2 views

Uploaded by Roly_Roots

Un dato es una representación simbólica (numérica, alfabética, algorítmica, espacial, etc.) de un atributo o variable cuantitativa o cualitativa. Los datos

- Flexure and Shear Interaction in Steel I-Girders
- 06-GB Moment Connections
- Strength of Materials
- Design Capacity Tables - Vol. 1 Open Sections - ASI (1)
- Jy 3118451849
- Raft Foundation
- Design of Plate Girder Bridge
- ACI 349-97 Apendice B
- Weldment Strength Excel Calculations
- abs ory
- 0_PILE FOUNDATION.pdf
- 30A-Yap-Strut and Tie Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Short Span Beams
- RC Beam Charts
- Squat Shear Wall Testing
- Precast Beam–Column Connection Subjected to Cyclic and Dynamic Loadings
- Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures as Per NSCP 2015
- Dnvgl Ru Ship Pt3ch4
- is.4090.1967
- Pile-1-2-3-4-all_RKM-10-sept-2017
- Effect of Residual Stresses on the Stren

You are on page 1of 63

Originally developed by Michael Valley, S.E.

FOUNDATION AND

LIQUEFACTION DESIGN

• TABLE OF CONTENTS:

• Overview of Foundation Design

• Shallow Footing Example

• Combined Footing Example

• Pile Foundation Example

• Design for Differential Settlement Example

• Design for Liquefiable Soil Example

FOUNDATION DESIGN

• Transfer of Seismic Forces

• Strength and Stiffness

• Shallow and Deep Foundations

• Elastic and Plastic Analysis

Load Path and Transfer of Seismic Forces

Pile supporting structure

shape pressure shape pressure shape pressure

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1051, Design Examples Foundation Design - 4

Load Path and Transfer of Seismic Forces

foundation force transfer

pressure

Friction

EQ motion

Instructional Material

Complementing FEMA

Foundation

1051, DesignDesign

Examples

-5

Load Path and Transfer of Seismic Forces

soil to foundation force transfer

Deep

Soil Bending

Motion pressure moment

EQ Motion

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1051, Design Examples Foundation Design - 6

Allowable Stress Design vs

Strength Design

• Allowable Stress • Strength Design

Design – Permitted in 2015

– Traditional/historic Standard

approach – Nominal strength

– Allowable with phi factors

geotechnical values – Allows direct

have inherent factor comparison of

of safety foundation capacity

– Requires separate with superstructure

ASD load capacity

combination

Allowable Stress Design vs

Strength Design

• Nominal Strength can be:

– Nominal strength associated with

anticipated failure mechanism

– Nominal strength associated with limitation

on maximum deformation at failure

• Settlement based on sustained loads rather

than the loading associated with nominal

strength should be considered

Allowable Stress Design vs

Strength Design

• Nominal Strength Example

– Strength reduction factor Φ=0.45 for

compression (bearing pressure)

• Allowable Stress Example

– Factor of safety of ~3.0

Foundation Design Concepts

excessive foundation movement, not loss of

load-bearing capacity

• Maintaining a reasonably consistent service

load-bearing pressure is encouraged to

minimize differential settlement

Outside face of concrete

column or line midway

between face of steel

column and edge of

steel base plate (typical)

Reinforced (a)

Concrete Footings:

Critical section

for flexure

(typical)

Criteria (b)

Critical section

(concentrically d for one-way shear

loaded)

(c)

Critical section

for two-way shear

d/2

(all sides)

P

M

(a)

Loading

(b)

Elastic, no uplift

(c)

Elastic, at uplift

Footing Subject

to Compression

(d)

Elastic, after uplift and Moment:

(e)

Uplift Nonlinear

Some plastification

(f)

Plastic limit

Example

1'-2" 7 Bays @ 25'-0" = 175'-0" 1'-2"

7-story building:

shallow

5 Bays @ 25'-0" = 125'-0"

foundations

designed for

perimeter frame

and core

N

bracing

1'-2"

Shallow Footing Examples

Soil parameters:

• Medium dense sand • Density = 125 pcf

• (SPT) N = 20 • Friction angle = 33o

• 3,000B psf (Square) (Settlement)

• 4,000B’ psf • 2,000 psf B<20 ft

(Rectangular) • 1,000 psf B<40 ft

• B = footing width (ft)

• B’ = average width of

compressed area (ft)

• ϕ=0.45

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1051, Design Examples Foundation Design - 14

7 Story Frame, Deformed

Combining Loads

1.2D + 0.5L + E

• Minimum downward load:

0.9D + E

• Definition of seismic load effect E:

E = r1QE1 + 0.3 r2QE2 +/- 0.2 SDSD

rx = 1.0 ry = 1.0 and SDS = 1.0

Reduction of Overturning Moment

moment to be reduced by 25% at the soil-

foundation interface

• For a moment frame, the column vertical

loads are the resultants of base overturning

moment, whereas column moments are

resultants of story shear

• Thus, use 75% of seismic vertical reactions

Elastic Response

• Objective is to set L L

and W to satisfy P

M

equilibrium and

avoid overloading

soil

W

• Successive trials

usually necessary

R

e

Additive Combination

e = M / P = 9.76 ft

Try L = 40 ft, B = 9 ft

L/6 < e < L/2 therefore elastic with some uplift

L’ = 3 (L/2-e) = 30.7’

qmax = 2 P / [3 B(L/2-e)]

qmax = 4.98 ksf

Additive Combination

Bearing Capacity:

Qns = 4,000B’ = 4,000 min (B, L’/2)

Qns = 4,000 min (9, 30.7/2) = 36,000 psf

ϕQns = 0.45 (36,000 psf)

ϕQns = 16.2 ksf > 4.98 ksf

OK by elastic analysis

Plastic Response

• Same objective as L

for elastic P

response M

• Smaller footings

can be shown OK

thus W

R

R

e

Settlement Analysis

• Load combination: D+0.5L per Appendix C

Commentary (ASCE 7)

• P = 340 kips

• Qsustained = 340,000 / (9’ x 40’) = 945 psf

• Qallowable = 2,000 psf

• OK for settlement

Additional Checks

should be checked for the overturning case

• Plastic soil stress gives upper bound on

moments and shears in concrete

• Horizontal equilibrium: Hmax< fm (P+W)

in this case friction exceeds demand; passive

could also be used

Design of footings for

core-braced 7 story

building

center of building

Solution for Central Mat

individual

columns; mat is

only practical

shallow

foundation

Mat: 45'x95'x7'-0"

with top of mat

3'-6" below grade

Bearing Pressure Solution

Plastic

12.2 ksf solution is

~ (a) satisfactory;

Plastic elastic is not

solution

12 16 (b)

4 8 Elastic solution

0 pressures (ksf)

Central Mat Flexural Reinforcement

• Use moment

contours to define

areas of flexural

reinforcement

density

Central Mat Shear Design

(two-way) and d

(one-way)

• Be aware of size-

effect in thick

foundation elements

Pile/Pier Foundations

cap (see Figure 4.2-5)

(see Figure 4.2-4)

column above and

piles below

Pile/Pier Foundations

• Soil

Pile Stiffness:

Stiffness

– Short

Linear(Rigid)

springs – nomographs e.g. NAVFAC

– DM7.2

Intermediate

– Nonlinear

– Long springs – LPILE or similar

• Capanalysis

Influence

• Group Action

Pile Shear: Two Soil

Stiffnesses

0

10

Depth (ft)

15

20

25 Site Class C

Site Class E

30

-5 0 5 10 15

Shear, V (kip)

0

5 Pile

10

Moment

vs Depth

Depth (ft)

15

20

25 Site Class C

Site Class E

30

-1000 -500 0 500

Moment, M (in.-kips)

Pile Reinforcement

4" pile

embedment

(6) #5

• Site Class C

• Larger amounts where

6'-4"

#4 spiral at

A

3.75 inch pitch

Section A

moments and shears

are high

(6) #5

• Minimum amounts

23'-0"

7.5 inch pitch

Section B theoretical cutoff points

(4) #5 • “Half” spiral for 3D

21'-0"

C #4 spiral at

11 inch pitch

Section C

Liquefaction

poor drainage

Performance Goals and Nonlinear

Behavior

• Structures are intended to resist collapse due

the liquefaction effects

– MCEG ground motions.

• Distinct from remainder of Provisions

– 2/3 of MCER ground motions

• Settlement or lateral spreading due to

liquefaction may cause nonlinear behavior

• Nonlinear behavior is assessed only for

elements in which it expected.

Foundation Design -

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1051, Design Examples 35

Example: Differential Settlement

Table 12.13-3

• Structure must be shown to perform acceptably

when subject to imposed settlement

Structural Requirements

foundations

• No loss of gravity support permitted

• Residual member strength at least 2/3 of

undamaged nominal strength

– If demands exceed nominal strength

consideration of nonlinear behavior is

required

Floor Framing Plan

• Steel SMF

frame building

• One condition

studied

– Corner

• Expected

Settlement,

dv=8”

Rotation Demand

25 ft.

• Settlement dv=8”

• Bay width 25 ft.

limit in Table

12.13-3

Corner Condition

connection can sustain

0.04 rad.

• Must assess:

– Simple shear tab

connection to web

– Gravity beam

– Column weak axis

Check of W16x36 Beam

imposed displacement

MD VD D

V D MD

Add gravity loading

– 85 psf dead load, 50 psf live load

– 4.17 feet tributary width

Compare to design values

– Beam is adequate for shear

• Flexural capacity fMn = 174 kip-ft

– Demand exceeds flexural capacity

– Either the beam will yield in flexure or the

connection will yield

Check Connection

• Shear

capacity

fVn = 78.3 kip

• Flexural

capacity

fMn = 21 kip-ft

• Connection

will yield in

flexure

Check Connection

• Check plate

thickness to

ensure ductile

behavior

(plate yielding)

• Check

permissible

rotation per

ASCE 41

Check Connection

• Maximum plate

thickness is

acceptable

– But not if it

were 50 ksi

steel

Check Connection

• Check plastic

rotation to provide

collapse resistance

per ASCE 41

– Acceptable

Bi-Axial bending of column F/2

– SMF column is known to be able to resist

any moment the beam can impart

– Yield moment of weak axis connection is

so small as to be considered negligible

Conclusions

settlements imposed by the liquefaction

• Acceptable to use shallow foundations

– This assessment was primarily concerned

with connection ductility

– Other systems may have different concerns

• Concrete systems must be checked for shear and remain

essentially elastic

• Non SMF steel moment connections may not have sufficient

ductility

• Must consider load reversals causing the need for added

bracing

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 1051, Design Examples Foundation Design - 49

Example: Lateral Spreading

• Lateral displacements exceed Table 12.13-2 limits

Structural Requirements

acceptable pile behavior

• Nonlinear behavior is permitted

– No loss of gravity support permitted

– Residual member strength at least 2/3 of

undamaged nominal strength

– Prescriptive detailing for ductility

– Nominal shear capacity must not be

exceeded

Pile Foundation

24 in.

• Lateral displacement 24 in

– Exceeds 18 in limit

• Occurs over depth of 30 ft.

• Factored loads per pile

30 ft.

250k

Pile Diameter

• Choose diameter, such that

Flexural Demand

bottom of the cap and the top of the

competent soil.

– Half of P-Delta moment occurs at two

locations

Axial-Moment Interaction

• Consider fairly light reinforcing and concrete strength of 5ksi

Rotation and Curvature

effective length

length: ½ pile diameter

Moment-Curvature

• Strength at

imposed curvature

remains above

67% limit

• Imposed curvature

is less than limit

due to bar fracture

Detailing for Ductility

• Spiral spacing

– ¼ member dimension (7.5 in.)

– Six time bar diameter (6 in.)

– 6 in.

• Volumetric ratio (larger of the following):

Detailing for Ductility

spacing

• Required from the top of the pile to 7 pile

diameters (17’-6”) below the interface of the

liquefiable soil and the competent soil below.

Shear Strength

– Taken conservatively as 1.25 times

nominal moment

within plastic hinge

Pile Section Detail

Questions

DISCLAIMER

• NOTICE: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations

expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Additionally, neither FEMA

nor any of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor

assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process

included in this publication.

• The opinions expressed herein regarding the requirements of the

NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, the referenced standards,

and the building codes are not to be used for design purposes. Rather

the user should consult the jurisdiction’s building official who has the

authority to render interpretation of the code.

• Any modifications made to the file represent the presenters' opinion

only.

- Flexure and Shear Interaction in Steel I-GirdersUploaded bywrayro
- 06-GB Moment ConnectionsUploaded bycbler
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byDragoi Alex
- Design Capacity Tables - Vol. 1 Open Sections - ASI (1)Uploaded byTasi Zafir
- Raft FoundationUploaded byAnonymous jcMpiSxFo
- Jy 3118451849Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Design of Plate Girder BridgeUploaded byvijayunity
- ACI 349-97 Apendice BUploaded byainosbarba
- Weldment Strength Excel CalculationsUploaded byWinston
- abs oryUploaded byAlex Pizano
- 0_PILE FOUNDATION.pdfUploaded byGANGADHARAIAH SN
- 30A-Yap-Strut and Tie Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Short Span BeamsUploaded bytrannguyenviet
- RC Beam ChartsUploaded byAgilan Vimalathas
- Squat Shear Wall TestingUploaded byprahladvattikuti
- Precast Beam–Column Connection Subjected to Cyclic and Dynamic LoadingsUploaded byTeo Peng Keat
- Strength Evaluation of Existing Structures as Per NSCP 2015Uploaded bycruzser
- Dnvgl Ru Ship Pt3ch4Uploaded bycristinelb
- is.4090.1967Uploaded bybezrio
- Pile-1-2-3-4-all_RKM-10-sept-2017Uploaded byAkash Singh
- Effect of Residual Stresses on the StrenUploaded byanhxuanqb
- PileUploaded bysdutta2591
- revision_history_2006.txtUploaded byairtel
- Chapter 6 Pile FoundationUploaded byZeleke Taemu
- Solution of strength of materials problems.docUploaded byMohcine Rouessi
- CEN 330 Chapter04-Flexure(1).pdfUploaded bypeter aoun
- Geotechnics 2 Foundations(2)Uploaded bySujani Maarasinghe
- as 11Uploaded byHussein Osama Salah
- Research OrganisationsUploaded byPriya Balaji
- A_Oxygen Scarvenger 15m3_Mech ReportUploaded byJK Lim
- 003 a Oxygen Scavengrer Tank 1Uploaded bySee Kiat Pang

- Step-By-Step Home Design and DecoratingUploaded bykathia909
- Check ListUploaded byMohitraheja007
- LectureUploaded byomarseh
- capace canalizare.pdfUploaded bymariuspi
- 1c Press Room Ink Wash Up BladesUploaded byNii Noi
- ABS-Lifts.pptxUploaded byrini0026
- Epsilone BrochureUploaded byGeorges Bader
- KeysUploaded byAdelani Oyawoye
- Tapflex Flier 083116BUploaded byGerardo JM Palacios
- 1996a Lourenco Masonry ModellingUploaded byfersirza
- Framing Roofs By Editors of Fine Homebuilding.pdfUploaded bysjll3039
- Instruction on Bridge Model Project Dac31503Uploaded byfaiz
- Book1Uploaded byodjan21_691446
- Study on Alkali-Activated Concrete Containing High Volume GGBS with 30% Cement in Ambient ConditionUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Phu Gia the He Moi Cho Xi MangUploaded byminhhuan0101
- GasSavings.pdfUploaded bydiegokato
- !INDX_SAEPUploaded byJay Bonganay Bonito
- GEOMEMBRANA AGRU LLDPE.pdfUploaded byJorge Luis Reyes Carmelo
- Lec-25- Analysis and Design of SlabsUploaded byMian M Khurram
- A05-0195.pdfUploaded byRobert W. Nelson
- Variation in Peel Strength and Surface RoughnessUploaded byfotick
- Instruction Manual (Sbo)Uploaded byCezary
- Keep Chimneys in Step With Plant ChangesUploaded byrmm99rmm99
- Section1 - UpdatedUploaded byPredrag Stanić
- MOM Chapter 3-Mechanical Properties of MaterialsUploaded byezoramajnun
- Design Mix m5 LafargeUploaded byAsif Ahmad
- List of foundries in GujaratUploaded byCatherine Jovita
- Indeterminate Structures - Force MethodUploaded bypicefeati
- Ventilation Lecture -3Uploaded byDhirendra Singh Rathore
- BS EN295-7 1991 (Part 7).pdfUploaded byFuadChiwa