EUROCODE 8

Background and Applications

Dissemination of information for training Lisbon, 10-11 February 2011 1
Design of concrete foundation elements Design of concrete foundation elements
Alain Pecker
Godynamique & Structure
OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 2
Object and salient features of EN 1998-5
Relations with EN 1997
Ground properties (strength, stiffness, material
factors)
Requirements for construction site
Earth retaining structures
Foundation system: shallow and deep foundations
SALIENT FEATURES AND INNOVATIVE ASPECTS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 3
Complementarity with Eurocode 7 (EN 1997)
which does not cover earthquake resistant design.
Introduction and use of dynamic soil properties: Introduction and use of dynamic soil properties:
(t
cyc
, shear wave velocity V
s
and damping) in addition to
standard static properties (tan |' c q ) standard static properties (tan | , c
u
, q
u
)
ile of the shear wave propagation velocity in the subsoil shall
Different approaches to safety and strength pp y g
verifications
depending on seismicity level and type of soil(8
Recognition of seismically-induced permanent
ground deformations as a design criterion ground deformations as a design criterion.
DETERMINATION OF DESIGN VALUES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 4
Type of test
F= field L= laboratory
F 1 F 2 L 1 L 2
F field L laboratory
Correlations
Test results and
1 2 3 4
C1 C2
Information
from other
sources on
derived values
1 2 3 4
the site, the
soils and
rocks and
the project
EN 1997 -1
EN 1997 -2
Cautious selection
Geotechnical model and characteristic Geotechnical model and characteristic
value of geotechnical properties
Application of
partial factors
Design values of geotechnical
properties
partial factors
properties
DESIGN APPROACHES EN-1997
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 5
Three possible design approaches
DA-1 C1 : partial factors on actions
DA-1 C2 : partial factors on ground strength parameters
DA2 : partial factors on actions (or action effects)
and on global resistance and on global resistance
DA-3 : partial factors on structure-generated actions p g
and ground strength parameters
EN 1998-5
DESIGN APPROACH DA-1 C1
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 6
(R. Frank, 2008)
DESIGN APPROACH DA-1 C2
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 7
(R. Frank, 2008)
DESIGN APPROACH DA-2
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 8
(R. Frank, 2008)
DESIGN APPROACH DA-3
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 9
(R. Frank, 2008)
CHOICE OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS (EN 1997)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 10
Characteristic values of geotechnical parameters
cautious estimate of value affecting occurrence of
limit state limit state
mean range of values covering a large volume
characteristic values cannot be fundamentally different
from traditional values
if statistical methods are used : probability of
exceedance of worse values < 5%
Design value
k
X
X =
d
M
X =
NDP
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 11
Strength parameters
Static parameters may be used
Clay C
u
with corrections for: cyclic degradation
rate of loading

M
= 1.4
M
Sand C , | or cyclic undrained shear strength , | y g
for saturated sands t
cy

MC
= 1.4
M|
= 1.25
Mtcy
= 1.25
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 12
Stiffness and damping parameters
Used for site classification
Strain dependent
Rapport
dacclration du sol,
Coefficient
damortissement max
s
v
v

G
G

Ground acceleration
ratio
Damping
ti
o S
d amortissement max.
s,max
v
max
G
0,10
0,20
0,03
0,06
0,90(0,07)
0,70(0,15)
0,80(0,10)
0,50(0,20)
ratio
,
0,30
,
0,10
, ( , )
0,60(0,15)
, ( , )
0,36(0,20)
Valid for V
Smax
< 360 m/s
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 13
Buildings of importance classes II, III, IV shall not
be erected in the immediate vicinity of
seismically active tectonic faults
official documents issued by competent national authorities
absence of movement in the Late Quaternary
Special geological investigations shall be carried out for
urban planning purposes and for important p g p p p
Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 : FAILURE OF BRIDGE AND DAM
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 14
CHIEN-MIN BRIDGE
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 15
SHIH-KANG DAM
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 16
SHIH-KANG DAM
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 17
99 mm 99 mm
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING AND FOUNDATION SOILS :
LIQUEFACTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 18
Verification carried out in free field conditions
Conditions prevailing during life time of building
Seismic demand : Seed Idriss method (1971)
Liquefaction resistance from field tests
SPT (normative annex), CPT or V
S
with detailed corrections for overburden and energy
R i d f t f t FS 1 25 (NDP) Required safety factor FS = 1.25 (NDP)
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING AND FOUNDATION SOILS :
LIQUEFACTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 19
No verification requirements if
The sandy layers are deeper than 15m
(a
g
/g)S < 0.15
AND either
% clay > 20% and PI > 10%
% silt > 35% and N
1
> 20
1
Clean sand and N
1
> 30
LIQUEFACTION CHARTS (Annex B normative)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 20
Charts valid for M
w
=7.5 Corrections provided for other M
w
EXAMPLES OF LIQUEFACTION DAMAGES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 21
Port Island 1995
EXAMPLES OF LIQUEFACTION DAMAGES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 22
Kobe1995
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITING AND FOUNDATION SOILS :
SLOPE STABILITY
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 23
The ultimate limit state (ULS) or damage limit state
(DLS) is related to unacceptable large
displacements
Analysis is required for all structures (except cat. I) in
vicinity of a slope vicinity of a slope
Topographic amplification shall be taken into account
Pseudo-static analysis recommended
Only valid if no significant loss of shear resistance
( )
0 5 0 33 0 50 . , . . = = to
H g V H
F a S W g F F
Only valid if no significant loss of shear resistance
ANNEX A (informative)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 24
Topographic amplification factors (ST)
Type of
topographic profile
Sketch
Average slope
angle,o
ST
p g p p
g ,
Isolated cliff and
> 15 1 2
slope
> 15 1.2
o
15 to 30 1.2
Ridge with crest Ridge with crest
width significantly
less than base width
30 1 4
o
> 30 1.4
EXAMPLE OF SLOPE INSTABILITY
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 25
L P i t 1989 Loma Prieta 1989
EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 26
General requirements and considerations
Permanent displacements/tilting may be acceptable,
provided functional or aesthetic requirements are not violated provided functional or aesthetic requirements are not violated
Build-up of significant PWP in backfill or supported soil is to
be absolutely avoided be absolutely avoided
Methods of analysis should account for:
inertial and interaction effects between structure and soil
hydrodynamic effects in the presence of water
compatibility of deformations of soil, wall, and free
t d tendons
EXAMPLE OF BACKFILL LIQUEFACTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 27
Port Island 1995
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 28
PSEUDO STATIC ANALYSIS
Seismic coefficient
0 33 0 50 t k S k k
k depends on allowable displacement
0 33 0 50 . . = = to
h g v h
k a g S r k k
k depends on allowable displacement
Type of retaining structure
r
Free gravity walls that can accept a displacement d
r
< 300 (mm) a
g

I
g S
As above with d
r
< 200 a
g

I
g S (mm)
2
1,5
Flexural reinforced concrete walls, anchored or braced walls,
reinforced concrete walls founded on vertical piles, restrained
basement walls and bridge abutments
1
basement walls and bridge abutments


SEISMIC ACTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 29
Includes the contribution of :
Static and Dynamic earth pressures
Hydrostatic and hydrodynamic water pressures
Inertia forces in the wall Inertia forces in the wall
Annex E (normative) describes the Mononobe
O f Okabe formula
1
2
1
1
2
*
( ) = + +
d v ws wd
E k KH E E
K and * depend on soil permeability
CALCULATION MODEL
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 30
g , f'
b
k W
k
d
P
ad
(1k
v
)W
S
k W
k
h
W
S
-k
v
k
d
k
h
W
m
R
H
k
k
h
a
y
(1k
v
)W
m
R
+k
v
HYDRODYNAMIC WATER PRESSURES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 31
7
( )
8
q z Hz =
h w
k
Westergaard formula
8
g
HYDRODYNAMIC WATER PRESSURES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 32
Matsuo-OHara solution
wd
2
h w w
p
k H
Westergaard
0.6
0.4
g
H=10m , T=0.2s
0.4
H=2m , T=2.0s
Hw
0.2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
2
w w
w
2 n H
E k T
t
CHOICE OF PARAMETERS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 33
Dry soil above water

*
= , E
ws
=E
wd
= 0 , tan(u ) = k
h
/ (1k
v
)
Saturated pervious soil below water

*
=
w
, E
ws
& E
wd
= 0 , tan(u ) = (
d
/ ')k
h
/ (1k
v
)
Saturated impervious soil below water p

*
=
w
, E
ws
= 0 , E
wd
= 0 , tan(u )=( /)k
h
/ (1k
v
)
RESISTANCE AND STRUCTURAL VERIFICATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 34
Foundation soil
Stability of slope
Stability w. r. to failure by sliding and loss of bearing y y g g
capacity, for shallow foundation.
Anchorages
Shall assure equilibrium and have a sufficient capacity to
adapt to the seismic deformations of the ground
The distance L
e
between the anchor and the wall shall
d th di t L i d f i i l d exceed the distance L
s
, required for non-seismic loads :
( )
1 1 5
S g
L L . a g S
(
= +

( )
S g
g

RESISTANCE AND STRUCTURAL VERIFICATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 35
Backfill material must be immune from
liquefaction
FS 2.0
Structural strength
under the combination of the seismic action with
other possible loads, equilibrium must be achieved
without exceeding the strength of any structural without exceeding the strength of any structural
element:
R
d
> S
d
R
d
: design resistance of the element,
S
d
: design value of the action effect,
d
g ,
FOUNDATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 36
Foundations shall ensure transfer of forces to the
soil without significant deformations
Foundation system must be homogeneous
Unless dynamically independent entities
Design action effects
l t d di t it d i id ti f evaluated according to capacity design considerations for
dissipative structures
for non-dissipative structures action effects obtained from for non-dissipative structures, action effects obtained from
the analysis
HOMOGENEOUS FOUNDATION SYSTEM
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 37
HOMOGENEOUS FOUNDATION SYSTEM
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 38
DIRECT FOUNDATIONS (footing, raft)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 39
Design verifications
Sliding capacity
0
SD H1 H2 B
V F F .3 F s + +
F
H1
: Friction along the base
F
H1
: Friction along lateral sides
F : Ultimate passive resistance
tan
SD
N o
F
B
: Ultimate passive resistance
Bearing capacity (annex F informative) Bearing capacity (annex F informative)
Inclination and eccentricity of structural loads
Inertia forces in soil Inertia forces in soil
F
B
: Ultimate passive resistance
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 40
Sliding allowed provided
Ground characteristics remain unaltered
Sliding does not affect functionality of lifelines Sliding does not affect functionality of lifelines
Tie beams are mandatory except Tie beams are mandatory except
ground type A (rock)
Low seismicity and ground type B (stiff soil)
Beams of lower level can be used if h < 1m
BEARING CAPACITY
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 41
SURFACE OF ULTIMATE LOADS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 42
T T M M
c c c' c
eF V f F M |
+ s
1 1
1 0
b d
k' k'
a c
k k

N mF N N mF N
+ s
( (
| | | |

| | ( (
\ . \ .
( (

1 0
1 1
\ . \ .
( (

RD sd
N
N
N

=
M
RD
a B
C




max
N
RD sd
V
V

=
RD sd
max
M
M
B N

=

u
RD
C
F
a
|

=
`


)
max
V
N
=
g tan|

)
SURFACE OF ULTIMATE LOADS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 43
CROSS SECTION OF SURFACE OF ULTIMATE LOADS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 44
HD
LD
e/B = 0
HD
LD
e/B = 1/6
MODEL FACTOR
rd
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 45
Medium
d d
Loose
d d
Loose
saturated
Non
sensitive
Sensitive
l dense sand dry sand
saturated
sand
sensitive
clay
clay
1.0 1.15 1.50 1.0 1.15

rd
reflects
Approximation of theoretical model
All f t d t di l t Allowance for permanent moderate displacements
EXAMPLE OF BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 46
Building design according to capacity design
Clause 5.3.1 of EN 1998-5 for dissipative
structures applies
The action effect for the foundations shall be based on
capacity design considerations accounting for the development
of possible overstrength of possible overstrength
4 4 2 6 of EN 1998-1 gives the design values of the 4.4.2.6 of EN 1998-1 gives the design values of the
action effects on foundation
DESIGN VALUES OF ACTION EFFECT
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 47
E
Fd
= E
F G
+
Rd
OE
F E
E
Fd
E
F,G

Rd
OE
F,E

Rd
: overstrength factor = 1 for q 3 1 2 otherwise
Rd
: overstrength factor 1 for q 3, 1.2 otherwise
O R / E q R design resistance O = R
di
/ E
di
q R
di
design resistance
E
di
design value of action effect
in seismic situation in seismic situation
Following table gives the values of E Following table gives the values of E
Fd

Rd
O = q =3
EXAMPLE OF BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 48
Column 7 of example building
N My Vy Mz Vz V M
(kN) (kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN) (kN) (kN.m)
+X/+Y/max 2861 21 9 27 11 14 34
-X/+Y/max 2861 26 12 27 11 16 37 X/ Y/max 2861 26 12 27 11 16 37
+X/-Y/max 2861 21 9 28 11 14 35
-X/-Y/max 2861 26 12 28 11 16 38
+X/+Y/min 2744 21 9 27 11 14 34
-X/+Y/min 2744 26 12 27 11 16 37
+X/ Y/min 2744 21 9 28 11 14 35 +X/-Y/min 2744 21 9 28 11 14 35
-X/-Y/min 2744 26 12 28 11 16 38
BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS (I)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 49
Footing dimensions 2m x 2m :
results from bearing capacity under permanent
loads
Soil conditions : ground type B stiff clay
Assume C
u
= 300 kPa for static conditions
For seismic conditions 10% reduction for cyclic
degradation C
u
= 270 kPa
M t i l f t 1 4 C 195 kP Material factor
M
= 1.4 C
ud
y 195 kPa
According to annex F of EN 1998-5
RD
= 1
BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS (II)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 50
Although Annex F is for strip footing :
can be used for circular footing with appropriate
value of N
max
N
max
= t r
2
N
c
C
ud
= 3.14 x 1.13
2
x 6.0 x 195 = 4680 kPa
max
c ud
RD sd
N
N .

= = =
or
or
2861 2744
061 0.59
max
N .
N
or 061 0.59
4680
RD sd RD sd
V M
V M
16 38
00035 00041
RD sd RD sd
max max
V . M .
N BN
= = = = = = 00035 00041
4680 2x 4680
a B 2x2 5x2
RD
a B
F .
C

= = =
2x2.5x2
005
195
ud
VERIFICATIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 51
0.160
0.120
0.140
/
B
.
N
m
a
x
0.100
o
m
e
n
t


M
s
d
/
N
sd
= 2861 MN
N
sd
= 2744 MN
0.080
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

m
o
Seismic forces
sd
0.040
0.060
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

o
v
e
0.020
N
o
r
m
0.000
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200
Normalized shear force V
sd
/N
max
PILES AND PIERS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 52
Should be designed to resist both:
Inertia forces from the superstructure
Kinematic forces due to the earthquake induced soil Kinematic forces due to the earthquake-induced soil
deformations.
Kinematic interaction only required
Ground type D, S
1
or S
2
with consecutive layers of sharply yp ,
1 2
y p y
contrasting stiffness
Design ground acceleration > 0.10 g, and Design ground acceleration > 0.10 g, and
The supported structure is of importance category III or IV
EFFECT OF KINEMATIC INTERACTION ON PILES
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 53
PILE CAP CONNECTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 54
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 55
Although piles will generally be designed to
remain elastic, they may under certain
conditions develop plastic hinges at their head
Inclined piles not recommended
Although they carry out large horizontal forces
Poor observed behaviour during earthquake but there exists g q
counter examples
Highly sensitive to soil settlement Highly sensitive to soil settlement
Less ductile behaviour than flexural piles
RESIDUAL BENDING MOMENTS IN PILES : CENTRIFUGE TESTS
LCPC, 2010
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 56
Inclined piles
Vertical piles
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION (annex D)
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 57
Mandatory for
Structures sensitive to p-o effects
M i d l b dd d f d ti Massive or deeply embedded foundations
Slender structures (tower, mast) ( )
Structures founded on soft soil deposits V
S
< 100
m/s m/s
Piled foundations (see annex E for pile head
tiff ) stiffness)
EFFECT OF SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
Dissemination of information for training Lisbon 10-11 February 2011 58
Mexico 1985