A

PROJECT REPORT ON

“FAILURE OF FOUNDATION DUE TO EARTHQUAKE”

Dissertation submitted to the

Gandhi Institute of Excellent Technocrats, Bhubaneswar

For the partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree of

BACHOLER IN TECHNOLOGY
In

Civil Engineering

Submitted by:

PADMALOCHAN BHUYAN 2001348003

Under the esteemed guidance of

Prof. Rajesh Mahakuda

Department of Civil Engineering

GANDHI INSTITUTE OF EXCELLENT TECHNOCRATS, BHUBANESWAR
2023-24
 Gandhi Institute of Excellent Technocrats, Bhubaneswar
Santi Niketan, Ghangapatana PO: Kantabada, Bhubaneswar Dist: Khurda,
Odisha, Pin: 752054
(Approved by AICTE, Govt. of Orissa and Affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of Technology)

 : 0674-2541843/2542842, 0674-2554844
e-mail: info@gietbbsr.edu.in visit us at www. https://www.gietbbsr.edu.in

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “FAILURE OF

FOUNDATION DUE TO EARTHQUAKE” submitted by
Padmalochan Bhuyan to the Civil Engineering Department,
Gandhi Institute of Excellent Technocrats, Bhubaneswar for the
partial fulfillment award of the degree of B.Tech. Civil Engineering
is a record of bonafide work carried out by them under my
supervision and guidance.

To the best of my knowledge, the results embodied in this

dissertation have not been submitted to any University/Institute for
the award of any other degree.

PROJECT GUIDE HOD, CE

EXTERNAL EXAMINER
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a great pleasure and privilege to express our heartfelt thanks to

Dr. Niyati Naik, Head of the Department, Civil Engineering for her time-to-
time suggestions, motivation and support to complete my thesis work on time.

We express my sincere gratitude towards, our project guide Prof.

Rajesh Mahakuda for his helpful and guidance throughout our research
work. It is greatest privilegefor us to work under his guidance. During our
project work, we have been deeply impressed by his quality of perseverance
and close attention. We feel immense pleasure and proud to put on record
our deepest gratitude for his affectionate guidance, valuable instructions,
peerless and constructive criticism and constant encouragement.

In the last but not the least, special thanks to our parents and
college teachersfor their continuous effort and motivation. We finally thank
all the well-wishers and friends who directly or indirectly help us in
successful completion of project work.

Padmalochan Bhuyan
 ABSTRACT
As we know, shaking due to seismic waves causes damage to buildings.
The damage may be influenced by the characteristics of soil in the
affected area. The objective of the paper is to show the effect of the
earthquake on different types of foundations such as shallow, mat/raft,
pile and structures like gravity dam, arch dam etc. The reaction of soil to
the loading of the building when a building undergoes an earthquake
disturbance as a behaviour of deflection is known as the soil structure
interaction. The movement of ground during the Earthquake induces
kinematic and inertial loading which decreases the bearing capacity and
increments the settlement of shallow foundations. In seismic regions,
where kinematic interactions have been observed, the mat foundations
experiences overturning moments. Pile foundations are influenced by
both kinematic and inertial interactions which causes many failures. The
convoluted oscillating arrangement of acceleration and ground motion in
a gravity dam, developing ephemeral dynamic loads because of inertia of
dam and confined water is the seismic activity generated in these dams.
The arch dam foundations undergoes effects of inertia and flexibility due
to the propagation of seismic waves.
 CONTENT
• AKNOWLEDGMENT

• ABSTACT

• CONTENT

• LIST OF FIGURE

Sl. Title Pg. No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3

3. DEFINATIONS AND TYPES 12

4. FAILURE OF FOUNDATION 21

5. GENERAL PRINCIPLE 27

6. THE SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION 29

7. DESIGN CRITERIA 36

8. CONCLUSION 50

9. REFERENCES 51
 LIST OF FIGURE
1 Image of tectonic earthquake
2 Image of volcanic earthquake
3 Figure of an explosion earthquake
4 Details of earthquake zone in India
5 Shallow foundation
6 Deep foundation
7 Post earthquake pile configuration
8 Building at SanFernado Vally hall, California earthquake
9 Cros section of pile configuration of Rokko Island
10 Waterfront side, exposing foundation elements
11 Beam-to-column stiffness ratio
12 Relative distribution of story shear
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A member of a structure that connects it to the ground and distribute loads to
the ground is Foundation. There are different types of foundation for different
purposes. Modern types of foundation are Shallow foundation and Deep
foundation. Foundations are constructed to bear sufficient load capacity
depending on the type of subsoil aiding the foundation. The settling of the
foundation below the level of initial construction to a point where damage
has already been happened is known as foundation failure. The extent of
damage ensuing from earthquakes in the earthquake affected area is
stimulated by the behaviour of the soil. Here the damage is linked to the
overall vulnerability of the soil which leads to enormous permanent
movements of the lower surface. Thus, for an example, deposition of granular
soils is compressed by the vibrations caused by the earthquake that develops
massive and differential settlements in the lower surface. During earthquake,
the soil consisting of loose granular materials, leads to inclination and
settlement of structures. The soil-structure interaction (SSI) influences the
structures' seismic response. Collapse of buildings resting on piles in damp
soils are noticed after most earthquakes, like the survey after 1995 Kobe
earthquake Niigata earthquake in 1964 and the 2001 Bhuj earthquake the
application to the ground motion for site specific SSI analysis is presented. In
several earthquake-prone regions shallow foundations are used for small size
structures. The bearing capability of a shallow foundation is decreased when
the horizontal loads and rocking moments acts on the foundation. The
reaction of pile during seismic loading includes the evaluation of kinematic
curving that occurs due to the sideward displacement of a pile along with the
mechanical phenomenon forces acting on the cap mass that imitates the

1
structure. Here we discuss about the impact of earthquake on different types
of foundation.

2
 Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction

The ongoing chapter magnifies the review of previous researches in the relative field
on study of parameters of geometrically irregular and regular building. It has been seen
that a number of studies had been carried out by number of researchers on building
designs, comparison of designing software and seismic analysis etc. The available
literature in related to this study had been gone through and elaborated in details in the
following sections. With incorporation of the above, critical observation extracted
from the previous studies are mentioned. Keeping in view of the objective and scope
of ongoing research work has been presented in the chapter.

Review of literature

Griffith and Pinto (2000) had worked to find the details of a 4-story, 3-bay reinforced
concrete frame structure with unreinforced brickwork infill walls with consideration to
their weaknesses with respects to seismic-loads. The concrete frame was described as
a “weak-column strong-beam frame” which is probable exhibits poor post yield
hysteretic behaviour. The structure was predicted to have maximum lateral
deformation capacities consistent to about 2% lateral drift. The infill walls which were
not reinforced were likely to begin cracking at much smaller lateral drifts, of the order
of 0.3%, and completely lost their load carrying ability by drifts of between 1% and
2%.

Sarno et al. (2003) executed seismic analysis with regular steel frame and irregular
steel frame structures of 50 sets which were of stainless steel using pushover analysis
according to the global parameters i.e. deformation, resistance, possible redistribution
and energy absorption capacity etc. and concluded that stainless steel spreading
3
throughout the members affected the increment of inelastic performance of the
structure. And the use of steel column improved the rigidity dispersion and energy
absorption capacity of the structure.

Bagheri et al. (2012) studied on multi-storey irregular buildings having 20 stories

have been designed using software packages like ETABS and SAP 2000 v.15 for
earthquake zone V in India. Contrast is created between static as well as dynamic
analysis of multistorey irregular building. The result of corresponding static analysis
are almost found to be uneconomical because values of displacement are greater than
dynamic analysis.

Zende et al. (2013) had worked on to compare study of analysis as well as design of
pre-engineered buildings and conventional frames. Staad Pro software package has
been used to find out analysed and design Pre-engineered building structures and
conventional structures. In the first illustration, a 3D model has been modelled of a
Hostel building and equated with conventional structure using conventional steel. In
the second illustration, a 2D plane frame is taken into account having width of 44m
long for both P.E.B and conventional has been modelled and results are compared as
in terms of weight of steel Pre-Engineered Building Construction gives the end users a
better economical and good solution for structures with long span where large columns
free areas are needed.

Manikanta et al. (2018) had researched about the way of acting of beams and
columns at different storeys. It was concluded that the highest axial force produced at
the ground floor columns, so the reinforcement required for second floor beams should
be more or maximum.

Kumar and Choppa Sravan (2018) The effects of numerous vertical abnormalities
on the structure's seismic response are the focus of this thesis. The project's goal is to
perform Push Over Analysis and Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) on vertically
asymmetric RC construction frames. It is done to compare the outcomes of irregular

4
and regular architectures. Both vertical and mass irregularity were taken into
consideration throughout this. The first story was found to have the highest story shear
force, whereas the top stories had the lowest story shear force. Larger base shear was
detected in irregular structures within this bulk than in comparable regular structures.
If a building has four to eight stories, it is considered to have a tall structure (low
natural frequency) and is hence more earthquake-prone. Therefore, the G+7 storey
building is taken into account in this study.

Reddy et al. (2018) had investigated to compare the design results with the help of
designing software tool STAAD PRO and ETABS. In this study the building was
designed in both the software without changing the design parameters. The building
was also designed by considering two cases in geometrically regular and geometrically
irregular building structure respectively. From this study it was found that more steel is
being used in geometrically regular structure than geometrically irregular structure. In
staad pro the nodal displacement of structure is more than the design result of etabs. In
comparison to geometrically regular and irregular structure the geometrically irregular
structure has more nodal displacement than geometrically regular structure.

Sahu et al. (2019) had researched about the statistical response of RC building. As the
dynamic responses vary in nature as there is changes in geometrical shape of structure.
In this study he has used a meta model approach HDMR that is high dimensional
model representation HDMR method found to yield output responses with similar
accuracy with lowest computational effort compared to other metamodel-based
approaches for both the examples considered in this study. The results illustrates that
the insignificant random parameters may be excluded from the analysis with help of
HDMR metamodel to generate the calculation effort future with much accuracy. This
investigation endeavoured to use the HDMR metamodel process to create seismic
fragility curves of Reinforced Concrete framed buildings. This study assures that the
approach involves much lesser computation compared to other traditional methods.

5
The different parameters having effect on fundamental period of reinforced concrete
buildings. The research includes the modal analysis of building with infill walls and as
well as without infill walls which had been investigated by Kose (2009). In this study
it was found that reinforced concrete frame building which includes infill walls retains
less period, which was in the range of 5%–10%, in comparison with reinforced
concrete frame building which does not include infill walls irrespective of whether the
shear walls is present or not. The existence of shear walls as well lead to decrease of
fundamental period which ranges from 6%–10%, between models with and without
infill walls.

Wijaya et al. (2019) evaluated the uncertainty related with parameters of the hysteric
steel damper design affecting the probabilistic earthquake behaviour of two steel
buildings designed according to European standard design code. With use of the
Optimized Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) technique the uncertainties connected
with the parameters of damper design assimilated to achieve different confidence level.
The result shown that under mid to high seismic levels, the structural performance of
the building was enhanced substantially in the presence of damper while the
application of damper was found to be not sufficient at low seismic level.

Cao et al. (2020) did numerical analysis considering the outcome of cycling strength
degradation and local buckling adopting fatigue model using Opensees to evaluate the
ultimate seismic response of wide-flange columns in high-rise steel frame. The result
showed that the peak and ultimate shear force and bending moment decreased when
the ratio of axial load increased. If moment capacity ratio increased the yield moment
increased but its increment caused the reduction of ultimate shear force, shear force
capacity and ultimate moment.

Esteghamati and Farzampour (2020) investigated the effect of butterfly- shape fuses
on the seismic behaviour and inducing seismic loss of a multi-story building with
eccentrically braces the study showed that BF fused building had a lesser probability

6
of surpassing drift-related damage states, and the difference incremented at more
severe states. At higher damage state there was an increment of probability of both
butterfly fuses and eccentric BF fuses from acceleration-based limit. BF fuses effected
significantly on the lower story. Etli and Güneyisi (2020) Investigated the performance
assessment of regular and irregular composite moment resisting frames (CMRFs) by
using several parameters by performing incremental dynamic analysis and pushover
analysis having two lateral loads. The observed findings were the structures lost their
elasticity because they gained the global yielding position due to earthquake design
effect. The load-displacement responses of the case study structures indicated that they
behaved in a ductile manner under the given earthquake. That the lowest response
modification factors based on the pushover analysis with uniform and triangular load
distributions for the regular CMRFs were gathered as 1.80 and 1.44 times of the
behaviour factor used in the design, respectively.

Jalaeefar and Zargar (2020) investigated the behaviour of reinforced concrete frame
with the inclusion of infill walls during seismic shaking by designing three cases of 4,
8 and 12 storey RC frames with and without including infill walls using Opensees by
applying pushover analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis. The results indicated that
although because of the presence of the infill the strength and stiffness increased but
the ductility and energy absorption were being reduced in the presence of infill causing
to cracking and destruction of the infill walls. Although bare frame contained lower
strength and stiffness, it didn’t loss strength abruptly during the seismic shakings as
compare to infill walls.

Tripani et al. (2020) provided a framework to evaluate and compare the traditional
infill and innovative infill with sliding joint sub-panels effecting masonry reinforced
concrete frame. The result indicated that the sliding joint infilled frame behaved nearly
similar as compare to the traditional infills and the use of joint slide infilled frame was
very effective for improving reliability and reducing losses during the service life of
RC masonry structure.
7
Tao et al. (2021) studied the seismic behaviour and the earthquake design factors of 6
storey, 12 storeys and 32 storey masonry steel building by using the nonlinear static
analysis and nonlinear bi-directional time history analysis approach. The estimation of
the ductility and retained strength of each masonry steel building was done by using
pushover curves. The study showed that the ultimate transit inter-story drift of the 6
and 12 story masonry steel building did not surpass the state of collapse prevention
damage under MCE hazard level.

Talley et al. (2021) evaluated the effectiveness of inerter damper, viscous tuned mass
damper, rotational inertia viscous damper to achieve the reduction of the earth quake
behaviour and inelastic response of the building structure. The experiment showed that
the performance of the inerter based damper improved with the increased inertance
ratios. The effectiveness of inerter based damper degraded at higher levels of ground
motion intensity. The tuned inerter damper was effective in regulating the drift
behaviour of the structure.

Shabani and Kioumarsi (2022) developed a new macro element for nonlinear
modelling of unreinforced masonry buildings based on multiple vertical line element
method to execute earthquake analysis with satisfactory speed and accuracy. The test
indicated that the MD-MVLEM method was a good tool for the seismic analysis for
normal unreinforced masonry building.

Hays (1998) comments on some of the principle lessons learned from the ‘‘scientific
laboratories’’ of past damaging earthquakes, one of which is ‘‘failing to identify soils
and slopes susceptible to permanent ground displacement’’. Time and again it has
been seen that the occurrence of liquefaction in loose cohesionless soils, and the
occurrence of instabilities in slopes with marginal static safety factors were easily
predictable from analyses of case history data. The identification of vulnerable sites
through microzonation, and improved land use planning around these zones, would
significantly reduce the damage and disruption associated with the phenomenon of

8
ground failure. However, as shown in this paper, such lessons have not yet been put
into practice. This paper is written from the perspective of earthquake loss estimations
and therefore it is the current state of practice that is relevant. The current state of
practice with relation to earthquake-induced ground failure is that in certain
environments, ground failure continues to be an important—and predictable—hazard.
Those involved in earthquake loss modelling are currently presented with three
choices with respect to the incorporation of ground failure: they can choose to ignore it,
assuming that any estimation of losses caused by shaking would effectively subsume
the impact of such secondary hazards; they can include ground failure in a simple
manner, using published approaches based upon qualitative data and a large degree of
judgement; or, they can opt for a detailed assessment by specialists of damage due to
ground failure, with the associated time and expense. The first approach described was
adopted in the loss model for the Turkish Catastrophe Insurance Pool (Bommer et al.,
2002a) due to the very large scale of the study and also the relatively low impact of
geotechnical hazards in urban areas.

The HAZUS (FEMA, 2001) loss estimation methodology comprises a default

approach which is the second of these options, and also allows for an expertgenerated
ground failure assessment, which is the third option. The default approach is based
upon a number of necessary simplifications in terms of the susceptibility of ground
failure, the expected permanent ground deformation (PGD) and the relationship
between PGD and damage. However, it has the disadvantage for users that despite the
simplifications and assumptions made with respect to the output, it requires reasonably
complex input data, in the form of maps of landslide or liquefaction susceptibility,
based upon the geological descriptions in the case of liquefaction, and upon different
criteria, related to the slope classification, for landslides.

Such maps are separate to and distinct from the primary input for site effects, which
use the widely adopted NEHRP site classification system (Dobry et al., 2000). This
9
poses a problem for users in that additional data collection and analysis is required to
prepare the input for the ground failure component, despite the significant
uncertainties related to the output. Furthermore, the output, in terms of the probability
of a building being in a certain damage state due to ground failure, is simplistic in
comparison to the ground shaking model and so there is an apparent inconsistency
between the complexity of the input and the simplification of the output.
The three-dimensional seismic analysis of the La Villita dam has been evaluated using
3D approach (Elgamal 1992). Two seismic records and bedrock observation have
been practically analysed using numerical analysis. Figures 3 and 4 show the
threedimensional (3D) comparative study indicated the good agreement between
observed and numerical method analyses results. Maximum acceleration was located
in the middle of the crest for UD (upstream to downstream) while it was very close to
the abutment for vertical and longitudinal directions. It has also excellent agreement
with the results of sliding-block method. The elastic seismic response of earth dams by
canyon interaction was studied (Papalou and Bielak 2001) which indicated that
numerical analysis is a suitable approach, because the classification of results at
different points are possible in comprehensive model. However, this research has been
particularly carried by a linear method and emphasized that the increase of shear wave
velocity in the rock led to an increase in shear strain and displacement. It also focused
on the linear method for interaction effect about canyon and dam. In brief, the peak
ground acceleration recorded exactly in the middle of the crest. It shows five key
points on the crest, in order to compare results. It also shows the distributed
acceleration in the main points and maximum acceleration in the middle of the crest
(See-C). The acceleration as distributed in different points like A, B, C, D, and E. It is
worth noting that the interaction between dam and canyon is the significant factor.
Stability of rock-fill dam considering the influence of the geometry has been evaluated
(Yu et al. 2005). As observed, the dimension ratio between length and height (g)
emphasised the adequate influence in the 3D analysis. It is worth noting that, factor of
safety can be reduced when this ratio increased. The relationship between both ratios
10
has been considered based on Eq. 1. In brief, the plane strain (2D) method exhibited
little effect on both ratios. The relations between length to height and safety factor is in
the below equation.

11
 CHAPTER 3
DEFINATIONS AND TYPES
Definition:-
Earthquake:
An earthquake (also known as a quake, tremor or temblor) is the shaking of
the surface of the Earth, resulting from the sudden release of energy in the
Earth's lithosphere that creates seismic waves.
Foundation:
A foundation (or, more commonly, base) is the element of an architectural
structure which connects it to the ground, and transfers loads from the
structure to the ground.
Types of earthquake:-
1. Tectonic
2. Volcanic
3. Collapse and explosion

• A tectonic earthquake is one that occurs when the earth's crust breaks due
to geological forces on rocks and adjoining plates that cause physical and
chemical changes.
• Also when tectonic plates become stuck and pressure builds up and when
the plates finally release, the movement it causes a tectonic earthquake.
• Types of tectonic earthquakes:
- Shallow fault earthquakes
- Subduction zone earthquakes
- Deep earthquakes

12
• A volcanic earthquake is any earthquake that results from tectonic forces
which occur in conjunction with volcanic activity.

• A collapse earthquake are small earthquakes in underground caverns and

mines that are caused by seismic waves produced from the explosion of
rock on the surface.
• An explosion earthquake is an earthquake that is the result of the
detonation of a nuclear and/or chemical device.

13
Measurement of Earthquakes:-
Earthquake strength is commonly measured in two ways: with the Richter
scale and with the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. The Richter scale
measures magnitude as an indirect measure of released energy based on
instrument recordings according to certain defined procedures. The scale runs
from zero at the low end and is open at the upper end, although the largest
earthquake ever recorded had a Richter magnitude of nine. The scale is
logarithmic, each whole number value on the scale represents a tenfold
increase in amplitude. In terms of energy released, each scale number
represents about 32 times the amount of energy below it. The Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale is a measure of an earthquake's intensity. It is an
entirely subjective rating based on the observed damage to structures and
other physical effects. The scale ranges from I to XII, with the upper rating
being the most severe. Each scale includes a verbal description of the effects
and damage of an earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Scale is imprecise
because it depends on people's observations, but it does provide information
on how an earthquake affects structures and how the same earthquake affects
areas at different distances from the epicentre, both of which cannot be

14
accounted for with the Richter scale. Unfortunately for building design,
neither scale is useful. This is because neither provides any information on
the acceleration or duration of an earthquake, both of which are critical in the
analysis and design of structures. However, they are used for risk analysis
and determination of seismic zones. Objective, quantified data useful for
building design is provided by the strong motion accelerograph. This
machine measures the acceleration of the ground or a building. The BIS
requires that in seismic zones 3 and 4 every building over 6 stories with an
aggregate floor area of 60,000 square feet or more, and every building over
10 stories regardless of floor area, be provided with not less than three
accelerographs. These must be placed in the basement, mid portion, and near
the top of the building. Some jurisdictions may have additional requirements.
The records obtained by these instruments provide valuable data for research
and design of similar buildings in the same geographical area. The
acceleration they measure is usually expressed as a fraction of the
acceleration of gravity, g, which is 32 feet per second per second. Thus, an
earthquake may be recorded as having an acceleration of 0.55g.

Characteristics of Earthquakes:-
Earthquakes are caused by the slippage of adjacent plates of the earth's crust
and the subsequent release of energy in the form of ground waves.
Seismology is based on the science of plate tectonics, which proposes that the
earth is composed of several very large plates of hard crust many miles thick,
riding on a layer of molten rock closer to the earth's core. These plates are
slowly moving relative to one another, and over time tremendous stress is
built up by friction. Occasionally the two plates slip, releasing the energy we
know as earthquakes. One of the most well known boundaries between two
plates occurs between the Pacific plate and the North American plate along

15
the coast of California. Earthquakes also occur in mid plates, but the exact
mechanism, other than fault slippage, is not fully understood. The plates slip
where the stress is maximum, usually several miles below the surface of the
earth. Where this occurs is called the hypocenter of the earthquake. The term
heard more often is the epicenter, which is the point on the earth's surface
directly above the hypocenter. When an earthquake occurs, complex actions
are set up. One result is the development of waves that ultimately produce the
shaking experienced in a building. There are three types of waves: P or
pressure waves, S or shear waves, and surface waves. Pressure waves cause a
relatively small movement in the direction of wave travel. Shear waves
produce a sideways or up-and-down motion that shakes the ground in three
directions. These are the waves that cause the most damage to buildings.
Surface waves travel at or near the surface and can cause both vertical and
horizontal earth movement. The ground movement can be measured in three
ways: by acceleration, velocity, and displacement. All three occur over time,
with most earthquakes lasting only a few seconds. It is the acceleration of the
ground that induces forces on a structure. The interaction of the various
waves and ground movement is complex. Not only does the earth move in
three directions, but each direction has a different, random acceleration and
amplitude. In addition, the movement reverses, creating a vibrating action.
Even though there is vertical movement, the BIS allows it to be neglected
under certain types of seismic design. The weight of a structure is usually
enough to resist vertical forces. It is the side- to-side movement that causes
the most.

16
Seismic Zones:-
Based on seismic records, experience, and research, some areas of the India
are determined to have a greater probability of earthquakes than others, and
some areas have more severe earthquakes areas where two major plates abut,
for examples. This is taken into account by dividing the country into different
zones that represents times of future earthquake occurrence and strength. The
map used by the BIS is shown in Figure. The procedure for incorporating the
zones will be discussed in a later section.

17
18
Types of foundation:-
Foundations are generally considered two types, either shallow or deep.

Shallow foundation:
Shallow foundations, often called footings, are usually embedded about a
metre or so into soil. One common type is the spread footing which consists
of strips or pads of concrete (or other materials) which extend below the frost
line and transfer the weight from walls and columns to the soil or bedrock.

Another common type of shallow foundation is the slab-on-grade foundation

where the weight of the building is transferred to the soil through a concrete
slab placed at the surface. Slab-on-grade foundations can be reinforced mat
slabs, which range from 25 cm to several meters thick, depending on the size
of the building, or post-tensioned slabs, which are typically at least 20 cm for
houses, and thicker for heavier structures.

19
Deep foundation:
A deep foundation is used to transfer the load of a structure down through the
upper weak layer of topsoil to the stronger layer of subsoil below. There are
different types of deep footings including impact driven piles, drilled shafts,
caissons, helical piles, geo-piers and earth stabilized columns. The naming
conventions for different types of footings vary between different engineers.
Historically, piles were wood, later steel, reinforced concrete, and pretension
concrete.

20
 CHAPTER 4
FAILURE OF FOUNDATION

Failure in foundations can be due to various reasons such as Lateral

movement of soil adjacent to the structure, Unequal settlement of sub-soil,
Overturning of the structure due to lateral pressure, Unequal settlement of the
masonry, contraction due to removal of moisture from the soil beneath the
foundation, Action of atmosphere, Lateral escape of the soil below the
foundation etc. The effects of foundation failures can range from bulging
floors to cracked walls to displaced moulding. The external signs are wall
rotation, cracked and/or broken foundation, separation around garage door,
windows and/or walls, cracked bricks. While the internal hints are cracks on
floors, disordered door sand windows, broken sheetrock. The ground
deformations which are permanent completely break the structure. Some
foundation types can resist these permanent ground deformity. Most damage
in a building is a result of ground movement. The building's foundations
vibrate in the same way as the surrounding ground when the ground shakes at
the building site. The building reaction to an earthquake movement occurs
over a few seconds. During this time, many kinds of seismic waves combine
to vibrate the building in ways that are distinct in detail. Additionally, as an
outcome of various geological nature of every site, deviations in fault
seepage, different rocks in which the waves travel, overall shaking at every
site is different. The aspect of every buildings are varied in method of
analysis configuration, dimension, age, architectural system, or quality of
construction. The above aspects affects the reaction of the building. Instead
of the complex nature of the interactions among the building and ground
within the few seconds of movement there is wide understanding of how

21
differently building types can perform under the different conditions. During
earthquakes, when external forces act on the system, neither the structural
displacements nor ground displacements are independent of each other

22
A building divided into two parts due to earthquake.

23
Cross section showing pile configuration for a building on Rokko
Island, Kobe, Japan. Area was shaken by 1995 Kobe, Japan
Earthquake. Liquefaction and ground settlement (average 0.75 m)
occurred without significant structural damage to buildings on pile
foundations. Piles have proven effective structural mitigation
measure against liquefaction at sites with tolerable lateral ground
displacement.

24
Waterfront side of ferry Building showing pavement that settled
and pulled away from building due to liquefaction and lateral
spread, exposing foundation Element.

25
Moment frame with small beam-to-column stiffness ratio, and (b) equivalent
static lateral force distribution from dynamic analysis and IBC expression
(Chopra 2005).

26
 CHAPTER 5
GENERAL PRINCIPLE
General Principles :
Ground Motion
The characteristics (intensity, duration, etc) of seismic ground vibrations
expected at any location depends upon the magnitude of earthquake, its depth
of focus. Distance from the epicentre, characteristics of the path through
which the seismic waves travel, and the soil strata on which the structure
stands. The random earthquake ground motions, which cause the structure to
vibrate, can be resolved in any three mutually perpendicular directions. The
predominant direction of ground vibration is usually horizontal. Earthquake-
generated vertical inertia forces are lo be considered in design unless checked
and proven In specimen calculations to be not significant Vertical
acceleration should be considered in structures with large spans, those in
which stability is a criterion for design, or for overall stability analysis of
structures Reduction in gravity force due to vertical component of ground
motions can be particularly detrimental in cases of prestressed horizontal
membe and of cantilevered members Hence, special attention should be paid
to the effect of vertical component of the ground motion on prestressed or
cantilevered beams, girders and slabs.

The response of a structure to ground vibration is a function of the nature of

foundation soil: materials, from, size and mode of construction of structures
and the duration and characteristics of ground motion I Ins standard 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.

27
The design approach adopted in tins standard is to ensure that structures
possess at least a minimum strength to withstand minor earthquakes (<DBE),
which occur frequently, without damage; resist moderate earthquakes (DBE)
without significant structural damage though some non-structural damage
may occur, and aims that structures withstand a major earthquake (MCE)
without collapse. Actual forces that appear on structures during earthquakes
are much greater than the design forces specified in this standard. However,
ductility, arising from inelastic material behaviour and detailing, and over
strength, arising from the additional reserve strength in structures over and
above the design strength, are relied upon to account for this difference in
actual and design lateral loads. Reinforced and prestressed concrete members
shall be suitably designed to ensure that premature failure due to shear or
bond does not occur, subject to the provisions-of IS 456 and IS 1343.
Provisions for appropriate ductile detailing of reinforced concrete members
are given in IS 13920. In steel structures, members and their connections
should be so proportioned that high ductility is obtained. Avoiding premature
failure due to elastic or inelastic buckling of any type. The specified
earthquake loads are based upon post-elastic energy dissipation in the
structure and because of this fact, the provision of this standard for design,
detailing and construction shall be satisfied even for structures and members
for which load combinations that do not contain the earthquake effect
indicate larger demands than combinations including earthquake.

28
 CHAPTER 6
THE SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION

The soil-structure interaction refers to the effects of the supporting

foundation medium on the motion of structure. The soil-structure interaction
may not be considered in the seismic analysis for structures supported on
rock or rock-like material.

The design lateral force sped tied in this standard shall the considered in each
of (lie two orthogonal horizontal directions of the structure).For structures
which have lateral force resisting elements in the two orthogonal directions
only, the design lateral force shall be considered along one direction at a time,
and not in both directions simultaneously. Structures, having lateral force
resisting elements (for example frames, shear walls) in directions other than
the two orthogonal directions, shall be analysed considering tin; load
combinations Where both horizontal and vertical seismic forces are taken
into account, load combinations shall be considered.

Equipment and oilier systems, which are supported al various floor

levels of the structure, will be subjected to motions corresponding to
vibration their support points. In important cases, it may be necessary to
obtain floor response spectra for design of equipment supports.

29
Additions to Existing Structures
Additions shall be made to existing structures only as follows:

a) An addition that is structurally independent from an existing structures

shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the seismic
requirements for new structures.

b) An addition that is not structurally independent from an existing structure

shall be designed and constructed such that the entire structure conforms to
the seismic force resistance requirements for new structures unless the
following three conditions are complied with

1) The addition shall comply with the requirements for new structures,

2) The addition shall not increase the seismic forces in any structural
elements of the existing structure by more than 5 percent unless the
capacity of the element subject to the increased force is still in
compliance with this standard, and

3) The addition shall not decrease the seismic resistance of any

structural element of the existing structure unless reduced resistance is
equal to or greater than that required for new structures.

Change in Occupancy
When a change of occupancy results in a structure being re-classified to a
higher Importance factor (I), the structure shall conform to the seismic
requirements for a new structure with the higher importance factor.

30
Assumptions:-
The following assumptions shall be made in the earthquake resistant design
of structures:

a) Earthquake causes impulsive ground motions, which are complex and

irregular in character, changing in period and amplitude each lasting for a
small duration. Therefore, resonance of the type as visualised under steady-
state sinusoidal excitations, will not occur as it would need time to build up
such amplitudes.

b) Earthquake is not likely to occur simultaneously with wind or maximum

flood or maximum sea waves.

c) The value of elastic modulus of materials, wherever required, may be

taken as for static analysis unless a more definite value is available for use in
such condition

Load Combination and Increase in Permissible Stresses

Load Combinations

When earthquake forces are considered on a structure, these shall be

combined. Where the terms DL, IL and EL stand for the response quantities
due to dead load, imposed load and designated earthquake load respectively.

31
Load factors for plastic design of steel structures:

In the plastic design of steel structures, the following load combinations shall
be accounted for:
1) 1.7 (DL+IL)
2) 1.7 (DL+EL)
3) 1.3 (DLL+IL+FL)

Partial safety factors for limit state design of reinforced concrete and
prestressed concrete structures:
In the limit state design of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, the
following load combinations shall be accounted for:

1) 1.5(DL+!L)

2) 1.2(OL+IL + EL)

3) 1.5(DL + EL)

4) Q.9DL + 1.5EL

Design Horizontal Earthquake Load:

When the lateral load resisting elements are oriented along orthogonal
horizontal direction, the structure shall be designed for the effects due to full
design earthquake load in one horizontal direction at time.

32
When the lateral load resisting elements are not oriented along the orthogonal
horizontal directions, the structure shall be designed for the effects due to full
design earthquake load in one horizontal direction plus 30 percent of the
design earthquake load in the other direction.

Design Vertical Earthquake Load:

When effects due to vertical earthquake loads are to be considered, the design
vertical force shall be calculated in accordance.

Combination for Two or Three Component Motion:

When responses from the three earthquake components are to be considered,
the responses due to each component may be combined using the assumption
that when the maximum response from one component occurs, the responses
from the other two component are 30 percent of their maximum. All possible
combinations of the three components (ELx, ELy and ELz) including
variations in sign (plus or minus) shall be considered. Thus, the response due
earthquake force (EL) is the maximum of the following three cases:

1) ±ELx ± 0.3 Ely ± 0.3 ELz

2) ±ELy ± 0.3 ELx ± 0.3 ELz
3) ±ELz ± 0.3 ELx ± 0.3 ELy
where x and y are two orthogonal directions and z is vertical direction.

As an alternative to the procedure in the response (EL) due to the combined

effect of the three components can be obtained on the basis of square root of
the sum of the square (SRSS)' that is

EL= √{(ELx)²f + (ELy)² + (ELz)2}

33
When two component motions (say one horizontal and one vertical, or only
two horizontal) are combined, the equations should be modified by deleting
the term representing the response due to the component of motion not being
considered.

Increase in Permissible Stresses:

Increase in permissible stresses in materials:-
When earthquake forces are considered along with other normal design
forces, the permissible stresses in material, in the elastic method of design,
may be increased by one-third. However, for steels having a definite yield
stress, the stress, the stress) limited to the yield stress, for steels without a
definite yield point, the stress will be limited to 80 percent of the ultimate
strength or 0.2 percent proof stress, whichever is smaller, and that in
prestressed concrete members, the tensile stress in the extreme fibers of the
concrete may be permitted so as not to exceed two-thirds of the modulus of
rupture of concrete.

Increase in allowable pressure in soils:

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 the type of soil. 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 H. the vibration caused by carthquake may cause liquefaction or
excessive total and differential settlements. Such sites should preferably be
avoided while locating new settlements or important projects. Otherwise, this
aspect of the problem needs to be investigated and appropriate methods of

34
compaction or stabilization adopted to achieve suitable N-values as indicated
in Note 3 under Table 1.
Alternatively, deep pile foundation may be provided and taken to depths well
into the layer which is not likely to liquefy. 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.

35
 CHAPTER 7
DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Spectrum:
For the purpose of determining seismic forces, the country is classified into
four seismic zones. The design horizontal seismic coefficient for a structure
shall be determined by the following expression:

Ah = (ZISa) / (2Rg)

Provided that for any structure with T≤ 0.1 s, the value of h, A will not be
taken less than Z/2 whatever be the value of where.

Z = Zone factor given in Table 2. is for the Maximum Considered Earthquake

(MCE) and service life of structure in a zone. The factor 2 in the denominator
of Z is used so as to reduce the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
zone factor to the factor for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE).

I = Importance factor, depending upon the functional use of the structures,

characterised by. hazardous consequences of its failure, post earthquake
functional needs, historical value, or economic importance.

R = Response reduction factor, depending on the perceived seismic damage

performance of the structure, characterised by ductile or brittle deformations
However, the ratio (I/R) shall not be greater than 1.0 (Table 7). The values of
R for buildings are given in Table 7.

(S / g) = Average response acceleration coefficient.

36
37
for rock or soil sites based on appropriate natural periods and damping of the
structure.

Where a number of modes are to be considered for dynamic analysis, the

value of Ah. For each mode shall be determined using the natural period of
vibration of that mode.

For underground structures and foundations at depths of 30 m or below, the

design horizontal acceleration spectrum value shall be taken as half the value
obtained.

For structures and foundations placed between the ground level and 30 m
depth, the design horizontal acceleration spectrum value shall be linearly
interpolated between Ah and 0.5 Ah

Where,

Ah = (ZISa) / (2Rg)

The design acceleration spectrum for vertical motions, when required, may
be taken as two-thirds of the design horizontal acceleration spectrum.

38
5 percent spectra for rocky and souls sites and Table 3 gives the multiplying
factors for obtaining spectral values for various other damping.

In case design spectrum is specifically prepared for a structure at a particular

project site, the same may be used for design at the discretion of the project
authorities.

39
Design Lateral Force:

Buildings and portions thereof shall be designed and constructed, to resist the
effects of design lateral force as a minimum. The design lateral force shall
first be computed for the building as a whole. This design lateral force shall
then be distributed to the various floor levels. The overall design seismic
force thus obtained at each floor level shall then be distributed to individual
lateral load resisting elements depending on the floor diaphragm action.
Another difficulty with seismic design is that the forces produced by an
earthquake are so great that no building can economically and reasonably be
designed to completely resist all loads in a major earthquake without damage.
Building codes and analytical methods of design are, therefore, a compromise
between what could resist all earthquakes and what is reasonable. Because of
this, the current approach in designing earthquake resistant structures is that
they should first of all not collapse during major seismie activity.

40
Additionally, the components of buildings should not cause other damage or
personal injury even though they may be structurally damaged themselves.
Finally, structures should be able to withstand minor earthquakes without
significant damage. The analyatie methods of analysis and design of
earthquake-resistant structures are complex, even with the simplified static
analysis method allowed by the Uniform Building Code (BIS). However, a
great deal of resistance is provided by the basic configuration and structural
system of a building. The design of buildings for earthquake loads requires
an early and close collaboration between the architect and engineer to arrive
at the optimum structural design while still satisfying the functional and
aesthetic needs of the client. This chapter will discuss some of the basic
principles of earthquakes and the primary design and planning guidelines
with which you should be familiar. In addition, a basic review of the static
analysis method will be presented along with some simplified problems to
help explain the design concepts.

Design Seismic Base Shear:

The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any
principal direction shall be determined by the following expression:

VB = Ahw

Where, Ah= Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value.

W = Seismic weight of the building.

41
Fundamental Natural Period
The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta), in seconds, of
a moment-resisting frame building without brick infil panels may be
estimated by the empirical expression:

T = 0.075h0.75 for RC frame building

= 0.085h0.75 for steel frame building

where,
h = Height of building, in m. This excludes the basement storeys,
where basement walls are connected with the ground floor deck or fitted
between the building columns.
But, it includes the basement storeys, when they are not so connected.

The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Ta), in seconds, of

all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame buildings with brick
infil panels, may be estimated by the empirical expression:
T = 0.09 / √d

h=Height of building, in m.

b=Base dimension of the building at the plinth level, in m, along the

considered direction of the lateral force.

42
Buildings with Soft Storey:
In case buildings with a flexible storey, such as the ground storey consisting
of open spaces for parking that is Stilt buildings, special arrangement needs
to be made to increase the lateral strength and stiffness of the soft/open storey.

Dynamic analysis of building is carried out including the strength and

stiffness effects of in fills and inelastic deformations in the members,
particularly those in the soft storey, and the members designed accordingly

Alternatively, the following design criteria arc lo be adopted after carrying

out the earthquake analysis, neglecting the effect of infill walls in other storey:

a) the columns and beams of the soft storey are to be designed for 2.5
limes the storey shears and moments calculated under seismic loads
specified in the oilier relevant clauses:

b) besides the columns designed and detailed for the calculated storey
shears and moments. Shear walls placed symmetrically in both
directions of the building as far away from the centre of the building
as feasible: to be designed exclusively for 1 5 times the lateral storey
shear force calculated is before

Storey Drift Limitation:

The storey drill in any storey due to the minimum specified-design lateral
force with partial load factor of 10, shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey
height. For the purposes of displacement requirements only it is permissible
lo use seismic force obtained from the computed fundamental period (T) of
the building without the lower bound limit on design seismic force. There

43
shall be no drift limit for single storey building which has been designed to
accommodate storey drift

MAXIMUM INTERSTORY DRIFT DISTRIBUTIONS:-

Since the suggested lateral force distribution is based on inelastic
response, the structures designed by using such distribution tend to be better
proportioned. In other words, the possibility of overdesign or underdesign in
certain regions is greatly reduced (Fig. 6) shows that on EBI designed by
using the suggested lateral force distribution.

Deformation Compatibility of Non-Seismic Members:

For building located in seismic Zones IV and V, it shall he ensured that the
structural components, that are not a part of the seismic force resisting system
in the direction under consideration, do not lose their vertical carrying
capacity under the induced moments resulting from storey deformations
equal to R times the storey displacements calculated. Where R is taken from
the table below.

44
Separation between Adjacent Units:
Two adjacent buildings, or two adjacent ants of the same building with
separation joint in between shall be separated by a distance equal to the
amount R times the sum of the calculated storey displacements of each of
them, to avoid damaging contact when the two units deflect towards each
other. When floor levels of two similar adjacent units or buildings are at the
same elevation levels, factor R in this requirement may be replaced by R/2.

45
On the other hand, the suggested lateral force distribution (thus, the relative
story shear distribution) is closer to the results obtained from nonlinear
dynamic analyses. It is noted, as shown in Figure 6, that relative story shear
distribution using  = 0.5 generally represents a lower bound of the
nonlinear dynamic analysis results. This would normally lead to larger design
forces at upper floors, which may result in concentration of inelastic
deformation at the lower levels. Further analyses by Chao and Goel (2005
and 2006) show that relative story shear distribution using  = 0.75
represents an upper bound of the nonlinear dynamic analysis results (Figure 6)
and generally leads to more uniform deformations of elements as well as
stories over the height of the structure, which will be discussed later.

Figure 6. Relative story shear distributions from nonlinear dynamic analyses,

code expressions, and suggested expression for nine-story moment frame
designed based on NEHRP expression.

46
ZONE FACTORS FOR SOME IMPORTANT TOWNS

47
48
The solutions to prevent the damage are:-
1) The super structure is tied to the foundation so that the entire structure acts
as a single unit.
2) The building can be floated above its foundation which is known as base
isolation.

Resulting to which, lateral acceleration is decreased and the structure

experiences far less deformity and damage. However, the structure still can
receive fixed amount of vibrational energy during seismic loading even with
base isolation system in place. The building itself can drench this energy to
some level, however its capability to do so is proportionate with the ductile
nature of the material used during construction. Presently, materials such as
combination of rubber and steel plates are invented which are used on
buildings to absorb the vibration due to the Earthquake. These are few ways
by which we could prevent some losses during carthquakes in future.
Earthquakes cannot be stopped, but we can learn more, in aspiration of
discovering new ways to protect ourselves from their dangerous effects.
Simple precautions are most effective ways to minimise Earthquake damage.

49
 CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
The effect of earthquake on the foundation of different architectural
structures are influenced in a number of ways. Influence of effect of
earthquake varies by the nature and the behaviour of the soils in the affected
area, In spite of modern Engineering technology, the complete structure may
collapse in an earthquake of the foundation of the structure lies on soft soil.
However, the geotechnical engineers can incredibly enhance the structure
how the Structure and foundation together react to the seismic waves.

50
 References
[1] wikipedia.org

[2] Indian Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures

Part(1) general provisions and buildings (fifth Revision)

[3] Estimator, K., Suzuki, H., Sato M.," Effects of inertial and kinematic
interaction on seismic behaviour of pile with embedded foundation
Nishikameya 1501-21, Shijimi, MIki-shi, Hyogo-ken 673-0515, Japan,
November2004.

[4] Roy, D.," Design Of Shallow And Deep Foundations For Earthquakes",
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Design of Shallow and Deep
Foundations for Earthquakes. IIT Gandhinagar - March, 2013

[5] Lou, M.Wang, H.Chen, X.Zhai, Y., "Structure-soil structure interaction:

Literature review", Elsevier Ltd., Amsterdam, August2011

[6] Trombetta, W.N., Mason, B., Hutchinson, C.T., Zupan, D., Bray,
D.J.Kutter. L.B.. " Nonlinear Soil Foundation Structure and Structure-Soil-
Structure Interaction: Engineering Demands". J. Struct. Eng.. 2014.

[7] Bureau of Indian standards criteria for earthquake resistant design of

structure IS 1813:2002

[8] Rai, D. C., Goel. S. C.. and Firmansjah, J., 1996. SNAP-2DX: General
Purpose Computer Pro-gram for Static and Dynamic Nonlinear Analysis of
Two Dimensional Structures. Report No. UMCEE 96-21. Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michi-gan. Ann Arbor

51
[9] Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, H., Sato M.," Effects of inertial and kinematic
interaction on seismic behaviour of pile with embedded foundation "
Nishikameya 1501-21, Shijimi, MIki-shi, Hyogo-ken 673-0515, Japan,
November2004.

[10] Seed, B.H., Chane,C.R ., Pamukcu ,S.,"Earthquake effects on Soil-

Foundation Systems", Springer US., 1991.

[11] Dash, R. S., Govindaraju, L., Bhattacharya, S., "Case study of

damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on a mat–
pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake", Elsevier
Ltd. ,DLF Cyber City, Phase II ,Gurgaon, India, 1980.

[12] Roy, D.," Design Of Shallow And Deep Foundations For

Earthquakes", Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Design of Shallow and
Deep Foundations for Earthquakes., IIT Gandhinagar – March , 2013

[13] Lou,M.,Wang, H .,Chen, X.,Zhai, Y., "Structure–soil structure

interaction: Literature review", Elsevier Ltd., Amsterdam, August2011

[14] Trombetta, W.N.,Mason, B., Hutchinson,C.T.,

Zupan,D.,Bray,D.J .,Kutter, L.B., " Nonlinear Soil Foundation–Structure and
Structure–Soil–Structure Interaction: Engineering Demands",J. Struct. Eng.,
2014

[15] Menglin, L.,Wang, H.,Chen, X .,Zhai, Y.," Structure– soil structure

interaction: Literature review", Volume 31,Issue 12, December 2011, Pages
1724–1731.

[16] Knappett, J.A., Haigh, S.K., Madabhushi, S.P.G ," Mechanisms of

failure for shallow foundations under earthquake loading" , Schofield Centre,
52
University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0EL, UK,2004.

[17] Asgari, A.,Golshani, A.,Bagheri, M., "Numerical evaluation of

seismic response of shallow foundation on loose silt and silty sand ",Journal
Of Earth System Science, Mar 2014, p.p. 365-379.

[18] Klemencic, R.,McFarlane, S.I ., Hawkins, M.N ., Nikolaou, S.,

"Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundations A Guide for
Practicing Engineers", Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center, NIST GCR 12-917-22, 2012

[19] Kim, K.D., Lee, H.S., Kim, S.D., Choo, W.Y., Park, G.H," Rocking
Effect of a Mat Foundation on the Earthquake Response of Structures" ,
American Society of Civil Engineers, September 2014.

[20] Faramarz, K., Mehdi, S., Farzane, P., "p-delta effects on earthquake
response of structures with foundation uplift" , Elsevier, Volume 34, Page 25-
36, March 2012.

[21] Murono, Y., Nishimura, A, "Evaluation Of Seismic Force Of Pile

Foundation Induced By Inertial And Kinematic Interaction"

[22] Phanikanth, V.S., Choudhury, D ., Reddy, G.R, "Behavior of Single

Pile in Liquefied Deposits during Earthquakes",10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.

[23] Tokimatsua, K., Suzukia, H., Satob, M, "Effects of inertial and

kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of pile with embedded
foundation",Haigh SK ,University Of Cambridge(United Kingdom),ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing,2002.

53
[24] Das, K., Das, K.P ., Halder,L., " Seismic Response of Concrete
Gravity Dam",HTC2011

[25] Harder, F.L., Kelson, I.K., Kishida, Tadahiro., Kayen R., "
Preliminary Observations of the Fujinuma Dam Failure Following the March
11, 2011 Tohoku Offshore Earthquake, Japan", Geotechnical Extreme Events
Reconnaissance (GEER),June2011

[26] Calayir, Y., Karaton, M., "Seismic fracture analysis of concrete

gravity dams including dam–reservoir interaction" , Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Fırat University, 23279 Elazig,
Turkey,2016.

[27] Fenves, G., Chopra, K. A.,(1987) " Simplified Earthquake Analysis

Of Concrete Gravity Dams: Combined Hydrodynamic and Foundation
Interaction Effects". J. Struct. Eng., 113(8), 1688-1708 American Society of
Civil Engineers, August 1987.

[28] Magadza, H.D.C," Kariba reservoir - Experience and lessons learned

", Lakes & Reservoirs: Research & Management, 11:271-286. December
2006.

[29] Chopra, K.A. ,"Earthquake Analysis Of Arch Dams: Factors to be

considered", 14thWorld Conference On Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
China" October 12- 17, 2008

54