Foundation Load-Characteristic

Effects on Dynamic Structural

Deformation

Melissa Pi
ECI 281A Pr. Boris Jeremic
Fall Quarter 2006
Term Project Report
December 13, 2006
Introduction

In Structural Engineering, we often neglect soil effects on the building. Specifically, in the
seismic design of structures, it is often assumed that the soil supporting the structure is rigid,
therefore producing a fixed-based model. In addition, the earthquake input motion is applied
directly to the base. However, soil-structure interaction effects are known to dramatically change
the performance of a structure during seismic activity. The deformation of the soil associated
with the dynamic interaction of the soil, foundation, and structure can dramatically affect a
structures response to the earthquake. Therefore, in recent years, attempts are being made to
include foundation load character effects on dynamic structural deformation. Government
agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
have invested great amounts of both time and money to ensure the continuous safety of the
public in the years to come.

This report aims to analyze some of the recent methods used to include soil structure interaction
effects in building design and analysis. Specifically, structural requirements by FEMA and
NEHRP for foundation considerations are used in conjunction with a simple 2-D concrete
building frame, and effects are based on displacement results from the non-linear dynamic
analysis program SAP2000. Fixing the simple 2-D concrete frame, different soil types are also
modeled, which will allow for the examination of the sensitivity of the FEMA and NEHRP
regulations.

The Model:

The structural model consists of a simple 2-D concrete building frame 3 bays wide and 6 stories
tall. Floor level one has a height of 15 ft while the remaining 5 stories are 10 feet in height. This
is typical of a high rise or multi-story building, since the first floor is often used for aesthetics
and display purposes. Each bay of the frame is 20 ft wide, which gives the frame a total width of
60 ft.
 3 bays @ 20 ft = 60 ft

5 floors
60 ft @ 10 ft

15 ft

The model is also assumed to be an interior building frame, since they often bear more load than
the exterior frames. 60 ft

20 ft

60 ft

Using the frames own self weight as the mass is the analysis, the following calculations gives us
the assigned mass per node:
 lb kip
γ conc = 150 3
= 0.150 3
ft ft
Vol slab = L × w × h = 60 ft × 20 ft × 0.5 ft = 600 ft 3
Wt slab = γ conc × Vol slab = 90 kip →≈ 100 kip
4 nodes per slab
Wt slab
Wt node = = 25 kip
4
Wt node 25 kip kip ⋅ sec2
Mass node = = = 0.07
g 386 in 2 in
sec
The basic model consists of the aforementioned masses and a fixed base. After the model is
analyzed using SAP2000, a structural period is found to be 0.76 sec.

In addition, design options in SAP2000 verified the original frame design. Once the structural
period is found, spectral responses and design lateral forces can be found using the seismic
provisions provided by the Uniform Building Code (UBC).

Three cases are analyzed in this parametric study. The first model consists of the building frame
with a fixed base. The second model consists of the building frame with footings embedded in a
Soil Classification C. The third model consists of a building frame with footings embedded in a
Soil Classification E. All three models require a design lateral load and, which is developed
through a process guided by UBC provisions.

From the design seismic contour maps we can obtain maximum considered earthquake spectral
accelerations S1 and Ss. Depending on the type of soil class, each factor is then applied to a series
of recommendations, and design response spectrum are developed. The following design
response spectrums are for the fixed based model, soil class C, and soil class E, respectively…

Design Response Spectrum (No Spring)

0.4
Spectral Acceleration Sa (g)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Period T (sec)
Design Response Spectrum Soil Class C
0.5
Spectral Acceleration Sa (g)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Period T (sec)

Design Response Spectrum Soil Class E

Spectral Acceleration Sa (g)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Period T (sec)
Design lateral loads are developed through the equivalent lateral force method. This process
takes the total base shear and factors it so that a certain percentage is applied to each level, thus
forming a triangular-shaped distribution along the vertical face of the building.

The design lateral loads take into account the soil effects for different soil classes. For example,
Soil Class E is much softer then Soil Class C. Therefore, the UBC design load for Soil Class E is
greater than that of the model with Soil Class C and the fixed based model. The fixed based
model has the least amount of design lateral load applied to it during analysis.

In addition to taking into account soil effects in the design lateral loads, soil-springs are also used
to mimic foundation-soil effects on the buildings behavior. The guidelines used to model the soil
springs are provided by FEMA 356. For the purposes of this study, the model’s foundation is
composed of shallow footings. In chapter 4 of FEMA 356, general requirements are given for
uncoupled spring models used to represent shallow bearing footings that are rigid with respect to
the surrounding soil. The dimensions of the footings were approximated using a simplified
concrete design method.
 dcol

D = 2dcol

D D dcol D D

Given the dimensions of the footing, the following equations provide a representation of soil-
footing behavior using springs. Since our model is two dimensional, we have spring in the x
direction, z direction, and one representing the rotation about the y-axis.

Kyy

Kx

Kz

The above equations are used to model footings at the surface level. To further exaggerate the
soil effects on our structure, we embed our footings to a certain depth. The original stiffnesses
are amplified by this additional parameter, represented by a beta β factor.

Analysis

As previously discussed, our first model was our fixed base two dimensional frame. Using this
model, the frame’s natural period of 0.76 sec was obtained using SAP2000. The design lateral
load calculated for a fixed based building was then applied to its vertical face, and its lateral
displacement obtained. The same process was also applied to the Soil Class C and Soil Class E
model. It is worth reiterating that the foundations for the Soil Class C and Soil Class E models
are not fixed based, but instead are represented by soil springs. The following figure displays the
lateral displacements at each floor for each of the models.
 Joint Deflection

4
Level

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Deflection (in)

No Springs Soil Class C Soil Class E

From the above figure, it can be seen that there is a significant difference in lateral displacements
if foundation load characteristic effects are included in the analysis. The largest difference in
displacements occurs between the fixed base and Soil Class C models. Realistically speaking, if
these displacements are a representation of what could possibly occur during an actual seismic
event, the building can sustain significant damage. Specifically, inter-story drift and cracking at
the joints are the major concerns during a large seismic event.

Besides design lateral loads, it is worth investigating the displacements of the models subjected
to an actual earthquake motion - for the purposes of this study the Northridge earthquake.
After the 1994 Northridge, many parts of the UBC had to be rewritten to account for its
particularly joint and connection damaging effects. The results are as follows.

Joint Deflection - Northridge EQK

4
Level

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Deflection (in)

No Springs Soil Class C Soil Class E

The lateral displacements from the Northridge Earthquake sufficiently less than those from the
design lateral load. This shows that the design lateral loads provided by the UBC accurately
account for a factored level of damage, which is design method supported in engineering
practice. However, this does not rule out the necessity to include soil effects in building design,
as shown in the previous analysis.

In addition to varying the design lateral loads, the sensitivity of the soil spring models were also
investigated. The soil stiffnesses for both Soil Class C and Soil Class E models were increased
and decreased by a factor of 10. The same design lateral loads were again applied to the frame,
and their lateral displacements recorded.
 Displacement Ratio for k x 0.1

4
Level

0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Displacement Ratio

Soil Class C (k x 0.1) Soil Class E (k x 0.1)

Displacement Ratio for k x 10

4
Level

0
0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
Displacement Ratio

Soil Class C (k x 10) Soil Class E (k x 10)

Surprisingly, while the differences in the Soil Class C models were minute, large differences
occurred in the Soil Class E models, demonstrating FEMA’s soil spring provisions are more
sensitive for Soil Class E. This aspect of the soil spring model may be important since Soil Class
E is very soft soil would require a higher level of safety.

Conclusion

Through this parametric study, we have seen the importance of including foundation load
characteristic effects in building design and analysis. A simple fixed based model does not
accurately represent what occurs during actually seismic events. Depending on the type of soil
and foundation, a structures reaction and damage can be several magnitudes higher. Per the
provisions provided by FEMA, NEHRP, and other safety agencies, it is important to continue
providing an accurate representation of building behavior in design and analysis.