Chapter 8 GT102

CHAPTER 8 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

D. K. Baidya
Associate Professor Department of Civil engineering I. I. T., Kharagpur

INTRODUCTION The basic principle of any design is that the product should meet three basic requirements namely, (i) function, (ii) cost, and (iii) reliability. While the terms function and cost are simple in principle, reliability concerns various technical factors relating to serviceability and safety. As the above three criteria are interrelated, and because of the normal constraints on cost, compromise with function and reliability generally have to be made. In considering the means of achieving the above requirements it is necessary to take into account both the limitations and the opportunities arising from the availability of construction materials and components and of construction skills. In seeking the optimum of the proposed construction, designers should choose forms and materials that give the best failure modes in earthquakes with functional and cost requirements. The form or configuration of the construction is the geometrical arrangement of all of the elements, i.e., structure, architecture, equipment, and contents. In order to achieve reliable earthquake resistance the form of construction should be decided from consideration of the following factors: (1) Simplicity and symmetry, (2) Length of plan, (3) Shape in elevation, (4) Uniformity and continuity, (5) Stiffness, (6) Failure mode, and (7) Foundation conditions. Earthquake repeatedly demonstrated that the simplest structures have the greatest chance of survival. There are three main reasons for this. First, our ability to understand the overall behaviour of a simple structure is markedly greater than it is for a complex one, e.g. torsional effects are particularly hard to predict on an irregular structure. Second, our ability to understand simple structural details is considerably greater than it is for complicated ones. Third, simple structures are likely to be more buildable than complex ones. Symmetry is desirable for much the same reasons. It is worth pointing out that symmetry is important in both directions in plan and in elevation as well (Fig. 1). Lack of symmetry produces torsional effects which are sometimes difficult to asses and can be very destructive. SUBSTRUCTURE AND FAILURE MODE CONTROL Although the form of the substructure must have a strong influence upon the seismic response of structures, little comparative work has been done on this subject. The following notes briefly summarise what appears to be good practice at the present time. The basic rule regarding the earthquake resistance of substructure is that integral action in earthquakes should be obtained. This requires adequate consideration of the dynamic response characteristics of the superstructure and of the subsoil. If a good seismic-resistant form has been chosen for the superstructure then at least the plan form of the substructure is likely to be sound, i. e., (1) Vertical loading will be symmetrical, (2) overturning effects will not be too large, and (3) The structure will not be too long in plan.

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

Figure1: Simple rules for plan layouts of aseimic buildings. (Only with dynamic and careful detailing should these rules be broken)

As with non-seismic design, the nature of the subsoil will determine the minimum depth of foundations. In earthquake areas this will involve consideration of the following factors: (a) Transmission of horizontal base shears from the structure to the soil, (b) Provision for earthquake overturning moments (e.g. tension piles), (c) Differential settlements, (d) Liquefaction of the subsoil, and (e) The effect of embedment on seismic response. The effects of depth of embedment are not fully understood at present, but some allowance for this effect can be made in soil structure interaction analyses, or when determining at what level to apply the earthquake loading input for the superstructure analysis. Three basic types of foundations may be listed as; (1) Discrete pad (2) Continuous rafts (3) Piled foundations. Piles, of course, may be used in conjunction with either pads or rafts. Continuous rafts or box foundations are good aseismic forms only requiring adequate depth and stiffness. Piles and discrete pads require more detailed considerations in order to ensure satisfactory integral action which deals with so many of the structural requirements implied in (1) to (3) and (a) to (e) above. Integral action should provide sufficient reserves of strength to deal with some of the differential ground movements

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

which are not explicitly designed for at present. Where a change of soil type occurs under a structure particular care may be necessary to ensure integral substructure action (Fig 2).

ASEISMIC DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS Before completing the design of the foundations it is assumed that the dynamic characteristics of the subsoil have been determined and a suitable form for the substructure should also have been chosen. It then remains to design the foundations for appropriate seismic forces which arise (1) directly from the deformation of the adjacent soil and (2) as a result of the earthquake forces acting in the superstructure. While our ability to estimate the seismic forces from (2) above is now quite advanced, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about the magnitude and effect of the forces induced directly by the ground. This is true despite the increasing attempts to elucidate the soil-structure interaction problem by sophisticated analytical and experimental techniques. In current design practice it is often found convenient to consider two separate stress systems: (1) the seismic vertical stresses (e.g. due to overturning moments) and (2) the seismic horizontal stresses (e. g. due to base shear on the structure). Overturning moments are not usually a problem for buildings as a whole, unless it is very slender, but can be difficult for individual footings such as column pads or shear wall strip footings. The foundations should, of course, be proportioned so as to keep the maximum bearing pressures due to overturning moments and gravity loads within the allowable seismic value for the soil concerned. Unfortunately there is little agreement on what constitutes safe seismic bearing pressures on sedimentary soils. Most earthquake codes do not discuss the effect of soil type on bearing pressures. It appears that most soils are capable of sustaining higher short-term loads than long-term loads, with the exception of some sensitive clays which loose strength under dynamic loading. ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC VERTICAL STRESSES Bearing Capacity: A bearing capacity failure is defined as a foundation failure that occurs when the shear stresses in the soil exceed the shear strength of the soil. For both the static and seismic cases, bearing capacity failures of foundations can be grouped into three categories: 1. General shear: A general shear failure involves total rupture of the underlying soil. There is a continuous shear failure of the soil from below the footing to the ground surface (Fig 3a). When the load is plotted versus settlement of the footing, there is a distinct load at which the foundation fails, and this is designated as Qult. The value of Qult divided by the width and length of the footing is considered to be the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing. The ultimate bearing capacity has been defined as the bearing stress that causes a sudden catastrophic failure of the foundation. General shear failure ruptures and pushes up the soil on both sides of the footing. A general shear failure occurs soils that are in dense or hard state.

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

Fig. 3 Bearing capacity failures; (a) General shear failure, (b) Local shear failure, and (c) Punching shear failure
2. Punching shear: A punching shear failure does not develop the distinct shear surfaces associated with a general shear failure. For punching shear, the soil outside the loaded area remains relatively uninvolved, and there is minimal movement of soil on both sides of the footing. The process of deformation of the footing involves compression of soil directly below the footing as well as the vertical shearing of soil around the footing perimeter (Fig. 3c). A punching shear failure occurs for soils that are in a loose or soft state. 3. Local shear: Local shear failure involves rupture of the soil only immediately below the footing. There is soil bulging on both sides of the footing, but bulging is not as significant as in general shear (Fig. 3b). Local shear failure can be considered as a transitional phase between general shear and punching shear. A local shear failure occurs for soils that are in a medium or firm state. Table 1 Summary of Type of Bearing Capacity failure versus Soil Properties Type of bearing capacity failure General shear Local shear Punching Cohesionless soil (e. g., sands) Density Relative density, condition Dr, (percent) Dense to very dense Medium Loose to very loose 65-100 35-65 0-35 Cohesive soil (e. g., clays) Consistency Undrained shear strength su Very stiff to >100 kPa hard Medium stiff 25-100 kPa Soft to very <25 kPa soft

(N1)60 >20 5-20 <5

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

Bearing capacity failure: Compared to the number of structure damaged by earthquake- induced settlement, there are fewer structures that have earthquake-induced bearing capacity failures. This is because of the following factors: 1. Settlement governs: The foundation design is based on several requirements. Two of the mains considerations are that (1) settlement due to the building load must not exceed tolerable values and (2) there must be an adequate factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure. In most cases, settlement governs and the foundation bearing pressures recommended by the geotechnical engineer are based on limiting the amount of expected settlement due to the static or seismic cases. In other cases where settlement is too high, the building is often constructed with a deep foundation, which also reduces the possibility of a bearing capacity failure. 2. Extensive studies: There have been extensive studies of both static and seismic baring capacity failures, which have led to the development of bearing capacity equations that are routinely used in practice to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation. 3. Factor of safety: To determine the allowable bearing pressure qall, the ultimate bearing capacity qult, is divided by a factor of safety. The normal factor of safety used for static bearing capacity analyses is 3. For the evaluation of the bearing capacity for seismic analysis, the factor of safety is often in the range of 5 to 10. These are high factor of safety compared to other factors of safety, such as only 1.5 for slope stability analyses. 4. Minimum footing size: Building codes often require minimum footing sizes and embedment depths. Larger footing sizes will lower the bearing pressures on the soil and reduce the potential for static or seismic bearing capacity failures. 5. Allowable bearing pressures: In addition, building codes often have maximum allowable bearing pressures for different soil and rock conditions. Table. 2 presents maximum allowable bearing pressures based on the Uniform building code. Especially in the case of dense or stiff soils, these allowable bearing pressures often have adequate factors of safety for both static and seismic cases. 6. Footing dimensions: Usually the structural engineer will determine the size of the footing by dividing the maximum footing load by the allowable bearing pressure. Typically the structural engineer uses values of dead, live, and seismic loads that also contain factors of safety. Thus the load that is used to proportion the footing also contains a factor of safety, which is in addition to the factor of safety that was used to determine the allowable bearing pressure. Table 2 Allowable bearing pressures Material type

Massive crystalline bedrock Sedimentary and foliated rock Gravel and sandy Gravel (GW, GP) Nonplastic soil: sands, silty gravel, and nonplastic silt (GM, SW, SP, SM) Plastic soil: Silts and clays (ML, MH, SC, 50 kPa 150 kPa# CL, CH) * Minimum footing width and embedment depth equal 0.3m $ An increase of 20% of the allowable bearing pressure is allowed for each additional 0.3 m of width or depth up to the maximum allowable bearing pressures listed in the rightmost column. An exception is plastic soil # No increase in the allowable bearing pressure is allowed for an increase in width of the footing. The documented cases of bearing capacity failures during earthquakes indicate that usually the following three factors (separately or in combination) are the cause of the failure: 1. Soil Shear strength: Common problems include an overestimation of the shear strength of the underlying soil. Another common situation leading to a bearing capacity failure is the loss of shear strength during the earthquake, because of the liquefaction of the soil or the loss of shear strength for sensitive clays. 2. Structural load: Another common problem is that the structural load at the time of the bearing capacity failure was greater than that assumed during the design phase. This can often occur

Allowable pressure* 200 kPa 100 kPa 100 kPa 75 kPa

bearing

Maximum allowable bearing pressure$ 600 kPa 300 kPa 300 kPa 220 kPa

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

when the earthquake causes rocking of the structure, and the resulting structural overturning moments produce significant cyclic vertical thrusts on the foundation elements and underlying soil. 3. Change in site conditions: An altered site can produce a bearing capacity failure. For example, if the groundwater table rises, then the potential for liquefaction is increased. Another example is the construction of an adjacent excavation, which could result in a reduction in support and bearing capacity failure. The most common cause of a seismic bearing capacity failure is liquefaction of the underlying soil. Localised failure due to punching when the footing is overloaded could also be the cause for seismic bearing capacity failure. Bearing Capacity Analysis for Liquefied soil The liquefaction analysis can help to determine those soil layers that will liquefy during the design earthquake. The first step is then to determine whether the following two requirements are met: 1. Bearing location of foundation: The foundation must not bear on soil that will liquefy during the design earthquake. Even lightly loaded foundations will sink into the liquefied soil. 2. Surface layer H1: There must be an adequate thickness of an unliquefiable soil surface layer H1 to prevent damage due to sand boils and surface fissuring. Without this layer, there could be damage to shallow foundations, pavements, flatwork, and utilities. If these two requirements are not met, then the foundation is susceptible to failure during the design earthquake, and special design considerations, such as the use of deep foundations or soil improvement, are required. Provided that the two design requirements are met, the next step is to perform a settlement analysis and bearing capacity analysis. Settlement analysis is out of scope of this lecture module. There are two different types of bearing capacity analysis that can be performed. The first deals with a shear failure where the footing punches into the liquefied soil layer. The second case uses the traditional Terzaghi,s bearing capacity equation with a reduction in the bearing capacity factors to account for the loss of shear strength of the underlying liquefied soil layer. Punching Shear Analysis: Fig. 4 illustrates the earthquake induced punching shear analysis. The soil layer portrayed by dashed lines represents unliquefiable soil which is underlain by a liquefied soil layer. For the punching shear analysis, it is assumed that the load will cause the foundation to punch straight downward through the upper unliquefiabale soil layer and into the liquefied soil layer. This assumptions means that there will be vertical shear surfaces in the soil that start at the sides of the footing and extend straight downward to the liquefied soil layer. It is also assumed that the liquefied soil has no shear strength.

Figure 4: Illustation of a purchasing shear analysis. The dashed lines represent unliquefiable soil that is underlain by a liquefied soil layer. In the analysis, the footing will punch vertically downward and into the liquefied soil.

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

Factor of Safety. Using the assumptions outlined above, the factor of safety (FS) can be calculated as follows:

For strip footing:

FS =
For spread Footing:

R 2T f = P P

(1)

FS =

R 2(B + L )T f = P P

(2)

Where R = shear resistance of soil. For strip footings, R is the shear resistance per unit length of footing, kN/m. For spread footings, R is the shear resistance beneath entire footing perimeter, kN. P = Footing load. For strip footings, P is the load per unit length of footing, kN/m. For spread footings, P is total load of footing, kN. The footing load includes dead, live, and seismic loads acting on footings as well as weight of footing itself. T = vertical distance from the bottom of footing to top of liquefied soil layer, m. f = shear strength of unliquefiable soil layer, kPa B = width of the footing, m L = length of footing, m It can be noted that only unknowns in Eqs (1) and (2) are the vertical distance from the bottom of the footing to the top of the liquefied soil layer T and the shear strength of the unliquefiable soil layer f. The value of T would be based on the liquefaction analysis and the proposed depth of the footing. The shear strength of the unliquefiable soil layer f can be calculated as follows: 1. For an unliquefiable soil layer consisting of cohesive soil (e. g. clays), use a total stress analysis:

f = su
or

(3a )

f = c + h tan

(3b )

Where su = undrained shear strength of cohesive soil (total stress analysis), kPa. Often undrained shear strength is obtained from unconfined compression tests or vane shear tests. c, = undrained shear strength shear parameters (total stress analysis). These undrained shear strength parameters are often obtained from triaxial tests, such as unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression test or consolidated undrained triaxial compression test. h = horizontal total stress, kPa. Since vertical shear surfaces are assumed, normal stress acting on shear surfaces will be the horizontal total stress. For cohesive soil, h is often assumed to be equal to v/2. 2. For an unliquefiable soil layer consisting of cohesionless (e. g. sands), use an effective stress analysis:
, f = h tan , = k 0 vo , tan ,

(4)

Where h = horizontal effective tress, kPa. Since vertical shear surfaces are assumed, the normal stress acting on the shear surface will be the horizontal effective stress. The horizontal

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102 effective stress h is equal to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest k0 times the vertical effective stress vo. = effective friction angle of cohesionless soil (effective stress analysis). Effective friction angle could be determined from drained direct shear tests or from empirical correlations. Terzaghis Bearing Capacity Equation The most commonly used bearing capacity equation is that equation developed by Terzaghi (1943). For uniform vertical loading of a strip footing, Terzaghi (1943) assumed a shallow footing and general shear failure in order to develop the following:

qult =

Qult 1 = cN c + t BN + t D f N q 2 BL

(5)

Where qult = ultimate bearing capacity for a strip footing, kPa Qult = vertical load causing a general shear failure of underlying soil t = total unit weight of soil, kN/m2 Df = vertical distance from ground surface to bottom of strip footing, m c = cohesion of soil underlying strip footing, kPa Nc, Nq, and N = dimensionless bearing capacity factors It can be noted from Eq 4 that three terms are added to obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footing. These terms represents the following: cNc The first term accounts for the cohesive shear strength of the soil located below the strip footing. If the soil below the footing is cohesionless (that is, c = 0), then this term is zero

strip footing. Note that t represents the total unit weight of the soil located below the footing.

1 t BN - The second term accounts for the frictional shear strength of the soil located below the 2

D f N q - This third term accounts for the soil located above the footing base. The value of t times Df
represents a surcharge pressure that helps to increase the bearing capacity of the footing. This third term indicates that the deeper the footing, the greater the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing. As previously mentioned, Eq 5 was developed by Terzaghi for strip footing. For other types of footings and loading conditions, corrections need to be applied to the bearing capacity equation. Bearing Capacity Equation for Cohesive Soil Layer Underlain by Liquefied soil: For the situation of a cohesive soil layer overlying a sand and that will be susceptible to liquefaction, a total stress analysis can be performed. This type of analysis uses the undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil. The undrained shear strength su could be determined from field test, such as the vane shear test, or in the laboratory from unconfined compression tests. Using a total stress analysis su = c and = 0. For = 0, the Terzaghi bearing capacity factors are N = 0.0 and Nq = 1. The bearing capacity equation thus reduces to the following:

q ult = cN c + t D f = s u N c + t D f

(6 )

In dealing with shallow footings, the second term in Eq. 6 tends to be rather small. Thus by neglecting the second term in Eq. 6, the final result is as follows:

q ult = cN c = s u N c

(7 )

In order to use Eq. 7 to evaluate the ability to shear through a cohesive soil layer and into a liquefied soil layer, the undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil must be known. In addition, the bearing capacity factor Nc must be determined. The presence of an underlying liquefied soil layer will tend to

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

decrease the values for Nc. Fig. 5 can be used to determine the values of Nc for the condition of a unliquefiable cohesive soil layer overlying a soil layer that is expected to liquefy during the design earthquake. In Fig. 5 terms are defined as follows; Layer 1 = Upper cohesive soil layer that has uniform undrained shear strength su = c = c1 Layer 2 = lower soil layer that will liquefy during the design earthquake. The usual assumption is that the liquefied soil does not posses any shear strength, or c2 = 0. T = vertical distance from bottom of the footing to top of the liquefied soil layer, m B= width of the footing, m Since the liquefied soil layer has zero shear strength, the ratio of c2/c1 will equal to zero. By entering Fig. 4 with c2/c1 = 0 and intersecting the desired T/B curve, the value of Nc can be determined. Granular Soil with Earthquake Induced Pore Water Pressure This section deals with granular soil that does not liquefy; rather, there is a reduction in shear strength due to an increase in pore water pressure. Examples include sands and gravels that are below the groundwater table and have a factor of safety against liquefaction that is greater than 1.0 but less than 2.0. If the factor of safety against liquefaction is greater than 2.0, the earthquake induced excess pore water pressures will typically be small enough that their effect can be neglected. Using the Terzaghis bearing capacity equation and an effective stress analysis, and recognizing that sands and gravels are cohesionless, one can see that Eq. 5 reduces to the following:

Figure 5: Bearing factor Nc for two layer soil conditions. (Reproduced from NAVFAC DM-7.2, 1982.)

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

Chapter 8 GT102

q ult =

1 t BN + t D f N q 2

(8)

For shallow foundation it is best to neglect the 2nd term in Eq. 8.This is because this term represents the resistance of the soil located above the bottom of the footing, which may not be mobilized for a punching shear failure into the underlying weakened granular soil layer. Thus by neglecting 2nd term in Eq. 8:

q ult =

1 t BN 2

(9)

Assuming that the location of groundwater table is close to the bottom of the footing, the buoyant unit weight b is used in in place of the total unit weight t in Eq. 9. In addition, since this is an effective stress analysis, the increase in excess pore water pressures that are generated during the design earthquake must be accounted for in Eq. 9. Using Fig. 6 can accomplish this, which is a plot of the pore water pressure ratio ru = ue/, versus the factor of safety against liquefaction. Using the buoyant unit weight b in place of the total unit weight and inserting the term 1-ru to account for the effect of the excess pore water pressures generated the design earthquake, one gets the final result for the ultimate bearing capacity as follows:

qult =

1 (1 ru ) b BN 2

(10)

Where ru = pore water pressure ratio from Fig. 6. To determine ru, the factor of safety against liquefaction of soil located below the bottom of the footing must be determined. As previously mentioned, Eq. 10 is valid only if the safety against liquefaction is greater than 1.0. When factor of safety against liquefaction is greater than 2.0, Terzaghis bearing capacity equation can be utilized, taking into account the location of groundwater table.

Figure 6: Relationship between residual excess pore pressure and factor of safety against liquefaction for level-ground sites. (After Marcuson Hynes, 1990)

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

10

Chapter 8 GT102

buoyant unit weight of soil below footing. As previously mentioned Eq. 10 was developed based on an assumption that the ground water table is located near the bottom of footing or it is anticipated that the ground water table could rise so that it is near the bottom of the footing. N = bearing capacity factor. Fig. 7 presents a chart that can be used to determine the value of N based on the effective friction angle of the granular soil. Bearing Capacity Analysis for Cohesive Soil Weakened by the Earthquake Cohesive soil and organic soils can also be susceptible to loss of shear strength during the earthquake. Examples include sensitive clays, which lose shear strength when they are strained back and forth. It is often very difficult to predict the amount of earthquake induced settlement for foundations bearing on cohesive and organic soils. One approach is to ensure that the foundation has an adequate factor of safety in terms of a bearing capacity failure. To perform a bearing capacity analysis, a total stress analysis can be performed by assuming that c = su. For a relatively constant undrained shear strength versus depth below the footing, the ultimate bearing capacity is as follows;

qult = cN c = 5.5su

(11)

Table 3 presents guidelines in terms of the undrained shear strength that should be utilized for earthquake engineering analyses.

Figure 7: bearing capacity factors Nr and Nq, which automatically incorporate allowance for punching and local shear failure. The standard penetration resistance N value indicated in this chart refers to the uncorrected N value. (From Pack et at 1974)

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

11

Chapter 8 GT102

Table 3 Soil Type versus Type of Analysis and Shear Strength for Earthquake Engineering Soil type Types of Field condition Shear strength analysis Cohesionless soil Assume pore water pressures are equal to above the ground zero, which ignores the capillary tension. Use water table from empirical correlations or from laboratory tests such as drained direct shear test. Dense cohesionless Dense cohesionless soil dilates during the soil below the ground earthquake shaking. Assume earthquake Use an water table induced negative excess pore water pressure Cohesionless effective zero and use from empirical correlations or stress from laboratory tests such as drained direct analysis shear test. Loose cohesionless Excess pore water pressures ue generated soil beow the ground during the contraction of soil structure. For water table FSL1.0, use = 0 or ru = 1.0. For FSL >1.0, use ru from Fig. 5 and from empirical correlations or from laboratory tests such as drained direct shear test. Cohesive soil above Determine su from unconfined compression the ground water tests or vane shear tests. Consider shear table strength decrease due to increase in water content. Cohesive soil below Determine su from unconfined compression the ground water tests or vane shear tests. As an alternative table with St4 use total stress parameters (c and ) from triaxial tests. Cohesive soil Use a total Cohesive soil below Include an estimated reduction in undrained stress the ground water shear strength due to earthquake shaking. analysis Most significant strength loss occurs when table with St>8 the sum of the static shear stress and the seismic-induced shear stress exceeds the undrained shear strength of the soil. Cohesive soil having a medium sensitivity 4<St8 are an intermediate case.

SEISMIC HORIZONTAL STRESSES The horizontal interaction stresses between the soil and the foundation are arguably more problematic than the vertical stresses, as comparatively little is known about allowable seismic passive pressures and the effect of seismic active pressure in different foundation situations. Indeed it is customary to assume even more arbitrary distributions for horizontal stress between foundations and soil than for vertical stress. The main problems of foundation design as presently understood occur in transferring the base shear of the structure to the ground, and in maintaining structural integrity of the foundation during differential soil deformations. The horizontal seismic shear force at the base of the structure must be transferred through the substructure to the soil. With shallow foundations it is normal to assume that most of the resistance to lateral loads is provided by friction between the soil and the base of the members resisting horizontal load. Other footings and slabs in contact with ground may also assumed to provide shear resistance if they are suitably connected to the main resisting elements. The total available resistance to lateral movement of the structure may be taken to be equal to the product of the dead load carried by the elements considered and the coefficient of sliding friction between the soil and the substructure.

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

12

Chapter 8 GT102

CONCLUSIONS Shallow foundations are often of a form that is highly vulnerable to damage from differential horizontal and vertical ground movements during earthquakes. It is therefore good practice even in quite low structure, especially those founded on soft soils, to provide ties between column pads. In the absence of a more realistic method an arbitrary design criterion or such ties is to make them capable of carrying compression and tension loads equal to 10 percent of the maximum vertical load in adjacent columns. However, it may be possible to resist some or all of these horizontal forces by passive action of the soil, particularly for light buildings. The designer may also have a choice between providing the tie action at the bottom floor level (in tie beams or in the slab) or at some other position in relation to the foundations. REFERENCES Das, B. M. (1993). Principles of Soil Dynamics, Brooks/Cole Day, R. W. (2002). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Hand Book, McGraw-Hill. Dowrick, D. J. (1987). Earthquake Resistant Design, John Wiley & Sons. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall.

NPCBEERM, MHA (DM)

13