See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273769838

Earthquake Resistant Design of Foundations:

Design Principles
Conference Paper March 2013
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1492.6889

READS

82

1 author:
Ravi Sankar Jakka
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
38 PUBLICATIONS 176 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Ravi Sankar Jakka

Retrieved on: 16 May 2016

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS:

DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Dr. Ravi Sankar Jakka
Asst. Professor (Soil Dynamics)
Department of Earthquake Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee

1. Introduction
Foundation is a substructure built below the super structure. Purpose of the foundation is to
transfer the structural loads safely to the underlying soil. Safe and economical design of a
foundation under different loading conditions is the role of geotechnical engineer. Earthquake
loads are the most complicated and complex. Design of earthquake resistant foundation is
highly challenging. Proper design of a foundation against earthquake loading requires
through understanding over the behavior of soil, response of structure and interaction of soilstructure under earthquake loading. This material starts with few case studies on foundation
failures due earthquake loads to understand the mechanisms of foundation failures. Later,
general requirements in the design of an earthquake resistant foundation such as selection of
site, selection of appropriate type of foundation, are presented. Codal provisions given in the
IS1893 for the design of earthquake resistant foundation are also discussed.

2. Definitions and Terminology Used (IS 6403)

Ultimate bearing capacity (qult or qu): The intensity of loading at the base of the foundation
which would cause shear failure of the soil support.
Safe bearing capacity (qsafe or qs): Maximum intensity of loading that the foundation will
safely carry without the risk of shear failure of soil irrespective of any settlement that may
occur.
Safe bearing pressure: The intensity of loading that will cause a permissible settlement or
specified settlement of the structure
Allowable bearing capacity (qa): The net intensity of loading which the foundation will carry
without undergoing settlement in excess of the permissible value for the structure under
consideration but not exceeding net safe bearing capacity.

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

3. Case Studies on Earthquake Induced Shallow Foundation Failures

Figure 1 Overturning failure of apartment complex buildings during Niigata 1964 earthquake
(courtesy of USGS)

Figure 2 Foundation failure of a house due to ground slope failure during Loma Prieta quake.

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

4. Modes of Shallow Foundation Failures and their Causative Mechanisms

Tilting of foundation(overturning of the structure): Its a clear shear (Bearing
Capacity) failure of the supporting soil
Due to the action of inertial forces
Due to the reduction in strength of supporting soils (liquefaction)
Due to the occurrence of sand boils and lateral spreading
Ground Instability
Caused by slope failures (due to flow slides and lateral spreading)
Sliding of foundation
Sliding may occur due to the horizontal inertial forces applied by an
earthquake
Sliding may also occur due to movement (lateral spreading) of under lying
soils
Settlement of foundations
Due to compression/consolidation of liquefied soil upon dissipation of excess
PWPs.
Due to occurrence of sand boils and lateral spreading

5. Case Studies on Earthquake Induced Deep Foundation Failures

Figure 3 Collapse of a pile-supported building due to lateral movement of soil during the
Kobe earthquake (Bhattacharya, 2006)

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

Figure 5. Kandla tower after Bhuj earthquake, (Madabhushi et al 2001)

6. Modes of Deep Foundation Failures and their Causative Mechanisms

Overturning of the structure due shear failure at pile heads and pile cap

Caused by action of inertial forces on the piles

Breaking/shear failure of piles in the liquefied soil layer

Caused by lateral spreading of liquefied soils, which increases bending

stresses (Tokimatsu et al., 1998)

Caused by reduction in lateral confinement due to liquefaction of soils, which

can lead to buckling of piles (Bhattacharya, 2007)

Settlement/failure of foundation may occur

DrRSJakka

Due to reduction in the shear strength of liquefied soils if it is not considered

in the initial design

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

7. Design/Construction of a Foundation

Figure 6 Various stages in the design/construction of foundations (Gulhati and Datta, 2005)

8. Foundation Design and Parameters

Selection of suitable type of foundation

Subsurface soil characteristics

Magnitude of loads from the superstructure

Requirements of super structure

Specify dimensions of the selected foundation

Shallow foundation
- - - - >Strip/Individual/Combined/Raft
- - - - > Length, Width, Depth

Deep foundation
- - - - -> Pile/pier/well
- - - - > Length, Diameter, No. of piles

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

9. Selection of Suitable Type of Foundation

Shallow foundations should usually be the first choice of the foundation as

they are economical

no need for special construction techniques

no need of special equipment for drilling

better quality control

Isolated footings are not recommended when excessive settlements and/or large
lateral soil movements (lateral spreading) are expected under design earthquake.
Mat foundation are preferred

On soft or loose soils

Stronger than isolated, continuous and tied foundations

Earthquake hazards from differential soil movements are minimized by

bridging over loose pockets of soil

Deep Foundations are preferred

When loads from super structure are too high

W.T is shallow

Restrictions over the open excavation

To bypass liquefiable soils

10. Site Selection and Alternative Choices in their Order of Preference

1. Avoid the problematic site if alternative choices are available. Particularly, if site
conditions are hazardous, it has to be avoided. (As per IS1893, liquefiable sites are to
be avoided/improved)
2. Redesign the foundation if soil conditions are poor (highly compressible under
earthquake loading). Go for raft foundation.
3. By pass liquefiable soil by deep foundations, if competent soil(dense sands, stiff clays
or rocks) exists at shallow depths (say, 10 to 20m)
4. Improve poor soil by excavation and replacement (GI at Shallow Depths)
5. Treat soil in place (In-situ ground improvement) if poor soil conditions exists up to
large depths (say, 20 to 30m)
Note: Even while designing deep foundations, poor soil at shallow depths may require
ground improvement or else, special considerations are required in the design of deep
foundation.

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

10.1.

1129March,2013

Sites to be Avoided

Avoid construction of structures/foundations near vicinity of active faults

Site specific studies are to be carried out in high seismicity regions, as local soil and
site conditions play important role on site amplifications.
Unstable slopes are to be avoided. Ground stability should be assessed before
construction under designed seismic action.
Loose to medium dense fine sands (SP), located adjacent to deep rivers and located in
active seismic regions are to be avoided.
Dormant or active mine or cavernous lime stones should be avoided as ground may
collapse
Flood plains, landfills of hazardous waste sites should also be avoided

11. Relevant Codal Provisions from IS:1893-Part 1(2002) for the

Earthquake Resistant Design of Foundations
11.1.

Influence of Soil Type on Intensity of Shaking:

(i)

Influence of soil type on intensity of shaking is accounted in the calculation of

horizontal seismic coefficient.

h Ah

Z I Sa
* *
2 R g

where, Z = Zone Factor (Range: 0.36, 0.24, 0.16 & 0.10)

Appropriate zone factor is to be selected based on the location of the project site
I = Importance Factor (Range: 1.0 & 1.5)
R = Response Reduction Factor (Range: 3.0 to 5.0)
Sa
g

= Avg. spectral acceleration coefficient(Fig. 2, IS1893), where effect of soil

type is considered (Maximum value 2.5)

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

(ii)

1129March,2013

Influence of soil type on vertical shaking is also considered indirectly.

2
3

v Av * h
11.2.

Increase in Allowable Bearing Pressures in Soils:

IS code permit increase in allowable bearing pressures in soils under earthquake forces, to
account the uncertainties in the earthquake loading.
When earthquake forces are included, the allowable bearing pressure in soils shall be
increased as per Table 1, depending upon type of foundation of the structure and type of
soil(IS 1893).

11.3.

Accounting for Liquefiable Soils:

(i)

In soil deposits consisting of submerged loose sands and soils falling under
classification SP with standard penetration N-values less than 15 in seismic Zones III,
IV, V and less than 10 in seismic Zone II, the vibration caused by earthquake may
cause liquefaction or excessive total and differential settlements. Such sites should
preferably be avoided while locating new settlements or important projects (IS
1893).
Desirable N-Values (corrected Values)

(ii)

If N-values (corrected values) at the project site are lower than the desired N-values
and if there is no option to avoid the site, appropriate site improvement techniques
(such as improving compaction or stabilization) should be adopted to achieve suitable
N-values.

(iii)

Alternatively, deep pile foundation may be provided and taken to depths well into the
layer which is not likely to liquefy (IS 1893).

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

(iv)

1129March,2013

Marine clays and other sensitive clays are also known to liquefy due to collapse of
soil structure and will need special treatment according to site condition(IS 1893).

Note: As we have seen the failures of pile foundations due lateral spreading and lack of
confinement of liquefiable soils, it is very important to design pile foundations to account
these liquefaction effects. Otherwise, suitable ground improvement techniques are to be
adopted to liquefiable soils even after designing pile foundations.

11.4.

Other Guidelines for the Design of Earthquake Resistant Foundations (IS 1893)

(i)

The allowable bearing pressure shall be determined in accordance with IS 6403 or IS

1888.

(ii)

If any increase in bearing pressure has already been permitted for forces other than
seismic forces, the total increase in allowable bearing pressure when seismic force is
also included shall not exceed the limits specified above.

(iii)

The piles should be designed for lateral loads neglecting lateral resistance of soil
layers liable to liquefy.

(iv)

Isolated R, C.C. footing without tie beams, or unreinforced strip foundation shall not
be permitted in soft soils with N<1O.

Based on the case studies discussed, the following point is required attention.
Note: In addition to neglecting lateral resistance of soil in the design of pile foundation, the
loading coming from the lateral spreading of liquefied soil is to be considered. Buckling
failure of the pile foundation due to liquefaction of soils, is also required to be examined.

12. References
Bhattacharya, S. (2006). Safety assessment of existing piled foundations in liquefiable soils
against buckling instability, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Technical Note,
Vol. 43, No. 4, December 2006, pp. 133-147.
Bhattacharya, S. (2007). A review of methods for pile design in seismically liquefiable
soils, Design of Foundations in Seismic Areas: Principles and Applications, Edt.
Bhattacharya, NICEE Publication, IIT Kanpur, India, pp.255-295.
Gulhati, S. K., and Datta, M. (2005). Geotechnical Engineering, Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.

DrRSJakka

NDMA'sNSSPTrainingCourse

1129March,2013

IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002). "Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
IS 6403 (1981). "Determination of bearing capacity of shallow foundaitons, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Madabhushi, S.P.G., Schofield, A. N., and Lesley, S. (1998). A new stored angular
momentum based earthquake actuator, Proceedings of Centrifuge, Tokyo, pp. 111-116.
Tokimatsu, K., Oh-oka Hiroshi, Satake, K., Shamoto Y., and Asaka Y. (1998). Effect of
lateral ground movements on failure pattern of piles in the 1995 HyogokenNamu earthquake, Proceedings of a speciality conference, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and SoilDynamics III, ASCE Geotechnical Special publications No 75, pp
1175-1186.

DrRSJakka

10