Susceptibility of Shallow Foundation to Rocking and Sliding Movements During Seismic Loading

Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 26)


Current design codes prevent the rocking and sliding of shallow foundations during seismic loading despite much research indicating the beneficial nature of allowing such movements. The primary benefit is the partial isolation of the structure from the soil beneath and subsequently the reduced ductility demands on the superstructure, saving money and reducing the risk of collapse. However, further research is required in order to be able to fully model and predict the behaviour of the soil-foundation interface when sliding and rocking is permitted. The results presented in this chapter examine how several different parameters including structural stiffness, aspect ratio, soil relative density and earthquake magnitude affect the level of rotation and sliding experienced by the foundation. Six centrifuge tests were performed to examine how these parameters affected the response of the structure and high speed photography was used to track the movements of the foundation precisely. It was found that structures with a high centre of gravity slid more than structures with a low centre of gravity. Also, stiff structures were found to rotate more than flexible structures and structures located on dense sand rotate more than those located on loose sand.


Particle Image Velocimetry Flexible Structure Stiff Structure Input Motion Loose Sand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007–2013] under grant agreement no 227887 [SERIES]. The support of the other members of JRA3 in SERIES is acknowledged.


  1. Anastasopoulos I et al (2009) Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cilingir U et al (2011) Cross-facility validation of dynamic centrifuge testing. In: Fardis MN, Rakicevic ZT (eds) Role of seismic testing facilities in performance-based earthquake engineering. Springer, Dordrecht/London, pp 83–98. doi:  10.1007/978-94-007-1977-4 Google Scholar
  3. Flavigny E, Desrues J, Palayer B (1990) Le sable d’Hostun. Géotechnique 53:67–70Google Scholar
  4. Gajan S, Kutter BL (2008) Capacity, settlement, and energy dissipation of shallow footings subjected to rocking. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(8):1129–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gajan S, Kutter BL (2009) Effects of moment-to-shear ratio on combined cyclic load–displacement behavior of shallow foundations from centrifuge experiments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(8):1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gajan S, Saravanathiiban DS (2011) Modeling of energy dissipation in structural devices and foundation soil during seismic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(8):1106–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gajan S et al (2005) Centrifuge modeling of load-deformation behavior of rocking shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garnier J, Gaudin C (2007) Technical Committee TC2 – physical modelling in geotechnics catalogue of scaling laws and similitude questions in centrifuge modellingGoogle Scholar
  9. Kutter BL, Kunnath SK (2010) Estimation of displacement demand for seismic design of bridges with rocking shallow foundations. In: 5th international conference on recent advances in geotechnical & earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, p SOAP11Google Scholar
  10. Madabhushi S, Schofield A, Lesley S (1998) A new stored angular momentum (SAM) based earthquake actuator. In: The international conference centrifuge ’98, Tokyo, Japan, pp 111–116Google Scholar
  11. Schofield AN (1980) Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Géotechnique 30(3):227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. White DJ, Take WA, Bolton MD (2003) Soil deformation measurement using particle image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. Geotechnique 53(7):619–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhao Y et al (2006) Calibration and use of a new automatic sand pourer. In: 6th international conference in physical modelling in geotechnics, Hong Kong, pp 265–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering, Schofield CentreUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations