664 FOUNDATION STRUCTURES low buildings with structural walls will it be possible to satisfy overall stability (overturning) criteria for this high level of lateral forces. (b) Ductile Foundation Systems When the potential strength of the super- structure with respect to the specified lateral seismic forces is excessive, the designer might choose the foundation structure to limit lateral forces that are to be resisted. In such cases the foundation structure rather than the superstructure may be chosen to be the principal source of energy dissipation during the inelastic response. All requirements relevant to ductile perfor- mance will be applicable to the design of the components of such a founda- tion structure, Before choosing such a system the designer should, however, carefully weigh the consequences of possible damage during moderately strong earthquakes. Cracks, which may be large if some yielding has oc- curred, and spalling of concretes may be difficult to detect. Moreover, because of difficulty with access to members of the foundation structure, which may well be situated below the water table, repair work is likely to be costly. (c) Rocking Structural Systems A common feature in the design of earth- quake-resisting structural walls is the difficulty with which the flexural capac- ity of such walls, even when only moderately reinforced, can be absorbed by the foundation system without it becoming unstable (i.e. without overturn- ing). For such situations the designer may chose rocking of parts or of the © entire structure to be the principal mechanism of earthquake resistance. Consequently, rocking parts of the superstructure aud their foundation members may be designed to remain elastic during the rocking motions, 9.3 FOUNDATION STRUCTURES FOR FRAMES 9.3.1 Isolated Footings Gravity- and earthquake-induced forces in individual columns may be trans- mitted to the supporting soil by isolated footings, shown in Fig. 9.1. The overturning moment capacity of such a footing will depend on the axial Ett fa)Elastic —“{b) Rocking {(c) Failing (a) Permonently deformed Fig. 9.1 Response of isolated footings.FOUNDATION STRUCTURES FOR FRAMES 665 Fig. 9.2. Combined footings. compression load on the columns acting simultancously with the lateral force due to earthquake, and on the footing dimensions. The common and desirable situation whereby a plastic hinge at the base of the column can develop with flexural overstrength while the footing remains elastic is shown in Fig. 9.1(a). If the footing is not large enough, rocking or tipping can occur, as seen in Fig. 9.1(6), while both the column and the footing remain clastic. Unless- precautions are taken, permanent tilt due to plastic deformations in the soil could occur. When the footing is not pro- tected by application of capacity design principles, inelastic deformations may develop in thc footing only, as seen in Fig. 9.1(c). If these occur due to earthquake attack from the other direction also, the bearing capacity at the edges of the footing to sustain gravity loads may also be lost [Fig. 9.1(d)]. Particular attention must be paid to the detailings of the column-footing joint. The relevant principles are those discussed in Section 4.8. Isolated footings of the type discussed here are suitable only for one- or to two-story buildings. 9.32 Combined Footings More feasible means to absorb large moments transmitted by plastic hinges at column bases involve the use of stiff tic beams between footings. Figure 9.2 shows that a high degree of elastic restraint against column rotations can be provided. The depth of the foundation beams usually enables the over- strength moments from the column bascs to be resisted readily at ideal ‘strength. Although the footings, too, may transmit some moments, it is usually sufficient to design them to transmit to the soil only axial loads from the columns due to gravity and earthquake forces. The latter are associated with the overstrength actions of the mechanism developed in the ductile frame superstructure, such as derived in Section 4.6.6. The shear forces from the foundation beams must also be included. The modcl of this structure is shown in Fig. 9.3(a). When the ideal strength of the foundation structure, shown in Fig. 9.2, is based on load input from the superstructure at overstrength, no yielding666 FOUNDATION STRUCTURES Plastic hinges Fig. 9.3 Models of combined footings with foundation beams. should occur and hence the special requirements of the detailing of the reinforcement for ductility, examined in detail in Chapter 4, need not apply. Due consideration must be given to the joints between columns and foundation beams. These are similar to the types shown in Figs. 4.45(a) to (c) and 4.46(@) and (c). If it is necessary to reduce the bearing pressure under the footing pads, they may be joined, as shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 9.2, to provide a continuous footing. When the safe bearing stratum is at a greater depth, stub columns or pedestals, extending between the footing and the foundation beam, are often used, as shown in Fig. 9.4. Stub columns require special attention if inelastic deformations and shear failure are to be avoided. It is generally preferable to restrict energy dissipation to plastic hinges in columns above the beams, as shown on the left of Fig. 9.4. The model given in Fig. 9.3(b) shows that the Fig. 9.4 Combined footings with foundation beams and stub columns.FOUNDATION STRUCTURES FOR FRAMES © 667 moments and shear forces for the stub columns will be influenced by both the mode of horizontal earthquake shcar resistance and the degree of rotational restraint provided by the footing pad. Therefore, it is important to establish whether the column shear forces are resisted at the level of the footings or at the level of the foundation beam. In exceptional circumstances, foundation beams may be made to develop plastic hinges, as shown in Fig. 9.3(c) and on the right of Fig, 9.4. The capacity design of columns above and below thc foundation beam would then follow the steps outlined in Section 4.6. Similarly, all principles discussed in Section 4.8 are relevant to the design of joints adjacent to plastic hinges. Tie beams, extending in both horizontal directions also serve the purpose of ensuring efficient interaction of all components within the foundation system, as an integral unit. Estimates for the horizontal load transfer between footings and the soil are rather crude. Some provision should thus be made for the horizontal redistribution of lateral forces between individual column bases. Codes [A6] recommend arbitrary levels of axial forces, producing tension or compression, which should be considered together with the bending moments acting on tic or foundation beams. A typical level of the design force in such a beam is of the order of 10% of the maximum axial load to be transmitted by either of the two adjacent columns. Consideration needs to be given to the modeling of the base of columns in ductile frames. The common assumption of full fixity at the column base may be valid only for columns supported on rigid raft foundations or on individual foundation pads supported by short stiff piles or by basement walls, Founda- tion pads supported on deformable soil may have considerable rotational ficxibility, resulting in column moments in the bottom story quite different from those resulting from the assumption of a rigid base. The conscquence can be unexpected column hinging at the top of the lower-story columns, In such cases the column base should be modeled by a rotational spring [Fig. 9.5(b)] of flexural stiffness M/6 = Ky=k,ly (9.1) where &, is the vertical coefficient of subgrade modulus [units: MPa/m) (psi/in.)] and J, is the second moment of area of the foundation pad/soil A Krekslr Kseksly {a)Pad rotation (b/ Rotational (c} Fictitous Fig. 9.5 Modeling of column base rota- spring column _tional stiffness.8 FOUNDATION STRUCTURES interface corresponding with pad rotation, as shown in Fig. 9.5(a). For computer programs that do not have the facility for directly inputting the characteristics of rotational springs, the foundation rotational flexibility may be modeled by use of a fictitious prismatic column member, as shown in Fig. 9.5(c), of length 7 and flexural rigidity EJ, so that K = 4EI/l = k,l, (9.2) Alternatively, modeling as shown in Fig. 6.7 may be used. 93.3 Basements When basements extending over one or more stories below the ground floor are provided and the drift within the basement or subbascment is very small, because of the presence of basement walls, ideal foundation conditions for the ductile frames of the superstructure are available. Hence no difficulties should normally arise in providing an elastic foundation system to absorb actions readily from the superstructure at its overstrength. 9.4 FOUNDATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL WALL SYSTEMS Often, instead of being distributed over the entire plan area of a building, seismic resistance is concentrated at a few localities where structural walls have been positioned. As a consequence, the local demand on the founda- tions may be very large and indeed critical [B19]. The performance of the foundation system will profoundly influence the response of the structural wall superstructure (Section 5.1). For these reasons foundation structures, supporting wall systems, are examined here in greater detail. 9.4.1 Elastic Foundations for Walls The design of elastic foundation systems for elastically responding structures [Section 9.2.2(a)] does not require elaboration. The simple principles relevant to ductile superstructures (Section 9.2.1) may be stated as follows: 1. The actions transmitted to the foundation structure should be derived from the appropriate combination of the earthquake- and gravity-induced actions at the base of walls, at the development of the overstrength of the ~ relevant flexurally yielding sections in accordance with the principles of capacity design (Sections 5.4 and 5.5). To determine the corresponding design actions on various components of the foundation structure, the appropriate “soil or pile reactions” must be determined. In this it may be necessary to make limiting assumptions (Section 9.1) to cover uncertainties in soil strength and stiffness.