Shallow Foundations Under Dynamic Loads

Vijay K. Puri
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale ,IL, USA

Shamsher Prakash
Department of Civil Engineering, , Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO USA

Sanjeev Kumar
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL USA



ABSTRACT: The shallow foundations may be subjected to dynamic loads by machine operation or by seismic loading.
A comparison of observed and predicted response is presented for the case of machine foundations based on observed
data obtained by conducting vibration tests on two concrete blocks. For case of shallow foundations for seismic loaoding
the recent developments in determining bearing capacity and settlements are discussed and the need for research for
developing rational design procedures in this area is highlighted.


1INTRODUCTION

The shallow foundations in the form rigid conctrete
blocks are commonly used to support reciprocating
type machine foundations. These foundations are
also commonly used for supporting structural loads
which may be static loads or a combination of
static and seismic loads. When any foundation is
used to support combination of staic as well
dynamic loads , it must satisfy the stability criteria
for both static as well dynamic loads.

1.1 Machine foundation case

The response of rigid block type machine
foundations is generally obtained by making
appropriate spring-mass-dashpot models and using
principles of mechanics. The spring and damping
values are obtined by using elastic half space
approach or they may be obtained form impedace
compliance functions (Prakash and Puri 1988).
This paper presents comparison of the computed
and observed response of two block foundations
made of concrete. The test blocks were excited into
vertical vibrations and their natural frequencies and
amplitudes were measured. The pertinent soil
properties were determined by conducting in-situ
tests and oscillatory shear tests in the laboratory.
The response of the test blocks was then computed
by using the (i) elastic half space method and (ii)
the impedance function approach. A comparison
was made of the observed and predicted response
of the test blocks.


1.2 Foundatios for seismic load case

Shallow foundations in seismic areas may be on
non-liquefaible soils or on liquefiable soils.
Shallow foundations may experience a reduction in
bearing capacity and increase in settlement and tilt
due to seismic loading. The reduction in bearing
capacity depends on the nature and type of soil and
ground acceleration parameters in non-liquefiable
soils. In liquefying soils, the buildings on shallow
footings may settle and tilt excessively.
These two cases namely the machine
foundation case and the foundations for seismic
load case are discussed below.


2.COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND
PERDICTED RESPONSE OF TEST BLOCKS

2.1 Tests conducted

2.1.1 Block vibration tests

Vertical vibration tests were conducted on rigid
concrete blocks 1.5m x 0.75m x 0.70m and 3.0m x
1.5m x 0.7m cast on level ground. The vibrations
of the block were measured with transducers
mounted on the top surface of the block which
were oriented to sense vertical vibrations. Records
of vibrations were obtained for varying frequencies
of excitation. The tests were repeated by changing
the angle of setting of the eccentric masses.
From the recorded test data, the frequency and the
corresponding amplitudes were determined. Values
of observed natural frequencies and corresponding
amplitudes are given in Tables I and 2.
TABLE 1. Comparison of Observed and Computed Response of 1.5 m x 0.75 m x 0.70 m Block in Vertical Vibrations

Angle of
eccentricity

Observed Data Shear Strain
%
Shear
Modulus G
kN/m
2

Computed Values
Natural
Frequency Hz

Amplit
ude A z
mm
Elastic half space Analog
method
Impedance Function
Natural
frequency
Hz
Damped
Amplitude
A z
mm
Natural
frequency
Hz
Damped
Amplitude
A z
mm
25 38.5 0.031 4.13 x 10
-3
35500 41.4 0.127 55.6 0.0761
50 37.5 0.069 9.2 x 10
-3
29000 37.1 0.27 49.4 0.17
75 37 0.0975 1.3 x 10
-4
26000 35.2 0.406 46.3 0.248
125 36.7 0.182 2.43x10
-4
22100 33.1 0.531 42.6 0.25
180 35 0.24 3.3x10
-4
18100 29.3 0.72 37.4 1


TABLE 2. Comparison of Observed and Computed Response of 3.0 m 1.5 m x 0.70 m Block in Vertical Vibrations

Angle of
Eccentricity

Observed Data Shear Strain
%
Shear
Modulus G
kN/m
2

Computed Data
Natural
Frequency
Hz

Amplitude
A z
mm
Elastic half space Analog
method
Impedance Function
Natural
frequency
Hz
Damped
Amplitude
AZ
mm
Natural
frequency
Hz
Damped
Amplitude
AZ
mm
25 36 0.006 4 x 10
-4
70000 42 0.0261 29.5 0.021
50 34.5 0.012 8 x 10
-6
67500 41.3 0.0478 29.4 0.0381
75 37 0.018 1.2 x 10
-5
66000 40.7 0.0852 29.05 0.051
100 37 0.024 1.6 X10
-6
65000 40.4 0.109 28.8 0.05
125 35 0.03 2.0x10
-5
61000 39.2 0.119 27.9 0.0423
180 33.5 0.053 3.5x10
-3
56000 37.5 0.133 26.7 0.102


2.1.2 Tests for determination of dynamic soil
properties

The dynamic properties of the soil used in the
analysis of machine foundation may be determined
by laboratory and in-situ tests. These properties are
affected by a number of factors which should be
accounted for when selecting the design values.
The most important factors which affect these
properties are (1) the mean effective confining
pressure, (2) the shear strain amplitude, and (3)
density of the soil. A good discussion on these
corrections has been presented Prakash and Puri
(1977,1981,1988). In-situ soil investigations
consisted of wave propagation tests, cyclic plate
load tests and standard penetration tests. From
these tests, the values of dynamic shear modulus G
with shear strain were computed.

2.1.3 Computed responseof test blocks

The response of the test blocks was calculated by
elastic half space method, and impedance function
method. In the elastic half space approach the
vibrating foundation is treated as resting on the
surface of an elastic, semi-infinite, homogenous,
isotropic half space (Richart, 1962). The elasticity
of the soil and the energy carried into the half space
by waves traveling away from the vibrating
foundation (geometric damping) are thus accounted
for and the response of such a system may be
predicted using a mass-spring-dashpot model
known as the half space analog (Richart and
Whitman, 1967; and Richart, Hall and Woods,
1970). The impedance function method (Gazettas,
1991) gives an approach for calculating soil springs
and damping values which are frequency
dependent.The dynamic response of the foundation
was computed using these above methods and is
shown in tables 1 and 2 The details of these
methods are not given here.

2.2 Discussion of computed and observed
respose of test blocks

(1) It is observed from Tables I and 2, that the
natural frequencies in vertical vibration for
the two test blocks calculated by using the
elastic half space analog are generally
within about 20% of natural frequencies
observed during the vibration tests. These
calculated natural frequencies in this case
are thus in reasonable agreement with the
observed natural frequencies.
(2) The natural frequency of vertical vibrations
calculated by the impedance function
method are somewhat higher for the 1.5m
x 0.75m high block as compared to the
observed natural frequency. The calculated
values of natural frequency by this method
are somewhat smaller than the observed
values for the 3.0 m x 1.5m x 0.7m high
block.
(3) The damped vibration amplitudes as
obtained from the elastic half space method
do not agree with the observed values. For
1.5 m 0.75 x 0.70m block, the calculated
amplitudes are about 2-3 times higher than
the observed amplitudes and, for 3.0m x
1.5m x 0.75 m block, the calculated values
of vibration amplitude are about 4 times
more than the observed values.
(4) The damped amplitudes calculated by the
impedance function method for the two
concrete blocks used in this study show a
somewhat more reasonable agreement
with the observed values. The limited data
does not justify any general conclusion.


3. FOUNDATIONS FOR SEISMIC LOADS

Shallow foundations in non-liquefiable soils are
commonly designed by the equivalent static
approach. In liquefiable soils, pore pressure
buildup and drainage conditions may result in
decrease in strength and considerable damage due
to tilting and settlement. Prasad et al (2004) made
an experimental investigation of the seismic
bearing capacity of sand.A practical method to
account for reduction in bearing capacity due to
earthquake loading was presented by Richards et al
(1993).

3.1 Foundations in non-liquefying soil

The response of a footing to dynamic loads is
affected by the (1) nature and magnitude of
dynamic loads, (2) number of pulses and (3) the
strain rate response of soil. Shallow foundations for
seismic loads are usually designed by the
equivalent static approach. The foundations are
considered as eccentrically loaded and the ultimate
bearing capacity is accordingly estimated. To
account for the effect of dynamic nature of the
load, the bearing capacity factors are determined by
using dynamic angle of internal friction which is
taken as 2-degrees less than its static value (Das,
B.M 1992). International Building Code generally
permit an increase of 33 % in allowable bearing
capacity when earthquake loads in addition to static
loads are used in design of the foundation. This
recommendation may be reasonable for dense
granular soils, stiff to very stiff clays or hard
bedrocks but is not applicable for friable rock,
loose soils susceptible to liquefaction or pore water
pressure increase, sensitive clays or clays likely to
undergo plastic flow (Day,R.W. 2006).
Richards et al(1993) proposed a simplified
approach to estimate the dynamic bearing capacity
q
ue
and seismic settlement S
Eq
of a strip footing for
assumed failure surfaces. The seismic bearing
capacity (q
uE
) is given by Eq. 1:

q
uE
= cN
cE
+ qN
qE
+ BN
E
(1)

where, = Unit weight of soil

q= D
f
and D
f
= Depth of the foundation


N
cE
, N
qE
, and N
E
= Seismic bearing capacity
factors which are functions of and

tan = k
h
/ (1-k
v
)

k
h
and k
v
are the horizontal and vertical coefficients
of acceleration due to earthquake.

For static case, k
h
= k
v
, = 0 and Eq. (1) becomes

q
u
= cN
c
+ qN
q
+ BN

(2)

in which N
c
, N
q
and N

are the static bearing

capacity factors. Figure 1 shows plots of N
E
/N

,
N
qE
/N
q
and N
cE
/N
c
with tan and .


tan = kh/ (1-kv), tan = kh/ (1-kv),

tan = kh/ (1-kv)

Figure 1. Variation of N
qE
/N
q
, N
E
/N

and
N
cE
/N
c
with and tan (After Richards et al 1993)
3.2 Seismic Settlement of foundations

Bearing capacity-related seismic settlement takes
place when the ratio k
h
/(1 - k
v
) reaches a critical
value (k
h
/1 k
v
)*. If k
v
= 0, then (k
h
/1 - k
v
)*
becomes equal to k
h
*
Figure 2 shows the variation
of k
h
*
(for k
v
= c = 0; granular soil) with the static
factor of safety (FS) applied to the ultimate bearing
capacity Eq, (2), for = 10, 20, 30, and 40 and
D /B of 0, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0. The settlement (S
Eq
)
of a strip foundation due to an earthquake can be
estimated (Richards et al, 1993) as,

4
2
*
( ) 0.174 tan
k V
h
S m
Eq AE
Ag A

(3)

where V = peak velocity for the design earthquake
(m/sec),A = acceleration coefficient for the design
earthquake, g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81
m/sec
2
).


Figure 2. Critical acceleration
*
h
k (After Richards
et al, 1993)

Suppose a typical strip foundation is supported
on a sandy soil with B = 2 m, and D
f
= 0.5 m, and
= 18 KN/m
3
, = 34, and c = 0. The value of k
h
=
0.3 and k
v
= 0 and the velocity V induced by the
design earthquake is 0.4 m/sec. The static ultimate
bearing capacity for this footing for vertical load
will be 1,000 KN/m
2
(Eq. 2). The reduced ultimate
bearing capacity for vertical load is calculated as
290 KN/m
2
(Eq 1). If the footing is designed using
a FS = 3 on the static ultimate bearing capacity
(i.e., for an allowable soil pressure of 333 kN/m
2
),
the additional settlement due to earthquake will be
20.5 mm. This settlement reduces to 7.0 mm if FS
of 4 is used. Besides ensuring that the footing soil
system does not experience a bearing capacity
failure or undergo excessive settlement, the
foundations should be tied together using
interconnecting beams (Applied Technology
Council ,1978)

3.3 Shallow foundations in liqyefying soil

Gazezas et al(2004) studial tilting of buildings in
1999 Turkey earthquake. Detailed investigation of
the Adapazari failures showed that significant
tilting and toppling were observed only in
relatively slender buildings (with aspect ratio: H / B
> 2), provided they were laterally free from other
buildings on one of their sides. Wider and/or
contiguous buildings suffered small if any rotation.
for the prevailing soil conditions and type of
seismic shaking; most buildings with H / B > 1.8
overturned, whereas buildings with H / B < 0.8
essentially only settled vertically, with no visible
tilting. Figure 3 shows a plot of H/B to tilt angle of
building.



Figure 3. The angle of permanent tilting as a
unique function of the slenderness ratio
H/B(Gazetas et al 2004)

Soil profiles based on three SPT and three CPT
tests, performed in front of each building of
interest, reveal the presence of a number of
alternating sandy-silt and silty-sand layers, from
the surface down to a depth of at least 15 m with
values of point resistance qc (0.4 5.0) MPa
(Gazetas 2003). Seismocone measurements
revealed wave velocities Vs less than 60 m/s for
depths down to 15 m, indicative of extremely soft
soil layers. Ground acceleration was not recorded
in Tigcilar. Using 1-D wave propagation analysis,
the EW component of the Sakarya accelerogram
(recorded on soft rock outcrop, in the hilly outskirts
of the city) leads to acceleration values between
0.20 g -0.30 g, with several significant cycles of
motion, with dominant period in excess of 2
seconds. Even such relatively small levels of
acceleration would have liquefied at least the
upper-most loose sandy silt layers of a total
thickness 12 m, and would have produced excess
pore-water pressures in the lower layers Gazetas
et.al(2004),

3.4 Recent development in shallow foundations
under seismic loading

Seismic bearing capacity factors for a strip footing
resting on cohesionless soil were determined by
Dormieux and Pecker (1995) using the upper
bound theorem of yield. Using the classical Prandtl
like mechanism, it was established that the
reduction in bearing capacity was mainly caused by
load inclination (Dormieux and Pecker;1995).
Choudhury and Subba Rao (2005) determined
seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow strip
footing using the limit equilibrium approach and
pseudo-static method of analysis. The reduction in
bearing capacity under the combined effect of
vertical and horizontal forces was explained by
using smaller failure surface (Figure 6) compared
to case when only static vertical loads are applied.





Figure 6. Failure Surfaces under static and Seismic
Loading (Choudhury and Rao 2005)

Gajan and Kutter (2009) proposed contact
interface model for analysis of shallow
foundations subjected to combined cyclic
loading.The rigid footing and the soil beneath the
footing in the zone of influence are modelled as a
single macroelement. The non-linear relationship
between the cyclic loads and displacement at the
footing soil interface are accounted for.


4. CONCLUSIONS

(1) For the case of machine foundations,
reasonable predictions of frequencies and
amplitudes can be made of using available
approaches provided soil parameters are
rationally chosen.
(2) Method to estimate seismic bearing
capacity and settlements of strip
foundations has been reviewed. Analytical
solution need validation on model, full
scale and/or centrifuge tests.
(3) Further research on model and field tests
on settlement and tilt of shallow
foundations and their analysis are needed
to develop reasonable design procedures
for earthquake resistant design. Several
researchers are investigating this problem.


REFERENCES
Choudhury,D. andSubba Rao, K.S. (2005),
Seismic Bearing capacity of Shallow strip
Foundations, Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Vol.23, No. 4, pp. 403-418.

Das, B.M.(1992). Principles of Soil Dynamics,
PWS Kent.

Day, R.W. (2002). Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill,

Day, R.W. (2006). Foundation engineering
Handbook, McGraw Hill.

Dobry, R and Gazettas, G., (1986), " Dynamic
Response of Arbitrarily Shaped Foundations, "
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Vol. 112, No. 2, Feb., pp 109-125.

Dobry. R., Gazettas, G., and Stokoe, K.H., (1986),
"Dynamic Response. of Arbitrarily Shaped
Foundations: Experimental Verification,"
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Division,Vol. 112, No, 2, Feb., pp. 126-154.

Gajan, S. and Kutter, B.L. (2009),Contact
Interface Model for Shallow Foundations
Subjected to Combined Cyclic Loading,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
Environmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 3,
pp. 407-419.

Gazettas, G., (1991), "Formulas and Charts for
Impedances of Surface and Embedded
Foundations," ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. 117, No. 9. Sept.,
pp 1163-1181.
Gazetas, G. (1991), Foundation vibrations, Ch 15
in Handbook of Foundation Engg. by F.Y.
Fang (Second Edition) Van Nostrand, NY.

Gazetas G., Apostolou M., Anastasopoulos J.
[2003] Seismic Uplifting of Foundations on
Soft Soil, with Examples from Adapazari
(Izmit 1999 Earthquake). Foundations
Innovations, Observations, and Design
Practice, Thomas Telford, London, pp.
3730.
Gazettas, G., and Stokoe K.H.,(1991), "Free
Vibrations of Embedded Foundations: Theory
versus Experiment," ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 117,
No. 9, Sept., pp 1382-1401.

Gazetas,G.M. Apostou and J.Anasta-
sopoular(2004) Seismic Bearing Capacity
Failure and overtiming of Terveler Building in
Adapazari 1999, Proc.Fifth Inter.Conf on
Case histories in Geo. Engg. New York CD
ROM SOAP11(1-51).

Richards, R., Elms, D.G. and Budhu, M. (1993),
Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement of
Foundations, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 4,
April, pp 662-674.

Prakash. s. and Puri, V.K., (1977). Critical
Evaluation of IS 5249-1969 Indian Standard
Code Of Practice for In-situ Dynamic
Properties of Soil, Indian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. VIII, No. 1, January, pp. 43-56.

Prakash, S. and Puri, V.K. (1981), "Dynamic
Properties of Soils from In-situ Tests", ASCE,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division
Vol 107, No. GT7, July, pp. 943-964.
Prakash, S. and Puri, V. K. (1981), "Observed and
Predicted Response of a Machine Foundation",
Proc X International Conference on SM & FE
Stockholm Vol. 3, pp 209-273.

Prakash, S. and Puri V.K. (1988), "Foundations for
Machines Analysis and Design", Wiley Series
in Geotechnical Engineering, John Wiley, NY.
Prasad, S.K., Chandrahara, G.P., Nanjundaswamy,
P. and Revansiddappa, K.(2004). Seismic Bearing
Capacity of Ground from Shake Table Tests, IGC -
2004, Vol. 1, Warrangal

Puri, V.K. and Das, B.M. (1993), " Dynamic
Response of Block Foundation", Third
International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, June,
Vol. III.

Richart, F.E.,(1962)"Foundation Vibrations",
Transactions: ASCE, Vol. 127, Part 1 , pp. 863
- 898.
Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R. and Woods, R-D. (1970),
"Vibrations of Soils and Foundations', Prentice
Hall, Inc., New York, NY.

Richart, F.E. and Whitman, R.V. (1967a), "Design
Procedures for Dynamically Loaded
Foundations", ASCE, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 93,
SM6, Nov., pp. 168-193.

Richart, F.E. and Whitman, R.V. (1967b),
"Comparison of Footing Vibrations with
Theory", Journal SMFD, Proc: ASCE, Vol. 93,
No. SM6, Nov., pp. 143-167.