Design of Foundations for

Earthquakes
Debasis Roy

Earthquake impact
on foundations
Inertia

Because of structural and self weight of

foundation soils
Does not influence soil behavior

Shear strength degradation

Need to know whether the soil is loose or

soft

Geotechnical design for

earthquakes
Conventional design

Sand drained approach

Clay undrained approach

Foundation design for earthquakes

Conservatively use undrained shear

strength for contractive soils and
drained shear strength for dilative ones

Liquefaction-related foundation
failure

Liquefaction-related foundation
failure

Courtesy: Yuminamochi (1999)

Liquefaction-related foundation
failure

Courtesy: Stewart and Chu (2002)

Liquefaction-related foundation
failure

Courtesy: www.nisee.org

State of stress

a. Static
condition

b. During
earthquake

Inertial effect
(1 - kv2)

, kh2
(1 - kv1)

h0

v 0 =

, kh1

Strength loss: Liquefaction

h0

v0 =

Inertia - consequences
Inclination-related loss of bearing
capacity
Pounding-related loss of bearing
capacity
Accumulation of displacement

Strength loss consequences

Triggering of

Liquefaction
Cyclic softening or cyclic mobility

Foundation failure due to

Punching
Support loss

Bearing capacity loss due to

pounding and inclination
1

NE / NS

Loss due to pounding

Loss due to inclination

k h, kv

Seismic bearing capacity:

No strength loss
For Dense / Stiff soils
Small or ve residual pore water pressure
Can use effective stress strength
parameters

Use seismic bearing capacity factors

(e.g., Richards et al. 1993) depending on
PHGA and PVGA
Allow a factor of safety of 2

Seismic bearing capacity factors

1.0

NqcEE /NqcS

0.8

Richards et al. 1993

0.6
10

0.4

0.2

10o
10
0

20o
o
o
20 o 3030
o
20 30
0.4
kh /(1 - kv)

o
40
40
o
40

0.8
0.
8

Seismic bearing capacity:

example
Inputs

= 30, PHGA = 0.3, PVGA = 0.15

Seismic coefficients

kh = 0.50.3 = 0.15; kv = 0.50.15 = 0.075

Seismic bearing capacity calculations

Nge/Ngs 0.5, Nqe/Nqs 0.65, Nce/Ncs 0.65
Allowable seismic bearing capacity =
allowable static bearing capacity 0.6
1.5

Undrained shear strength

0.4

Non-Liquefied

Su / v

0.3

0.2

0.1
Liquefied

4
q c1 (MPa)

Bearing capacity loss due to

strength degradation
su2 / su1

0
5

0.4

1.5

0.2

1
T

Layer 1: Undrained
shear strength = su1

Layer 2: Undrained
shear strength = su2

3
N cE

2
1

5
0.
25 0
.
0
=
B
T/

0.6

0.8

1.0

Earthquake-induced
settlement: No liquefaction
Settlement often governs seismic
structural design rather than bearing
capacity
Available centrifuge data indicate
settlement could be ~1% of footing
width per load cycle
Simple pseudo-static procedures
(Richards et al. 1993) is also used

Earthquake-induced
settlement: Liquefied sites
Estimate volumetric strain for factor
of safety against liquefaction using,
e.g., Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992)
Calculate Settlement assuming no
lateral movement
Design for differential settlement 1/2
to 1/3rd of total settlement

Summary
Not much of reduction in seismic
bearing capacity unless

Site is affected by very strong seismicity

or near source or on liquefiable ground

For bearing capacity estimation use

su for loose or soft soils, and c and

otherwise

Always check whether structure can

tolerate permanent ground
displacements

Compliance springs shallow

foundations
Mode

Stiffness

G Reduction

Vertical

4Gr0/(1 -); r0 =
(BD/)

Large EQ: 0.5 to 1.

Micro EQ: 0.7 to 1

Sliding

8Gr0/(2 -); r0 =
(BD/)1/2

Rocking

8Gr30/(3 -3); r0 = Large EQ: 0.5 to 1.

[BD3/(3)]1/4
Micro EQ: 0.33 to 1

Torsion 16Gr30/3;
Large EQ: 0.5 to 1.
[BD(B2/+D2)/(6)]1/4 Micro EQ: 0.7 to 1

Earthquake-related pile failure

causes
Permanent ground movement
Exceedance of moment capacity at
pile cap connection
Support Loss

Reduction in lateral confinement

Gap formation
Buckling

Shallow foundation
Permanent ground movement
Exceedance of moment capacity at
pile cap connection
Support Loss

Reduction in lateral confinement

Gap formation
Buckling

Pile design for earthquakes

Design for lateral load and lateral
ground movement as applicable
Use the p y, t z, Q z
approach allowing for

Strength loss during earthquake if

any
Gap formation
Group action

Simplified pile design for non

liquefied sites
Apply free field displacements
considering the pile to be a beam on
elastic medium
Iteratively modify the input
displacement field until convergence
Use soil springs obtained following,
e.g., API RP2A

Simplified pile design for liquefied

sites
Mud line
Nonliquefiable

Superstructure
Plastic hinge
Pile Cap
formation
Piles
Passive

30% Effective
Vertical Stress

Liquefiable

Nonliquefiable

Typical
Pile deformation
Profile

Design lateral
load