Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations PDF

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations
Sunday, August 14, 2011

3:32 PM
Reading Assignment
Lecture Notes
Other Materials
Ch. 9 FHWA manual
Foundations_vibrations.pdf
Homework Assignment 10
1. The factored forces for the design of a sign post foundation are:
B = 2 feet
L = 2.6 feet
D = ? feet (you determine this)
Vertical static = 12 kips
Vertical dynamic = 2.4 kips (upward or downward, most critical)
Horizontal dynamic = 4 kips (in X direction = longest footing
dimension)
Moment about y axis = 9 kip feet
From this information, calculate the following:
D for adequate FS against bearing capacity failure (15 points)

Maximum soil pressure (5 points)
D for FS against sliding (neglect passive pressure) (10 points)
2. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 5 (40 points)
Steven F. Bartlett, 2011
Shallow Foundations Page 1
Introduction
3:32 PM
1. All ground response consider thus far has not considered the effect of
the structure on ground response. The presence of a structure, either buried or
at the surface, changes the free-field motion.
2. In a manner similar to evaluation of seismic stability of slopes, earthquake
effects on foundations can be modeled using either pseudo-static approach or a
dynamic response approach.
a. In the pseudo-static analysis, the effects of the dynamic earthquakeinduced loads on the foundation are represented using static forces and
moments. Typically, the pseudo-static forces and moments are calculated
by applying a horizontal force equal to the weight of the structure times a
seismic coefficient through the center of gravity of the structure. The
seismic coefficient is generally a fraction of the peak ground acceleration for
the design earthquake and may also be dependent upon the response
characteristics of the structure, the behavior of the foundation soils, and the
ability of the structure to accommodate permanent seismic displacement.
b. In a dynamic response analysis, the dynamic stiffness and damping of the
foundation is incorporated into a numerical model of the structure to
evaluate the overall seismic response of the system and the interaction
between the soil, foundation and structure.
Pseudostatic Approach
3:32 PM
The bearing capacity and lateral resistance of a foundation is evaluated using

static formulations and compared to pseudo-static loads.
Used often for "unimportant structures," where the gross stability of the
foundation is to be evaluated.
The static shear strength may be either decreased or increased, depending
on soil type and groundwater conditions, to account for dynamic loading
conditions.
Dynamic forces are represented as pseudostatic forces and moments and
are calculated by applying a horizontal force (weight time seismic
coefficient) through the center of gravity of the structure. Seismic
coefficients are usually a fraction of pga.
In cases where a dynamic analysis has been completed for the structure, the
peak loads, reduced by a peak load reduction factor, is used in the pseudostatic analysis.
Seismic loads in structures are typically dominated by the inertial forces
from the superstructure, which are predominantly horizontal.
However, these horizontal forces are transmitted to the foundation in
the form of horizontal and vertical forces, and rocking and torsional
moments.
The resultant load will usually have to be inclined or applied

eccentrically to account for vertical loads and moment loadings.
Alternatively, vertical bearing capacity and horizontal sliding resistance
of the foundation can be determined independently. However, the
influence of the applied moments on the vertical and horizontal loads
must be considered in the bearing capacity and sliding calculations (see
figure on next page).
Dynamic Response Analysis Approach

3:32 PM
1. The dynamic stiffness of the foundation is incorporated into an analytical model

of the superstructure to evaluate the overall seismic response of the system.
2. The foundation of a structure typically has six degrees of freedom (modes of
motion) (Fig. 66)
a. horizontal sliding (two orthogonal directions)
b. vertical motion
c. rocking about two orthogonal axis
d. torsion (rotation) about the vertical axis.
3. The response of the foundation to the above modes of motion is thus described
by a 6 x 6 stiffness matrix, having 36 stiffness coefficients (Fig. 66).
4. Similarly, a 6 x 6 matrix is needed to described the damping of the foundation.
a. Internal damping of the soil is commonly incorporated in the site response
model used to calculate design ground motions, and not in the foundation
model.
Dynamic Response Analysis Approach (cont.)

3:32 PM
5. Typically, the geotechnical engineer provides the values of the stiffness and
damping matrix to the structural engineer for use in the dynamic response
analysis of the structure.
6. Based on the results of the analysis, the structural engineer should then provide
the peak dynamic loads and deformations of the foundation elements back to
the geotechnical engineer.
7. The geotechnical engineer then compares the dynamic loads and deformations
to acceptable values to ascertain if the seismic performance of the foundation is
acceptable. This sometimes is an iterative process to achieve a satisfactory
design.
8. If a dynamic response of the structure-foundation is performed, the bearing
capacity, sliding, overturning and settlement of the shallow foundation should
be evaluated using pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis.
Dynamic Response Analysis (cont.)

3:32 PM
Dynamic response analyses incorporate the foundation system into the general
dynamic model of the structure. The combined analysis is commonly referred
to as the soil-structure-interaction, SSI analysis. In SSI analyses, the foundation
system can either be represented by a system of springs (classical approach), or
by a foundation stiffness (and damping) matrix. The latter approach,
commonly used for SSI analyses of highway facilities, is commonly referred to
as the stiffness matrix method approach.
The general form of the stiffness matrix for a rigid footing was presented in
figure 66 . The 6 x 6 stiffness matrix can be incorporated in most structural
engineering programs for dynamic response analysis to account for the
foundation stiffness in evaluating the dynamic response of the structural
system. The diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix represent the direct
response of a mode of motion to excitation in that mode while the off diagonal
terms represent the coupled response. Many of the off diagonal terms are zero
or close to zero, signifying that the two corresponding modes are uncoupled
(e.g. , torsion and vertical motion) and therefore may be neglected. In fact, for
symmetric foundations loaded centrically, rocking and sliding (horizontal
translation) are the only coupled modes of motion considered in a dynamic
analysis.
Often, all of the off-diagonal (coupling) terms are neglected for two reasons :
(1) the values of these off-diagonal terms are small, especially for shallow
footings; and (2) they are difficult to compute. However, the coupling of the
two components of horizontal translation to the two degrees of freedom of
rocking (tilting) rotation may be significant in some cases. For instance,
coupled rocking and sliding may be important for deeply embedded footings
where the ratio of the depth of embedment to the equivalent footing diameter
is greater than five. The reader is referred to Lam and Martin (1986) for more
guidance on this issue.
The stiffness matrix, K, of an irregularly shaped and/or embedded footing can
be expressed by the following general equation:
where KECF is the stiffness matrix of an equivalent circular surface footing, is
the foundation shape correction factor, and is the foundation embedment
factor.
Stiffness
3:32 PM
The solution for a circular footing rigidly connected to the surface of an elastic
half space provides the basic stiffness coefficients for the various modes of
foundation displacement, translation, the stiffness coefficient K33 can be
expressed as:
For horizontal translation, the stiffness coefficients and K22 can be expressed as:
For torsional rotation, the stiffness coefficient K can be expressed as:
For rocking rotation, the stiffness coefficients K44 and K55 can be expressed as:
In these equations, G and v are the dynamic shear modulus and Poissons ratio
for the elastic half space (foundation soil) and R is the radius of the footing.
The dynamic shear modulus, G, used to evaluate the foundation stiffness should
be based upon the representative, or average, shear strain of the foundation
soil. However, there are no practical guidelines for evaluating a representative
shear strain for a dynamically loaded shallow foundation. Frequently, the value
of G, the shear modulus at very low strain, is used to calculate foundation
stiffness. However, this is an artifact of the original development of the above
equations for foundation stiffness for the design of machine foundations for
vibrations. For earthquake loading, it is recommended that values of G be
evaluated at shear strain levels calculated from a seismic site response
analysis (i.e., use strain-compatible values of G).
Damping for Circular, Rigid Footings

3:32 PM
One of the advantages of the stiffness matrix method over the classical approach
is that a damping matrix can be included in SSI analysis. The format of the
damping matrix is the same as the format of the stiffness matrix shown on
figure 66. While coefficients of the damping matrix may represent both an
internal (material) damping and a radiation (geometric) damping of the soil, only
radiation damping is typically considered in SSI analysis.
The internal damping of the soil is predominantly strain dependent and can be
relatively accurately represented by the equivalent viscous damping ratio, . At
the small strain levels typically associated with foundation response, is on the
order of 2 to 5 percent. Radiation damping, i.e., damping that accounts for the
energy contained in waves that radiate away from the foundation, is
frequency-dependent and, in a SSI analysis, significantly larger than the material
damping. Consequently, radiation damping dominates the damping matrix in
SSI analyses.
The evaluation of damping matrix coefficients is complex and little guidance is

available to practicing engineers. Damped vibration theory is usually used to
form the initial foundation damping matrix. The theory, commonly used to
study (small-strain) foundation vibration problems, assumes that the soil
damping can be expressed via a damping ratio, D, defined as the ratio of the
damping coefficient of the footing to the critical damping for the six-degree-offreedom system.
The damping ratio for a shallow foundation depends upon the mass (or inertia)
ratio of the footing. The following table lists the mass ratios and the damping
coefficients and damping ratios for the various degrees of freedom of the
footing. The damping ratios should be used as shown on figure 66 to develop
the damping matrix of the foundation system. It should be noted that this
approach only partially accounts for the geometry of the foundations and
assumes that small earthquake strains are induced in the soil deposit. For pile
foundations or for complex foundation geometry, a more rigorous approach,
commonly referred to as the soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) analysis,
may be warranted. SFSI is beyond the scope of this lecture.
Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Damping Table (Circular Footing)
Damping (cont.)
3:32 PM
Definition of variables on previous page
Damping for Rectangular Footings

3:32 PM
Application of the foundation stiffness general equation (K = KECF) for

rectangular footings involves the following two steps:
1. Calculate the radius of an equivalent circular footing for the various modes of
displacement using damping table and Figure 68. For vertical and horizontal
(translational) displacements, the equivalent radius, r0, is the radius of a circular
footing with the same area as the rectangular footing. For rocking and torsional
motions, the calculation of the equivalent radius is more complicated, as it
depends on the moment of inertia of the footing. The equivalent radius is then
used in the stiffness equations to solve for the baseline stiffness coefficients
required in the following formula: K = KECF.
Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)

3:32 PM
2. Find the shape factor a to be used in (K = KECF) using Figure 69. This figure
gives the shape factors for various aspect ratios (LIB) for the various modes of
foundation displacement.

3:32 PM
Embedment
The influence of embedment on the response of a shallow foundation is
described in detail in Lam and Martin (1986). The values of the foundation
embedment factor from that study are presented in figure 70 for values of D/R
less than or equal to 0.5 and in Figure 71 for values of D/R larger than 0.5. For
cases where the top of the footing is below the ground surface, it is
recommended that the thickness of the ground above the top of the footing be
ignored and the thickness of the footing (not the actual depth of embedment
Df) be used to calculate the embedment ratio (D/R) in determining the
embedment factor .

3:32 PM
Embedment (cont.)
Load Evaluation - Loads from Dynamic Response Analysis

3:32 PM
Method 1 - Seismic loads from dynamic response analysis

Potential for amplification of ground motion by the structure is included in
the peak loads from the dynamic response analysis
Combination of loads from dynamic response analysis (vertical and
horizontal) for use in bearing capacity, sliding and overturning evaluations.
Common Approach for bearing capacity
Assume 100% peak vertical (2 cases; 100 percent upward and 100
percent downward) and 40% peak horizontal, applied in the direction
that is most critical for stability. Generally 100 percent peak vertical in
the downward directions controls the design.
Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both horizontal and
vertical) and static moments. These should be added to the seismic
loads.
Load Evaluation (cont.) - Loads from Pseudostatic Analysis

3:32 PM
Method 2 - Pseudostatic seismic loads from pga and seismic coefficient

seismic loads = (weight of structure) x (seismic coefficient)
no general guidance for selection of seismic coefficient, some possible
approaches are:
use peak ground acceleration from AASHTO maps (10 probability of
exceedance in 50 years, or
0.5 x pga (for structures that can tolerate some deformation, or
use pga (for structures that can not tolerate large deformations)
consider potential amplification of horizontal acceleration for slender
flexible structures.
for such structures, the design acceleration should be the spectral
acceleration associated with the fundamental period of the
structure. This acceleration should be factored according to
requirements outlined in the appropriate design code.
Combination of loads (vertical and horizontal)

(Common Approach for Bearing Capacity). Assume the horizontal and
vertical loading is independent, (i.e., assume that it is highly unlikely that
peak vertical and peak horizontal force will occur at the same time during
the earthquake strong ground motion record, thus vertical and horizontal
inertial loads can be considered separately for bearing capacity calculation).
vertical load, if applied centrically will generate only vertical forces on

the foundation
if vertical load is applied eccentrically, it will generate a vertical force
and a moment
both compressive and tensile vertical loads should be considered
horizontal load, if applied eccentrically, will generate a horizontal load
and a moment.
Do not forget to apply the static dead loads (both vertical and
horizontal) to the seismic loads.
Evaluation Steps - Bearing Capacity

3:32 PM
1. Compute the earthquake loads (from Method 1 or Method 2 above) and

combine
into a single resultant force with an inclination of and an eccentricity, e (fig
65).
For Method 1, use the 100% and 40% of peak inertial force rule to
determine the lowest factor of safety.
For Method 2, remember that vertical and horizontal earthquake loads are
treated separately (do not apply peak horizontal and peak vertical ground
acceleration at the same time).
2. Adjust of Bearing Capacity Equation for Eccentric (Moment) Loading
Load eccentricity is caused by the applied moment to the foundation
Applied moment causes a non-uniform pressure distribution on the bottom
of the footing.
Equivalent footing width (B') is computed for the footing, where the width
of the footing is reduced, to account for load eccentricity
Commonly used relations for B'
B' = (B-2e) (Meyerhof, 1953)
B' = (3B/2-3e) (linear soil pressure distribution)
(The calculated values from the above equations tend to be
conservative the contact area is usually larger than the calculated
values)
limit to eccentricity (to prevent uplift)
e < B/6 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah < 0.4 g)
e < B/4 (Hansen, 1953) (for ah > 0.4 g)
3. Check bearing capacity with loadings from Method 1 or 2.
4. Report the lowest factor of safety that controls the design.

5. Check sliding factor of safety.
FHWA guidance

Sliding Calculations
3:32 PM
Sliding resistance should be assessed separately from the bearing capacity

evaluation.
Load combinations (Method 1 or 2) Common approach for sliding
Assume 100% peak horizontal inertial load and 40% peak vertical
inertial load (2 cases; 40% upward and 40% downward).
Also, check 40% peak horizontal and 100% peak vertical (2 cases; 100
percent upward and 100 percent downward).
Apply combinations in the direction that is most critical for sliding
and gives the lowest factor of safety.
Resistance to sliding:
frictional resistance (v tan )
adhesion (a)
adhesion and the interface frictional resistance of the base
depend on the type of soil and the type and finish of the
foundation material.
For pre-cast concrete foundations , the adhesion and interface
friction coefficient should be reduced by approximately 20 to 33
percent from the cohesion and friction coefficient of the
underlying soils (see Navy Design Manual DM 7.2). Values from
this manual can be used for both shallow foundations and
retaining wall.
For foundations poured directly on the foundation soil, the phi
of the soil is often used.
For eccentrically loaded foundations, the effective base area (B' x L')
should be used in evaluating sliding resistance.
For embedded foundations the passive seismic resistance in front
(leading edge) of the foundation is sometimes neglected; however, if
included, the passive earth pressure is typically reduced by a factor of
two to account for the large deformation required to mobilize full
passive resistance.
active seismic force on the back (trailing edge) of the foundation is
sometimes added to the seismic driving force, but is usually
neglected if passive pressure on the leading edge has been
neglected. Thus, in many cases, the net result calculated from
factoring the passive seismic resistance and adding the active seismic
force, produces very little change in the overall sliding factor of
safety for shallow foundations; hence the embedment is sometimes
ignored in sliding calculations.
Myerhof's Method
3:32 PM
Definitions for use

of Myerhof's
equations
Need to use general bearing capacity equation to account for eccentric

loads, moments, inclined loads, and different foundation shapes.
Myerhof's Method (cont.)

3:32 PM
Bearing capacity factors
Inclination factors
Myerhof's Method (cont.)

3:32 PM
Shape factors for L < 6B
Example Calculation
3:32 PM
Myerhof (Example) - Loading from Dynamic Analysis
Example Calculation
3:32 PM
Myerhof (Example) - Loading from Dynamic Analysis
Soil Pressure
3:32 PM
Evert C. Lawton, 2011
Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source (cont.)

3:32 PM
Machine Vibrations
3:32 PM
Machine Vibrations from Vertical Source

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
Idealization of a system using a spring with a dynamic stiffiness, Kz and a

viscous dashpot Cz undergoing a harmonic loading of Pz.

3:32 PM
Do not need these

for FLAC modeling
Dynamic stiffness = static stiffness x dynamic

stiffness coefficient. See chart A, next page for
k(w) values.

3:32 PM
FLAC modeling of Machine Vibration (Vertical Source)

3:32 PM
FLAC Model with 3-D (i.e., radiation) damping
FLAC modeling of Machine Vibration (cont.)

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM

3:32 PM
FLAC formulation for radiation damping
Blank
3:32 PM

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seismic Design of Shallow Foundations

Sunday, August 14, 2011

D for adequate FS against bearing capacity failure (15 points)

2. Complete CVEEN 7330 Modeling Exercise 5 (40 points)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 1

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 2

The bearing capacity and lateral resistance of a foundation is evaluated using

The resultant load will usually have to be inclined or applied

Shallow Foundations Page 3

Dynamic Response Analysis Approach

1. The dynamic stiffness of the foundation is incorporated into an analytical model

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 4

Shallow Foundations Page 5

Dynamic Response Analysis Approach (cont.)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 6

Dynamic Response Analysis (cont.)

Shallow Foundations Page 7

For torsional rotation, the stiffness coefficient K can be expressed as:

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 8

Damping for Circular, Rigid Footings

The evaluation of damping matrix coefficients is complex and little guidance is

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 9

Damping Table (Circular Footing)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 10

Definition of variables on previous page

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 11

Damping for Rectangular Footings

Application of the foundation stiffness general equation (K = KECF) for

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 12

Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 13

Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 14

Damping for Rectangular Footings (cont.)

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 15

Load Evaluation - Loads from Dynamic Response Analysis

Method 1 - Seismic loads from dynamic response analysis

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 16

Load Evaluation (cont.) - Loads from Pseudostatic Analysis

Method 2 - Pseudostatic seismic loads from pga and seismic coefficient

Combination of loads (vertical and horizontal)

vertical load, if applied centrically will generate only vertical forces on

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 17

Evaluation Steps - Bearing Capacity

1. Compute the earthquake loads (from Method 1 or Method 2 above) and

4. Report the lowest factor of safety that controls the design.

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Steven F. Bartlett, 2011

Shallow Foundations Page 19