UNIVERSITY OF BALAMAND

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Civil Engineering Department

CIVE444 – Seismic Design of Foundations

Project Title: Analysis, Design, and Detailing of Various Foundation Layouts

Review Number: 5 (Final Draft)

Students Name: Ramez Bou-Rizk (A1310287)

Instructors Name: Dr. Hikmat Zerbe

Semester: Fall

Date of Submission: November 24, 2017

____________________________

Student Signature

i
 Table of Content

Introduction, Structural Plan, and Project Information

a. Introduction (Previous Project Information) ................................................................................. 1

b. Structural Plan (Vertical Elements) .............................................................................................. 1

c. Material Details and Load Combinations ..................................................................................... 2

d. Project Requirements ................................................................................................................... 3

Foundation Layout #1 – Isolated, Strip, and Partial Mat Foundations

a. Basic Layout Information ............................................................................................................ 4

b. Soil Bearing Capacity and Punching Shear Verification ............................................................... 6

c. Uplift Analysis and Verification .................................................................................................. 7

d. Reinforcing Steel Design ............................................................................................................. 9

Foundation Layout #2 – Mat Foundation

a. Basic Layout Information .......................................................................................................... 11

b. Soil Bearing Capacity and Punching Shear Verification ............................................................. 12

c. Uplift Analysis and Verification ................................................................................................ 14

d. Reinforcing Steel Design ........................................................................................................... 14

e. Steel Layout .............................................................................................................................. 15

Conclusion

a. Final Results .............................................................................................................................. 23

b. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 23

c. References (APA Format) .......................................................................................................... 23

ii
 List of Figures

 Figure 1 – Structural Plan .................................................................................................................. 1

 Figure 2 – Plan View of Layout #1 .................................................................................................... 4

 Figure 3 – Perspective Plan View of Layout #1 ................................................................................. 5

 Figure 4 – Soil Pressure of Layout #1 ................................................................................................ 6

 Figure 5 – Punching Shear of Layout #1 ............................................................................................ 7

 Figure 6 – Uplift Verification of Layout #1 ....................................................................................... 8

 Figure 7 – Element ID’s of Layout #1 ............................................................................................... 9

 Figure 8 – Perspective Plan View of Layout #2 ............................................................................... 11

 Figure 9 – Deformed Shape of Layout #2 ........................................................................................ 12

 Figure 10 – Soil Pressure of Layout #2 ............................................................................................ 13

 Figure 11 – Punching Shear of Layout #2 ........................................................................................ 13

 Figure 12 – Typical Top Steel X - Direction of Layout #2 ............................................................... 15

 Figure 13 – Additional Top Steel X - Direction of Layout #2 .......................................................... 16

 Figure 14 – Typical Bottom Steel X - Direction of Layout #2 .......................................................... 17

 Figure 15 – Additional Bottom Steel X - Direction of Layout #2 ..................................................... 18

 Figure 16 – Typical Top Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2 ............................................................... 19

 Figure 17 – Additional Top Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2 .......................................................... 20

 Figure 18 – Typical Bottom Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2 .......................................................... 21

 Figure 19 – Additional Bottom Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2 ..................................................... 22

iii
 List of Tables

 Table 1 – Footing Reinforcing Steel for Layout #1 .......................................................................... 10

 Table 2 – Tie-Beam Reinforcing Steel for Layout #1 ....................................................................... 10

 Table 3 – Mat Foundation Reinforcing Steel for Layout #2 ............................................................. 16

iv
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

v
 Introduction, Structural Plan, and Project Information

a. Introduction (Previous Project Information)

This report covers the design of two different foundation layouts for a 6-story building structural

system. The analysis and design of the seismic system for the building was completed prior to this project,

and the reactions obtained from ETABS will be used to complete the requirements of this project. The

first layout will consist of isolated, strip, and partial mat foundations and the second layout will be a

full mat foundation.

Seismic provisions will be done in accordance to UBC ‘97 and ACI 318M - 14. Additional

information regarding foundations and structural detailing will be obtained from ACI 336.2R - 88 and

ACI 315 - 99, respectfully. All foundation analysis and design will be done using SAFE.

b. Structural Plan (Vertical Elements)

NOTE:

All columns are either

40 x 40 cm or 70 x 30

cm.

All walls have a

thickness of 25 cm.

Figure 1 – Structural Plan

-1-
 c. Material Details and Load Combinations

The following material properties are used:

Concrete Compressive Strength (fc’) = 28 MPa

Concrete Unit Weight (g) = 2.5 t/m3

Steel Yield Strength (fy) = 420 MPa

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity (q all.) = 35 t/m3 (350 KPa)

Soil Subgrade Modulus = 120 * q all. = 4.2 * 104 KPa/m

The following service load combinations are used (for soil and punching shear verification):

DL + LL* 0.9DL + 0.714Vx

DL + 0.75LL* + 0.536Vx 0.9DL - 0.714Vx

DL + 0.75LL* - 0.536Vx 0.9DL + 0.714Vy

DL + 0.75LL* + 0.536Vy 0.9DL - 0.714Vy

DL + 0.75LL* - 0.536Vy NOTE: LL* = LL + RLL

The following ultimate (strength) load combinations are used (for reinforced concrete design):

1.4DL 1.5DL + 1.125LL* - 0.804Vy

1.2DL + 1.6LL + 0.5RLL 1.35DL + 1.071Vx

1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.6RLL 1.35DL – 1.071Vx

1.5DL + 1.125LL* + 0.804Vx 1.35DL + 1.071Vy

1.5DL + 1.125LL* - 0.804Vx 1.35DL – 1.071Vy

1.5DL + 1.125LL* + 0.804Vy NOTE: LL* = LL + RLL

The above load combinations are obtained by multiplying selective service combinations by 1.5. All other

details can be found in the completed SAFE models corresponding to this project.

-2-
 d. Project Requirements

The following requirements will all be covered throughout the rest of this report in the sequence listed

below.

 Design the foundations using SAFE assuming the building is supported on isolated footings under

the columns, strip footings under the basement walls, and partial mat under the staircase connected

all by tie-beams.

 Design the foundations using SAFE assuming the building is supported on a full mat foundation.

 In each case provide: verification of soil bearing capacity and punching shear, check for uplift, and

provide reinforcing steel design.

-3-
 Foundation Layout #1 – Isolated, Strip, and Partial Mat Foundations

a. Basic Layout Information

The first layout will consist of isolated, strip, and partial mat foundations distributed under the various

columns and walls. All the foundations will be connected by tie-beams in an attempt to minimalize

differential settlement. The figures below illustrate the final layout on SAFE used in this project.

Moment Release

Figure 2 – Plan View of Layout #1

The strip footing under the perimeter basement walls are 1 m wide and are offset 375 mm from

each face of the 250 mm thick wall. The partial mat, under the staircase and two columns, is 6 x 5 m and

the second strip footing, under the shear wall and column, is 2 x 6 m. The final thickness that was used to

satisfy both soil bearing capacity and punching shear was 400 mm. These verifications will be seen in the

next section of this report. All tie-beams are 400 mm wide and 350 mm thick in order to account for 50

mm of extruded polystyrene foam. Also, all tie-beams are released on their edges to ensure they don’t

transfer moments.

-4-
-5-
Figure 3 – Perspective View of Layout #1
 b. Soil Bearing Capacity and Punching Shear Verification

After adjusting the foundation surface area (offset values) and thickness, the final dimensions as stated

in the previous section resulted in a maximum pressure of 300 KPa and this is less than the allowable soil

bearing capacity which is given as 350 KPa. The pressure diagram below shows the region of high

pressure occurs under the strip footing supporting a shear wall and column.

Figure 4 – Soil Pressure of Layout #1

-6-
 Only three columns are present in the basement of this building structure, while all the other

vertical elements are walls and so punching shear is not criterial in these regions. The figure below shows

the demand over capacity ratios of each column. Since all values are less than 1 then there is no issue with

the slab thickness. It is also worth noting that punching shear was the controlling factor in selecting a

thickness of 400 mm and not the soil bearing capacity.

Figure 5 – Punching Shear of Layout #1

c. Uplift Analysis and Verification

A quick analysis was run to check if there was any region of uplift under the foundations. This was

done by converting all the service load combinations to nonlinear static cases and ensuring that the

supporting soil only accepted compression. This analysis showed that the partial mat under the staircase

has major regions of uplift on both sides (due to the service envelope) as seen in the following figure.

These regions need to be carefully designed and detailed to avoid failure in the concrete.

-7-
 Uplift Regions

-8-
Figure 6 –Uplift Verification of Layout #1
 d. Reinforcing Steel Design

As stated before, all reinforcing steel design will be done in accordance to ACI 318M - 14 using

SAFE’s inbuilt design algorithms. The concrete covers of the foundations will be taken as 75 mm at the

bottom and 50 mm in all other directions as seen in ACI table 20.6.1.3.1. Also, minimum reinforcing

steel will be provided in regions that analysis deems no steel is needed in accordance to ACI table

7.6.1.1. The tie-beams will also be designed using SAFE and a concrete cover of 40 mm will be used in

all directions.

Uniform steel sizes and spacing will be used in each foundation and beam element to facilitate on-site

execution. All these results will be summarized in tables and element ID’s will be based on the figure

shown below. The steel direction will be based on the axis also shown in the figure below.

Figure 7 – Element ID’s of Layout #1

-9-
The two tables below show the required bar sizes and spacing for the footings and tie-beams.

Footing Reinforcing Steel

Top Steel Bottom Steel
Element ID
X - Direction Y - Direction X - Direction Y - Direction
SF1 T14 @ 200 mm T14 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm
SF2 T14 @ 200 mm T14 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm
SF3 T14 @ 200 mm T14 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm
SF4 T14 @ 200 mm T14 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm
SF5 T16 @ 200 mm T16 @ 200 mm T25 @ 100 mm T25 @ 100 mm *
PM1 T22 @ 100 mm * T25 @ 100 mm * T22 @ 100 mm * T25 @ 100 mm

Table 1 – Footing Reinforcing Steel for Layout #1

Tie-Beam Reinforcing Steel

Element ID Top Steel ** Bottom Steel Stirrups (Av min.)
TB1 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB2 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB3 2T10 2T12 T10 @ 150 mm
TB4 2T10 2T12 T10 @ 150 mm
TB5 2T10 2T12 T10 @ 150 mm
TB6 2T10 2T12 T10 @ 150 mm
TB7 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB8 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB9 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB10 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB11 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm
TB12 2T10 2T10 T10 @ 150 mm

Table 2 – Tie-Beam Reinforcing Steel for Layout #1

* - Additional localized steel is needed to deal with regions of high concentrated stresses.

** - No top steel is needed since beams are simply supported, 2T10 are provided to aid in tying stirrups.

- 10 -
 Foundation Layout #2 – Mat Foundation

a. Basic Layout Information

The second layout to be analyzed and designed will consist of a full mat foundation distributed under

all the columns and walls. The mat foundation thickness will be determined by satisfying the soil bearing

capacity and punching shear. An offset of 200 mm was taken from all edges of the foundation to allow

the well spreading of loads from the retaining walls spread across the entire perimeter. The figure below

illustrates the final layout on SAFE used in this project.

Figure 8 – Perspective View of Layout #2

The dimensions of the mat foundation are 21.4 x 13.4 m and the thickness was finally set as 500

mm after several iterations that involved satisfying the soil bearing capacity and punching shear. These

verifications will be seen in the next section of this report.

- 11 -
 Figure 9 – Deformed Shape of Layout #2

The deformed shape seen above shows excessive downward deflections at the perimeter and under the

staircase and shear wall. This is important because these regions require large amounts of steel at the

bottom while the other regions will require top steel.

b. Soil Bearing Capacity and Punching Shear Verification

The final dimensions and thickness, as stated in the previous section, resulted in a maximum pressure

of 215 KPa and this is less than the allowable soil bearing capacity which is given as 350 KPa. Also, as

expected the mat foundation resulted in a much smaller maximum pressure due to its large surface area

and higher stiffness that results in a more even stress distribution.

Only three columns are present in the basement of this building structure, while all the other vertical

elements are walls and so punching shear is not criterial in these regions. The following figure shows the

demand over capacity ratios of each column. Since all values are less than 1 then there is no issue with the

slab thickness. It is also worth noting that punching shear was the controlling factor in selecting a

thickness of 500 mm and not the soil bearing capacity

- 12 -
Figure 10 – Soil Pressure of Layout #2

Figure 11 – Punching Shear of Layout #2

- 13 -
 c. Uplift Analysis and Verification

The same analysis steps used for the first foundation layout are used for the full mat foundation. The

results showed that no uplift regions are generated by any of the service load combinations. Therefore, no

additional steps need to be taken to account for the uplift.

d. Reinforcing Steel Design

All reinforcing steel design will be done in accordance to ACI 318M - 14 using SAFE’s inbuilt design

algorithms. The concrete covers of the foundations will be taken as 75 mm at the bottom and 50 mm in

all other directions as seen in ACI table 20.6.1.3.1. Also, minimum reinforcing steel will be provided in

regions that analysis deems no steel is needed in accordance to ACI table 7.6.1.1.

Uniform steel sizes and spacing will be used in each direction and location of the mat foundation to

facilitate on-site execution. All these results will be summarized in the table seen below. Additional steel

will be provided in regions of high stress where the typical steel was not sufficient.

Mat Foundation Reinforcing Steel

Steel Location Steel Direction Typical Steel Additional Steel *
X - Direction T20 @ 200 mm T20 @ 100 mm
Top Steel
Y - Direction T20 @ 200 mm T20 @ 100 mm
X - Direction T20 @ 200 mm T20 @ 100 mm
Bottom Steel
Y - Direction T20 @ 200 mm T20 @ 100 mm

Table 3 – Mat Foundation Reinforcing Steel for Layout #2

* - Additional localized steel is needed to deal with regions of high concentrated stresses. See the

diagrams in the following section for regions of high stresses.

- 14 -
e. Steel Layout

Figure 12 – Typical Top Steel X - Direction of Layout #2

- 15 -
Figure 13 – Additional Top Steel X - Direction of Layout #2

- 16 -
Figure 14 – Typical Bottom Steel X - Direction of Layout #2

- 17 -
Figure 15 – Additional Bottom Steel X - Direction of Layout

- 18
#2-
Figure 16 – Typical Top Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2

- 19 -
Figure 17 – Additional Top Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2
- 20 -
Figure 18 – Typical Bottom Steel Y - Direction of Layout #2

- 21 -
Figure 19 – Additional Bottom Steel Y - Direction of Layout

#2 -
- 22
 Conclusion

a. Final Results

The final results of this project proved to be similar to that of the previous project. Seismic designed

elements always require large amounts of steel when compared to classical gravity load designed

elements. This is due to the high levels of stresses that are induced by the lateral earthquake forces.

Overall, seismic resisting elements need to be properly and carefully designed to ensure that in the case of

an earthquake all element can continuously provide structural support and avoid total collapse.

b. Conclusion

In conclusion, this project was an excellent opportunity to apply all the techniques learned throughout

the semester and apply them in a very practical manner. It also required modest amounts of engineering

judgment when selecting steel bars for examples. Being able to apply all the analysis and design methods

into one practical seismic project was truly beneficial in understanding all topics.

c. References (APA Format)

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14). (2015). Farmington, MI: American

Concrete Institute.

Details and Detailing of Concrete Reinforcement (ACI 315-04). (2005). Farmington, MI: American

Concrete Institute.

Suggested Analysis and Design Procedures for Combined Footings and Mats (ACI 336.2R-88). (2002).

Farmington, MI: American Concrete Institute.

Uniform Building Code 1997 (UBC ‘97). (1997). Whittier, CA: International Conference of Building

Officials.

- 23 -