See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309808226

Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Foundations

Presentation · November 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25391.53927

CITATIONS READS

0 605

1 author:

Pramin Norachan
Asian Institute of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Offshore Wind Turbines View project

PWR Prestressed Concrete Containment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pramin Norachan on 10 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS: TRENDS AND
ADVANCEMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL PEFORMANCE
November 9, 2016
Bangkok, Thailand

Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete

Pramin Norachan
Foundations

Pramin Norachan
Presentation Outline

1. Introduction

2. Foundation Modeling

3. Analysis

4. Design & Detailing

5. Project Example

The overturning failure of a 13 storey residential building.

Pramin Norachan 2
 Introduction

3
Pramin Norachan
Guidelines

TBI 2010 LATBSDC 2014 NEHRP

(NIST GCR 12-917-22)

Pramin Norachan 4
Introduction

• Foundations must be designed to

transmit forces from the superstructure
into the supporting soil within
acceptable deformations while
providing adequate safety against
bearing or uplift failure.

• Design should consider both the

structural elements of the foundation
(including spread footings, mat
foundations, piles, ties, and other
foundation elements) and the soil that
supports those elements.

Pramin Norachan 5
Introduction
• Foundations are generally categorized as being
either shallow foundations or deep foundations.

• Shallow foundations are often used where the

underlying soils near the surface are sufficient to
resist foundation forces without excessive
settlement, bearing failure, or uplift.

• Deep foundations are used where the soils near

the surface are not adequate for applied loads.

• For both shallow and deep foundations, it may

be necessary to tie the foundation elements
together near the surface so that individual
foundation elements do not become separated
due to soil movement.

Pramin Norachan 6
 Shallow Foundations

(d) Mat foundation

• Mat foundations may be suitable where soil and load conditions result in unacceptably large
differential settlements across the foundation plan.

Pramin Norachan 7
Shallow Foundations

Resistance mechanisms for spread footings

Pramin Norachan 8
Deep Foundations

• One of the most

common types of deep
foundations is the pile
foundation.

• Piles can be precast or

cast-in-place concrete,
or can be made of
other materials.

• Precast piles must be

driven into place, while
cast-in-place piles are
cast in pre-excavated
holes.

Pramin Norachan 9
Deep Foundations
• End-bearing pile: This type of pile derives
most of its capacity from a bearing stratum on
which the tip bears.

• Friction pile: This type of pile derives its

resistance primarily from friction or adhesion
along the length of the pile. They are
commonly used where a bearing stratum is
too deep to be usable. A pile that resists
tension does so by friction and would be
considered a friction pile.

• Combined end-bearing and friction pile: This

type of pile derives its resistance from a
combination of end bearing and friction.

Pramin Norachan 10
Deep Foundations

Free-body diagrams showing forces acting on a four-pile pile cap

Pramin Norachan 11
 Foundation Performance Objectives and Design
Values
• Foundation performance under sustained
gravity loads should consider settlement
(both total and differential), soil bearing
capacity, and structural capacity of the
foundation elements.

• Wind and seismic loads induce transient

effects on the soils. The primary concern is
bearing failure rather than long-term
settlement. For this reason, allowable
stresses specified for gravity loads usually
are allowed to be increased by one-third for
service-level load combinations including
wind or seismic effects.

• Performance expectations under seismic loads are not prescribed by most codes. Practices vary
depending on the experiences and philosophy of the individual design office.
Pramin Norachan 12
 Foundation Modeling

13
Pramin Norachan
Typical Modeling Practice

• Finite element analysis of mat

foundations typically assumes
gross section concrete stiffness
with no cracking.

• In developing a numerical model

for a mat foundation analysis
model, stiffness of the complete
structure should be considered.

Pramin Norachan 14
Soil-Structure Interaction
• The seismic response of a building is
affected by interactions among three
linked systems:
─ Structure
─ Foundation
─ Soil underlying and surrounding the
foundation.

• Analysis for soil–structure interaction

(SSI), also referred to as soil–
foundation–structure interaction (SFSI),
evaluates the collective response of
these systems to earthquake ground
motion.

Pramin Norachan 15
 Typical Modeling Practice

(2014 LATBSDC)

• Although a complete model of the superstructure, the foundation, and the soils can be
developed and analyzed, this is not always done.
(PERFROM 3D)
• A common approach is to analyze a simplified model of the soil-foundation-structure system,
and then apply the resulting foundation forces to a more detailed finite-element model of the mat
foundation and supporting soil. (ETABS and SAFE)

Pramin Norachan 16
 Analysis

17
Pramin Norachan
Analysis Procedures
• ASCE-41 permits four types of analyses:

1. Linear elastic static procedure (LSP)

2. Linear dynamic procedure (LDP) or response spectrum analysis

3. Non-linear static procedure (NSP) commonly referred to as the push-over analysis

4. Dynamic nonlinear response analysis (NDP).

• Tall Building Design Guidelines permit only two:

1. 3D LDP or NDP for serviceability check

2. 3D NDP for all checks

Pramin Norachan 18
Load Combinations

Pramin Norachan 19
 Analysis Options
• Most analysis software commonly permit the use of a
“thick plate” element formulation to include the effects
of shear strains and therefore shear deformations.

• For very thick mat foundations, such as those with

span-to-depth ratios of 10 or less, this option should be
used to provide a more realistic force distribution.

• The software should iterate to determine a soil bearing

pressure distribution that satisfies equilibrium but
results in compression only in the soil springs with zero
tension.

• For mat foundations with large overturning or

Bearing pressure distribution example significant uplift, the no-tension iteration may take
(peak value shown in grey color) significant computational effort.

Pramin Norachan 20
Analysis Tools (SAFE)

Pramin Norachan 21
 Design & Detailing

22
Pramin Norachan
 Design

• To use the analysis results for design purposes, finite element analysis software will typically
integrate the predicted moments and shears of all elements encompassed along a strip of
defined width to produce design-strip moments and shears.

Pramin Norachan 23
 Typical Classification of Component Actions
Load combination for each ground motion pair: 1.0DL+0.25LL+1.0EMCE

Actions Type Demand (D) Capacity (C) D/C

Critical Actions 1) Seven or more pairs Expected strengths
Fu  1.5  Mean Fn D Fu
(Shear)   1.0
2) Less than seven pairs C  Fn
Fu  Max   1.0
Force-Controlled
Actions Non-Critical 1) Seven or more pairs Expected strengths
Actions Fu  Mean D Fu
2) Less than seven pairs Fn   1.0
(Flexure) C  Fn
Fu  Max   1.0
Deformation- 1) Seven or more pairs Deformation capacity
Controlled obtained from ASCE 41-13
Deformation  Mean
Actions (acceptance criteria)
D
2) Less than seven pairs  1.0
C
Deformation  Max

Pramin Norachan Source: 2014 LATBSDC 24

 Detailing
• The detailing of a mat foundation should consider the ACI 318 requirements for reinforcement
development, anchorage, and curtailment. In addition, constructability issues should also be
kept in mind.

Example of placement diagram to clarify layering Example of edge reinforcement at mat foundation edge

Pramin Norachan 25
 Project Example
Detailing

Pramin Norachan
Hotel Nikko, Guam

26-Story RC building
Precast Prestressed
Concrete Pile

27
Pramin Norachan
 ETABS Model including Piles and Foundations

PERFORM 3D ETABS

For nonlinear time-history analysis (NLTHA) using PERFORM 3D, the foundation was not
modelled in nonlinear model. Fixed supports were assigned to the base of the reinforced concrete
shear walls and columns.
Pramin Norachan 28
 ETABS Model including Piles and Foundations

• Instead of modeling piles and foundations in PERFORM 3D due to some complexity and
unreliable results when including pile soil spring, they were modeled in ETABS 2015.

• The pile design check under MCE earthquake level was carried out by using ETABS 2015,
while the footing and mat foundation design check was done by using SAFE.

Pramin Norachan 29
Lateral Soil Springs
Averaged
modulus of Pile
Depth Lateral spring on pile
subgrade diameter
reaction
ft m lb/in2/in in lb/in/in KN/m/m
0-22 0-7 84 16.5 1,386 9,556
22-37 7-12 119 16.5 1,964 13,538
37-52 12-16 136 16.5 2,244 15,472
52-67 16-21 145 16.5 2,393 16,496
67-100 21-30 225 16.5 3,713 25,597

• The averaged modulus of subgrade reaction of soil were obtained from the
soil investigation report.

• For each depth level of pile, lateral springs were calculated from the
averaged modulus of subgrade reaction.

Pramin Norachan 30
 Seismic Force Scaling

Before carrying out design checks at MCE, the linear analysis results of both ETABS and SAFE
were scaled to match with the nonlinear time-history analysis results (NLTHA) from PERFORM-3D.

To simulate the force redistributions due to inelastic responses, the west, center and east core walls
were separately scaled based on the base moment above foundation, while the other pile caps
were scaled based on the base shear.
Pramin Norachan 31
 Seismic Force Scaling
4,000,000 2,500,000

3,500,000
2,000,000
3,000,000

Base Moment (KN-m)

2,500,000 1,500,000
Base Moment (KN-m)

2,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000

1,000,000
500,000
500,000

0 0
X Y X Y
Along Direction Along Direction
PERFORM-SW-WEST ETABS-SW-WEST PERFORM-SW-WEST ETABS-SW-WEST
PERFORM-SW-CENTER ETABS-SW-CENTER PERFORM-SW-CENTER ETABS-SW-CENTER
PERFROM-SW-EAST ETABS-SW-EAST PERFROM-SW-EAST ETABS-SW-EAST

Before Scaling After Scaling

Comparison of Base Moment about X and Y Directions between PERFORM 3D and ETABS 2015

Pramin Norachan 32
 Seismic Force Scaling
Before Scaling After Scaling
100 100

90 90
ETABS-Vx ETABS-Vx
80 PERFROM-Vx 80 PERFROM-Vx

70 70

60 60
Hieght (m)

50 50

Hieght (m)
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10
-200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000
Shear Force (KN) Shear Force (KN)

Comparison of Story Shear in X Direction between PERFORM 3D and ETABS 2015

Pramin Norachan 33
 Seismic Force Scaling
Before Scaling After Scaling
100 100

90 90
ETABS-Vy ETABS-Vy
80 PERFROM-Vy 80 PERFROM-Vy

70 70

60 60

50
Hieght (m)

50

Hieght (m)
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

-10 -10
-300,000 -200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 -200,000 -150,000 -100,000 -50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
Shear Force (KN) Shear Force (KN)

Comparison of Story Shear in Y Direction between PERFORM 3D and ETABS 2015

Pramin Norachan 34
 Load Combinations
Before scaling - load combinations for MCE level earthquakes
U1 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 1.0 MCEX + 0.3 MCEY
U2 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.3 MCEX + 1.0 MCEY
After scaling - load combinations multiplied with scaling factors for MCE level earthquakes
U1 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.71 MCEX + 0.21 MCEY
West core wall
U2 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.17 MCEX + 0.57 MCEY
U1 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.78 MCEX + 0.23 MCEY
Center core wall
U2 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.16 MCEX + 0.53 MCEY
U1 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.54 MCEX + 0.16 MCEY
East core wall
U2 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.15 MCEX + 0.52 MCEY
U1 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.70 MCEX + 0.21 MCEY
Other pile caps
U2 = 1.0 DL + 1.0 SDL + 0.25 LL + 0.20 MCEX + 0.65 MCEY
Pramin Norachan 35
Pile and Foundation Details

Pramin Norachan 36
 Pile Capacities
Allowable Capacity (Kips) Ultimate Capacity (Kips)
Compression Tension Compression Tension
Pile Gravity Gravity Gravity Gravity
Gravity plus Gravity plus Gravity plus Gravity plus
Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic
Dia.
400 533 200 266 800 800 300 300
16.5
X1.3 X1.3 X2.0 X2.0

• The building is supported on driven, precast and prestressed, 16.5-inch octagonal concrete piles.

• The allowable pile capacities which were obtained from the soil investigation report may be
increased by one third under wind or seismic forces.

• For ultimate pile capacities, a safety factor of 2.0 was applied to vertical downward (compression)
and a safety factor of 1.5 was applied for uplift (tension).

Pramin Norachan 37
 Axial Pile Capacity Check
D/C Gravity + Seismic (Compression) Gravity + Seismic (Tension)
Num. of Piles % Num. of Piles %
D/C<0.5 344 45% 245 55%
0.5<D/C<0.8 369 48% 171 38%
0.8<D/C<1.0 60 8% 30 7%
D/C>1.0 0 0% 0 0%
Total 773 100% 446 100%

• The ultimate axial Pile D/C ratio under gravity plus seismic (MCE) is shown in the above table.
The 0.25 of live load factor was used in term of gravity load combined with MCE earthquake.

• In order to obtained the ultimate pile capacities, the allowable pile capacities were increased by
the vertical compression safety factor of 2.0 and the vertical tension safety factor of 1.5, which
these factors were taken from the soli report for this project.

Pramin Norachan 38
 PMM Capacity Check
10,000
P-M Interaction
Point Pn Mn 8,000
(KN) (KN-m)
1 7927 0 6,000 Pile PMM Capacity

Axial Load (KN)

2 7927 197.1
4,000
3 6679 362.3 P-M (MAX)
4 4530 429.1
2,000
5 1961 387.5
P-M (MIN)
6 -925 216.2
0
7 -1390 173.1 0 100 200 300 400 500
8 -1865 118.3
-2,000
9 -2257 65.8
10 -2566 17.7
-4,000
11 -2665 0 Moment (KN-m)

Pramin Norachan 39
Design Review of Foundations

Pramin Norachan 40
 41
Pramin Norachan
View publication stats