Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society 14-16 April, 2011, Auckland, New

Zealand

Implications of soil variability for performance based shallow foundation design

J.C.W. Toh
Pells Sullivan Meynink, Sydney, Australia.

M.J. Pender
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

R. McCully
Brian Perry Civil, Auckland, New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: This paper considers the earthquake response of shallow foundations supported on saturated clay. It examines the implications of natural variability in the undrained shear strength and stiffness of a cohesive soil for the earthquake response of a shallow foundation. Calculating the response of a simple structure-foundation system to seven different earthquake records, all scaled to the hazard spectrum given in NZS1170, the paper shows the implications of soil variability for the maximum actions imposed on a shallow foundation, the natural period of the system, and permanent foundation displacements. The paper concludes that, despite the level of soil variability considered covering the range expected in natural soil, variations in the scaled earthquake records have a much larger effect on calculated permanent foundation displacements. 1 INTRODUCTION In November 2009 an international workshop was held in Auckland on Soil-Foundation-StructureInteraction (SFSI) (Orense et al 2010). Some of the attendees proposed that the beneficial effects of allowing brief instances of bearing strength failure beneath shallow foundations during an earthquake could outweigh the negative effects. During a discussion session the issue was raised that natural soil properties may be so variable that this performance based design approach might not be reliable. This paper examines the implications of natural variability in the undrained shear strength and stiffness of a cohesive soil on the earthquake response of a shallow foundation. Calculating the response of a simple structure-foundation system to seven different earthquake records, the paper shows the implications of soil variability for the maximum actions imposed on a shallow foundation, the natural period of the soil-foundation-structure system, and permanent foundation displacements. 2 PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN One approach to performance based design essentially involves permitting some yielding (failure) of a system during an earthquake, provided that the resulting displacements are acceptable. It is a commonly accepted design approach in structural earthquake engineering and many aspects of geotechnical earthquake engineering, but is yet to be widely accepted for foundations. This could be due to the multi-disciplinary nature of foundation engineering (interaction between structural and geotechnical engineering) and/or the types of tools and analytical models available in practice. The current design approach for shallow foundations in practice involves sizing the foundation so it does not yield during the design earthquake. Under load and resistance factor design (LFRD), a strength reduction factor of approximately 0.5 is often applied to the foundation bearing strength,

Paper Number 055

essentially giving a factor of safety of 2 against seismic bearing failure. However, as discussed at the Auckland SFSI workshop by Toh & Pender (2010), a performance based design approach can have benefits over LRFD in terms of reduced foundation and structural actions at the cost of incurring only modest permanent foundation displacements. 3 THE EXAMPLE SCENARIO 3.1 Site conditions and earthquake hazard The example scenario is hypothetical, but represents a simplified structural type that has been used elsewhere to demonstrate soil-foundation-structure-interaction effects, for example by Paolucci et al (2011). The structure-foundation system was set at a Class C (shallow soil) site in Wellington. With adequate shear strength this type of site would usually be suitable for shallow foundations. A 1000 year return period earthquake was selected as the design earthquake, which is applicable to high value structures with a design life of 50 years. Figure 1 shows the elastic site hazard design spectrum calculated for these conditions. 3.2 Soil properties and variability It was assumed that the site was underlain by homogeneous cohesive soil with a mean undrained shear strength of 100 kPa, which is typical of a Class C site. A log-normal distribution was adopted to represent soil strength variability following the examples given by Fenton & Griffiths (2008). The log-normal distribution is commonly used when considering soil variability; in this case it is required to avoid negative values of undrained shear strength. Coefficient of variation (CoV) values of 10%, 30%, and 50% (standard deviations of 10 kPa, 30 kPa, and 50 kPa respectively) were considered (Fig. 2). Lumb (1974) indicates that typical CoV values for undrained shear strength of clays are 20% to 50% and Baecher and Christian (2003) also give values in the range of 20% to 50%. This means that the range of CoV values chosen for the modelling herein covers the range of variability that can be expected of real soil deposits. Ultimate bearing pressure was assumed to equal 6su. The Eurocode 8, Part 5 (BSI, 2005) undrained bearing strength surface (i. e. the surface defining all combinations of vertical load, horizontal shear, and moment that will induce shallow foundation undrained bearing strength failure) shows that, for the bearing strength mobilised under the static loading imposed by the structure-foundation system considered herein, earthquake inertial effects in the soil beneath the foundation are negligible. Thus the Eurocode 8 surface without earthquake effects was used to define combinations of foundation actions (moment, shear, and vertical load) that would cause bearing failure. The macro-element model used assumed that foundation response was linear elastic when actions are inside the bearing strength surface, and perfectly plastic when actions reached the surface (when bearing failure occurred). 3.3 Structure and foundation properties The structure considered was a bridge pier supported by a shallow foundation, subject to horizontal earthquake loading acting perpendicular to the bridge. The bridge pier was assumed to be an elastic single degree of freedom oscillator with a fixed base period of 0.4 seconds. The square foundation was sized with an 11 metre side length such that the static vertical factor of safety for the mean undrained shear strength was 3. Table 1 summarises the structure and foundation properties. A simplifying assumption was made that stiffness was linearly related to undrained shear strength, with G = 100 su, a soil stiffness value that includes the PGA-related reduction specified in Table 4.1 of Eurocode 8 Part 5 (BSI, 2005). Foundation elastic stiffness and radiation damping values were calculated using formulae presented by Gazetas (1991).

xtot
2.0

xg yg
Motion input to fixed reference frame

xh

x xb

Spectral acceleration (g)

1.5

1.0

h
0.5

kb, cb

kh, ch

0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Period, T (seconds) 4.0

mo, Jo kv, cv kr, cr

Original position Displaced position

xv

Figure 1 (left): Site hazard spectrum for 1000 year return period earthquake at Class C soil site, Wellington, Figure 1 (right): Macro-element model (Toh, 2010, after Paolucci, 1997). Table 1: Properties of structure and foundation

Structure mass, m (tonnes) 2000

Probability density function 0.05

Height of structure mass, h (m) 15

Foundation mass, mo (tonnes) 500

Foundation rotational inertia, Jo (tonne.m2) 5150

Structure stiffness, kb (kN/m) 494,000

Structure damping, cb (kNs/m) 6286.5

Coefficient of variation 10% 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 50 75 100 125 150 Undrained shear strength, su (kPa) 175 200 Mean su Coefficient of variation 30% Coefficient of variation 50%

Figure 2: Probability density functions for undrained shear strength with log-normal distribution.

3.4 Earthquake records The seven earthquake records recommended for time history analyses for Class C soil sites in Wellington (Oyarzo-Vera et al, 2010) were used. The earthquake records were scaled according to the design code NZS1170.5:2004 (Standards New Zealand, 2004), to approximate the design spectrum (Fig. 1). This process involved minimising, in a least mean square sense, the difference between the earthquake record and the design spectrum over the range of 40% to 130% of the fundamental period of the soil-foundation-structure system.

Record scale factor, k 1, normalised

1.6 by k1 at fixed base period 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 T1 (s) 1.5 2.0 Fixed base period Arcelik Duzce El Centro Hokkaido La Union Lucerne Tabas

Figure 3: Record scale factors for the seven earthquake records plotted against fundamental system period.

Because soil variability affects foundation stiffness, which in turn affects fundamental system period, the record scale factor (k1) for each earthquake varied with period, sometimes up to 50%. This is shown in Figure 3, where scale factors calculated for each earthquake record are plotted. This process was required to ensure that variability of earthquake records was minimised as much as permitted by the design code used. The process was rather time consuming. Because seven records were used, a family scale factor (k2) applying to the entire suite of records was not required (because of the higher chance that at least one of the records exceeded the design spectrum in the period range of interest). 3.5 Calculations A suite of calculations was undertaken for the scenario to assess implications of soil variability. Calculations were undertaken using a basic macro-element model (Figure 1). This model is a single computational entity that is based on structural dynamics analysis techniques, but captures non-linear soil response beneath a shallow foundation. For more detail, refer to Paolucci (1997) and Toh (2010). Calculations used all seven earthquake records, and undrained shear strengths ranging from 50 kPa to 200 kPa (50% to 200% of the mean) at increments of 1 kPa. This required a total of 1050 time history analyses, which were reasonably quick to complete using the simple macro-element model. Foundation elastic stiffness and radiation damping (and therefore system period), and bearing strength were calculated for each undrained shear strength value. Earthquake record scale factors were also set on a case by case basis, to ensure scaling appropriate to the system period. 4 RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Fundamental period of soil-foundation-structure system Figure 4 shows the effect of soil variability on the calculated fundamental period of the soilfoundation-structure system. The system period is considerably longer than the fixed base period, ranging from about 1 second for an su of 50 kPa to about 1.9 seconds for an su of 100 kPa. For a low CoV of 10%, the range between which 95% of periods lie is relatively small at about 0.3 seconds. For a very high CoV of 50%, this range is considerably larger at over 1 second. 4.2 Foundation and structural actions Figure 5 presents the calculated relationship between maximum actions supported by the foundation and soil strength. This relationship is dependent only on the vertical foundation loads in relation to the

100% Coefficient of variation 10% Cumulative probability 80% 60% Fixed base period 40% 20% 0% 0 0.25 T 1 at mean s u of 100 kPa Coefficient of variation 30% Coefficient of variation 50%

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

1.75

Fundamental period of soil-foundation-structure system, T1 (s)

Figure 4: Cumulative probability of fundamental system period for different levels of soil variability.
12,000 Maximum foundation shear force, H (kN) 10,000 8,000 6,000 Mean su 4,000 2,000 0 50 75 100 125 150 175 Undrained shear strength, su (kPa) Shear Moment 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 200 Maximum foundation moment, M (kNm)

Figure 5: Relationship between maximum foundation actions and undrained shear strength.

ultimate bearing strength. This is because, as explained above, the size of the bearing strength surface was not dependent on the magnitude of earthquake loading, and the foundation was sized to achieve a static factor of safety of 3 (without considering seismic loading). The actions increase with increasing undrained shear strength, because the foundation can support higher loads as soil strength increases. 4.3 Variation in foundation displacements due to variation of undrained shear strength (Figure 6) The maximum plastic displacements that occurred at any time during or after the earthquake were considered to be the best indicator of maximum potential permanent foundation displacements (Toh and Pender, 2010). The calculated residual plastic displacement at the end of the earthquake is often less than this maximum value, because plastic displacements can occur in both directions. The absolute values of maximum plastic settlement and rotation of the foundation are plotted in Figure 6 for all seven earthquake records. The foundation sliding plot is not shown because it is very similar to the rotation plot. The displacements are a result of complex interaction between soil strength, foundation stiffness, the natural period of the system, and the variable characteristics of the earthquake records. Increasing soil strength and increasing foundation stiffness have counteracting effects. Increasing soil strength increases the bearing strength of the foundation, which decreases foundation displacements. However, increasing foundation stiffness decreases the system natural period, which (usually) leads to an increase in spectral accelerations (i.e. moving up the right leg of the design spectrum in Figure 1), and an associated increase in foundation displacements. The randomness of the earthquake records adds further complexity to the calculated displacements, and it is not possible to identify a fixed relationship between soil strength and displacements. The following observations are made:

0.1 0.08 Settlement (m) 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 50 0.04 Max. plastic rotation at any time during or after earthquake (rad) 75 100 125 150 175 200 Range of calculated settlements at mean s u of 100 kPa

0.03 Range of calculated rotations at mean s u of 100 kPa

0.02

0.01

0 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Undrained shear strength, su (kPa) Arcelik La Union Duzce Lucerne El Centro Tabas Hokkaido Average

Figure 6: Calculated foundation displacements across the range of soil strength considered, for all 7 earthquakes.

The magnitudes of calculated displacements would probably be acceptable in most circumstances. The range of calculated displacements from all seven earthquake records is fairly similar across a wide range of undrained shear strengths. The range at the mean su value is fairly representative of the range observed at almost all other values of su. This indicates that the variability of the earthquake records has a more significant effect on displacements than soil strength variability. There may be a slight decrease in displacements (and the range of displacements) for high values of su. Further, calculated maximum elastic displacements during the earthquake (not shown) decreased slightly with increasing soil strength, due to increasing foundation stiffness. Only for high variability associated with low su values (in this case for su values near 50 kPa) is there an observable increase in displacements. These cases would have a very low static factor of safety, so there are likely to be other more significant issues (e.g. static settlement).

100% Coefficient of variation 50% Cumulative probability 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 100% Cumulative probability 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 Max. plastic rotation at any time during or after earthquake (rad) 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.06 Settlement (m) 0.08 0.1 Coefficient of variation 30% Coefficient of variation 10%

Minimum values

Average values

Maximum values

Figure 7: Foundation displacements compared with the cumulative probability of the undrained shear strength values associated with the displacements.

4.4 Effect of soil strength coefficient of variability on foundation displacements (Figure 7) Using the results presented in Figure 6, and the probability distributions shown in Figure 2, foundation displacements were plotted against the cumulative probability of the occurrence of the undrained shear strength values associated with the displacements. This allowed comparison between different values of CoV. These comparisons are shown in Figure 7, with the plots indicating the average displacements corresponding to each CoV considered. Also plotted are the minimum and maximum displacements from all seven earthquake records. The following observations are made: Average displacements are relatively constant for cumulative probabilities of su greater than about 10-20%, for all CoV values considered. This indicates that there is a high probability that permanent foundation displacements will not be significantly affected by soil strength variability. The CoV of su has little or no observable effect on average displacements. The calculated average displacements are mostly very similar regardless of the CoV value. The only clear significant effect is on settlement, for very high CoV values. The range between minimum and maximum displacement values for the same CoV is much greater than the range between average values for different CoVs, again demonstrating the variability of the earthquake records is more significant than soil strength variability.

5 CONCLUSIONS The main criteria in a performance based design approach are the foundation displacements. Calculations presented in this paper indicate that for the scenario considered, soil variability does not have a significant effect on the calculated maximum plastic foundation displacements. The magnitude and range of displacements for typical soil variability should be acceptable in most cases - only with very high soil variability, and a low static factor of safety, was soil variability shown to have a significant effect on displacements. Further, the calculations indicate that the variability of earthquake motion has a much more significant effect on permanent displacements. Variability in soil strength is an issue for other system responses, e.g. fundamental period, foundation actions, and spectral acceleration. However natural soil variability will exist regardless of what design approach is taken, so soil variability is not a reason in itself to prevent performance based design of shallow foundations. In fact, a performance based approach may allow shallow foundations to be designed to cope with the effects of soil variability more effectively and appropriately. For example, allowing a foundation to yield would probably result in a smaller foundation size than if it were designed to prevent seismic bearing failure for low probability soil conditions. The smaller foundation would increase the fundamental period of the soil-foundation-structure system, and could potentially reduce foundation and structural actions. REFERENCES:
Baecher G.B. & Christian J.T. 2003. Reliability and Statistics in Geotechnical Engineering. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. BSI British Standards 2005. BS EN 1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. Fenton G.A. & Griffiths D.V. 2008. Risk Assessment in Geotechnical Engineering. New Jersey: Wiley. Gazetas G. 1991. Foundation vibrations, Chapter 11 in Foundation Engineering Handbook, edited by Fang H.Y. 2nd edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lumb P. 1974. Application of statistics in soil mechanics, Chapter 3 in Soil Mechanics New Horizons, edited by Lee I.K. London: Newnes-Butterworths. Orense R.P., Chouw N. & Pender M.J. (eds) 2010. Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction. London: CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group. Oyarzo-Vera C., McVerry G. & Ingham J. 2010. Seismic zonation and default suite of ground motion records for time-history analysis in the North Island of New Zealand. Personal correspondence (submitted for publication). Paolucci R. 1997. Simplified evaluation of earthquake-induced permanent displacements of shallow foundations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 1(3): 563-579. Paolucci R., Figini R., di Prisco C., Petrini L., & Vecchiottii M. 2011. Accounting for non-linear dynamic soilstructure interaction in the displacement-based seismic design. 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Santiago 10-13 January 2011. Standards New Zealand 2004. NZS1170.5 Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions New Zealand. Wellington: Standards New Zealand. Toh J.C.W. 2010. Performance Based Aseismic Design of Shallow Foundations. Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Toh J.C.W. & Pender M.J. 2010. Design approaches and criteria for earthquake-resistant shallow foundation systems. In Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, edited by Orense R.P., Chouw N. & Pender M.J. London: CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group.