EFFECT OF SEISMIC INTENSITIES AND SOIL TYPES ON FOUNDATION DESIGN

Shaukat Ali Khan*, University of Engineering & Technology, Taxila, Pakistan Muhammad Javed Iqbal*, M. Sc. Student (Structural Engineering) UET Taxila, Pakistan 33rd Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 - 27 August 2008, Singapore

Article Online Id: 100033023 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cipremier.com/100033023

Thisarticleisbroughttoyouwiththesupportof SingaporeConcreteInstitute www.scinst.org.sg AllRightsreservedforCIPremierPTELTD YouarenotAllowedtoredistributeorresalethearticleinanyformatwithoutwrittenapprovalof CIPremierPTELTD VisitOurWebsiteformoreinformation www.cipremier.com

33rd Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 25 27 August 2008, Singapore

EFFECT OF SEISMIC INTENSITIES AND SOIL TYPES ON FOUNDATION DESIGN

Shaukat Ali Khan*, University of Engineering & Technology, Taxila, Pakistan Muhammad Javed Iqbal*, M. Sc. Student (Structural Engineering) UET Taxila, Pakistan

Abstract This paper presents the impacts of varying seismic intensities (Gravity, Zone-1 to 4) and UBC soil types on foundation design of buildings. After the devastating earthquake of October 8th 2005 in northern areas of Pakistan, seismic zoning has been revised for the country and new parameters have been formulated for seismic resistant design of structures in different zones. 3-D models (Concrete moment resisting frames) have been analyzed for increasing seismic intensities and similarly for all UBC soil categories using ETABS. It was observed that foundation areas required were more for higher seismic intensities as well as for softer soil categories.

Key Words: Seismic intensities, UBC soil types, seismic analysis, ETABS, foundation areas, Shear Wave Velocity.
1. Introduction One of the most disparaging phenomena of nature is the earthquake of severe intensity and its awful aftereffects. An earthquake is a sudden movement of the Earth, caused by the abrupt release of strain that has been accumulated over a long time. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface slowly move over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the plates break free [1]. If the earthquake occurs in a populated area, it causes countless deaths and injuries and extensive property damage. Destructions of recent earthquake inspired authorities to review the seismic parameters and criteria for seismic resistant design of buildings and to develop a comprehensive building code covering all aspects. As a result earthquake zoning has been revised for the country and parameters have been laid down for seismic resistant design known as Seismic Provisions 2007 [2]. These revisions in seismic parameters would have significant impacts on civil engineering structures in terms of safety but enhanced project costs. In this research, effort has been made to highlight and evaluate impacts of these revisions on foundation designs of buildings. This would help people and professionals in developing more understanding to the earthquake phenomenon. The damage resulting from earthquakes may be influenced in a number of ways by the characteristics of the soils in the effected area. Where the damage is related to gross instability of the soil resulting in permanent movements of the ground surface, association of the damage with the local soil conditions is readily apparent. The magnitude of influence of local soil conditions on the characteristics of earthquake ground motions and thereby on building damage merits their careful consideration in seismic design in the following context:

The influence of soil conditions on the characteristics of earthquake ground motions. Methods of evaluating the liquefaction potential of soil deposits (in sandy soils). For evaluation of (a) above, either detailed site-specific studies through sophisticated computer models or design approaches given in UBC or IBC may be followed. It follows from the above observations that any practice of earthquake resistant design must not be restricted only to the structural design to resist seismic forces but in all cases should be extended to incorporate evaluation of foundation support conditions which would influence design and construction of buildings and structures to resist earthquake shaking. The propagation of earthquake waves through different soil formations is different. This primarily depends on property of soils to transmit seismic waves, known as Shear Wave Velocity [3]. Thus the soil conditions at a particular location significantly affect the observed impact on the surrounding area. Summarizing one may say, the seismic damage caused at a particular site is greatly influenced by the magnitude, duration and frequency of the ground vibration, distance from the epicenter, geological conditions between the epicenter and the site, soil properties at the site and the building type and characteristics. In this research, emphasis has been made to elaborate the effect of soil types on propagation of seismic waves and their ultimate effects on foundations design. As stated in the ACI 318-02 [4], foundations need to be proportioned against dead loads, live loads along with lateral forces generated by earthquake. In this research an effort has been made to evaluate foundation design (especially footing area) of multi storey buildings on basis of different soils types and seismic factors. Based on UBC 1997, section 1802 [5], allowable bearing pressures in design of foundations are based on allowable stress design load combinations as specified in Section 1612.3 of UBC. For seismic analysis, table 16.I of UBC 1997 [5] has been adopted for different seismic intensities. UBC covers various soil types in six categories i.e., soil type A to F. Soil type A SA is a hard rock category and Soil type E SE is the softer soil category that can be modeled in most structural analysis softwares. Soil type F SF requires site specific evaluation as given in UBC table 16-J. Foundation areas based on an assumed allowable bearing pressure of 1.0 TSF (2.204 KSF) are calculated following the clauses of UBC1997 and ACI-318-02. The bearing pressures, practically, would not be same for all the soil types. For soil type SA values would be more as compared to SF, but a value of 1.0 TSF has been assumed for simple comprehension. 2. Research Methodology: Various design codes describe different methods of seismic analysis of buildings and bridges etc. and various softwares with the same inbuilt features are being used for analysis/design. In Pakistan, Uniform Building Code 1997 is mostly being used for building design and the new Pakistan Building code (SP-2007) is also based on the same code. The next task was to find software with inbuilt UBC seismic provisions and which can simulate different seismic intensities as well as soil types. ETABS [6], a product of Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, used for Integrated Building Design was selected for modeling the buildings. Three typical models (concrete column-beam moment resisting frame system) of varying heights (2, 4 & 6 stories) but of similar framing have been prepared on ETABS. Weights of Partition walls and superimposed loads as specified for residential buildings have been applied. The frames comprise of regular grid system with 4 grids in x-direction and 5 in y-direction measuring 20 ft and 25 ft respectively. All columns are 15 x 15 square and all beams are 12 x 24. Two way slab system with 6 thick diaphragms are used. The normal weight concrete used for modeling has a compressive strength of 3000 psi and a poissons ratio of 0.2. The models are limited to a height of 60 ft (6 x stories) to avoid dynamic analysis. To keep analysis results simple and easily comparable, models same in plan, elevations and stiffness were selected. Moreover there were no irregularities introduced. Each model is analyzed for all seismic categories (Gravity, Zone-1 to 4) [7] and similarly for all UBC soil categories (Soil type A to E). Support reactions for every analysis were tabulated and foundation areas were calculated assuming isolated foundations. All isolated foundation areas added to reach a cumulative value of total foundation area (SFT) required for each analysis. Areas required for each seismic zone and each soil type were considered, summarized and compared. Results and Discussion: Tables 1.1 to 1.3 present results of analysis for 2, 4 & 6 storey frames respectively. Values tabulated are summation of individual foundation areas required at every base point (Column point). Along X-axis are the areas required for gravity and seismic intensities increasing from zone-1 to zone4, while values due to variation in soil types are tabulated along y-axis. Increase in foundation areas have been calculated in terms of %-age difference. Figs 1.1 to 1.3 show similar variations graphically. 3.

(a) (b) (c)

Reactions (base reactions from ETABS) computed against gravity loading (loading in which seismic effects are not included) differ when compared with same models carrying seismic loading. The difference in reactions (loads to foundations) goes on increasing as seismic zoning differs from Zone-1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 respectively. In all the models, Zone-4 was found to be most critical; and loads imparted to the foundations were maximum thus requiring maximum foundation areas. The difference may go up to 20 %. The increase in foundation areas was observed to be less as seismic zones changes from zone 2 to zone-3. This decrease can be easily observed in figures 1.1 to 1.3. This is due to the increase in values of flexural resistance factor R, defined as Numerical coefficient representative of the inherent over strength and global ductility capacity of lateral force-resisting systems in accordance with Table 16-N UBC 1997. Value of R for intermediate moment resisting frames is 5.5 as compared to special moment resistance frames for which the values increases to 8.5. In moderate seismic zones, i.e., gravity, zone 1 to 2B, ordinary and intermediate moment resistance frames can be used, but in high seismic zones, only special moment resistance frames are allowed. Due to this variation in value of R, the resultant base shear decreases thus imparting lesser lateral loads to foundations [8]. Reactions to foundations were more in case of softer soils as compared to harder soils. Soil type SE exhibits most critical results. As UBC soil types were varied from Soil type SA to SE, reactions kept on increasing and difference in foundation areas reached to a value of about 15%. 4. Conclusions 1. Required foundation areas increase with increase in seismic intensities, being minimum for gravity and maximum for Zone-4. 2. Reactions to foundations were more in case of softer soils as compared to harder soils. Soil type SE exhibits most critical results requiring maximum areas as compared to SA. 3. Practically, in field, models cannot be kept purely regular in plans due to architectural aspects and site restrictions, thus effects of zoning variations and soil types on foundations becomes more important. 4. Analyses are based on assumed allowable bearing pressure of 1.0 tsf. Practically values of bearing pressure for different soil types would not be the same and results may differ depending on behavior of soil types to transient nature of earthquake forces. 5. Shear wave velocity has a direct impact on foundations areas of structures. Softer soils have lesser shear wave velocity as compared to rocks. Due to this property seismic amplification is more in softer soils than rocks. As a result, foundation areas required for softer soils and rock show a major difference. 5. Recommendations 1. Soil types are as important as are the seismic zoning of a particular location, so as in developed countries, UBC soil type maps for the whole country should also be prepared. 2. Soils investigation reports for the projects must dictate the seismic zones and UBC soil type as well. 3. Geotechnical Engineers need to be familiarized with structural parameters and vice versa. Geotechnical report must be written in light of parameters type, nature and importance of building, seismicity of the area, soil type for seismic analysis, settlement characteristics of site soils, and type of foundations. 4. The response of a structure to ground vibrations is a function of the nature of foundation soil, construction materials, structural form, size and mode of construction of structures; and the duration and characteristics of ground motion. The earthquake resistant design practice generally specifies design forces for structures standing on rocks or soils, which do not settle, liquefy or slide due to loss of strength during ground vibrations. A comprehensive earthquake resistant design must also address the stability of ground itself on which the structure stands, when subjected to vibrations. This is particularly important for the sites where the foundation soils are prone to liquefaction. 5. UBC soil types are based on two very broad categories i.e., Rocks and Soils, conditions at site may not be covered in these two broad categories, thus seismic parameters for other soil conditions should be laid down and procedures to be studied and elaborated. 6. Revised Seismic provisions have been introduced and published but till now most of Structure as well as Geotechnical Engineers are unfamiliar with these provisions. Thus the new code should not only be made accessible to Engineers in design practice but also in Universities as well. Moreover our public needs to be more educated and familiarized with impacts of

Earthquakes, thus easy accessibility of Building Code to public would contribute much to this purpose. 7. Soil Types not only effect the foundation design but it contributes to Lateral Shear thus affecting the whole superstructure, thus soil type characterization must not be ignored. 8. Some codes recommend a one-third increase in allowable bearing pressures when considering seismic loadings due to the transient nature of forces involved. It is recommended that this leverage should only be utilized on recommendation of geo-technical expert keeping in view variant response of soil types on application of transient loads. 6 References

[1] USGS, United States Geological Survey Website. [2] The Pakistan Building Code Seismic Provisions 2007 [3] Earthquake Engineering (From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based ENGG) by Yousef Bozorgnia & Vitelmo V. Bertero [4] ACI 318-02, Building Code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. [5] Uniform Building Code 1997 [6] ETABS. Integrated building design Software, Computers and Strucutres Inc, California [7] ETABS User manual and Example Problems. [8] Design of concrete buildings for Earthquake and Wind forces by David A. Fanella and Javed A. Munshi.

Table 1.1

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 2-STOREY BUILDING INCREASE IN AREA GRAVITY ~ ZONE-4 (%) 7.21 10.72 10.72 10.72 10.72

ZONING A B C D E INCREASE IN AREA, SOIL TYPE-A ~ SOIL TYPE-E (%) SOIL TYPE SOIL TYPE

GRAVITY 2220 2220 2220 2220 2220

ZONE-1 2220 2220 2253 2263 2380

ZONE2A 2253 2294 2356 2415 2458

ZONE2B 2294 2294 2415 2458 2517

ZONE-3 2294 2294 2415 2415 2415

ZONE-4 2380 2458 2458 2458 2458

0.00

7.21

9.10

9.70

5.27

3.28

Table 1.2

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 4-STOREY BUILDING INCREASE IN AREA GRAVITY ~ ZONE-4 (%) 7.48 12.04 14.83 19.05 19.05

ZONING A B C D E INCREASE IN AREA, SOIL TYPE A ~ SOIL TYPE-E (%)

GRAVITY 4053 4053 4053 4053 4053

ZONE-1 4096 4096 4123 4123 4280

ZONE2A 4096 4123 4280 4309 4590

ZONE2B 4123 4168 4309 4356 4699

ZONE-3 4123 4168 4280 4356 4541

ZONE-4 4356 4541 4654 4825 4825

0.00

4.50

12.06

13.98

10.13

10.77

Table 1.3

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 6-STOREY BUILDING INCREASE IN AREA GRAVITY ~ ZONE-4 (%) 6.80 7.42 13.05 15.94 17.80

ZONING

GRAVITY

ZONE-1

ZONE2A 6074 6074 6198 6299 6674

ZONE2B 6074 6074 6299 6427 6972

ZONE-3

ZONE-4

A B C D E INCREASE IN AREA, SOIL TYPE A ~ SOIL TYPE-E (%) SOIL TYPE

6000 6000 6000 6000 6000

6000 6000 6074 6074 6299

6074 6074 6299 6356 6747

6408 6445 6783 6957 7069

0.00

4.98

9.88

14.80

11.08

10.30

2550 2500 TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT) 2450 2400 2350 2300 2250 2200 2150 2100 2050 `

GRAVITY

ZONE-1

ZONE-2A
SEISMIC ZONES

ZONE-2B

ZONE-3

ZONE-4

SOIL TYPE-A

SOIL TYPE-B

SOIL TYPE-C

SOIL TYPE-D

SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.1

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 2-STOREY BUILDING

5000 TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT) 4800 4600 4400 4200 4000 3800 3600 GRAVITY ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4

SEISMIC ZONES SOIL TYPE-A SOIL TYPE-B SOIL TYPE-C SOIL TYPE-D SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.2
5000 TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT) 4800 4600 4400 4200 4000 3800 3600

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 4-STOREY BUILDING

GRAVITY

ZONE-1

ZONE-2A

ZONE-2B

ZONE-3

ZONE-4

SEISMIC ZONES SOIL TYPE-A SOIL TYPE-B SOIL TYPE-C SOIL TYPE-D SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.3

COMPARISON OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 6-STOREY BUILDING