AFFECT OF SEISMIC INTENSITIES AND SOIL TYPES ON

FOUNDATION DESIGN

Prof Shaukat Ali Khan, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering

& Technology, Taxila, Pakistan.
Muhammad Javed Iqbal, Post Graduate Student, University of Engineering &
Technology, Taxila, Pakistan.

Abstract

This paper presents the impacts of varying seismic intensities (Gravity,

Zone-1 to 4) and UBC soil types on foundation design of buildings. After the
devastating earthquake of October 8th 2005 in northern areas of Pakistan, seismic
zoning has been revised for the country and new parameters have been formulated
for seismic resistant design of structures in different zones. 3-D models (Concrete
moment resisting frames) have been analyzed for increasing seismic intensities and
similarly for all UBC soil categories using ETABS. It was observed that foundation
areas required were more for higher seismic intensities as well as for softer soil
categories.

Key Words: Seismic intensities, UBC soil types, seismic analysis, ETABS,
foundation areas, Shear Wave Velocity.

1. Introduction
One of the most disparaging phenomena of nature is the earthquake of severe intensity and
its awful aftereffects. An earthquake is a sudden movement of the Earth, caused by the abrupt release
of strain that has been accumulated over a long time. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of
plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface slowly move
over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are
locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows
strong enough, the plates break free [1]. If the earthquake occurs in a populated area, it causes
countless deaths and injuries and extensive property damage.
Destructions of recent earthquake inspired authorities to review the seismic parameters and
criteria for seismic resistant design of buildings and to develop a comprehensive building code
covering all aspects. As a result earthquake zoning has been revised for the country and parameters
have been laid down for seismic resistant design known as Seismic Provisions 2007 [2]. These
revisions in seismic parameters would have significant impacts on civil engineering structures in terms
of safety but enhanced project costs. In this research, effort has been made to highlight and evaluate
impacts of these revisions on foundation designs of buildings. This would help people and
professionals in developing more understanding to the earthquake phenomenon.
The damage resulting from earthquakes may be influenced in a number of ways by the
characteristics of the soils in the affected area. Where the damage is related to a gross instability of
the soil, resulting in permanent movements of the ground surface, association of the damage with the
local soil conditions is readily apparent.
The magnitude of influence of local soil conditions on the characteristics of earthquake
ground motions and thereby on building damage merits their careful consideration in seismic design in
the following context:
 (a) The influence of soil conditions on the characteristics of earthquake ground motions.
(b) Methods of evaluating the liquefaction potential of soil deposits (in sandy soils).
(c) For evaluation of (a) above, either detailed site-specific studies through sophisticated
computer models or design approaches given in UBC or IBC may be followed.
It follows from the above observations that any practice of earthquake resistant design must
not be restricted only to the structural design to resist seismic forces but in all cases should be
extended to incorporate evaluation of foundation support conditions which would influence design and
construction of buildings and structures to resist earthquake shaking. The propagation of earthquake
waves through different soil formations is different. This primarily depends on property of soils to
transmit seismic waves, known as Shear Wave Velocity [3]. Thus the soil conditions at a particular
location significantly affect the observed impact on the surrounding area. Summarizing one may say,
the seismic damage caused at a particular site is greatly influenced by the magnitude, duration and
frequency of the ground vibration, distance from the epicenter, geological conditions between the
epicenter and the site, soil properties at the site and the building type and characteristics.
In this research, emphasis has been made to elaborate the affect of soil types on propagation
of seismic waves, their ultimate affects on buildings foundations design. As stated in the ACI 318-02
[3], foundations need to be proportioned against dead loads, live loads along with lateral forces
generated by earthquake. In this research an effort has been made to evaluate foundation design
(especially footing area) of multi storey buildings on basis of different soils types and seismic factors.
For seismic analysis, table 16.I of UBC 1997 [5] has been adopted for different seismic
intensities. UBC covers various soil types in six categories i.e., soil type A to F. Soil type A ‘S A’ is a
hard rock category and Soil type E ‘S E’ is the softer soil category that can be modeled in most
structural analysis softwares. Soil type F “S F” requires site specific evaluation as given in UBC table
16-J. Foundation areas based on an assumed allowable bearing pressure of 1 TSF (2.204 KSF) are
calculated. The bearing pressures, practically, would not be same for all the soil types. For soil type
SA values would be more as compared to S F, but a value of 1 tsf has been assumed for simple
comprehension.

2. Research methodology:
Various design codes describe different methods of seismic analysis of buildings and bridges
etc and various softwares with the same inbuilt features are being used for analysis/design. In
Pakistan, Uniform Building Code 1997 is mostly being used for building design and the new Pakistan
Building code (SP-2007) is also based on the same code.
The next task was to find software with inbuilt UBC seismic provisions and which can simulate
different seismic intensities as well as soil types. ETABS [6], a product of Computers and Structures,
Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, used for Integrated Building Design was selected for modeling of
buildings. A 3D frame with a simple and regular framing was prepared and analyses were performed
for varying heights (2-stories to 6 stories). The models are limited to a height of 60 ft (6 x stories) to
avoid dynamic analysis. To keep analysis results simple and easily comparable, models same in plan,
elevations and stiffness were selected. Moreover there were no irregularities introduced. Each model
is analyzed for all seismic categories (Gravity, Zone-1 to 4) [7] and similarly for all UBC soil categories
(Soil type A to E).
Support reactions for every analysis were tabulated and foundation areas were calculated. All
nodal areas added to reach an accumulative value of total foundation area (SFT) required for each
analysis. Areas required for each seismic zone and each soil type were considered, summarized and
compared.

3. Results and Discussion:

Tables 1.1 to 1.3 present results of analysis for 2, 4 & 6 storey frames respectively. Values
tabulated are summation of individual foundation areas required at every base point (Column point).
Along X-axis are the areas required for gravity and seismic intensities increasing from zone-1 to zone-
4, while values due to variation in soil types are tabulated along y-axis. Increase in foundation areas
have been calculated in terms of %-age difference. Figs 1.1 to 1.3 show similar variations graphically.
Reactions (base reactions from ETABS) computed against gravity loading (loading in which
seismic affects are not included) differ when compared with same models carrying seismic loading.
The difference in reactions (loads to foundations) goes on increasing as seismic zoning differs from
Zone-1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 respectively. In all the models, Zone-4 was found to be most critical; and
loads imparted to the foundations were maximum thus requiring maximum foundation areas. The
difference may go up to 20 %. The increase in foundation areas was observed to be less as seismic
zones changes from zone 2 to zone-3. This decrease can be easily observed in figures 1.1 to 1.3.
This is due to the increase in values of flexural resistance factor R, defined as Numerical coefficient
representative of the inherent over strength and global ductility capacity of lateral force- resisting
systems in accordance with Table 16-N UBC 1997. Value of R for intermediate moment resisting
frames is 5.5 as compared to special moment resistance frames for which the values increases to 8.5.
In moderate seismic zones, i.e., gravity, zone 1 to 2B, ordinary and intermediate moment resistance
frames can be used, but in high seismic zones, only special moment resistance frames are allowed.
Due to this variation in value of R, the resultant base shear decreases thus imparting lesser lateral
loads to foundations [8].
Reactions to foundations were more in case of softer soils as compared to harder soils. Soil
type SE exhibits most critical results. As UBC soil types were varied from Soil type S A to SE, reactions
kept on increasing and difference in foundation areas reached to a value of about 15%.
ZONING
ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4

FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE
GRAVITY
AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY

S A 2220 2220 0.00 2253 1.49 2294 3.33 2294 3.33 2380 7
O
I
L
B 2220 2220 0.00 2294 3.33 2294 3.33 2294 3.33 2458 11

T C 2220 2253 1.49 2356 6.10 2415 8.78 2415 8.78 2458 11
Y
P D 2220 2263 1.95 2415 8.78 2458 10.72 2415 8.78 2458 11
E
S E 2220 2380 7.21 2458 10.72 2517 13.36 2415 8.78 2458 11
% DIFFERENCE
(S A TO S E) 0.00 7.21 9.10 9.70 5.27 3.28

Table 1.1 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 2-STOREY BUILDING

ZONING
ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4
FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE
GRAVITY
AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY
S
O
A 4053 4096 1.06 4096 1.06 4123 1.74 4123 1.74 4356 7
I
L
B 4053 4096 1.06 4123 1.74 4168 2.85 4168 2.85 4541 12

T C 4053 4123 1.74 4280 5.61 4309 6.32 4280 5.61 4654 15
Y
P D 4053 4123 1.74 4309 6.32 4356 7.48 4356 7.48 4825 19
E
S E 4053 4280 5.61 4590 13.25 4699 15.96 4541 12.04 4825 19
% DIFFERENCE
(S A TO S E ) 0.00 4.50 12.06 13.98 10.13 10.77

Table 1.2 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 4-STOREY BUILDING

ZONING
ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4
FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE FOUNDATION % DIFERENCE
GRAVITY
AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY AREAS (SFT) WITH GRAVITY

S A 6000 6000 0.00 6074 1.23 6074 1.23 6074 1.23 6408 6.80
O
I
L
B 6000 6000 0.00 6074 1.23 6074 1.23 6074 1.23 6445 7.42

T C 6000 6074 1.23 6198 3.30 6299 4.98 6299 4.98 6783 13.05
Y
P D 6000 6074 1.23 6299 4.98 6427 7.12 6356 5.93 6957 15.95
E
S E 6000 6299 4.98 6674 11.23 6972 16.20 6747 12.45 7069 17.82
% DIFFERENCE
(S A TO S E ) 0.00 4.98 9.88 14.78 11.08 10.32

Table 1.3 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 6-STOREY BUILDING

 GRAVITY ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4
2550

2500

2450
TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT)

2400

2350

2300 ``

2250

2200

2150

2100

2050

SEISMIC ZONES
SOIL TYPE-A SOIL TYPE-B SOIL TYPE-C SOIL TYPE-D SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.1 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 2-STOREY BUILDING

G R A V IT Y ZON ZON E- ZO N E- ZON ZON

50 0 0 E- 1 2A 2B E- 3 E- 4

4800
TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT)

4600

4400

4200

4000

3800

3600

SEISM IC ZONES

SOIL TYPE-A SOIL TYPE-B SOIL TYPE-C SOIL TYPE-D SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.2 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 4-STOREY BUILDING

 GRAVITY ZONE-1 ZONE-2A ZONE-2B ZONE-3 ZONE-4
7200

7000

6800
TOTAL BEARING AREAS REQ (SFT)

6600

6400

6200

6000

5800

5600

5400

SEISMIC ZONES
SOIL TYPE-A SOIL TYPE-B SOIL TYPE-C SOIL TYPE-D SOIL TYPE-E

Figure 1.3 COMPARISONS OF FOUNDATION AREAS OF 6-STOREY BUILDING

4. Conclusions

Required foundation areas increase with increase in seismic intensities, being minimum for
gravity and maximum for Zone-4.
Reactions to foundations were more in case of softer soils as compared to harder soils. Soil
type SE exhibits most critical results requiring maximum areas as compared to SA
Practically, in field, models cannot be kept purely regular in plans due to architectural aspects
and site restrictions, thus effects of zoning variations and soil types on foundations gets more
important.
As stated earlier, analyses are based on assumed allowable bearing pressure of 1 tsf.
Practically values of bearing pressure for different soil types would not be the same and results may
differ.
Shear wave velocity has a direct impact on foundations areas of structures. Softer soils have
lesser shear wave velocity as compared to rocks. Due to this property seismic amplification is more in
softer soils than rocks. As a result, foundation areas required for softer soils and rock show a major
difference.

5. Recommendations
Soil types are as important as are the seismic zoning of a particular location, so as in
developed countries, UBC soil type maps for the whole country should also be prepared.
Soils investigation reports for the projects must dictate the seismic zones and UBC soil type
as well.
Geotechnical Engineers need to be familiarized with structural parameters and vice versa.
Geotechnical report must be written in light of parameters type, nature and importance of building,
seismicity of the area, soil type for seismic analysis, settlement characteristics of site soils, and type of
foundations.
The response of a structure to ground vibrations is a function of the nature of foundation soil,
construction materials, structural form, size and mode of construction of structures; and the duration
and characteristics of ground motion. The earthquake resistant design practice generally 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. A comprehensive earthquake resistant design must also address
the stability of ground itself on which the structure stands, when subjected to vibrations. This is
particularly important for the sites where the foundation soils are prone to liquefaction.
UBC soil types are based on two very broad categories i.e., Rocks and Soils, conditions at
site may not be covered in these two broad categories, thus seismic parameters for other soil
conditions should be laid down and procedures to be studied and elaborated.
Revised Seismic provisions have been introduced and published but till now most of Structure
as well as Geotechnical Engineers are unfamiliar with these provisions. Thus the new code should not
only be made accessible to Engineers in design practice but also in Universities as well. Moreover our
public needs to be more educated and familiarized with impacts of Earthquakes, thus easy
accessibility of Building Code to public would contribute much to this purpose.
Soil Types not only affect the foundation design but it contributes to Lateral Shear thus
affecting the whole superstructure, thus soil type characterization must not be ignored.

6 References

[1] USGS, United States Geological Survey Website.

[2] The Pakistan Building Code – Seismic Provisions 2007

[3] Earthquake Engineering (From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based ENGG) by Yousef

Bozorgnia & Vitelmo V. Bertero

[4] ACI 318-02, Building Code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
[5] Uniform Building Code 1997

[6] ETABS. Integrated building design Software, Computers and Strucutres Inc, California

[7] ETABS User manual and Example Problems.

[8] Design of concrete buildings for Earthquake and Wind forces by David A. Fanella and Javed A.
Munshi.
[9] Seismic design of building structures (A professional’s introduction to earthquake forces and
design details) by “Michael r. Lindeburg, PE”.

[10] Civil Engineering Reference Manual (Tenth Edition)