Search

The mechanisms that control the seismic liquefaction performance of shallow foundations are identified for the special, still common case of a clay crust separating the foundation from the liquefied ground. For that purpose, foundation response is first analyzed with the nonlinear dynamic finite-difference method and consequently evaluated in connection with published field and experimental evidence. Insight is given into the excess pore-pressure buildup under the foundation, the seismic settlement accumulation, the static-bearing capacity degradation, and the inertia-induced interaction with the superstructure. It is thus shown that a naturally or artificially created nonliquefiable soil crust may effectively mitigate the detrimental effects of liquefaction and allow for a performance-based design of surface foundations, without additional improvement measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A foundation system may involve more than a single footing with an arrangement such that the footings are sufficiently closely spaced that adjacent footings interact. Vertical, horizontal, and moment capacity of multifooting foundation systems are potentially dependent on footing interaction, and in particular overturning capacity can be significantly enhanced by the structural rigidity of a multifooting foundation system. There is no established procedure for the calculation of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation system comprising cojoined footings and ad hoc approaches may simply involve summing the ultimate limit states of the individual footings as if they acted independently; neglecting additional capacity of the system available from the kinematic constraint provided by the structural connection between the footings. Plane strain finite-element analyses have been carried out to investigate the undrained ultimate limit states under general loading of skirted two-footing foundation systems at various normalized spacing compared to a single skirted footing of equal bearing area and embedment ratio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to critically examine insitu test methods as a means for predicting settlement of shallow foundations. Accordingly, a 1.8 m(6 ft) diameter concrete footing was statically load tested. Prior to construction, insitu [standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), dilatometer (DMT), and pressuremeter (PMT)] and laboratory tests were performed to determine engineering properties of the soil. Predictions of the footing settlement were made by traditional as well as finite element methods. The results of the static load test showed settlements were over predicted by all methods. However, the traditional methods provided reasonable settlement estimates using either SPT-N or back computed CPT(N) as input. Finite element analyses using either DMT or CPT derived input parameters provided reasonable settlement estimates. Finite element analyses using SPT or PMT derived input parameters provided poor settlement estimates. The Mohr–Coulomb (elastoplastic) model, accounting for overconsolidation, provided better estimates than the hardening soil (hyperbolic-cap) model for all insitu test derived parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is no established procedure for the calculation of bearing capacity of a shallow foundation system comprising cojoined footings. Ad hoc approaches are relied on and may simply involve summing the ultimate limit states of the individual footings as if they acted independently; neglecting additional capacity of the system available from the kinematic constraint provided by the structural connection between the footings. In this study, the undrained capacity under general loading of rigidly connected two-footing systems at various separations has been investigated with finite-element analyses. Results are presented in terms of ultimate limit states under pure vertical (V), horizontal (H), and moment (M) loading, and failure envelopes defining limiting load states under combined VH, VM, HM, and VHM loads. Kinematic failure mechanisms observed in the finite-element analyses are presented and in cases used to provide the basis for upper bound solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]