Field investigation of rocking shallow foundations on

cohesive soil subjected to lateral cyclic loads

Keshab Sharma1, Lijun Deng2
1. PhD student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
2. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Canada

ABSTRACT
Rocking shallow foundations have been observed to be a good mechanism of base isolation and energy dissipation
during strong seismic events. Researchers have been conducting geotechnical centrifuge and shake-table tests of small-
scale model footings primarily in sand. Despite the progress, there is a lack of research in the field tests of rocking
foundations or in the behaviour of rocking foundations in clay. The present research conducted a field study of a rocking
shallow foundation resting on a natural clay in Edmonton, Canada. The footing was subjected to slow cyclic loading in
lateral direction. The rocking foundation system consisted of a 1.5 m by 1.0 m concrete footing, column, and deck to
simulate a prototype bridge system. A geotechnical investigation was carried out to determine the soil conditions before
and after the experiments. Nonlinear behaviour of the foundations and underlying soil was evident and typical
performance graphs, such as moment vs. rotation and settlement vs. rotation, are analyzed. Energy dissipation, residual
rotation, settlement, and stiffness degradation observed in the tests are discussed.

RSUM
Il a t observ que les fondations superficieles basculantes sont un bon mcanisme d'isolement de base et de
dissipation d'nergie pendant de forts vnements sismiques. Les chercheurs ont conduit des essais
gotechniques de centrifugation et de banc d'bavurage sur des modles de fondations petite chelle,
principalement avec du sable. Malgr les progrs, il manque de la recherche au sujet des essais de terrain et sur
le comportement des fondations basculantes en argile. Cette recherche a conduit une tude de terrain d'une
fondation superficiele basculante, base sur une argile naturelle Edmonton, Canada. La fondation a t soumis
un chargement cyclique et lent, en direction latrale. Le systme de fondations basculantes tait compris par
une fondation en bton de 1,5m par 1,0m, une colonne et une plate-forme, afin de simuler un systme protoype
de pont. Une recherche gotechnique a t effectue pour dterminer les conditions du sol avant et aprs les
essaies. Un comportement non linaire des fondations tait vident, et on a analys des graphiques de
performance, tel que le moment vs la rotation et l'affaissement vs la rotation. On a discut la dissipation d'nergie,
la rotation rsiduelle, l'affaissement et la dgradation de la rigidit observs lors des tests.

1 INTRODUCTION
Conventional shallow foundations in earthquake-prone
zones are designed to be sufficiently large so the footings
are fixed to the ground. The rocking foundation concept
was first proposed by Housner (1963) that observed the
benefits of rocking inverted pendulum structures. Taylor et
al. (1981) conducted slow cyclic tests on shallow
foundations embedded in both clay and sand and
suggested that spread footings may be intentionally
designed to yield during high-intensity earthquakes.
Rocking foundations have advantages in earthquake
design, by utilizing the hysteretic damping characteristics
of soil to dissipate the seismic energy. Rocking
foundations provide a mechanism to reduce the seismic
load demand to columns. This concept has been
extensively shown to perform better than conventional
fixed-base foundations in recent years by researchers
using geotechnical centrifuge modeling (Gajan et al.
2005, Kutter et al. 2003, Gajan and Kutter 2008, and
Deng et al. 2012a), shake table tests (Espinoza and
Mahin 2008, Paolucci et al. 2008; Hungs et al. 2011 and
Drosos el al. 2012), and case studies from the 1960 Chile,
1995 Kobe, and 2010 New Zealand earthquakes
(Yashinsky and Karshenas 2003 and Baffo and
Kawashima 2007).
Lab based experiments have the shortcomings
including the small size of the test specimen, the idealized
backfill soil, and specimen preparation conditions. Often
as the research evolves into field-scale testing,
fundamental behavior once exhibited in the laboratory
may be compromised by the environment and factors
associated with the scale of the objects. Thus far, there
has been few field-scale tests of rocking shallow
foundations conducted in real soils (Algie et al. 2010,
Phipps et al. 2012). Algie et al. (2010) carried out
dynamics field tests on a rocking shallow foundation and
concluded that rocking foundations under seismic loading
on competent soils can reduce the ductility demand on
columns, improving overall system performance. Phipps
et al. (2012) investigated field-scale surface foundations
on a natural cohesive soil under dynamic loading and
showed that show that energy may be dissipated at the
soil-structure interface by means of soil hysteresis
through moment-rotation and horizontal force-horizontal Table 1. Dimensions of Rocking Foundation System
displacement. In these field tests, however, the footing
internal reaction and the changes in underlying soils Component Dimension
properties were not investigated. RC footing width 1.0 m
In this study, we carried out a series of field-scale RC footing length 1.5 m
tests of rocking foundation systems on a natural cohesive RC footing height 0.3 m
soil. This paper shows the detail of the experimental Height of column 2.0 m
design considerations; including the moment capacity of Steel tubular column section 0.2 m by 0.2 m
the rocking foundation, structural design concept, vertical Column wall thickness 12 mm
load, and horizontal cyclic load pattern. This paper
presents results of four tests of varying factors of safety
against the bearing failure. In addition, this study
describes the settlement (or uplift) and energy dissipation
during the rocking and compared to the results of the
small-scale tests. Changes in soil properties due to
rocking shallow foundation are also examined.

2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

2.1 Rocking Foundation System

The rocking foundation system consisted of a rectangular

reinforced-concrete (RC) spread footing, a steel tubular
column, and RC slabs used as the superstructure weight.
The system is designed from a real highway overcrossing
bridge (Figure 1). The yield moment of the column is
designed to be stronger than the rocking moment capacity
of the footing and thus the rocking response would be
mobilized. The rectangular footing stood on the ground
surface, representing an isolated footing supporting a
structural assembly. Mounted to a strong reaction frame,
a hydraulic jack exerts the lateral cyclic loading to the Figure 1. Setup of the soil-footing-structure system
deck, analogous to the inertia force of the superstructure subject to cyclic lateral loads. Dimension unit: mm.
during an earthquake shaking. Table 1 shows the
dimensions of elements of the rocking system.

2.2 Design of rocking foundation system

When a horizontal load induced by an earthquake

excitation is applied to a column or shear wall, an
overturning moment will develop (Figure 2). There are
three factors involved in the resistance to the overturning
moment: the vertical load (V), the length of the foundation
(L), and the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil (q u).
When a foundation uplifts, the contact area between the
soil and foundation will reduce until the ultimate bearing
capacity is mobilized. This area cannot reduce anymore if
the vertical load (V) remains constant, and is defined as
the critical area (Ac). Assuming the width of the
foundation to be in full contact with the soil this critical Figure 2. Concept of a rocking foundation showing critical
area can be simplified to a critical length, L c. This term, length (Lc).
critical length, was defined by Gajan et al. (2005) based
upon centrifuge experiments of rocking shear walls. Equation [1] is useful because it groups all the
Figure 2 shows how this critical length, Lc, resists the geotechnical uncertainty associated with foundation
vertical load, V, mobilizing the ultimate bearing capacity strength into one term, Lc. It is used in this paper to
(qu). Taking moments about the base center of the calculate the measured moment capacities of the
foundation, the moment capacity Mult for a rocking foundations, and compare to the experimental results.
foundation is defined defined by: The foundation design was split into the structural
design and the geotechnical design. The geotechnical

= (1 )

[1] design was the calculation of bearing capacity using the
2 equation developed by Terzaghi (1943) to determine how
where V, L, and Lc are defined in Figure 2. large the foundations needed to be. Consequently, the
dimensions of the foundations were 1.5 m long by 1.0 m
wide by 0.3 m deep with the bottom of the foundations at
the ground surface. The foundation was designed for
pseudo-static loading, neglecting any dynamic effects.
The shallow foundation have factors of safety for soil
bearing ranging from 6 to 22.
Figure 2 shows an elevation design of the foundations
detailing the dimensions and reinforcement. The concrete
specified for the foundations had compressive yield
strength (fc) of 40 MPa after 28 days. The longitudinal
reinforcement was 7x20M bars top and bottom, and the
transverse reinforcement was 20M spaced at 150 mm
center to center (Figures 3 and 4).
The structure is designed to allow rocking foundations
but remain essentially elastic as a yielding structure would
create difficulties for subsequent use. A square tube
section is used as a column and designed for axial load,
and bending and torsional moment. Moment capacity of
both column and foundation were calculated. The yield
moment capacity of the column is designed to be stronger
than the rocking moment capacity of the footing. The
shear force and moment in the footing were calculated
considering the maximum superstructure load and
horizontal load on the deck from the hydraulic jack. The
horizontal load is calculated as superstructure load
multiplied by the base shear coefficient (Cr). The natural
frequency and the rocking frequency of the structure are
maintained in between 1-5 Hz which represents the
natural frequency prototype bridge structures.
2.3 Vertical load
The structure consists of the footing, column, and deck,
and applied a vertical load of 35.38 kN to the ground. To
achieve various factors of safety (FSv) against the
bearing capacity, additional vertical loads from concrete
slabs (2 m by 2 m by 0.3 m) were bolted on the top of the
deck. Each RC slab weighs 28.17 kN and there were 3
slabs maximum, making the maximum total load of
119.91 kN to the ground surface.
2.4 Lateral cyclic load
The experimental program was designed so that the
concrete deck on the top of the steel column would be
subjected to lateral cyclic loading using a doubly hinged
hydraulic jack mounted from a reaction frame (Figure 1).
The two hinges will ensure the load is in the horizontal
direction and the moment is precluded. The loading
system is designed to produce large rotational
displacements to induce uplift of the footing on both sides
as the load reversals took place. The reaction column is
also designed for shear force, bending moment and
torsional moment.
2.5 Instrumentation
Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were
attached to the foundation and deck to measure vertical
and horizontal movement. The vertical movement was
used to calculate settlement and rotation of the foundation
and the horizontal movement was used to calculate
sliding. These LVDTs were attached to a timber frame
anchored to the ground at each end, and extra support
was provided using rope and wooden pegs. This was
done to ensure minimal vibrations from the foundation
rocking were transferred into the LVDT recordings.
A load cell was used to measure the force applied at
the connection of the hydraulic jack and concrete deck
(Figure 1). The deck is slowly pushed and pulled by the
hydraulic jack in a cyclic manner.
3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 Subsurface soil characterization
A geotechnical investigation was undertaken prior to the
cyclic loading tests to determine the properties of the soil.
Cone penetration tests (CPT) were conducted to give a
full description of the soil. The CPTs went to a target
depth of 10 m; well below this failure surface (Figure 5).
The failure surface for general bearing capacity failure of
a shallow foundation reaches 2B under the footing (3.0 m
in this case). As the top layer of soil is mainly organic, a
digger was used to scrape out the top layer of soil. The
upper layers, which are applicable to shallow foundations,
were mostly soft to medium, and fine grained. The lower
layers were clay to silty clay or clayey silt to silty clay. The
CPT pore pressure response put the water table at 4.9 m
below the ground surface. Additionally, Shelby tube soil
samples were collected from within the footing area
before and after the experiment to evaluate the change in
soil properties during the rocking. Laboratory tests were
carried out to determine soil types and fundamental
properties of soil. In-situ soil properties of the site are
given in Table 2.
a
0.3 m
b
FROM FACE
Figure 3. Detail of the foundation elevation and
reinforcement
3.2 Cyclic loading test
Figure 6 shows a photo of the test system setup onsite
with the reaction frame and hydraulic jack prior to testing.
The foundation was resting on the clay layer after
removing the top organic soil as shown in Figure 6. The
lateral cyclic tests were performed by applying horizontal
displacements to the concrete deck on top of the steel
column with a doubly-hinged hydraulic jack mounted
horizontally from a reaction column. The reaction column
was supported by screw piles and an inclined strut. The
pile cap was slowly pushed and pulled by the hydraulic
jack. The cyclic loading consists of 3 to 5 packets, each
of which contains 3 to 4 cycles of similar displacement
amplitude to a drift ratio of maximum 5%. The test
sequence is shown in Table 3. The factor of safety with
regard to the bearing failure (FSv) at the full contact area
is estimated from conventional footing capacity theory.
Figure 4. Rebars in formwork before casting the concrete
for footing
Figure 5. CPT profile of site at the University Farm
Table 2. In-situ soil properties
Property Value
Shear strength, su (kPa) 95.0
USCS classification CH
Average moisture content (%) 24.7
Plastic limit 38.6
Liquid limit 89.9
Edge 2 Edge 1
Figure 6. Experimental setup in the field
4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Momentrotationsettlement behaviour
Figure 7 shows displacement time histories of the deck,
including the moment-rotation and vertical displacement-
rotation relationships at the base center point of the
rocking footing for Test 1. The FSv of the footing is 22.16.
The footing was subjected to slow cyclic loading in the
lateral direction. The cyclic loading consists of 3 packets
of which each contain 3 to 4 cycles of similar
displacement amplitude to a drift ratio maximum of 5% as
shown in Figure 8a.
Table 3. Test sequence
Total load on
Test FSv Remarks
soil, P (kN)
1 35.38 22.16 Deck only
2 63.56 12.3 Deck and 1 slab
3 91.73 8.55 Deck and 2 slabs
4 119.91 6.54 Deck and 3 slabs
The moment-rotation plots quantify the amount of
energy dissipated at the soil-footing interface. From
Figure 7b, it is seen that significant energy was dissipated
during the rocking. The results from the cyclic tests
indicate that each test maintained moment capacity.
Moment capacity was not observed to reduce significantly
with respect to number of cycles or amplitude of rotation.
However, Figure 7b indicates the rotational stiffness
decreased as the amplitude of rotation increased. The
moment capacity of the test measured around 26 kNm.
This is consistent with a static moment capacity (Equation
[1]) of 25.34 kNm, given as the two horizontal lines.
The settlement vs. rotation curve shown in Figure 7c
illustrates the reentering behavior expected for rocking
foundations on a clay soil. The troughs of the vertical
displacement-rotation curves in Figure 7c also show the
amount of permanent vertical deformation accumulated
during a test.
 150 150

Hor. displacement(mm)

Hor. displacement(mm)
a a
100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
-150 -150
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min) Time (min)
60

Rocking moment(kN.m)
b Mult= 43.8 kN.m
Rocking moment(kN.m)

30 b Mult=25.34 kN.m
40
20 FSv=12.3
FSv=22.16 20
10
0 0

-10 -20
Mult= 43.8 kN.m
-20 Mult=25.34 kN.m -40
-30 -60
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Footing rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)
Footing settlement (mm)
Footing settlement (mm)

25 25
c c
FSv=22.16 FSv=12.3
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-5 -5
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Footing rotation (rad) Footing rotation (rad)
15
d d
Horizontal force (kN)

Horizontal force (kN)

20
10
5 10

0 0
-5 -10
-10
-20
-15
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sliding (mm) Sliding (mm)
Figure 7. (a) Displacement time histories of deck, (b) Figure 8. (a) Displacement time histories of deck, (b)
moment-rotation relationship of footing, (c) vertical moment-rotation relationship of footing, (c) vertical
displacement-rotation relationship of footing, and (d) displacement-rotation relationship of footing, and (d)
applied horizontal load and sliding relationship (Test 1) applied horizontal load and sliding relationship (Test 2)
 The horizontal force vs. horizontal displacement
relationship in Figure 7d clearly shows that the horizontal
force did not reduce with the increasing number of cycles
or amplitude of lateral displacement. Horizontal
displacement was also observed to remain relatively
unchanged until the peak shear capacity was reached, at
which point the footing began to slide. In each full cyclic
test, the area enclosed by the horizontal force-horizontal
displacement loops indicates the amount of energy
dissipated through each cycle in sliding and horizontal
shearing strains.
Figure 8 shows the displacement time histories of the
deck, and the moment-rotation and vertical displacement-
rotation relationships of Test 2. FSv of this test is 12.30.
The maximum moment in Test 2 was 44 kNm. This is
consistent with the estimated Mult (Equation [1]) of 43.8
kNm, given as the two horizontal lines shown in Figure
8b. The results from the cyclic tests indicate that each test
maintained moment capacity. Moment capacity was not
observed to reduce significantly with respect to number of
cycles or amplitude of rotation. As Figure 8b indicates, the
rotational stiffness, however, decreased as the amplitude
of rotation increased.
Table 4. Summary of test results
Calc. Meas. Res. Max.
Test FS Mult Mult (kN- Sett. Drift
(kN-m) m) (mm) (%)
1 22.16 25.34 26.00 0.35 4.8
points of the rocking footing. These gaps, in addition to
the soil yielding under a changing contact area,
contributed to the nonlinear moment-rotation relationship
and the degradation of rotational stiffness.
Table 3 summarizes the results of all four tests. The
measured Mult of Tests 3 and 4 are consistent with
calculated Mult using Equation [1]. On all four tests, the
settlement was minimal: the residual settlement of Test 1
was 0.35 mm, Test 2 1.17 mm, Test 3 1.63 mm, and Test
4 3.63 mm. This is encouraging for rocking foundations on
medium cohesive soils, since it indicates that settlement
does not appear to be an issue.
The moment-rotation and settlement-rotation
relationship for this study clearly supports the
observations from centrifuge and shake table tests
performed in the past (Kutter et al. 2003; Gajan et al.
2005; Gajan and Kutter 2008; Espinoza and Mahin 2008;
Paolucci et al. 2008; Hung et al. 2011; Deng et al. 2012a
and Drosos el al. 2012).
4.2 Rotational stiffness
Elastic portions of the moment-rotation plots were used to
evaluate the rotational stiffness degradation of the rocking
foundation in this study. These rotational stiffness values
can be compared with elastic stiffness equation (Equation
[2], Gazetas 1991):
GMAX 0.75 L 0.15
k ,max = I [3 ( ) ] [2]
1 B

2 12.30 43.80 44.00 1.17 4.8 where: I is the moment of inertia computed about the
3 8.55 60.75 61.50 1.63 4.8 centroid of the footing base normal to the direction of
rocking; L and B are the footing length and width
4 6.54 76.20 77.10 3.63 4.8
respectively; is the embedment factor correlated with
the ratio of the depth of embedment to the length of the
footing (Gazetas 1991) and the surface footings tested in
this study, was taken as unity; is the Poissons ratio of
the soil and can be approximated as 0.5 for soft to
medium clays (Gazetas 1991).

1.0 Test 1 (FSv =22.16)

Test 2 (FSv =12.30)
Test 3 (FSv =8.55)
0.8 Test 4 (FSv =6.54)
Gajal et al. (2004)
0.6 k/k,max=0.066
kk,max

0.4

0.2 k/kmax=0.008
Figure 9. Foundation uplift during the experiment
0.0 k/k,max=0.002 k/k,max=0.0017
The rocking footing experienced uplift near the peak
rotations and a portion of the footing base lost contact 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
with the soil (Figure 9). Yielding of the soil took place as Maximum rotation, (rad)
the footing lost contact, as the portion remaining in
contact maintained static equilibrium through an increase Figure 10. Rotational Stiffness Degradation versus
in contact pressure. As footing uplift and soil yielding Maximum Angle of Rotation for Slow Cyclic Tests
continued, the cyclic lateral loading caused rounding of
the soil surface, implying that gaps formed near both pivot
 According to Seed and Idriss (1970), the initial shear Density (kg/m3)
modulus, Gmax, can be approximated by Equation [3] for a
1880 1900 1920 1940
very soft to medium clay. 0.0
a Post-rocking
(30 to 100) [3]
Pre-rocking
Based on previous CPT at the test site and vane 0.2 Density
shear testing of soil from the site, the undrained shear Shear strength
strength, su, was estimated to be 95 kPa.

Depth (m)
Figure 10 shows k as determined from the slow cyclic 0.4
tests normalized by k,max given by Equation [2]. A mean
stiffness reduction trend was computed for each level of
rotational stiffness for all four tests. At the beginning of
yielding for Test 1, the experimental stiffness is around 0.6
50% of the calculated elastic stiffness and at maximum
rotation the rotational stiffness is 18% of the calculated
elastic stiffness. Test 2 is around 40% of the elastic value 0.8
at beginning of yielding and around 10% at maximum.
Test 3 is around 30% at the beginning of yielding and
around 8% at maximum, and Test 4 is around 27% at the
beginning of yielding and around 7% at maximum. 1.0
80 90 100 110 120
A similar study was performed for rocking shallow
footings on sand by Gajan et al. (2004), who empirically Shear strength (kPa)
developed Equation [4] for the rotation stiffness: Density (kg/m3)
k
= 0.003(0.6 ) [4] 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960
k,max
0.0
b Post-rocking
The rotational stiffness degradation for clay at higher
rotation observed from the tests with lower FSv (Test 3 Pre-rocking
and Test 4) correlate well with the Equation [4]. However, 0.2 Density
from the tests with higher FSv (Test 1), the stiffness
Depth (m)
Shear strength
reduction trend seems different than the Equation [1] and
the rate of stiffness reduction is lower than the rate of 0.4
stiffness reduction recommended by Gajan et al. (2004).
These rotational stiffness degradation relationships
(Figure 10) need further validation using data from more 0.6
full-scale experiments with different parameters. Different
types of clays, rotation amplitudes, footing sizes, and
embedment configurations could be varied in these tests.
0.8
4.3 Changes in soil characteristics

The changes in soil characteristics after foundation 1.0

rocking were seldom investigated in the literature. Eight 80 90 100 110 120
Shelby tubes soil samples were collected from two Shear strength (kPa)
locations (nearby the edges of footing) beneath the
footing before and after the tests to determine change in
Figure 11. Soil density and shear strength before and
density and shear strength of soil. Vane shear test were
after the test beneath the footing: (a) soils near edge
conducted in the laboratory to find out the shear strength
1, and (b) soils near edge 2 (for edge 1 and 2 see
of soil. Figure 11a shows experimental results of soil
Figure 6)
nearby edge 1 (Figure 6). It is seen that the average bulk
density of soil before tests was 1905 kg/m3 which was
increased to 1920 kg/m3 after four tests on the same spot.
However, the increase in su of soil nearby edge 1 is not
5 CONCLUSIONS
significant. The increase in both density and shear
strength of soil nearby edge 2 (Figure 6) is significant.
The following conclusions can be made from this study.
The average shear strength of soil before the test was 97
1. Rocking foundations can be beneficial to a structure,
kPa which was increased to average shear strength of
by dissipating energy in the soil rather than in beams
107 kPa as shown in Figure 11b. The increased density
and columns. The results from the experiments show
and shear strength of soil after the experiments might be
consistent rocking moment vs. rotation behaviour and
attributed to the foundation settlement during the
a good energy dissipation.
experiment.
2. The settlement was minimal which is encouraging for
rocking foundations on the stiff clay in the present
study, because settlement does not appear to be an
issue.
3. A curve for the rotational stiffness degradation was
established for rocking system on the stiff clay. An
important aspect of future research will be to
determine how to get from elastic rotational stiffness to
accurate rotational stiffness.
4. Change in density and shear strength of soil beneath
the footing was observed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to the financial support of Natural
Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada
under the Discovery Grants program (RGPIN-2014-
04707), the University of Alberta Joint Research Labs
program, and NSERC ENGAGE program. The authors
would like to thank Raymond Lee of Lafarge Canada Inc.
(Edmonton) for the assistance in manufacturing the
reinforced-concrete elements.
REFERENCES
Algie T.B., Pender M.J., Orense R.P., and Wortherspoon
L.M. 2010. Dynamic field testing of shallow
foundations subject to rocking, Annual Conference of
the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Antonellis, G. and Panagiotou, M. 2014. Seismic
response of bridges with rocking foundations
compared to that of fixed-base bridges at a near-fault
site, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 19(5):
04014007.
Apostolou, M., Gazetas, G., and Garini, E. 2007. Seismic
response of slender rigid structures with foundation
uplifting, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
27 (7): 642654.
Baffo, D. 2007. Seismic rocking isolation effect on
superficial foundations of bridges, MSc thesis, Rose
School, Pavia, Italy.
Deng, L. and Kutter, B.L. 2012. Characterization of
rocking shallow foundations using centrifuge model
tests, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 41(5): 10431060.
Deng, L., Kutter, B.L., and Kunnath, S.K. 2012a.
Centrifuge modeling of bridge systems designed for
rocking foundations, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 138(3): 335
344.
Deng, L., Kutter, B.L., and Kunnath, S.K. 2012b.
Probabilistic seismic performance of rocking-
foundation and hinging-column bridges, Earthquake
Spectra, 8(2): 309326.
Drosos, V., Georgarakos, T., Loli, M., Anastasopoulos, I.,
Zarzouras, O., and Gazetas G. 2012. Soil
FoundationStructure interaction with mobilization of
bearing capacity: an experimental study on Sand.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 138(11): 1369-1386.
Espinoza, A. and Mahin, S. 2006. Rocking of bridge piers
subjected to multi-directional earthquake excitation.
Fifth National Seismic Conference on Bridge and
Highways, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gajan, S. and Kutter, B.L. 2008. Capacity, settlement, and
energy dissipation of shallow footings subjected to
rocking, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134(8): 1129
1141.
Gajan, S., Kutter, B.L., Phalen, J.D., Hutchinson, T.C.,
and Martin, G.R. 2005. Centrifuge modeling of load-
deformation behavior of rocking shallow foundations,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25: 773
783.
Gelagoti, F., Kourkoulis, R., Anastasopoulos, I., and
Gazetas, G. 2012. Rocking isolation of frame
structures founded on separate footings, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41: 11771197.
Housner, G.W. 1963. Behavior of inverted pendulum
structures during earthquakes, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 53 (2): 403417.
Hung, H., Liu, K., Ho, T., and Chang, K. 2011. An
experimental study on the rocking response of bridge
piers with spread footing foundations, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(7): 749769.
Kawashima, K. and Hosoiri, K. 2003. Rocking response of
bridge columns on direct foundation during an
earthquake, Fib-symposium, Concrete Structures in
Seismic Region, Athens, Greece.
Kawashima, K., Watanabe, G., Sakellaraki, D., and
Nagai, T. 2005. Rocking isolation of bridge
foundations, The 9th World Seminar on Seismic
Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration
Control of structures, Kobe, Japan, 1316: 609630.
Kutter, B.L., Martin, G., Hutchinson, T., Harden, C.,
Gajan, S., and Phalen, J. 2003. Status report on study
of modeling of nonlinear cyclic loaddeformation
behavior of shallow foundations, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers Workshop, University
of California, Davis.
Paolucci, R., Shirato M., and Yilmaz M.T. 2008. Seismic
behaviour of shallow foundations: Shaking table
experiments vs numerical modelling, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37(4): 577595.
Phips J.N., Ashlock, J.C., and Sritharan, S. 2012.
Experimental results of foundation rocking on a
natural clay deposit, Fifth Word Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Satake, K., Shimazaki, K., Tsuji, Y., and Ueda, K. 1996.
Time and Size of a Giant Earthquake in Cascadia
Inferred from Japanese Tsunami records of January
1700, Nature, 379: 246249.
Yashinsky, M. and Karshenas, M.J. 2003. Fundamentals
of seismic protection for bridges, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Oakland, CA.