhu & Al-Karni (1993) Vesic (1973) Vesic (1973)

Hansen (1970) Zhu (2000)

140 Vesic (1973) Zhu (2000)

Zhu (2000) Meyerhof (1957, 1963) Meyerhof (1957, 1963)

Meyerhof (1957, 1963) Present study Present study

Present study 20

120 Chen & Liu (1990)

60

100 O ne side

15 Single side

o

One side

Nγ

80 40

Single side

10

60

Both sides

40 20

Both sides 5

Both sides

20

0 0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

αh αh αh

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13. Comparison of Nª with Æh and for 408: (a) 08; (b) 158; (c) 308

For different combinations of and Æh, these require- the both-sides mechanism is always kinematically inadmissi-

ments for a kinematically admissible failure mechanism were ble, has been found to be equal to 0:352 for ¼ 368. Up to

checked by means of writing a separate computer program. ¼ 308, the minimum value of Æh for the kinematically

The computations have revealed that, for ł ¼ 0, the both- admissible failure mechanism has been found to be equal to

sides mechanism remains kinematically admissible for all zero. However, for . 308, the minimum value of Æh for

values of Æh , whereas for an associated flow rule material, the kinematically admissible failure mechanism has been

the kinematically admissible range of Æh for different values seen to increase with increase in . For . 448, the both-

of with respect to the both-sides failure mechanism is as sides mechanism becomes kinematically inadmissible for all

shown in Fig. 17. The maximum value of Æh , beyond which values of Æh . 0. For Æh ¼ 0, as the slip at the footing–soil

358 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

Table 1. Comparison of bearing capacity factors for Æh 0

Nc Nq Nª

Bolton & Lau Present study Bolton & Lau Present study Both-sides Trapped Single-side Both-sides Single-side

(1993) (single-side (1993) (single-side mechanism wedge mechanism mechanism mechanism

mechanism) mechanism)

5 6·52 6·49 1·57 1·57 0·09 0·62 – 0·08 0·16

10 8·34 8·34 2·47 2·47 0·29 1·71 – 0·28 0·56

15 10·97 10·98 3·94 3·94 0·71 3·17 – 0·71 1·41

20 14·84 14·83 6·40 6·40 1·60 5·97 – 1·60 3·20

25 20·80 20·72 10·70 10·66 3·51 11·60 – 3·51 7·03

30 30·14 30·14 18·40 18·40 7·74 23·60 15·70 7·63 15·46

35 46·13 46·12 33·30 33·30 17·80 51·00 – 17·82 35·82

40 75·08 75·31 64·00 64·19 44·00 121·00 87·00 43·50 87·26

Pult

αhPult

A B B

ω1 β

ω2

αh Wc Pp

Wc φ

φ 90⫺φ

φ

R

Pp C 90 ⫹ φ α W

h log

C

Wlog αhWplanar

Wplanar

90 ⫹ φ

Logarithmic spiral E

D

Fig. 14. Determination of bearing capacity from passive pressure considerations for

c q 0

. 308. The both-sides mechanism requires slip along the

footing–soil interface. This slip leads to an increase in

energy dissipation for rough footings, which will conse-

quently result in higher bearing capacity on the basis of the

upper-bound limit analysis (Michalowski, 1997). However,

τxy

the method of characteristics cannot exclusively account for

the slip requirement between the footing and the soil. The

τxy /σx distribution below the

single-side failure mechanism remains kinematically admis-

footing surface using FLAC sible for all those cases where no slip has been allowed

(Frydman & Burd, 1997) along the soil–footing interface (rough foundation). The

results on the basis of the single-side mechanism compare

reasonably well with most of the existing results whereas, on

Fig. 15. Distribution of xy /x below the rough footing surface the other hand, the both-sides mechanism provides quite

for Æh 0 conservative estimate of the bearing capacity. The present

Nª values for Æh ¼ 0 on the basis of the both-sides mechan-

ism will be valid for a perfectly smooth footing; this is so

since the both-sides mechanism remains kinematically as

interface can take place in either direction, the both-sides well statically admissible for Æh ¼ 0, and these values are

mechanism has been found to be kinematically admissible much smaller than those obtained using the single-side fail-

for all values of (not indicated in Fig. 17). ure mechanism.

Note that, while specifying the stresses along the ground,

the contribution of the shear strength of the soil strata lying

REMARKS above the ground surface has been ignored. As a result the

From the obtained Nª values, it can be seen that in all solution developed in this paper will be valid only for

cases the both-sides failure mechanism offers a safe solution foundations placed at very shallow depths.

to the problem of the bearing capacity, both with and with- The effect of the vertical pseudo-static earthquake body

out the presence of pseudo-static earthquake body forces. forces on the bearing capacity factors can be incorporated

However, it can be seen from the earlier discussion that it is by changing the unit weight ª to ªr in a similar fashion to

not necessary that the both-sides failure mechanism will that explained in Kumar & Mohan Rao (2002).

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 359

ψ Both-sides

ψ mechanism

V1L V1R

⫺(θf ⫺ µ) θf ⫹ µ

θ⫺µ θ⫹µ

(a) characteristics characteristics

x

O

θf ⫹ µ ⫹ ψ V0

O ω

V0

⫺(θf ⫺ µ) ⫹ ψ ω V1R

ψ

F

V1L ψ F V10R

R

V10L

(c)

L (b)

V0 αh

τxy

V10

(d)

Fig. 16. Velocity hodographs at the interface of the footing and underlying soil

mass: (a) velocity of soil mass just below M; (b) hodographs triangles on the left

of M; (c) hodographs triangles on right of M; and (d) velocity and shear stress

along footing – soil interface

0.4

an appreciable reduction in all the bearing capacity factors.

The magnitudes of the bearing capacity factors decrease

Kinematically admissible αh values

0.3 failure mechanism provides a conservative estimate of the

bearing capacity factor Nª compared with the single-side

failure mechanism for smaller values of Æh and ; however,

for higher values of in many cases the both-sides failure

0.2

mechanism becomes kinematically inadmissible.

ψ⫽φ

0.1

APPENDIX 1. DETERMINATION OF Nq FOR Æh > 0 and

Nc for Æh ¼ 0

Starting from the ground surface on the right side of the

0.0 foundation, all the Ł þ

characteristics converge about the right

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 edge of the foundation and join at its base.

φ For ª ¼ 0, along the Ł þ

characteristics,
¼ ( þ Ł) ¼ constant

(Kumar & Mohan Rao, 2002): therefore
gR ¼
f . The subscript

‘gR’ refers to the value of the variable along the ground surface on

Fig. 17. Kinematically admissible range of Æh for both-sides

the right side of the foundation, and the subscript ‘f’ implies the

failure mechanism

foundation surface.

Along the ground surface, the magnitude of n is given by

equation (1a).

CONCLUSIONS

With the satisfaction of the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion,

The influence of pseudo-static horizontal earthquake body along the ground surface the normal stress ( n ) is expressed as

forces on the bearing capacity of foundations on soil slopes follows in terms of two variables gR and ŁgR (Sokolovski, 1960):

has been theoretically explored by using the method of stress

characteristics. The variation of the bearing capacity factors n ¼ gR 1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ ) H (11)

Nc , Nq and Nª has been obtained as a function of earth- Substituting the value of n from equation (1a) in the above

quake acceleration coefficient (Æh ), slope inclination ( ) and expression:

360 KUMAR AND MOHAN RAO

q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H q surcharge pressure

gR ¼ (12)

1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ ) R soil reaction along the line AC of Fig. 14

V0 velocity of the footing

Substituting the value of gR in the equation ¼ (cot =2) ln ( = 0 ) V1L velocity of the soil mass just below the footing-soil

(Sokolovski, 1960): interface on the left side of point M in Fig. 1

( )

cot q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H V1R velocity of the soil mass just below the footing-soil

gR ¼ ln (13) interface on the right side of point M

2 [1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0 V10L relative velocity of the soil mass just below the

where 0 is any chosen value of characteristic stress. footing-soil interface on the left side of point M with

Therefore: respect to the velocity of footing

( ) V10R relative velocity of the soil mass just below the

cot q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H footing-soil interface on the right side of point M with

gR ¼ ln þ ŁgR (14) respect to the velocity of footing

2 [1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0

Wc Weight of the wedge ABC of Fig. 14

Using
gR ¼
f : Wlog Weight of the logarithmic wedge BCD of Fig. 14

( ) Wplanar Weight of the planar wedge BDE of Fig. 14

cot q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H x x-coordinate

f ¼ ln þ ŁgR (15)

2 [1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0 y y-coordinate

Æh horizontal earthquake acceleration coefficient

Therefore horizontal inclination of ground surface

( ) variable defined in Appendix 1

cot q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H f along the foundation

f ¼ ln þ ŁgR Łf (16)

2 [1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0 gR along the ground surface on the right side of the

foundation

Using the relationship f ¼ (cot =2) ln ( = 0 ) it can be shown that tan1 Æh

f ¼ 0 exp[2f tan ] (17) soil friction angle

ł dilatancy angle of soil

Substituting the value of f from equation (16) in the above ª unit weight of the soil

expression: ªr reduced unit weight of the soil due to vertical

f ¼ 0 earthquake acceleration coefficient

( ) ! k + tan1 Æh

q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H

/4 /2

3 exp ln þ 2(ŁgR Łf ) tan Ł

[1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0 angle made by the major principal stress in a

counterclockwise sense with the positive x-axis

(18) Łf Ł along the foundation

Substituting the above value of f in the following equation ŁgL Ł along the ground surface on the left side of the

(Sokolovski, 1960): foundation

ŁgR Ł along the ground surface on the right side of the

x ¼ (1 þ sin cos 2Ł) H (19) foundation

Since the pressure is uniform for ª ¼ 0, therefore pult ¼ x : ø vertical inclination of the direction of V0

ø1 horizontal inclination of AC of Fig. 14

pult ¼ 0 (1 þ sin cos 2Łf ) 3 ø2 horizontal inclination of BC of Fig. 14

( ) !

q(cos2 Æh sin cos ) þ H distance on the Mohr-stress diagram, between the

exp ln þ 2(ŁgR Łf ) tan H center of the Mohr circle and the point where the

[1 þ sin cos 2(ŁgR þ )] 0 Coulomb’s linear failure envelope joins with -axis

(20) 0 any value of the chosen characteristic stress

f along the foundation

Noted that, for c ¼ 0, Łf is known and is given by equation (6): gR along the ground surface on the right side of the

therefore the bearing capacity factor N q can be determined by using foundation

the formula N q ¼ pult =q for c ¼ 0 with 0 ¼ q. The value of ŁgR is n normal stress on sloping ground surface

given by equation (2). It can be seen that the magnitude of Nq will x normal stress on a plane perpendicular to x-axis

be given by equation (9). For q ¼ 0 and c 6¼ 0, in the presence of Æh , y normal stress on a plane perpendicular to y-axis

the value of Łf becomes unknown (equation (7)), and therefore the 1 major principal stress

solution cannot be obtained in the closed form. However, for Æh ¼ 0, nt shear stress on sloping ground surface

the value of Łf becomes simply equal to zero, and the bearing xy shear stress acting on a plane perpendicular to x-axis

capacity factor N c can be obtained by using N c ¼ pult =c with and in the direction of y-axis

0 ¼ c and ŁgR ¼ =2 from equation (4). It can be seen that the
variable defined in Appendix 1.

magnitude of N c will be given by equation (10).
f
along the foundation

gR
along the ground surface on the right side of the

foundation

NOTATION

b width of foundation

c soil cohesion REFERENCES

d vertical thickness of soil overburden over ground Bolton, M. D. & Lau, C. K. (1993). Vertical bearing capacity

surface factors for circular and strip footings on Mohr–Coulomb soil.

g acceleration due to gravity Can. Geotech. J. 30, 1024–1033.

H c cot Budhu, M. & Al-Karni, A. (1993). Seismic bearing capacity of

Nc bearing capacity factor due to soil cohesion soils. Géotechnique 43, No. 1, 181–187.

Nq bearing capacity factor due to surcharge pressure Chen, W. F. & Liu, X. L. (1990). Limit analysis in soil mechanics.

Nª bearing capacity factor due to unit weight of soil Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Pp passive earth pressure along BC of Fig. 14 Dormieux, L. & Pecker, A. (1995). Seismic bearing capacity of

Pu ultimate load per unit length of footing foundation on cohesionless soil. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE

pu ultimate bearing pressure at any point on the 121, No. 3, 300–303.

foundation base Drucker, D. C. (1952). Extended limit design theorems for contin-

pult average ultimate bearing pressure uous media. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 9, 381.

SESIMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES 361

Frydman, S. & Burd, H. J. (1997). Numerical studies of bearing Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). The ultimate bearing capacity of founda-

capacity factor Nª . J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 123, tions on slopes. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,

No. 1, 20–29. London 1, 384–386.

Griffiths, D. V. (1982). Computations of bearing capacity factors Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing

using finite elements. Géotechnique 32, No. 3, 195–202. capacity of foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 1, No. 1, 16–26.

Hansen, J. B. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing Richards, R., Elms, D. G. & Budhu, M. (1993). Seismic bearing

capacity, Bulletin No. 28. Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical capacity and settlement of foundations. J. Geotech. Engng Div.,

Institute. ASCE 119, No. 4, 662–674.

Kumar, J. & Subba Rao, K. S. (1997). Passive pressure coefficients, Sarma, S. K. & Iossifelis, I. S. (1990). Seismic bearing capacity

critical failure surface and its kinematic admissibility. Géotech- factors of shallow strip footings. Géotechnique 40, No. 2, 265–

nique 47, No. 1, 185–192. 273.

Kumar, J. & Mohan Rao, V. B. K. (2002). Seismic bearing capa- Sokolovski, V. V. (1960). Statics of soil media. Butterworths.

city factors for spread foundations. Géotechnique 52, No. 2, Soubra, A. H. (1997). Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip

79–88. footings in seismic conditions. Proc. Instn Civil Engrs Geotech.

Larkin, L. A. (1968). Theoretical bearing capacity of very shallow Engng 125, 230–241.

footings. J. Soil Mech. Found. Engng Div., ASCE 94, No. 6, Soubra, A. H. (1999). Upper-bound solutions for bearing capacity

1347–1357. of foundations. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 125, No.

Lee, I. K. & Herington, J. R. (1972). A theoretical study of the 1, 59–68.

pressure acting on a rigid wall by a sloping earth or rockfill. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.

Géotechnique 22, No. 1, 1–27. Vesic, A. S. (1973). Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow founda-

Michalowski, R. L. (1997). An estimate of the influence of soil tions. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 99, No. 1, 45–73.

weight on bearing capacity using limit analysis. Soils Found. 37, Zhu, D. (2000). The least upper-bound solutions for bearing capa-

No. 4, 57–64. city factor Nª . Soils Found. 40, No. 1, 123–129.