Requirements for Foundations on

Liquefiable Sites

Robert Bachman, S.E.

R. E. Bachman Consulting Structural Engineers
Laguna Niguel, CA

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 1
Technology for New Buildings
 Issue Team Members

• Bob Bachman, Chair

• CB Crouse, URS
• Geoff Martin, USC
• Lori Simpson, Langan Treadwell Rollo & Deep Foundation Institute
• Gyimah Kasali, Rutherford & Chekene
• Dom Campi, Rutherford & Chekene
• Jon Siu, City of Seattle
• Omar Jaradat, Moffatt & Nichol
• Steve Harris, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger

And TC-3 of the ASCE 7 Seismic Subcommittee

• Martin Johnson, ABS Consulting
• Ron La Plante, DSA

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 2
Technology for New Buildings
 Reasons for New Provisions
• ASCE 7-10
– Section 12.13 (Foundation Design) does not include provisions pertaining to
Liquefaction
– Section 11.8 (Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Investigation) requires
assessment of the following for MCEG rather than DE:
• Potential for Liquefaction and Soil Strength Loss
• Assessment of potential consequences, including
– Total settlement
– Differential settlement
– Lateral soil movement
– Reduction in soil bearing and lateral capacity
– Downdrag on piles

• Gapping Hole – No foundation requirements if liquefaction potential

exists at site – Huge range on what is being done in practice

• New provisions (provided in new Section 12.13.7 of ASCE 7-16) will fill
gapping hole by providing
- Specific requirements for design and level of ground improvement needed if
shallow foundations are to be used
- Specific requirements for deep foundations at liquefiable sites

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 3
Technology for New Buildings
 Some Recent Experience with Liquefaction
• Moss Landing 1989
– MBARI
• Foundations with ties
• Performed well
– MLML
• No foundation ties
• Collapse due to lateral MBARI
spreading
• Kocaeli 1999
MLML
– Large differential settlements
resulted in building collapses
• Christchurch 2012
– Large differential settlements
resulted in irreparable tilts
– Pile foundations and
foundation ties improved
performance

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 4
Technology for New Buildings
 New Provisions Concepts
• Consider reduced capacities
- Soil strength and stiffness at MCEG
– Must also design for non-liquefied
condition for DE loadings
• Level of shaking considered:
pga @ MCEG
– In most of CA, MCEG is comparable
to MCER.
Zip City MCER SMS MCER pga MCEG pga
90012 Los Angeles 2.52 1.01 0.96
92101 San Diego 1.23 0.49 0.55
94104 San Francisco 1.50 0.60 0.60
95816 Sacramento 0.84 0.34 0.30

• Small effects may be neglected

• Ground improvement may be
considered
BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design
February 11, 2015 5
Technology for New Buildings
 New Provisions Concepts

• Shallow Foundations
– Allowed only in certain cases (considering ground improvement):
• Estimated lateral spreading less than upper limit
• Estimated differential settlement less than threshold limit
– or show adequacy by analysis
– Foundation ties required to hold building together
– Mat foundations must meet minimum reinforcing or be designed
for differential settlement

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 6
Technology for New Buildings
 New Provisions Concepts
• Deep Foundations
– Allowed in all cases
– Design for normal vertical loading, plus downdrag
– Piles not expected to remain elastic under lateral spreading
• Residual strength requirement
– show adequacy by analysis
• Ductility through detailing
– Foundation ties hold footings together (must consider racking)

February 11, 2015 BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design 7

Technology for New Buildings
 Compliance with New Provisions
Start

Liquefaction or Yes No lateral spreading?

Yes
Soil Strength No bearing loss? OK
< 1/4 of diff. settlement
Loss? limit?

No No

OK
Within Yes Within
lateral spreading diff. settlement Yes
limits? limits?

No Shallow
No Foundations OK
with proper
detailing
Use Deep
Analysis shows
Foundations with No
acceptable Yes
proper detailing
performance?

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 8
Technology for New Buildings
 Lateral Spreading Limits

• Table 12.13-1
– Upper Limit on Lateral Spreading Horizontal Ground
Displacement for specially tied together Shallow Foundations or
Mats Beyond which Deep Foundations are Required
• Risk Category I or II: 18 in.
• Risk Category III: 12 in.
• Risk Category IV: 4 in.
– Basis for values is experience of collapse resistance at 0.5m
displacement, scaled down for higher Risk Categories.

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 9
Technology for New Buildings
 Differential Settlement Threshold
Table 12.13-2 Differential Settlement Threshold, Δva

Risk Category
Structure Type
I or II III IV
Single-story structures with concrete or masonry
wall systems. 0.0075L 0.005L 0.002L
Other single-story structures. 0.015L 0.010L 0.002L
Multi-story structures with concrete or masonry
wall systems. 0.005L 0.003L 0.002L
Other multi-story structures. 0.010L 0.006L 0.002L

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 10
Technology for New Buildings
 Differential Settlement Threshold

• Building Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement

– Boscardin and Cording (J. Geotech. Engrg, 1989)

g y
Multi-story structures with concrete or masonry
wall systems. 0.005L 0.003L 0.002L

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 11
Technology for New Buildings
 Differential Settlement Threshold

Table 12.13-2 Differential Settlement Threshold, Δva

Risk Category
Structure Type
I or II III IV
Single-story structures with concrete or masonry
wall systems. 0.0075L 0.005L 0.002L
Other single-story structures. 0.015L 0.010L 0.002L
Multi-story structures with concrete or masonry
wall systems. 0.005L 0.003L 0.002L
Other multi-story structures. 0.010L 0.006L 0.002L

• Risk Category III thresholds are generally ~2/3 of Risk Category II thresholds
• Single-story thresholds are generally 50% higher than multi-story thresholds
• Structures without stiff walls are permitted twice the differential settlement. (Values are
consistent with drifts for high-ductility frames in ASCE-41.)

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 12
Technology for New Buildings
 Differential Settlement Threshold

• Risk Category IV
– Threshold is based on functionality, rather than safety.
– ATC-58 project assessed fragility of damage onset for jammed
doors: Median drift = 0.0023.
– Median is divided by 1.5 to account for statistical dispersion
(90% non-exceedance)
– Result is multiplied by 1.5 to account for settlement assessment
at MCEG, as opposed to DE.
– Therefore use 0.002.

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 13
Technology for New Buildings
 Settlement Threshold by Analysis

• Nonlinear analysis (static OK) required for Risk Category

II and III
– Residual strength of members and connections shall not be less
than 67% of nominal strength
– Why 67%?
Usually 20% to 40%

• Linear analysis is sufficient for Risk Category IV

– Demands on members and connections shall not exceed
nominal strengths

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 14
Technology for New Buildings
 Shallow Foundation Detailing

• Foundation Ties
– Section 12.13.5.2 already requires ties between foundations with
a force equal to the larger column load multiplied by 0.10SDS.
• This is also in CBC Chapter 18, with some slightly different words.
– Where expected lateral spreading exceeds 3 inches, additional
requirements apply in the new provisions:
• 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 0.5𝜇𝜇𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢
• 𝜇𝜇 = Coefficient of friction
• 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 = Sum of factored loads along a line
– Intended to hold the building together when one part moves
relative to another
• Design for worst condition – soil under half the building is moving
and other half isn’t

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 15
Technology for New Buildings
 Shallow Foundation Detailing

• Foundation Ties
– Example: 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 = 100𝑘𝑘 each
– Coefficient of friction: 𝜇𝜇 = 0.50 (default)

𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢1 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢2 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢3 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢4

𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑢𝑢1 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑢𝑢2 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑢𝑢3 𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇𝑢𝑢4

𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 0.5 𝜇𝜇 =0.5 4 100𝑘𝑘 = 100k

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 16
Technology for New Buildings
 Shallow Foundation Detailing
• Foundation Ties for Shear
– Shear resistance between adjacent lines
• Slab-on-grade – integral or connected
– Mild steel ρ = 0.0025
• Alternate: diagonal system of grade beams

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 17
Technology for New Buildings
 Shallow Foundation Detailing

• Mat foundation detailing

– Reinforcing each way, top and bottom
– Detail according to ACI 318-14, Section 18.6.3.1
• Minimum longitudinal reinforcing only
– OR design to accommodate expected differential settlements
• Elastic design
• Consistent with small permitted differential settlements

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 18
Technology for New Buildings
 Deep Foundation Design

• Design for vertical loads + lateral

deformations from DE inertial loads
– Explicit design for MCEG caused lateral
spreading deformations
– Reduce capacity due to MCEG caused liquefied
condition
• Vertical – downdrag
• Lateral – softer p-y springs,
• Lateral Resistance reduced by liquefaction
– Passive pressure and friction on caps, beams,
walls
– Resistance of soil on piles

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 19
Technology for New Buildings
 Deep Foundation Detailing

• Design for Lateral Spreading

– Analysis
• Nonlinear analysis required, except for very small deformations
• Ability to carry gravity load shall not be compromised
• Residual pile lateral strength must remain at least 67% of nominal
• Pile shear demand must remain less than nominal capacity
– Detailing
• Steel piles must meet requirements for highly ductile members
• Concrete piles must comply with ACI 318-14 Sections 18.7.5.2 -.4
– Confinement as for special moment frame columns
– At least 7 diameters below depth of liquefaction
– Similar to current OSHPD and DSA requirements

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 20
Technology for New Buildings
 Deep Foundation Detailing

• Foundation Ties
– Basic requirement (0.10SDS) still applies
– For lateral spreading, design for engagement of passive
pressure on caps and beams

𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 =𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 21
Technology for New Buildings
 Design for Lateral Resistance

• Consider pile resistance and cap, beam resistance

– Use compatible deformations
– Behavior of soil is nonlinear

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 22
Technology for New Buildings
 Downdrag loading on piles
• Downdrag assessed at ultimate level
– Safety factor applied to net ultimate capacity
• Downward (negative) skin friction within and above soils
subject to liquefaction
• Downdrag load is considered a seismic load (1.0 load
factor)

Liquefied
soil

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 23
Technology for New Buildings
 Summary

• New provisions provide

– Consistency with current Code performance goals
– Rational means of foundation type selection given soil behavior
– Design and detailing requirements
• Shallow foundations
• Deep foundations
• Coming Soon to the 2015 NEHRP Recommended
Seismic Provisions for New Buildings, Standard (ASCE
7-16) and Codes (IBC 2018 and CBC 2019) near you!

BSSC Colloquium: Seismic Design

February 11, 2015 24
Technology for New Buildings