Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

Geotechnical application and benefits of performance-based design

James Robinson
Tonkin + Taylor, Christchurch, New Zealand, jrobinson@tonkintaylor.co.nz

Luke Storie and Sjoerd Van Ballegooy

Tonkin + Taylor, Auckland, New Zealand

The New Zealand Building Code (like many others) is a performance-based standard; however, the application of performance-based
design is rare in practice. Typical design practice considers the capacity of individual elements in the building and does not allow for
the full load-displacement response of the building system. This paper presents a case study where a performance-based design
approach was used for the design of a new building on an existing foundation system and how it was able to illustrate compliance
with the New Zealand Building code.
The case study found that a capacity-based design approach was likely an impractical way to illustrate compliance with the Building
Code. Given the significant negative project impacts including programme delays, environmental impacts and cost increases
associated with adopting a new foundation system, a performance-based assessment was completed. With strong interaction between
the geotechnical and structural engineers, a non-linear vertical pile spring analysis was undertaken, allowing the design team to
demonstrate that the existing foundation system complied with the building code, avoiding the significant negative project impacts.

KEYWORDS: Performance-based design, seismic design, soil-structure interaction, non-linear springs.

1 INTRODUCTION buildings where foundation response is of particular interest, or

All building works (construction, alteration, demolition, or
removal) in New Zealand must comply with the New Zealand
Building Code. Like many others, the New Zealand Building
Code is performance-based and requires that buildings should
have a low probability of having deformations that may lead to
loss of amenity or the building becoming unstable and/or
collapsing throughout its life (MBIE, 1992). Whilst the building
code is performance-based, capacity-based design methods are
often adopted, for example Verification Method B1/VM4
(MBIE, 2021a), which focusses on design actions and
deformations on an element-by-element basis rather than
considering the overall building deformations and response.
Capacity-based methods are deemed to comply with the building
code through either Acceptable Solutions of Verification
Methods, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: New Zealand Building Act and regulation framework showing
how verification methods, acceptable solutions or alternative solutions
can be adopted to demonstrate compliance with the building code
(*may include cited standards and information).
A performance-based design considers the building system
response by explicitly considering the building deformation in
the design allowing the response of the building system to be
captured with greater accuracy. A performance-based method is
particularly suitable for the design of atypical buildings,
buildings that integrate existing elements. Performance-based
design allows consideration of the stress-strain response in
individual elements in relation to the entire response of the
building system. The response of the building system is
compared against numerous specified performance criteria (eg:
building drift or foundation displacement) at each design limit
state, and if within acceptable limits, the design demonstrates
compliance with the Building Code through an Alternative
Solution.
From a geotechnical perspective, limited guidance on
performance-based design is provided in standard design
guidelines like Module 4 of the Earthquake geotechnical
engineering practice guidelines (MBIE, 2021b). The key
principles in NZS1170 (New Zealand Standards, 2016) should
therefore be followed, including allowance for uncertainty in
seismic loading as well as uncertainty in foundation performance
and soil response.
The use of a performance-based design approach is also of
particular use in areas of high seismicity, where the consideration
of load redistribution and the capturing of building response with
more accuracy can result in significant project savings. The use
of a performance-based design approach requires the structural
and geotechnical engineers to work closely together to ensure the
results of structural models are realistic and valid.
This paper presents a case study of how a performance-based
design approach was used to demonstrate compliance with the
building code for the re-use of an existing foundation system.
The name and location of this building could not be disclosed;
however, the focus is on outlining the application and benefits of
a performance-based design from a geotechnical perspective.
The paper summarises the ground conditions and existing
foundation conditions and presents how a capacity-based
approach could be implemented and how a performance-based
approach was implemented to identify if compliance with the
building code could be achieved. It discusses the limitation of a
capacity-based design and how a performance-based approach
can overcome these limitations. The paper goes into further
detail on the benefits obtained by adopting a performance-based
approach and why such an approach should be considered more
regularly by geotechnical practitioners.
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

2 CASE STUDY GROUND CONDITIONS

The building that is the subject of this case study is located in an

area of high seismic shaking and suffered superstructure damage
from one of the recent earthquakes in the last decade. The levels
of shaking experienced during the earthquake were well below
the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design seismic event. Following
the earthquake, no liquefaction effects (settlement or ejecta) were
observed near the site.
The multi-storey structure was founded on approximately 420
screw piles spread across the building in pile groups varying
from single piles to six-pile pile groups. The majority of the
screw piles consisted of a single 650 mm diameter helix, with a
small number of double helix piles (also 650 mm diameter
helices). Screw piles were connected through a series of stiff
ground beams and pile caps arranged in a grid like fashion. The
superstructure experienced significant damage and required
demolition. Whilst numerous screw piles were exhumed and
inspected, no damage was observed.
Screw piles were typically founded within a dense gravel
layer (layer 3) within a deep sequence of alluvial soils. A full
summary of the ground conditions and soil strengths is presented
in Table 1. It was found that the depth to the top, bottom, and
thickness of this founding layer (layer 3) varied significantly
across the site. Below the founding layer a medium dense sand
and silt layer (layer 4) is expected to liquefy during an ULS
design seismic event using simplified methods (Boulanger and
Idriss, 2014). The silt and clay layer above (layer 2) is likely to
only partially liquify, particularly in areas with a high proportion Figure 2: Liquified strength ratio of layer 4 plotted relative to the depth
of silt. A summary of the liquified ground conditions and below the gravel founding layer (layer 3). An approximate mid bound
strengths is presented in Table 2. value (blue dashed line) of the lowest method was adopted which
generally lined up with a lower quartile of a weighted average method.
Table 1: Summary of ground conditions

SPT N 3 CAPACITY-BASED DESIGN APPROACH

Top of CPT tip
Layer (blows Given the complex nature of the ground conditions and the desire
Description layer resistance
# per to re-use the existing foundation solution (screw piles), a
(m bgl) (MPa)
300 mm) performance-based design approach was considered most
1 Fill 0 - - appropriate. The reasons why a capacity-based design
Silts and methodology may have made confirming compliance for the re-
2 0.8–1.5 0–50 0.2–45
clays use of the existing screw piles difficult, is discussed in this
3 Gravel 5.0–7.1 16–50+ 10–50 section.
Silty sand and 7.4– A capacity-based design approach simply compares a
4 10 – 50+ 2–7
sandy silt 10.0 factored up load to a factored down capacity (often referred to as
Coarse/ 11.5– load and resistance factored design or LRFD). If the factored up
5 38–50+ -
gravelly sand 13.5 load is less than the factored down capacity, then compliance is
demonstrated.
To consider the effects of liquefaction, liquified strength If a capacity-based design approach was adopted for this case
parameters were determined for layer 2 and layer 4 using Idriss study, conservative assumptions would have needed to be made,
and Boulanger (Idriss & Boulanger, 2008), Kramer and Wang including full liquefaction of layer 2 and 4 and a uniform gravel
(Kramer & Wang, 2015) and Weber (Weber, et al., 2015) using thickness likely equal to an average-to-lower bound thickness of
approximately 200 SPTs and 5 CPTs previously completed gravel below the helix. A range of thicknesses would have also
across the site. Both the lowest estimate method (Boulanger and likely needed to be assessed to check the sensitivity of the results.
Idriss) and a weighted average were used to determine a suitable Given the conservative assumptions around the thickness of the
liquified strength ratio for design. For the layer below the gravel below the helix and the reduction factors required to be
founding layer (layer 4) a liquified strength ratio of 0.25 was included in a capacity-based design it would likely have been
adopted which corresponded to roughly the mid bound of the identified that the factored loading demands exceeded the
lowest method and a lower quartile of a weighted average (shown factored geotechnical capacity for a number of the piles. Hence,
in Figure 2). the re-use of the existing foundation system would not have
complied with the NZ Building Code.
Table 2: Summary of liquified ground conditions Alternatively, a sub-zone approach could have been adopted
within a capacity-based design methodology, where pile groups
Liquefaction Design liquified were split into different zones based upon the gravel thickness
Layer #
triggering strength ratio below the helix. The capacity could then be calculated based
1 No - upon the thickness of gravel below the helix for each zone with
2 Yes 0.1 appropriate reduction factor applied. The factored capacities
3 No - from each zone could be subsequently compared to the factored
4 Yes 0.25 loading demand in each zone to determine if the design was
5 No - compliant. Given the thin layer of gravel at the southern end of
the site, if this design process was followed it is likely the loads
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)

would have exceeded the capacity and the design would not have five different foundation zones (A to E, with A representing the
been compliant. greatest thickness of gravel below the helix and E representing
Stiffness of the foundation system could subsequently be the thinnest) based upon the thickness of the founding layer
added to the structural model to allow load redistribution across below the helix (as shown in Figure 5). The response of each of
the foundation system to occur. A secant stiffness would then be these foundation zones could then be assessed separately
determined for each zone to be included in the structural model. accounting for the specified gravel thickness below the helix in
The secant stiffness would be based on an assumed magnitude of each zone.
displacement with a displacement limit imposed on each
individual pile. Numerous iterations would likely be required to
ensure the resulting displacement of each pile is within the
assumed displacement limits. Once all piles are within
displacement limits the load from each pile would then be
extracted from the structural model, factored up and compared to
the factored down capacity. If the factored load on any of the
piles was greater than the factored capacity, then the design
would be deemed not to comply.
This capacity-based design approach, likely would have been
considered too onerous due to the complexity of considering the
variability in ground conditions in such a simplified approach
and an alternative foundation solution may have been considered.
For example, a raft foundation, comprising thick concrete slab
over reinforced gravel raft, may have been considered as an
alternative. In this case study, the raft foundation would require
the excavation and removal of approximately 5,500 m3 of
contaminated soils and require the implementation of numerous
groundwater drawdown control measures to allow for excavation
below the groundwater level.
The raft foundation, while simpler to design, would likely
have significant negative project implications, including:
• Increased construction programme due to the requirement to
excavate contaminated material above and below the
groundwater level
• Environmental impacts from the volume of concrete
(embodied carbon) required to form the raft
• Environmental impact due to the disposal of contaminated
material at a managed landfill Figure 3: Top of founding layer (layer 3) contour plot (contours shown
• Significantly increased project costs due to longer in mRL) with Borehole and CPT investigations shown in black and site
construction programme, excavating and disposal of bounds shown in pink.
contaminated materials and increased volume of
construction material (concrete and steel).

Given these negative project outcomes and the associated

risks, the extra design effort required to undertake a
performance-based design was considered beneficial to
demonstrate that the existing screw piles could satisfactorily be
re-used.

4 PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN APPROACH

To assist in a performance-based design approach, a 3D

geological model was created. This was used to generate contour
plots of the ‘top of’, ‘bottom of’ and ‘thickness’ of the founding
layer (with the top and bottom of the founding layer presented in
Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively). From these contour plots
and the as-built screw pile records, the thickness of gravel below
the helix could be identified across the site as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 shows how applying an average gravel thickness (green
shaded area) across the entire site (as may be done for a capacity-
based approach), would be an oversimplification of the ground
conditions for most screw piles, with only a small proportion of
piles being best represented by these ground conditions.
The variability in ground conditions could be allowed for in a
performance-based design approach as the response of the entire
foundation system is considered rather than individual elements
(or the secant stiffness of individual elements). The thickness of
gravel below the helix (i.e. the depth of material between the
helix and the liquefiable layer) was found to have a significant Figure 4: Bottom of founding layer (layer 3) contour plot (contours
impact on the response of the piles. Hence, to account for this shown in mRL) with Borehole and CPT investigations shown in black
variability in the founding layer each piles were separated into and site bounds shown in pink.
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)
Figure 5: The location of each screw pile with the thickness of gravel
below the helix illustrated by the colour of the circles along with the
assigned foundation zone.
The pile elements were represented in the structural model as
non-linear vertical pile head springs. The soil-foundation
response was captured by this spring and subsequently
incorporated by the structural engineer in their model. To
account for the uncertainty in ground conditions, upper and lower
bound foundation springs were generated for each zone in
compression and tension. It was identified that the upper bound
spring was to represent typical non-liquefied site conditions
(stiffer response) whilst the lower bound spring was to represent
liquified conditions (softer response).
The upper bound compression and tension springs could be
easily determined using several pile static load tests that were
completed during construction and following demolition of the
original building. A single upper bound compression and tension
spring was applied to all foundation’s zones as it was found that
the response was relatively insensitive to the gravel thickness in
the non-liquified conditions and could be matched to pile testing.
An example of the calculated upper bound compression spring
and static load tests used to calculate this spring is presented in
Figure 6.
Figure 6: Upper bound non-linear compression spring with static load
tests for comparison (NP = neighbouring property, PD = Post
demolition and OD = original development).
The lower bound compression and tension springs could not
be determined from the static load tests as these tests do not
represent the worst case liquified conditions that could be
experienced on site. To account for the effects of liquefaction and
generate lower bound springs, an axisymmetric 2D finite element
model was completed. Firstly, the model was calibrated using
non-liquified parameters and the multiple static load tests
completed across the site. The parameters of the founding layer
(layer 3) and the underlying silty sand/ sandy silt layer (layer 4)
were adjusted until good comparison was found between the
finite element model and the results of the static load tests.
A finite element model was created for each foundation zone
using the calibrated soil parameter for the founding layer (layer
3) and the liquified soil strength parameters for layer 2 and layer
4 (as presented in Table 2). By incrementally increasing the
applied vertical compression load, non-linear vertical springs
were developed for each foundation zone in compression.
The effect of the gravel thickness below the helix is shown in
Figure 7. As the gravel thickness below the helix reduces, the
non-linear spring stiffness and capacity reduces. It also shows for
Zone A (>2.5 m of gravel below the helix) the response is similar
to the upper bound spring, which indicates that the liquefaction
of layer 4 has a minimal impact on the response of piles in Zone
A. Hence, piles in the northwest corner (generally Zone A) are
expected to behave in a stiffer manner than those along the
southern boundary where piles are generally in Zone C, D or E.
Figure 7: Adopted lower bound non-linear compression springs for each
foundation zone with the upper bound spring plotted in black for
comparison.
In tension a single lower bound spring was adopted.
Considerations for different foundation zones were not made as
it was found that the most piles were embedded to a similar depth
into the founding layer and the thickness of material above this
layer (which is partially liquefied) had a minimal impact on the
response. A summary of the lower bound compression and
tension springs is presented in Figure 7.
Figure 8: Adopted upper and lower bound non-linear tensions springs.
 Proceedings of the 14th Australia and New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Cairns 2023 (ANZ2023)
The non-linear springs were passed to the structural engineer
to include in the structural model. The structural model was run
with both upper and lower bound springs at numerous limit states
to determine performance. It was found that the performance of
the structure (building drift, foundation displacement, etc) was
within acceptable limits and the structure would perform
adequately even at Maximum Creditable Event (MCE) levels of
shaking.
5 BENEFITS OF A PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
APPROACH
With varying springs (due to the varying ground conditions)
each pile would respond differently based on their load-
displacement relationship. Those piles that were stiffer (greater
thickness of gravel below the helix) would attract more load and
displace less, whilst those piles that were less stiff (thinner gravel
layer below the helix) would attract less load and displace more,
and hence the load would distribute across the foundation system
to achieve displacement compatibility. This process of load-
redistribution across the foundation system occurs due to the
super structure configuration and also the stiff ground beam
grillage that connects all piles, allowing the load to be transferred
between piles.
A performance-based design approach allowed the full load-
displacement relationship on each foundation element to be
captured in the structural model. The capacity-based design
approach, however, requires secant stiffnesses to be used in the
structural model with numerous iterations required to ensure
displacement compatibility of all foundation elements. Given the
complex ground conditions and the number of different springs
that needed to be considered, a capacity-based approach would
be highly inefficient as an independent check would need to be
completed on each individual pile for each design iteration. This
would lead to significant design costs and may still yield
conservative results due to the simplification of adopting a secant
stiffness.
The ease of not requiring multiple iterations for one design
case allowed the effects of liquefaction to be easily considered in
comparison to a capacity-based approach. A performance-based
approach allowed the structural engineer to easily consider both
the upper and lower (liquified) bound design cases within the
same structural model. The structural engineer was also able to
consider both spring bounds in multiple design states including
Serviceability Limit State (SLS), ULS and MCE, allowing the
full range of design actions and displacements of the foundation
and building to be captured and compared to the performance
criteria. To achieve a full range of design actions and
displacements using a capacity-based approach would require
significant design involvement as each spring bound (lower and
upper bound) and each design limit state would require several
manual iterations.
Through collaboration with the project structural engineer, it
was identified that the existing screw pile foundations could be
re-used. The calculated range of performance metrics for each
design limit state for both the upper and lower bound conditions
were found to be within the set performance standards. Hence the
re-use of the existing foundations within a replacement building
resulted in a structural performance that was in compliance with
the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code.
The raft foundation solution was avoided which mitigated the
negative project implications and risks associated with it. The
concrete raft foundation solution would have significant
environmental impacts in comparison to re-using the existing
foundations. The raft foundation would include a significant
amount of embodied carbon which would need to be considered
in addition to the embodied carbon of the existing screw piles. In
addition, the removal of a large amount of contaminated material
would have a significant environmental impact as this material
would need to be disposed of at a managed landfill facility and
could not be re-used as fill on a nearby site.
A performance-based design also allowed the increased
project costs and time associated with a concrete raft foundation
to be avoided. The re-use of the existing foundation solution also
ensured a more constructable design as it minimised below
ground works which helped to reduce project risk and uncertainty
moving into construction.
6 CONCLUSION
This paper has shown how a performance-based design approach
allowed the re-use of an existing foundation system where a
capacity-based design approach would have made this difficult.
A performance-based approach in the appropriate scenario can
demonstrate compliance with the NZ Building code as an
alternative to a simplified capacity-based design approach and
can result in beneficial design and construction outcomes.
If a capacity-based approach was adopted in the case study
presented in this paper an alternative foundation solution would
have likely been proposed. Whereas a performance-based design
approach avoided the need for a new foundation and mitigated
the negative environmental, time and cost outcomes. It was also
concluded in the case study that more detailed analysis methods
could be used to minimise environmental impacts as more
sustainable construction practices become desired or potentially
required by local or central regulations.
Given the significant cost, time, and environmental benefits,
performance-based design should be considered regularly as part
of detailed design. Whilst capacity-based approaches are
typically simpler to undertake, these designs can often be
overconservative and difficult to construct. A performance-based
design approach can be used to remove some of the conservatism
and improve constructability by adopting more detailed analysis.
It is important for geotechnical practitioners along with their
structural engineering counterparts to not simply consider the
design in isolation, but rather consider effects such as
constructability, environmental impacts, programme impacts and
cost to ensure more efficient solutions are obtained.
7 REFERENCES
Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, I. M. (2014). CPT and SPT based
liquefaction triggering procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM-
14/01.
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2008). Soil liquefaction during
earthquakes, MNO–12. Oakland, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
Kramer, S. L., & Wang, C. (2015). Empirical model for
estimation of residual strength of liquified soil. Journal of
geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 141(9).
MBIE (1992). Building Regulations 1992. Schedule 1. The
building code. Version as at 15 November 2021. SR
1992/150.
MBIE. (2021a). Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods
for New Zealand Building Code Clause B1.
MBIE, & NZGS. (2021b). Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
Module 4 – Earthquake Resistant Foundation Design.
New Zealand Standards. (2016). NZS 1170.5:2004, Structural
design actions – Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand.
Wellington, New Zealand. Standards New Zealand.
Weber, J. P., Seed, R. B., Pestana, J. M., Moss, R. E., Nweke, C.,
Deger, T. T., & Chowdhury, K. (2015). Engineering
evaluation of post liquefaction strength. Berkeley:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley.