First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General

Assembly of the ESC) Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006 Paper Number: Keynote Address K7

SEISMIC DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS AND SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION

George GAZETAS1 SUMMARY Two topics of practical significance are discussed : (a) The widely-held perception, reflected in most seismic codes, that soil-structure interaction (SSI) plays invariably a beneficial role ( and thus can be ignored in design to be on the safe side) is shown to be the result of a misconception stemming from the shape of current design response acceleration spectra for soft/deep soil conditions. Properly normalising the structural period by a dominant period of motion before statistically processing recorded response spectral values, produces completely different shape and size of spectral ordinates ; thus an increased period due to SSI may lead to higher response. (b) Analytical, experimental and field evidence in recent years has started revealing that seismic design of shallow foundations could overcome the strict limitations of the so-called capacity design, by allowing significant sliding, uplifting, and even mobilisation of bearingcapacity failure mechanisms to occur. It is shown that under seismic conditions such dynamic inelastic nonlinear response may merely lead to acceptable permanent horizontal and rotational deformations. 1. SSI AND SEISMIC CODE SPECTRA Seismic codes have an inherent unique peculiarity among civil engineering codes : the actual loading on structures (arising from earthquake shaking) can not be known in detail even when the intensity of motion is specified. In fact, the induced seismic loading of a structure depends on the response of the structure itself --the consequence of an interplay that is part of soil-structure interaction. The phenomenon increases in significance as the supporting soil becomes softer. Smooth design acceleration spectra, resulting from statistical processing of a large number of elastic response spectra of actual recordings, has been universally accepted as the way to specify earthquake loading in codes. Design acceleration spectra have an essentially constant acceleration branch and a declining acceleration branch (with the exception of a rather insignificant ascendingacceleration region of very small periods). The period range of constant-acceleration plateau is larger (up to 1 sec) for softer soils. The increase in natural period (and damping) due to soil deformability, along with the aforementioned conventional description of acceleration spectra, leads almost invariably to smaller accelerations and stresses in the structure and its foundation. Thus, the importance of accounting for SSI effects has been often dismissed, to be on the safe side. Furthermore, this beneficial role of SSI has been turned into a dogma. For instance, according to EC85: For the majority of usual building structures, the effects of SSI tend to be beneficial, since they reduce the bending moments and shear forces acting in the various members of the superstructure This statement may indeed hold for a large class of structures and seismic environments. But not always. There is evidence documented in numerous case histories that the perceived beneficial role of SSI is an unjust over-simplification that may lead to unsafe design of both the superstructure and the foundation.

Professor, National Technical University, Athens, Greece. Email : gazetas@ath.forthnet.gr

To elucidate this, we first recall that the flat design spectrum of seismic codes does not resemble the spectra recorded on soft deep soil. For instance, the reader can revisit the spectra of the following records: Brancea (Bucharest) 1977, Michoacan [Mexico City (SCT)] 1985, Kobe (Fukiai, Takatori) 1995. All of the recorded spectra of these records attain well defined peaks at periods exceeding 1 second. The large spectral values of some of these records are undoubtedly the result of the soil deposit resonance with the incoming seismic waves (most spectacular being in the Mexico City SCT record). Another phenomenon, however, of seismological rather than geotechnical nature, the forward fault-rupture directivity (Somerville 1998), may be an important contributing factor in the large spectral values at T > 0.50 s in near-fault seismic motions (e.g. in Takatori and Fukiai). An earthquake is a shear dislocation initiating at a point on a fault and spreading outward along the fault approximately at the prevailing shear wave velocity. The high velocity of fault rupture propagation toward a site causes most of the seismic rupture energy to arrive in the form of long-periods pulse of motion, at the beginning of the record (Somerville et al., 1997). The radiation pattern of the shear dislocation causes such large pulses to be oriented in the direction perpendicular to the fault, causing the strike-normal peak velocity to be larger than the strike-parallel velocity. The forward rupture directivity effect appears to increase the spectral values of the horizontal component normal to the fault strike at periods longer than about 0.5 seconds. Examples of this effect are the Kobe (1995) JMA, Fukiai, Takatori, and Kobe-University records; the Northridge (1994) Rinaldi, Newhall, Sylmar-Converter, and Sylmar-Olive-View records; the Aegion (1995) and Lefkada (2003) records ; and many others. Therefore, it is apparent that as a result of soil or seismological factors, an increase in the fundamental period due to SSI may lead to increased response (despite a possible increase in damping), which contradicts the expectation incited by the conventional design spectrum. For instance, Mexico earthquake was particularly destructive to 10- to 12-story buildings founded on soft clay ; their period apparently increased from about 1 sec (under the fictitious assumption of a fixed base) to nearly 2 seconds in reality, due to SSI. The role of SSI on the failure of the 630 m long elevated highway section of Hanshin Expressways Route 3 in Kobe (Fukae section) has also been detrimental (see Gazetas et al 2005, Mylonakis et al 2005). Evidence of a potentially detrimental role of SSI on the collapse of buildings in the recent Adana-Ceyhan earthquake was presented by Celebi (1998). ~ It should be noted that large SSI increases in the natural period of structures ( T / T > 1.3) are not uncommon in relatively tall yet rigid structures founded on soft soil (Tazoh et al 1988; Mylonakis et al 1997; Stewart et al 1999). Therefore, evaluating the consequences of SSI on the seismic behaviour of such structures may require careful assessment of both seismic input and soil conditions ; use of conventional design spectra and generalized/simplified soil profiles in these cases may not reveal the danger of increased seismic demand on the structure. To further illustrate the above, results from a statistical study performed by the authors using a large set of motions recorded on soft soil are presented. The set of motions consists of 24 actual records. The average acceleration spectrum obtained from these motions is presented in Fig 1, in terms of spectral amplification. In the horizontal axis, the structural period is presented in three different ways: (i) the actual period T as has been

Figure 1: Average acceleration spectra based on 24 actual motions recorded on soft soil. The periods are normalized before averaging with: (a) period of peak spectral acceleration (Ta) ; (b) period of peak spectral velocity (Tg) ; = 5% (After Mylonakis & Gazetas 2000).

done to derive design response spectra (in the last 30 years) ; (ii) the normalized period T/Tg [where Tg = effective ground period, defined as the period where 5%-damped velocity response spectrum attains its maximum (Miranda & Bertero 1994)]; and (iii) the normalized period T/Ta [Ta = period where acceleration spectrum attains its maximum.] It is seen that when plotted against the actual period, the resulting average spectrum has a flat shape (analogous to that used in current seismic codes). This shape has no resemblance to an actual spectrum ! This unrealistic shape is because the spectra of motions recorded on soft soil attain their maxima at different, well separated periods and, thereby, averaging them eliminates their peaks causing this effect. In contrast, when plotted against the normalized periods, T/Tg or T/Ta , the average spectrum exhibits a characteristic peak at values of T/Tg not far from 1, which reproduces the trends observed in actual spectra ! Not withstanding the fact that determining the characteristic dominant period (i.e., Tg or Ta) for a given site and seismic event is not always easy, it is clear that current provisions treat seismic demand in soft soils in a non-rational way, and may mislead the designers with misleading on the significance of SSI. A similar conclusion was reached by Longjun & Lili (2004), with recorded motions of the Chi-Chi 1999 Earthquake. It is therefore proposed that in future revisions of seismic codes design spectra for evaluating SSI effects be of the form plotted in Fig.1 , i.e Sa = Sa (T/Tg) Such spectra will have to be developed using techniques similar to those used for the development of current design spectra. There is nothing strange with having different design spectra for assessing SSI --- this type of spectra will be the critical loading for this mode of response. 2. DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS WITH UPLIFTING AND SOIL YIELDING 2.1 Introduction The conventional approach to foundation design introduces factors of safety against sliding and exceedance of ultimate capacity, in a way similar to the traditional static design. This approach involves two consecutive steps of structural and foundation analysis : (a) Dynamic analysis of the structure is performed in which the soil is modeled as an elastic medium, represented by suitable translational and rotational springs (and, sometimes, with the associated dashpots). The dynamic forces and moments transmitted onto the foundation are derived from the results of such analyses along with considerations for inelastic structural response (e.g. by reducing the moments in columns through the behaviour [ductility] factor q ). (b) The foundations are then designed in such a way that these transmitted horizontal forces and overturning moments, increased by overstrength factors, would not induce sliding or bearing capacity failure. The use of overstrength factors is necessitated by the so-called capacity design principle, under which plastic hinging is allowed only in the super-structural elements not in the belowground (and thus uninspectable) foundation and soil. Therefore, structural yielding of the footing and mobilization of bearing capacity mechanisms is not allowed. Only a limited amount of sliding deformation and uplifting at the foundationsoil interface is allowed. However, there is a growing awareness in the profession of the need to consider soil-foundation inelasticity, in analysis and perhaps even in design [see: Pecker (1998), Paolucci (1997), Martin & Lam (2000), Allotey & Naggar (2003)]. This need has emerged from : The large (often huge) acceleration (and velocity) levels recorded in several earthquakes: - 1994 Northridge (M 6.8) : 0.98 g, 1.40 m/s - 1995 Kobe (M 7.2) : 0.85g, 1.50 m/s - 1986 San Salvador (M 5.5) : 0.75 g, 0.84 m/s which are associated with even larger elastic spectral accelerations (of the order of 2g). Enormous ductility demands would be imposed to structures by such accelerations if soil and foundation yielding do not effectively take place to limit the transmitted accelerations. In seismically retrofitting a building or a bridge, allowing for soil and foundation yielding is the only rational alternative. Because increasing the structural capacity of some elements would imply that the forces transmitted onto the foundation be increased, to the point that it would not be technically or economically feasible to undertake them elastically. Thus, new retrofit design quidelines (FEMA 356) explicitly permit inelastic deformations in the foundation.

Even with new structures, it has been recognized that with improved analysis methods we need to better evaluate performance in terms of levels of damage. For the superstructure, performancebased design or equivalently displacementbased design have been used for a number of years, with inelastic pushover analyses becoming almost routine in seismic design practice. It is logical to extend the inelastic analysis to the supporting foundation and soil.

2.2. Plastic Hinging in Shallow Foundations Excluding structural yielding in the isolated footing or the foundation beam, three types of nonlinearity can take place and modify the overall structurefoundation response : (a) Sliding at the soilfoundation interface. This would happen whenever the transmitted horizontal force exceeds the frictional resistance. As pointed out by Newmark (1965) , thanks to the oscillatory nature of earthquake shaking, only short periods of exceedance usually exist in each one direction ; hence, sliding is not associated with failure, but with permanent irreversible deformations. The designer must only ensure that the magnitude of such deformations would not be structurally or operationally detrimental. Although this philosophy has been applied to the design of earth dams and gravity retaining walls, its practical significance for foundations might be somewhat limited in view of the large values of the coefficient of friction at soilfooting interface and the passivetype resistance often enjoyed by embedded foundations. (b) Separation and uplifting of the foundation from the soil. This would happen when the seismic overturning moment tends to produce net tensile stresses at the edges of the foundation. The ensuing rocking oscillations in which uplifting takes place involve primarily geometric nonlinearities, if the soil is competent enough. There is no detriment to the vertical load carrying capacity and the consequences in terms of induced vertical settlements may be minor. Moreover, in many cases, footing uplifting is beneficial for the response of the superstructure, as it helps reduce the ductility demands on columns. Housner (1963), Pauley & Priestley (1992), and many others have reported that the satisfactory response of some slender structures in strong shaking can only be attributed to foundation rocking. Deliberately designing a bridge foundation to uplift in rocking has been proposed as an effective seismic isolation method by Kawashima & coworkers (2005). Moreover, even with very slender and relatively rigid structures, uplifting would not lead to overturning except in rather extreme cases of little concern to the engineer (Makris & Rousos 2000, Gerolymos et al 2005). In soft and moderately-soft soils much of what was said above is still valid, but inelastic action in the soil is now unavoidable under the supporting edge of the uplifting footing in rocking. At the extreme, inelastic deformations in the soil take the form of mobilization of failure mechanisms, as discussed below. (c) Mobilisation of bearing capacity failure mechanisms in the supporting soil. Such inelastic action under seismic loading would always be accompanied with uplifting of the foundation. In static geotechnical analysis large factors of safety are introduced to ensure that bearing capacity modes of failure are not even approached. In conventional seismic analysis, such as in the EC8 Part 5 bearing capacity is avoided thanks to an overstrength factor of about 1.40. The oscillatory nature of seismic shaking, however, allows the mobilisation (for a short period of time!) of the maximum soil resistance along a continuous (failure) surface. No collapse or overturning failure occurs, as the applied (causative) moment quickly reverses, and a similar bearingcapacity failure mechanism may develop under the other edge of the foundation. The problem again reduces to computing the inelastic deformations, which in this case means permanent rotation. The designer must ensure that its consequences are not detrimental. The concept of allowing mobilization of bearing capacity mechanisms in foundation design may represent a major change in foundation design philosophy (Pecker 1998). However, for analysis of the ultimate response of a structurefoundation system to extreme earthquake shaking, accounting for such a possibility is necessary. Martin & Lam (2000) illustrate with an example of a hypothetical structure containing a shear wall connected with a frame how dramatically different are the results of analyses in which inelastic action in the soil is considered or is ignored. With inelastic action (including uplifting) the shear wall sheds some of its load onto the columns of the frame, which must then be properly reinforced ; the opposite is true when linear soilfoundation behaviour is assumed. Thus, computing the consequences of plastic hinging in shallow foundation analysis may be a necessity. The interplay between uplifting and mobilization of bearing capacity mechanisms is governed primarily by the following factors : the vertical foundation load N in comparison with the ultimate vertical capacity Nult the height, h, of the mass center of gravity from the base compared with the foundation dimensions (width B, length L)

the intensity, frequency content and sequence of pulses of the seismic excitation. Under seismic excitation the soilfoundationstructure system can sustain acceleration amplitudes (A) much higher that the critical acceleration (Ac) required for pseudo-static failure. Even a small dynamic (transient) factor of safety, i.e. Ac / A << 1, may not lead to failure of the structure by overturning and simultaneous bearing-capacity failure. The permanent rotation of the system depends not only on the value of Ac / A, but also on the ratio of Nult / N (the static factor of safety against bearing capacity failure), and very profoundly on the frequency content of the excitation. High-frequency accelerograms (with dominant period Tp of the order of 0.20 to 0.30 seconds) may only produce very limited permanent rotations even with dynamic safety factors of the order of 1/5. Excitation rich in very-low-frequency components (Tp > 1 sec) and containing longduration acceleration pulse(s), is far more destructive ; unacceptable deformations start occuring if Ac/A . (Apostolou & Gazetas 2005, Gerolymos et al 2005). Moreover, the initiation of uplifting and the mobilization of bearing capacity failure can be quite beneficial for the superstructure (under certain conditions related with the fundamental period of the structure and characteristics of ground shaking) (see Gazetas & Coworkers 2003, 2005).

3. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Allotey, N., Naggar, M., (2003), Analytical moment-rotation curves for rigid foundations based on a Winkler model, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ,23, 367-381. Anastasopoulos, I. (1999). Analysis of the failure of two bridges in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and the role of soil, Diploma Thesis, National Technical University, Athens, Greece Apostolou, M, Gazetas, G., (2005), Rocking of Foundations under Strong Shaking : Mobilisation of Bearing Capacity and Displacement Demands. Proceedings of 1st Greece-Japan Workshop : Seismic Design, Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations, (editors : G. Gazetas, Y. Goto, T. Tazoh), 131-140. Calvi, G.M. and Kingsley G.R. [1995], Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Multi-Degree-of Freedom Bridge Structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol 24, pp. 1247-1266 Celebi, M. [1998]. Turkish Earthquakes: Two Reports. Lessons from the Adana-Ceyhan Quake and the Dinar Aftershock, EERI Newsletter, Vol. 32, No. 9, 8 pages Cremer, C., Pecker, A., Davenne, L. (2002), Modeling of Nonlinear Dynamic Behaviour of a Shallow Strip Foundation with Macro-Element. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2). FEMA 356 (2000) : Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Gazetas, G. and Mylonakis, G. (1998), Seismic soil-structure interaction: New evidence and emerging issues, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE, P. Dakoulas, M.K. Yegian, & R.D. Holtz (editors), Vol. II, pp. 1119-1174 Gazetas, G, Apostolou, M., & Anastasopoulos, I. (2003), Seismic Uplifting of Foundations on Soft Soil, with Examples from Adapazari. Foundations: Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice, British Geotechnical Association, Thomas Telford, 3750. Gazetas. G. (2005), Seismic Analysis of Shallow Foundations : Beyond EC8, ATTI, Conferenze di Geotechnica di Torino, xx Ciclo , Geotechnical Design with Eurocodes, Politecnico di Torino, Italy. Gazetas, G., Anastasopoulos, I., Gerolymos N., Mylonakis, G., Syngros, C., (2005), The Collapse of the Hanshin Expressway (Fukae) Bridge, Kobe 1995 : SoilFoundationStructure Interaction, Reconstruction, Seismic Isolation, Frank Rackwitz (Hrsg.) Entwicklungen in der Bodenmechanik, Bodendynamik und Geotechnik, Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Univ. Professor Dr.-Ing.habil., Stavros A. Savidis, (), pp. 93-120. Gerolymos, N., Apostolou, M., & Gazetas, G. (2005), Neural Network Analysis of the Overturning Response Under Near-Fault Type Excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4(2). Housner, G., (1963). The Behavior of Inverted Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 53(2), 404-417. Kawashima, K., Hosoiri, K. (2005), Rocking Isolation of Bridge Columns on Direct Foundations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2). Longjun Xu and Lili Xie (2004), Bi-normalized response spectral characteristics of the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 147-155. Luco, E. (1982). Linear soil-structure interaction: A review, Earthquake Ground Motion and Effects on Structures, ASME, AMD, Vol. 53, pp. 41-57 Makris, N., and Roussos Y.S. (2000), Rocking Response of Rigid Blocks under Near-Source Ground Motions. Geotechnique, 50(3), 243-262.

Martin, G., R., and Lam, I. P. (2000), Earthquake Resistant Design of Foundations : Retrofit of Existing Foundations Proceedings, GeoEng 2000 Conference, Melbourne. Miranda, E. and Bertero, V. [1994], Evaluation of strength reduction factors of earthquake-resistant design, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 357-379 Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G., Nikolaou, A., and Michaelides, O. [2000], The role of soil on the collapse of 18 piers of the elevated Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe earthquake, Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, 7 pages Newmark, N. (1965), Effect of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2), 139-160. Paolucci, R., (1997), Simplified Evaluation of Earthquake Induced Permanent Displacements of Shallow Foundations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1(3), 563-579. Pecker A., (1998), Capacity Design Principles for Shallow Foundations in Seismic Areas. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Invited Lectures. (ed. Philippe Bisch, Pierre Labbe & Alain Pecker). Priestley, M.J.N. [1993], Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering -- conflicts between design and reality, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 329-341 Somerville P.G, Smith, R.W., Graves, R.W., and Abrahamson, N.A. [1997], Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity, Seismological Research Letters. Vol 68, pp. 199-222 Somerville P.G. (1998), The amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity in near fault ground motions, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE, P. Dakoulas, M.K. Yegian, & R.D. Holtz (editors) Stewart, J. P., Seed, R.B., and Fenves, G. L. [1999], Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: empirical findings, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 1, pp. 38-48 Tazoh T., Shimizu K., Wakahara T., (1987), Seismic Observations and Analysis of Grouped Piles, Dynamic Response of Pile Foundations Experiment, Analysis and Observation, Proceedings of a session of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, edited by Toyoaki Nogami, Geotechnical Special Publication No 11, April 27, 1987