INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

SOIL MECHANICS AND

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of

the International Society for Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is
available here:

https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library

This is an open-access database that archives thousands

of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and
maintained by the Innovation and Development
Committee of ISSMGE.
Ishihara Lecture
Ishihara Lecture
Soil-Foundation-Structure Systems beyond Conventional Seismic Failure
Soil-Foundation-Structure
Thresholds Systems Beyond Conventional Seismic Failure
Thresholds
Conférence Ishihara
Conférence Ishihara
Les systèmes sol-fondation-structure qui dépassent les limites de la rupture parasismique
Les
conventionnellesol-fondation-structure qui dépassent les limites de la rupture parasismique
systèmes
conventionnelle
Gazetas G.
Gazetas
Professor,G.
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Professor, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

ABSTRACT: A new paradigm has now emerged in performance–based seismic design of soilfoundationstructure systems. Instead
of imposing strict safety limits on forces and moments transmitted from the foundation onto the soil (aiming at avoiding pseudo-static
failure), the new dynamic approach “invites” the creation of two simultaneous “failure” mechanisms: substantial foundation uplifting
and ultimate-bearing-capacity slippage, while ensuring that peak and residual deformations are acceptable. The paper shows that
allowing the foundation to work at such extreme conditions not only may not lead to system collapse, but it would help protect (save)
the structure from seismic damage. A potential price to pay: residual settlement and rotation, which could be abated with a number of
foundation and soil improvements. Numerical studies and experiments demonstrate that the consequences of such daring foundation
design would likely be quite beneficial to bridge piers and building frames. It is shown that system collapse could be avoided even
under seismic shaking far beyond the design ground motion.

RÉSUMÉ : Un nouveau paradigme a émergé dans la conception sismique de la performance des systèmes sol – fondation – structure.
Au lieu d'imposer des coefficients de sûreté sur les forces et les moments transmis par la fondation sur le sol (pour éviter la rupture
pseudo-statique), la nouvelle approche dynamique permet la création de deux modes de rupture simultanés : le soulèvement important
de la fondation et le dépassement de la capacité portante ultime, tout en assurant que les déformations maximales et résiduelles sont
acceptables. L’article montre que, quand on permet à la fondation de travailler dans ces conditions extrêmes, l'effondrement du
système peut être évité et de plus la structure peut être protégée du dommage sismique. Un prix potentiel à payer : le déplacement et la
rotation résiduels, qui peuvent être contrôlés avec différentes méthodes d'amélioration de la fondation et des sols. Des études
numériques et expérimentales montrent que les conséquences d'une telle conception audacieuse de la fondation seraient certainement
très bénéfiques pour les ponts et les bâtiments. On montre que l'effondrement du système pourrait être évité, même pendant des
secousses sismiques qui dépassent le mouvement de calcul.
KEYWORDS: seismic analysis, performance-based design, foundation rocking, bearing capacity failure, nonlinear vibrations

1 CURRENT STATE OF PRACTICE:  sliding at the soil–footing interface or excessive uplifting of

THE CONVENTIONAL “WISDOM” a shallow foundation
Seismic design of structures recognises that highly inelastic  passive failure along the normal compressing sides of an
material response is unavoidable under the strongest possible embedded foundation
shaking of the particular location and for the specific soil where  a combination of two or more of the above “failure” modes.
the structure is founded. “Ductility” levels of the order of 3 or In this conventional approach to foundation design,
more are usually allowed to develop under seismic loading, “overstrength” factors plus (explicit and implicit) factors of
implying that the strength of a number of critical bearing safety larger than 1 (e.g. in the form of “material” factors) are
elements is fully mobilized. In the prevailing structural introduced against each of the above “failure” modes, in a way
terminology “plastic hinging” is allowed to develop as long as qualitatively similar to the factors of safety of the traditional
the overall stability is maintained. static design. Thus, the engineer is certain that foundation
By contrast, a crucial goal of current practice in seismic performance will be satisfactory and there will be no need to
“foundation” design, particularly as entrenched in the respective inspect and repair after strong earthquake shaking  a task
codes is to avoid the mobilisation of “strength” in the practically considered next to impossible.
foundation. In the words of EC8 (Part 2, § 5.8) : Some of the above thresholds stem not just from an
“…foundations shall not be used as sources of hysteretic understandable engineering conservatism, but also from a
energy dissipation, and therefore shall be designed to purely (pseudo) static thinking. It will be shown that such an
remain elastic under the design seismic action.” approach may lead not only to unnecessarily expensive
In structural terminology : no “plastic hinging” is allowed in foundation solutions but also, in many situations, to less safe
the foundation. In simple geotechnical terms, the designer must structures.
ensure that the below-ground (and hence un-inspectable)
support system will not even reach a number of “thresholds”
that would conventionally imply failure. Specifically, the
following states are prohibited :
 plastic structural “hinging” in piles, pile-caps, foundation
beams, rafts, and so on
 mobilisation of the so-called bearing-capacity failure
mechanisms under cyclicallyuplifting shallow foundations

55
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

2 SOME COMPELLING REASONS TO GO BEYOND ignored, even if their geometrically–nonlinear nature presents
CONVENTIONAL THRESHOLDS computational difficulties.
In fact, it is worthy of note that the lack of recognition of the
A growing body of evidence suggests that soil–foundation fundamental difference between pseudo-static and seismic
plastic yielding under seismic excitation is unavoidable, and at overturning threshold accelerations has led humanity to a gross
times even desirable; hence, it must be considered in analysis under-estimation of the largest ground accelerations that must
and perhaps allowed in design. [See for an early recognition : have taken place in historic destructive earthquakes. Because,
Pecker 1998, Faccioli & Paolucci 1999, Martin & Lam 2000, by observing in numerous earthquakes that very slender blocks
FEMA-356 2000, Kutter et al 2001, Gazetas & Apostolou (of width b and height h, with h >> b) or monuments in
2003.] The urgent need to explicitly consider the possibility of precarious equilibrium that had not overturned, engineers had
the foundation system to go beyond “failure” thresholds, and the invariably attributed the fact to very small peak accelerations,
potential usefulness of doing so, have emerged from : less than (b/h)g, as would be necessary if accelerations were
(a) The large (often huge) effective ground acceleration, A, applied pseudostatically in one direction. Today we know that
and velocity, V, levels recorded in several earthquakes in the sometimes even five times as large peak ground acceleration of
last 25 years. A few examples : a high-frequency motion may not be enough to overturn a
• 1994 Ms ≈ 6.8 Northridge : A = 0.98 g, V = 140 cm/s ; slender block (Koh et al 1986, Makris & Roussos 2000, Gazetas
• 1995 MJ ≈ 7.2 Kobe : A = 0.85 g, V = 120 cm/s ; 2001). Simply stated: even severe uplifting (conventional
• 1986 Ms ≈ 5.6 San Salvador : A = 0.75 g, V = 84 cm/s ; “failure”) may not lead to overturning (true “collapse”) under
dynamic seismic base excitation.
• 2003 Ms = 6.4 Lefkada : A ≈ 0.55 g, V = 50 cm/s ;
(d) Compatibility with structural design is another reason for
• 2007 MJ ≈ 6.9 Niigata : A =1.20 g, V = 100cm/s . the soil−structure interaction analyst to compute the lateral load
With the correspondingly large accelerations in the (above– needed for collapse of the foundation system, as well as (in
ground) structure from such ground motions (spectral Sa values more detail) the complete load–displacement or moment–
well in excess of 1 g), preventing “plastic hinging” in the rotation response to progressively increasing loading up to
foundation system is a formidable task. And in fact, it may not collapse. Indeed, in State of the Art (SOA) structural
even be desirable: enormous ductility demands might be engineering use is made of the so-called “pushover” analysis,
imposed to the structure if soil–foundation “yielding” would not which in order to be complete requires the development of such
take place to effectively limit the transmitted accelerations. information from the foundation analyst.
Several present-day critically–important structures on relatively In addition to the above “theoretical” arguments, there is a
loose soil could not have survived severe ground shaking if growing need for estimating the “collapse motion” : insurance
“plastic hinging” of some sort had not taken place in the coverage of major construction facilities is sometimes based on
“foundation”  usually unintentionally. estimated losses under the worst possible (as opposed to
(b) In seismically retrofitting a building or a bridge, allowing probable) earthquake scenario.
for soil and foundation yielding is often the most rational (e) Several persuasive arguments could be advanced on the
alternative. Because increasing the structural capacity of some need not to disallow structural plastic “hinging” of piles:
elements, or introducing some new stiff elements, would then
imply that the forces transmitted onto their foundation will be • Yielding and cracking of piles (at various critical depths) is
increased, to the point that it might not be technically or unavoidable with strong seismic shaking in soft soils, as the
economically feasible to undertake them “elastically”. The new Kobe 1995 earthquake has amply revealed.
American retrofit design guidelines (FEMA 356) explicitly • Refuting the contrary universal belief, post-earthquake
permit some forms of inelastic deformations in the foundation. inspection of piles is often feasible (with internally placed
A simple hypothetical example referring to an existing three– inclinometers, borehole cameras, integrity shock testing,
bay multi–story building frame which is to be retrofitted with a under-excavation with visual inspection ), although certainly
single–bay concrete “shear” wall had been introduced by not a trivial operation. Again, Kobe offered numerous
Martin & Lam 2000. Such a wall, being much stiffer than the examples to this effect.
columns of the frame, would carry most of the inertia-driven • The lateral confinement provided by the soil plays a very
shear force and would thus transmit a disproportionately large significant role in pile response, by retarding the development
horizontal force and overturning moment onto the foundation of high levels of localised plastic rotation, thereby providing
compared with its respective small vertical force. If uplifting, an increase in ductility capacity. Sufficient displacement
sliding, and mobilisation of bearing capacity failure ductility may be achieved in a pile shaft with transverse
mechanisms in the foundation had been all spuriously ignored, reinforcement ratio as low as 0.003 (Butek et al 2004).
or had been conversely correctly taken into account, would have • The presence of soil confinement leads to increased plastic
led to dramatically different results. With “beyond–threshold” hinge lengths, thus preventing high localised curvatures
action in the foundation the shear wall would “shed” off some (Tassios 1998). Therefore, the piles retain much of their axial
of the load onto the columns of the frame, which must then be load carrying capacity after yielding.
properly reinforced ; the opposite would be true when such Thus, a broadly distributed plastic deformation on the pile
action (beyond the thresholds) is disallowed. may reduce the concentrated plastification on the structural
The Engineer therefore should be able to compute the column  so detrimental to safety.
consequences of “plastic hinging” in the foundation before Furthermore, when subjected to strong cyclic overturning
deciding whether such “hinging” must be accepted, modified, or moment, end-bearing piles in tension will easily reach their full
avoided (through foundation changes). frictional uplifting capacity. It has been shown analytically and
(c) Many slender historical monuments (e.g. ancient experimentally that this does not imply failure. The same
columns, towers, sculptures) may have survived strong seismic argument applies to deeply embedded (caisson) foundations.
shaking during their life (often of thousands of years). While (f) The current trend in structural earthquake engineering
under static conditions such “structures” would have easily calls for a philosophical change : from strength-based design
toppled, it appears that sliding at, and especially uplifting from, (involving force considerations) to performance-based design
their base during oscillatory seismic motion was a key to their (involving displacement considerations) [Pauley 2002,
survival (Makris & Roussos 2000, Papantonopoulos 2000). Priestley et al 2000, 2003, Calvi 2007]. Geotechnical
These nonlinear interface phenomena cannot therefore be earthquake engineering has also been slowly moving towards
performance–based seismic design: gravity retaining structures

56
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

are indeed allowed to slide during the design earthquake. The 4 ROTATIONAL MONOTONIC RESPONSE
time is therefore ripe for soil–foundation–structure interaction OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
(SFSI) to also move from imposing “safe” limits on forces and
moments acting on the foundation (aiming at avoiding pseudo- Much of the research in earlier years on dynamic rocking of
static “failure”) to performance–based design in which all foundations and dynamic soil−structure interaction had focused
possible conventional “failure” mechanisms are allowed to on linear response. Elastic stiffness and damping as functions of
develop, to the extent that maximum and permanent frequency have been developed and utilised to describe the
displacements and rotations are kept within acceptable limits. dynamic action of the foundation system. The various US
seismic codes in the last 30+ years have promulgated linear
approximations to deal with seismic soil−structure interaction.
3 THE CONCEPT OF “ROCKING ISOLATION” The behavior of “Rocking Foundations” significantly
IN FOUNDATION DESIGN deviates from linear visco-elasticity: uplifting introduces strong
geometric nonlinearity and even damping due to impact ; soil
The paper addresses the case of structure-foundation systems yielding and plastic deformation generate hysteresis, implying
oscillating mainly in a rotational mode (rocking). significant frequency-independent damping, while when
Subjected to strong seismic shaking, structures tend to bearing-capacity slippage mechanisms develop a limiting
experience large inertial forces. For tall-slender structures these plateau restricts the passage of high accelerations from the
forces will lead to overturning moments onto the foundation ground into the superstructure.
that may be disproportionally large compared to the vertical In monotonic loading, a most crucial parameter controlling
load. As a result, a shallow foundation may experience the moment−rotation, M−θ, relation of a specific foundation is
detachment (uplifting) of one edge from the supporting soil. the factor of safety against vertical static bearing capacity
This in turn will lead to increased normal stresses under the failure :
opposite edge of the foundation. Development of a bearing
capacity failure mechanism is quite possible if such a Fs = Nuo/N (1)
concentration leads to sufficiently large stresses. But, in where Nuo is the ultimate load under purely vertical loading and
contrast to a static situation, even then failure may not occur. N the acting vertical load. Fig. 2 offers typical results for a
Thanks to the cyclic and kinematic nature of earthquake homogeneous (G and su ) soil for three Fs values : a very high
induced vibrations : (i) the inertial forces do not act “forever” one (20), a low one (2), and an extremely low one (1.25). M is
in the same direction to cause failure (as would be the case with normalized by Nuo B, where B is the width of the footing in the
static load), but being cyclic, very soon reverse and thereby direction of loading. This leads to curves which, for the
relieve the distressed soil; and (ii) the developing inertial forces homogeneous profile considered, depend solely on the so-called
are not externally applied predetermined loads, but are “rigidity index”, G/ su , and the shape of the footing.
themselves reduced once the soil-foundation system reaches its Also shown in Fig. 2 are the snapshots of the deformed soil
(limited) ultimate resistance  the foundation system acts like a and the contours of plastic strain as they develop when the
fuse. As a result, the system experiences nonlinear-inelastic maximum moment is reached  apparently at different angles
rocking oscillations, which may or may not result in excessive of rotation. The following are worthy of note in the figure:
settlement and rotation. But failure is almost unlikely.
In the last 10 years a number of research efforts have • The foundation with Fs = 20 (which can be interpreted either
explored the consequences of substantial foundation rocking on as a very-lightly loaded foundation or as a “normally”-loaded
the response of the supported structure, theoretically and foundation on very stiff soil) despite its largest initial elastic
experimentally : Kutter et al 2003, Gajan et al 2005, Harden et rocking stiffness fails at the smallest value of applied
al 2006, Kawashima et al 2007, Apostolou et al 2007, Paolucci moment:
et al 2008, Chatzigogos & Pecker 2010, Deng et al 2012. The
results of these studies confirmed the idea that strongly- Mu ≈ 0.025 Nuo B (2a)
nonlinear rocking oscillations under seismic excitation can be of Indeed if Fs → ∞ , i.e. there is no vertical load onto the
benefit to the structure. foundation, Mu would vanish, due to the tensionless nature of
Taking the whole idea one small step farther, it is proposed the soil−footing interface.
that the design of a shallow foundation should actively “invite”
the creation of two simultaneous “failure” mechanisms: • As expected from the literature (Meyerhof 1963, Georgiadis
substantial foundation uplifting and ultimate bearing-capacity and Butterfield 1988, Salençon and Pecker 1995, Αllotey and
sliding. This would be accomplished by substantially under- Naggar 2003, Apostolou and Gazetas 2005, Gajan and Kutter
designing the foundation  e.g., by reducing its width and 2008, Chatzigogos et al. 2009, Gouvernec 2009, Gajan and
length to, say, one-half of the values required with current Kutter 2008) the largest maximum moment is attained by the
design criteria. This can be thought of as a reversal of the Fs = 2 footing :
“capacity” design: “plastic hinging” will take place in the Mu ≈ 0.13 Nuo B (2b)
foundation-soil system and not at the column(s) of the structure.
Fig. 1 elucidates the main idea of Rocking Isolation. The but its elastic initial rocking stiffness is smaller than for the Fs
benefits of designing the foundation to work at and beyond its = 20 foundation. Evidently, the extensive plastic deformations
conventional limits will become evident in the sequel. To this upon the application of the vertical (heavy) load soften the
end, three examples will elucidate the dynamics of “Rocking soil so that a small applied moment meets less resistance 
Isolation” in comparison with the dynamics of the conventional hence lower stiffness. However, Fs = 2 achieves the largest
design : ultimate Mu as it leads to an optimum combination of uplifting
and bearing-capacity mobilization.
(a) a bridge pier, free to rotate at its top
(b) a two-storey two-bay asymmetric frame (MRF) • A more severely loaded foundation, however, with the (rather
(c) a three-storey retrofitted frame−shearwall structure. unrealistic) Fs = 1.25 will only enjoy an even smaller initial
stiffness and a smaller ultimate moment than the Fs = 2
In each case, the two alternatives ( the conventional and the foundation. Notice that in this case no uplifting accompanies
rocking-isolated system) are subjected to numerous acceleration the plasticification of the soil.
time histories the overall intensity of which is either within or
well beyond the design earthquake levels. The failure envelope (also called interaction diagram) in N-
M space is given in Fig. 3 for the specific example. It was

57
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

obtained with the same numerical (FE) analysis as the curves The following relationship has been developed from FE
and snapshots of Fig. 2, and can be expressed analytically as a results by Kourkoulis et al, 2012, for the overturning angle θc =
function of the static factor of safety (FS) as θc(Fs) :
      
 = 1 −    (3) ≈ 1 −  + 1 −   (5)
  ,∞   
The specific plot is in terms of N/Nuo which is 1/Fs which
ranges between 0 and 1. Notice that heavily and lightly loaded 6 CYCLIC RESPONSE ACCOUNTING FOR P−δ EFFECTS
foundations with 1/Fs symmetrically located about the 1/FS = Slow cyclic analytical results are shown for the two
0.5 value where the Mu is the largest, have the same moment aforementioned systems having static factors of safety (FS = 5
capacity : yet their behavior especially in cyclic loading is quite and 2). The displacement imposed on the mass center increased
different as will be shown subsequently. gradually; the last cycle persisted until about 4 or 5 times the
angle θu of the maximum resisting moment. As can be seen in
5 MONOTONIC RESPONSE ACCOUNTING FOR P−δ the moment−rotation diagrams, the loops of the cyclic analyses
EFFECTS for the safety factor FS = 5 are well enveloped by the monotonic
pushover curves in Figure 7(a). In fact, the monotonic and
An increasingly popular concept in structural earthquake maximum cyclic curves are indistinguishable. This can be
engineering is the so-called “pushover” analysis. It refers to the explained by the fact that the plastic deformations that take
nonlinear lateral force-displacement relationship of a particular place under the edges of the foundation during the deformation-
structure subjected to monotonically increasing loading up to controlled cyclic loading are too small to affect to any
failure. The development (theoretical or experimental) of such appreciable degree of response of the system when the
pushover relationships has served as a key in simplified deformation alters direction. As a consequence, the residual
dynamic response analyses that estimate seismic deformation rotation almost vanishes after a complete set of cycles ― an
demands and their ultimate capacity. We apply the pushover important (and desirable) characteristic. The system largely
idea to a shallow foundation supporting an elevated mass, which rebounds, helped by the restoring role of the weight. A key
represents a tall slender structure with h/B = 2 (or “slenderness” factor of such behaviour is the rather small extent of soil
ratio h/b = 4, where b = B/2). This mass is subjected to a plastification, thanks to the light vertical load on the foundation.
progressively increasing horizontal displacement until failure by The cyclic response for the FS = 2 system is also essentially
overturning. Since our interest at this stage is only in the enveloped by the monotonic pushover curves. However, there
behavior of the foundation, the structural column is considered appears to be a slight overstrength of the cyclic “envelope”
absolutely rigid. The results are shown in Fig:4(a) and (b) for above the monotonic curve. For an explanation see
two Fs values : 5 and 2. Panagiotidou et al, 2012.
The difference in the M-θ response curves from those of But the largest difference between monotonic and cyclic, on
Fig. 2 stems from the so-called P-δ effect. As the induced lateral one hand, and FS = 2 and 5, on the other, is in the developing
displacement of the mass becomes substantial its weight induces settlement. Indeed, monotonic loading leads to monotonically-
an additional aggravating moment, mgu = mgθh, where θ is the upward movement (“heave”) of the center of the FS = 5
angle of foundation rotation. Whereas before the ultimate foundation, and slight monotonically-downward movement
moment Mu is reached the angles of rotation are small and this (“settlement”) of the FS = 2 foundation. Cyclic loading with FS
aggravation is negligible, its role becomes increasingly = 5 produces vertical movement of the footing which follows
significant at larger rotation and eventually becomes crucial in closely its monotonic upheaval.
driving the system to collapse. Thus, the (rotation controlled) But the FS = 5 foundation experiences a progressively
M-θ curve decreases with θ until the system topples at an angle accumulating settlement  much larger that its monotonic
θc . This critical angle for a rigid structure on a rigid base (FS = settlement would have hinted at. The hysteresis loops are now
∞) is simply : wider. Residual rotation may appear upon a full cycle of
 loading, as inelastic deformations in the soil are now
,∞ =  (4) substantial.

where b = the foundation halfwidth. For very slender systems The above behavior is qualitatively similar to the results of
the approximation centrifuge experiments conducted at the University of
 California at Davis on sand and clay (e.g., Kutter et al. 2003,
,∞ ≈ (4a) Gajan et al. 2005) large-scale tests conducted at the European

Joint Research Centre, (Negro et al. 2000, Faccioli et al. 1998),
is worth remembering. and 1-g Shaking Table tests in our laboratory at the National
As the static vertical safety factor (FS) diminishes, the Technical University of Athens on sand (Anastasopoulos et al
rotation angle (θc) at the state of imminent collapse (“critical” 2011, 2013, Drosos et al 2012).
overturning rotation) also slowly decreases. Indeed, for rocking In conclusion, the cyclic moment−rotation behavior of
on compliant soil, θc is always lower than it is on a rigid base foundations on clay and sand exhibits to varying degrees three
(given with Eq. 4). For stiff elastic soil (or with a very large important characteristics with increasing number of cycles :
static vertical safety factor) θc is imperceptibly smaller than that • no “strength” degradation (experimentally verified).
given by Eq. 4, because the soil deforms slightly, only below • sufficient energy dissipation  large for small FS values,
the (right) edge of the footing, and hence only insignificantly smaller but still appreciable for large ones. (Loss of energy
alters the geometry of the system at the point of overturning. As due to impact will further enhance damping in the latter
the soil becomes softer, soil inelasticity starts playing a role in category, when dynamic response comes into play.)
further reducing θc. However, such a reduction is small as long • relatively low residual drift especially for large FS values 
as the factor of safety (FS) remains high (say, in excess of 3). implying a re-centering capability of the rocking
Such behaviour changes drastically with a very small FS: then foundation.
the soil responds in strongly inelastic fashion, a symmetric These positive attributes not only help in explaining the
bearing-capacity failure mechanism under the vertical load N is favorable behavior of “Rocking Foundation”, but also enhance
almost fully developed, replacing uplifting as the prevailing the reliability of the geotechnical design.
mechanism leading to collapse θc tends to zero.

58
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

7 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF BRIDGE PIER ON SHALLOW failure mechanisms in the underlying soil, leaving the
FOUNDATION superstructure totally intact. Notice that the red regions of large
plastic shearing are of great extent, covering both half-widths of
The concept of “Rocking Isolation” is illustrated in Fig. 5 by the foundation and indicating alternating mobilization of the
comparing the response of a 12 m tall bridge pier carrying a bearing capacity failure mechanisms, left and right.
deck of four lanes of traffic for a span of about 35 m  typical The above observations are further confirmed by the time
of elevated highways around the world. history of deck drift shown in Fig. 5(c). The two components of
The bridge chosen for analysis is similar to the Hanshin drift, are shown, one due to footing rotation in blue and one due
Expressway Fukae bridge, which collapsed spectacularly in the to structural distortion in green. Their sum is shown in red.
Kobe 1995 earthquake. The example bridge is designed in Evidently, the conventional design experiences essentially only
accordance to (EC8 2000) for a design acceleration A = 0.30 g, structural distortion which leads to uncontrollable drifting 
considering a (ductility-based) behavior factor q = 2. With an collapse. In marked contrast, the system designed according to
elastic (fixed-base) vibration period T = 0.48 sec the resulting the new philosophy easily survives. It experiences substantial
design bending moment MCOL ≈ 45 MNm. maximum deck drift (about 40 cm), almost exclusively due to
The pier is founded through a square foundation of width B foundation rotation. Nevertheless, the residual foundation
on an idealized homogeneous 25 m deep stiff clay layer, of rotation leads to a tolerable 7 cm deck horizontal displacement
undrained shear strength su = 150 kPa (representative soil at the end of shaking.
conditions for which a surface foundation would be a realistic Fig. 5(d) further elucidates the action of the foundation-soil
solution). Two different foundation widths are considered to system. The M-θ relationship shows for the 11m2 foundation a
represent the two alternative design approaches. A large square nearly linear viscoelastic response, well below its ultimate
foundation, B = 11 m, is designed in compliance with capacity and apparently with no uplifting. On the contrary, the
conventional capacity design, applying an overstrength factor 7m2 (under-designed) foundation responds well past its ultimate
γRd = 1.4 to ensure that the plastic “hinge” will develop in the moment capacity, reaching a maximum θ ≈ 30 mrad, generating
superstructure (base of pier). Taking account of maximum hysteretic energy dissipation, but returning almost to its original
allowable uplift (eccentricity e = M / N < B/3, where N is the position, i.e. with a negligible residual rotation.
vertical load), the resulting safety factors for static and seismic However, energy dissipation is attained at a cost : increased
loading are FS = 5.6 and FE = 2.0, respectively. A smaller, foundation settlement. While the practically elastic response of
under-designed, B = 7 m foundation is considered in the spirit the conventional (over-designed) foundation leads to a minor 4
of the new design philosophy. Its static safety factor FS= 2.8, cm settlement, the under-designed foundation experiences an
but it is designed applying an “understrength” factor 1/1.4 ≈ 0.7 increased accumulated 15 cm settlement. Although such
for seismic loading. Thus, the resulting safety factor for seismic settlement is certainly not negligible, it can be considered as a
loading is lower than 1.0 (FE ≈ 0.7). small price to pay to avoid collapse under such a severe ground
The seismic performance of the two alternatives is shaking.
investigated through nonlinear FE dynamic time history Perhaps not entirely fortuitously, the residual rotation in this
analysis. An ensemble of 29 real accelerograms is used as particular case turned out to be insignificant. The recentering
seismic excitation of the soil–foundation–structure system. In capability of the design certainly played some role in it.
all cases, the seismic excitation is applied at the bedrock level.
Details about the numerical models and the requisite
constitutive relations can be seen in Anastasopoulos et al, 2010, 8 SEISMIC RESPONSE OF TWO−STOREY TWO BAY
2011. ASYMMETRIC FRAME
Results are shown here only for a severe seismic shaking,
exceeding the design limits: the Takatori accelerogram of the The frame of Fig. 6 was structural designed according to EC8
1995 MJMA 7.2 Kobe earthquake. With a direct economic loss of for an effective ground acceleration A = 0.36 g and ductility-
more than $100 billion, the Kobe earthquake needs no dependent “behavior” factor q = 3.9. The soil remains the stiff
introduction. Constituting the greatest earthquake disaster in clay of the previous example. Two alternative foundation
Japan since the 1923 Ms = 8 Kanto earthquake, it is simply schemes are shown in the figure .
considered as one of the most devastating earthquakes of The conventionally over-designed footings can mobilize a
modern times. Of special interest is the damage inflicted to the maximum moment resistance Mu from the underlying soil,
bridges of Hanshin Expressway, which ranged from collapse to larger than the bending moment capacity of the corresponding
severe damage. The aforementioned bridge chosen for our column MCOL .. For static vertical loads, a factor of safety FS ≥ 3
analysis is very similar to the Fukae section of Hanshin is required against bearing capacity failure. For seismic load
Expressway, 630 m of which collapsed during the earthquake of combinations, a factor of safety FE = 1 is acceptable. In the
1995. It is therefore logical to consider this as a reasonably latter case, a maximum allowable eccentricity criterion is also
realistic example of an “above the limits” earthquake. In enforced: e = M/N ≤ B/3. For the investigated soil–structure
particular, the Takatori record constitutes one of the worst system this eccentricity criterion was found to be the controlling
seismic motions ever recorded : PGA = 0.70 g, PGV = 169 one, leading to minimum required footing widths B = 2.7 m, 2.5
cm/s, bearing the “mark” of forward rupture directivity and of m and 2.4 m for the left, middle, and right footing, respectively.
soil amplification. Bearing capacities and safety factors are computed according to
Fig. 5 compares the response of the two alternatives, in terms the provisions of EC8, which are basically similar to those
of deformed mesh at the end of shaking with superimposed the typically used in foundation design practice around the world.
plastic strains. In the conventionally designed system there is The under-sized footings of the rocking isolation scheme, are
very little inelastic action in the soil; the red regions of large “weaker” than the superstructure, guiding the plastic hinge to or
plastic deformation are seen only under the severely “battered” below the soil–footing interface, instead of at the base of the
edges of the rocking foundation  but without extending below columns. The small width of the footings promotes full
the foundation. “Plastic hinging” forms at the base of the pier, mobilization of foundation moment capacity with substantial
leading to a rather intense accumulation of curvature uplifting. The eccentricity criterion is completely relaxed, while
(deformation scale factor = 2).The P−δ effect of the mass will FE < 1 is allowed. The static FS ≥ 3 remains a requirement as a
further aggravate the plastic deformation of the column, leading measure against uncertainties regarding soil strength. Moreover,
to collapse. it turns out that FS ≥ 4 might be desirable in order to promote
In stark contrast, with the new design scheme the “plastic uplifting–dominated response, and thereby limit seismic
hinge” takes the form of mobilization of the bearing capacity settlements [Kutter et al. 2003, Faccioli et al. 2001,Pecker &

59
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Pender 2000, Kawashima et al. 2007, Chatzigogos et al. 2009; (≈ 3 cm/1.2 m) for the two side footings and 0.033 (≈ 6 cm/1.8
Panagiotidou et al. 2012]. Applying the methodology which has m) for the central one, the latter is substantially larger in width
been outlined in Gelagoti et al. 2012, the footings were designed and hence its settlement is larger in absolute terms. Naturally,
to be adequately small to promote uplifting, but large enough to the three footings are not subjected to exactly the same loading,
limit the settlements. Aiming to minimize differential something which further complicates the response. Such
settlements stemming from asymmetry, the three footings were differential settlements may inflict additional distress in the
dimensioned in such a manner so as to have the same FS. Based superstructure, and are therefore worthy of further investigation.
on the above criteria, the resulting footing widths for the
rocking–isolated design alternative are B = 1.1 m, 1.8 m, and
1.3 m, for the left, middle, and right footing, respectively: 9 THREE−STOREY FRAME RETROFITTED WITH
indeed, substantially smaller than those of the code-based SHEAR−WALL
design. Footing dimensions and static factors of safety against
vertical loading of the two designs are summarized in Table 1. The results presented now are not from numerical analysis as
Table 1. Footing dimensions and corresponding factors of safety the previous one, but from Shaking Table experiments. They
(computed following the provisions of EC8) against vertical loading for
refer to a 3-storey two-bay frame which was designed according
the seismic load combination (G + 0.3Q) for the two design alternatives to the pre-1970 seismic regulations, for a base shear coefficient
of Fig. 6. of 0.06. Because of the small value of this coefficient and the
otherwise inadequate design, the frame has columns of cross-
section 25 x 25 cm2 and beams 25 x 50 cm2 resulting in a strong
Conventional Design Rocking Isolation beam−weak column system. Naturally, it fails by first “soft-
story” type of collapse when excited by motions corresponding
Footing B (m) FS Footing B (m) FS
to today’s codes with effective ground accelerations of the order
Left 2.7 32.6 Left 1.1 5.4 of 0.30g and more. To upgrade the frame, a strong and stiff
Shear Wall 1.5 m x 0.3 m in cross-section is constructed
Middle 2.5 10.6 Middle 1.8 5.4 replacing the middle column, as shown in Fig. 7.
The 1:10−scale model is supported on dense fine−grained Dr
Right 2.4 18.1 Right 1.3 5.4 ≈ 80% sand. The original footings of all three columns were 1.5
m square. For the retrofitted frame the two columns retained
The performance of the two design alternatives is compared their original 1.5 x 1.5m2 footings. The foundation of the Shear
in Fig. 6. The deformed mesh with superimposed plastic strain Wall (SW) is of special geotechnical interest : due to its
contours of the two alternatives is portrayed on top (Fig. 6a). disproportionately large lateral stiffness the SW tends to attract
With the relentless seismic shaking of the Takatori motion, the most of the seismically induced shear force and hence to
conventionally designed frame collapses under its gravity load transmit onto the foundation a large overturning moment. By
(due to excessive drift of the structure, the moments produced contrast, its vertical load is relatively small. To meet the
by P–δ effects cannot be sustained by the columns, leading to eccentricity limit e = M/N < B/3, a large foundation 6.0m x 0.80
loss of stability and total collapse). As expected, plastic hinges m is thus necessary. Hence, the conventional solution of Fig. 8.
firstly develop in the beams and subsequently at the base of the Of course the resulting vertical bearing-capacity factor of safety
three columns, while soil under the footings remains practically is unavoidably large, FS ≅ 10, and the seismic apparent factor of
elastic. The collapse is also evidenced by the substantial safety against moment bearing-capacity is also far more than
exceedance of the available curvature ductility of the columns adequate : FE = 2.
(Fig. 6b). Conversely, the rocking–isolated frame withstands the The decision to reduce the footing width to merely B = 3.5 m
shaking, with plastic hinging taking place only in the beams, is not only economically favorable, but in the harsh reality of
leaving the columns almost unscathed (moment-curvature old buildings it may often be the only feasible decision in view
response: elastic). Instead, plastic hinging now develops within of the usual space limitations due to pipes, small basements,
the underlying soil in the form of extended soil plastification walls, etc, present in the base. We will see if it is also favorable
(indicated by the red regions under the foundation. The time technically in resisting a strong seismic shaking.
histories of inter-storey drift further elucidate the To be practical, in the above sense, no change is made to the
aforementioned behavior of the two design alternatives (Fig. column footings. (1.5 m square).
6d). We subject all three structures [ i.e., “a” the original frame,
Thanks to the larger bending moment capacity of the column “b” the retrofitted with a SW founded on conventionally-
than of the footing, damage is guided “below ground” and at the conservative footing, and “c” the retrofitted with the
soil–foundation interface in the form of detachment and underdesigned SW footing] to a number of strong ground
uplifting  evidenced in Fig. 6d by the zero residual rotation, excitations. Frame “a” easily fails as sketched in Fig. 8, where
unveiling the re-centering capability of the under-designed the physical collapse was artificially prevented by an external
foundation scheme. protective barrier in the Shaking Table experiment. The
The price to pay: large accumulated settlements. Moreover, conventionally retrofitted SW-frame “b” could withstand most
despite the fact that the three footings have been dimensioned to excitations. But with some of the strongest motions it developed
have the same static factor of safety FS (in an attempt to substantial plastification at its base and led to residual top drift
minimize differential settlements exacerbated from asymmetry), of an unacceptable 8%.
the central footing settles more than the two side footings, The unconventionally–founded system “c” behaved much
leading to a differential settlement of the order of 3 cm. The better with residual top drift of merely 2%.
difference in the settlement stems of course from their Figure 8 sketches the deformation pattern of the three
differences in width. As previously discussed, the central systems while Fig. 7 plots the time histories of
footing was made larger (B = 1.8 m, compared to 1.1 m and 1.3 structural−distortion and foundation−rotation induced top drift
m of the two side footings) in order to maintain the same FS. ratio. It is seen that not only is the total drift of the Rocking-
Since the latter is common for the three footings, if the loading Isolated system only 2% but at least half of it is solely due to
is more-or-less the same, their response should be similar. foundation rotation, rather than damage to the SW.
However, such equivalence refers to dimensionless quantities, The penalty to pay is the increased settlement (1.5 cm rather
not absolute values [see Kourkoulis et al., 2012b]. In other 0.8 cm) which nevertheless in this particular case would be
words, while the three footings sustain almost the same acceptable for most applications.
dimensionless settlement w/B, which is roughly equal to 0.025

60
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

10 CONCLUSIONS 12 REFERENCES
(a) Current seismic design practice leads most often to very Allotey N., El Naggar M.H. 2003. Analytical moment–rotation curves
conservative foundation solutions. Not only are such for rigid foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dynamics and
foundations un-economical but are sometimes difficult to Earthquake Engineering, 23, 367–381.
implement. Most significantly : they are agents of transmitting Allotey N., El Naggar M.H. 2007. An investigation into the Winkler
large accelerations up to the superstructure. The ensuing large modeling of the cyclic response of rigid footings, Soil Dynamics
inertial forces send back in “return” large overturning moments and Earthquake Engineering, 28, 44–57.
(and shear forces) onto the foundation  a vicious circle. Anastasopoulos I., Gazetas G., Loli M., Apostolou M, Gerolymos N.,
2010. Soil Failure can be used for Seismic Protection of Structures.
(b) On the contrary, seriously under-designed foundations limit Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8, 309–326.
the transmitted accelerations to levels proportional to their Anastasopoulos I., Gelagoti F., Kourkoulis R., Gazetas G. 2011.
(small) ultimate moment capacity. This leads to much safer Simplified Constitutive model for Simulation of Cyclic Response of
superstructures. In earthquake engineering terminology the Shallow Foundations: Validation against Laboratory Tests. Journal
plastic “hinging” moves from the columns to the foundation- of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
soil system, preventing dangerous structural damage. ASCE, 137(12), 1154-1168.
(c) For tall-slender systems that respond seismically mainly in Anastasopoulos Ι. 2010. Beyond conventional capacity design : towards
rocking, underdesigning the footings “invites” strong uplifting a new design philosophy. Soil–Foundation–Structure Interaction,
and mobilization of bearing capacity failure mechanisms. It Orense R.P., Chouw N., Pender M.J. (editors), CRC Press, Taylor
turns out that the statically determined ultimate moment & Francis Group : New York.
resistance is retained without degradation during cyclic loading, Anastasopoulos I., Georgarakos T., Drosos V., Giannakos S., and
at least for the few numbers of cycles of most events  hence Gazetas G. 2009b. Towards a reversal of seismic capacity design:
the geotechnical reliability in such a design. Moreover, the Part B, Shaking-table testing of bridge pier-foundation system.
cyclic response of such foundations reveals that the amount of Proceedings of the 3rd Greece-Japan Workshop on Seismic Design,
damping (due to soil inelasticity and uplifting−retouching Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations, National Technical
impacts) is appreciable, if not large, while the system has a fair University of Greece, Santorini, 407–419.
re-centering capability. These are some of the secrets of their Anastasopoulos I., Loli M., Georgarakos T., and Drosos V. 2013.
excellent performance. Shaking Table Testing of Rocking−isolated Bridge Piers. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 17(1), 1-32.
(d) The key variable in controlling the magnitude of uplifting Aoi S., Kunugi T., Suzuki W., Morikawa N., Nakamura H., Pulido N.,
versus the extent of bearing−capacity yielding is the static factor Shiomi K., and Fujiwara H. 2011. Strong motion characteristics of
of safety FS against vertical bearing−capacity failure. The the 2011 Tohoku-oki earthquake from K-NET and KiK-NET. SSA
designer may for example, choose to intervene in the subsoil to Annual Meeting, 2011.
increase FS and hence enhance uplifting over soil inelasticity. Apostolou, M., and Gazetas, G. 2005. Rocking of foundations under
Such intervention need only be of small vertical extent, thanks strong shaking: Mobilisation of bearing capacity and displacement
to the shallow dynamic “pressure bulb” of a rocking foundation. demands. 1st Greece-Japan Workshop on Seismic Design,
Observation, Retrofit of Foundations, 11–12 October, 2005,
(e) In classical geotechnical engineering, avoiding bearing
capacity failure at any cost is an unquestionably prudent goal. Athens, Greece.
Seismic “loading” is different  it is not even loading, but an Apostolou M., Gazetas G., and Garini E. 2007. Seismic response of
slender rigid structures with foundation uplifting, Soil Dynamics
imposed displacement. Sliding mechanisms develop under the
footing momentarily and hence alternatingly, and may only lead and Earthquake Engineering 27, 642–654.
to (increased) settlement. It would be the task of the engineer to Bartlett P. E., 1976. Foundation Rocking on a Clay Soil. ME thesis,
Report No. 154, School of Engineering, University of Auckland,
“accommodate” such settlements with proper design.
New Zealand.
The results and conclusions of this paper are in harmony with Bienen B., Gaudin C., & Cassidy M.J. 2007. Centrifuge tests of shallow
the numerous experimental and theoretical findings of Professor footing behavior on sand under combined vertical-torsional loading.
Bruce Kutter and his coworkers at U.C. Davis, and of Int. J. Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, 2, 1-21.
Professors Alain Pecker and Roberto Paolucci and their Borja R.I., Wu W.H., Amies A.P., Smith H.A. 1994. Nonlinear lateral,
coworkers in Paris and Milano. rocking, and torsional vibration of rigid foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(3), 491–513.
Borja R.I., Wu W.H., and Smith H.A. 1993. Nonlinear response of
vertically oscillating rigid foundations. Journal of Geotechnical
11 ACKNOLEDGMENTS Engineering 119, 893–911.
Bransby M.F., Randolph M.F. 1998. Combined loading of skirted
Τhe financial support for the work outlined in this paper has foundations. Géotechnique, 48(5), 637-655.
been provided through the research project “DARE”, funded by Butterfield R., Gottardi G. 1994. A complete three−dimensional failure
the European Research Council (ERC), “IDEAS” Programme in envelope for shallow footings on sand. Géotechnique, 44(1), 181-
Support of Frontier Research. Contract/number ERC–2–9– 184.
AdG228254–DARE . Chang B.J, Raychowdhury P., Hutchinson T., Thomas J., Gajan S. &
Kutter B.L. 2006. Centrifuge testing of combined frame-wall-
foundation structural systems. Proc. 8th US National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, April 18–22, San Francisco, CA, paper
No. 998.
Chatzigogos C.T., Pecker A., and Salençon J. 2009. Macroelement
modeling of shallow foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 29(5), 765–781.
Chen X.C., and Lai Y.M. 2003. Seismic response of bridge piers on
elastic-plastic Winkler foundation allowed to uplift. Journal of
Sound Vibration , 266, 957–965.

61
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Chopra A.K., and Yim C.S. 1984. Earthquake response of structures Benerjee and R. Butterfield, eds), Elsevier Applied Science,
with partial uplift on Winkler foundation, Earthquake Engineering Barking Essex, UK, 44–90.
and Structural Dynamics, 12, 263–281. Gazetas G. 1991. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and
Crémer C., Pecker A., Davenne L. 2001. Cyclic macro-element for soil– embedded foundation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 117,
structure interaction: material and geometrical nonlinearities. 1363–1381.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical methods in Gazetas G., and Apostolou M. 2004. Nonlinear soil-structure
Geomechanics, 25(12), pp. 1257–1284. interaction: Foundation uplifting and soil yielding. 3rd U.S.-Japan
Cremer C., Pecker A., and Davenne L. 2002. Modeling of nonlinear Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction, 29–30 March 2004, Menlo
dynamic behaviour of a shallow strip foundation with macro- Park, CA.
element. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 6, 175–211. Gazetas G., and Kavvadas M. 2009. Soil–Structure Interaction. NTUA
Dobry R., and Gazetas G. 1986. Dynamic response of arbitrarily– Publications, Athens, Greece.
shaped foundations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 113, Gazetas G., Garini E., Anastasopoulos I. 2009. Effect of near–fault
109–135. ground shaking on sliding systems. Journal of Geotechnical and
Drosos V., Georgarakos P., Loli M., Zarzouras O., Anastasopoulos I., Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, 1906–1921.
Gazetas G. 2012. Soil–Foundation–Structure Interaction with Gelagoti F., Kourkoulis R., Anastasopoulos I., Gazetas G. 2012.
Mobilization of Bearing Capacity : An Experimental Study of Sand. Rocking Isolation of Low- Rise Frame Structures founded on
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Isolated Footings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
(ASCE), 138(11), 1369-1386. Dynamics, 41, 1177-1197.
Faccioli E., Paolucci R., and Vanini M., 1998. 3D Site Effects and Soil- Georgiadis M., and Butterfield R. 1988. Displacements of footings on
Foundation Interaction in Earthquake and Vibration Risk sands under eccentric and inclined loading. Canadian Geotechnical
Evaluation. Final report of the European research project TRISEE, Journal, 25, 199–212.
European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Gerolymos N., Apostolou M., Gazetas G. 2005. Neural network
Faccioli E., Paolucci R., and Vivero G., 2001. Investigation of seismic analysis of overturning response under near-fault type excitation.
soil-footing interaction by large scale cyclic tests and analytical Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4, 213–228.
models. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Gottardi G., Houlsby G.T., Butterfield R. 1995. The displacement of a
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil model rigid surface footing on dense sand under general planar
Dynamics (S. Prakash, ed.), CD-ROM, S. Prakash Foundation loading. Soils and Foundations, 35, 71–82.
publisher, San Diego, CA. Gourvenec S. 2007. Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular
Fardis M. N. (ed.) 2010. Advances in Performance-Based Earthquake footings under general loading. Géotechnique, 57(8), 637-646.
Engineering. Springer , University of Patras, Greece, pp. 485. Gourvenec S., Randolph M.F. 2003. Effect of strength
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2000. Prestandard non−homogeneity on the shape and failure envelopes for combined
and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, loading of strip and circular foundations on clay. Géotechnique,
FEMA-356, Washington, D.C. 53(6), pp. 527-533.
Figini R.. 2010. Nonlinear dynamic soil-structure interaction: Harden C., Hutchinson T. 2006. Investigation into the Effects of
Application to seismic analysis of structures on shallow Foundation Uplift on Simplified Seismic Design Procedures.
foundations. Ph.D. thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Earthquake Spectra, 22 (3), pp. 663–692.
Furumura T., Takemura S., Noguchi S., Takemoto T., Maeda T., Iwai Harden C.W., and Hutchinson T.C. 2009. Beam on nonlinear Winkler
K., Padhy S. 2011. Strong ground motions from the 2011 off-the foundation modeling of shallow rocking–dominated footings.
Pacific-Coast-of-Tohoku, Japan (Mw=9.0) earthquake obtained Earthquake Spectra, 25, 277–300.
from a dense nationwide seismic network. Landslides (available Houlsby G.T., Amorosi A., & Rojas E. 2005. Elastic moduli of soils
online, DOI: 10.1007/s10346-011-0279-3). dependent on pressure: a hyperelastic formulation. Géotechnique,
Gajan S., Kutter BL. 2008. Capacity, settlement and energy dissipation 55(5), 383–392.
of shallow footings subjected to rocking, Journal of Geotechnical Houlsby G.T., Cassidy M.J., Einav I. 2005. A generalized Winkler
and Geoenvironmetal Engineering, ASCE 134(8), 1129-1141. model for the behavior of shallow foundation. Geotechnique , 55,
Gajan S., and Kutter B. L., 2009a. Contact interface model for shallow 449–460.
foundations subjected to combined loading. Journal of Housner G. W. 1963. The behavior of inverted pendulum structures
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, 407–419. during earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
Gajan S., and Kutter B. L., 2009b. Effects of moment-to-shear ratio on America, 53(2), 403–417.
combined cyclic load-displacement behavior of shallow Huckelbridge A.A., and Clough R. 1978. Seismic response of uplifting
foundations from centrifuge experiments. Journal of Geotechnical building frame. Journal of Structural Engineering, 104, 1211–
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, 1044–1055. 1229.
Garini E., Gazetas G., and Anastasopoulos I. 2011. Asymmetric Ishiyama Y. 1982. Motions of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning
‘Newmark’ Sliding Caused by Motions Containing Severe by earthquake excitations. Earthquake Engineering Structural
‘Directivity’ and ‘Fling’ Pulses. Géotechnique, 61(9), 753-756. Dynamics 10, 635–650.
Gazetas G. 1991. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and Kausel E., & Roesset J.M. 1975. Dynamic stiffness of circular
embedded foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, foundations. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 101, pp. 771–85.
ASCE, 117(9), 1363–81. Kawashima K., Nagai T., and Sakellaraki D. 2007. Rocking seismic
Gazetas G., Anastasopoulos, I., and Apostolou, M., 2007. Shallow and isolation of bridges supported by spread foundations. Proceedings
deep foundations under fault rupture or strong seismic shaking. of 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design, Observation,
Chapter 9 in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, (K. Pitilakis, and Retrofit of Foundations, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,
ed.), Springer Publishing, 185–215. Tokyo, 254–265.
Gazetas G., Apostolou M., Anastasopoulos I. 2003. Seismic Uplifting of Kirkpatrick P. 1927. Seismic measurements by the overthrow of
Foundations on Soft Soil, with examples from Adapazari (Izmit columns. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 17, 95–
1999, Earthquake). BGA Int. Conf. on Found. Innov., Observations, 109.
Design & Practice, Univ. of Dundee, Scotland, September 25, 37- Knappett J.A., Haigh S.K., Madabhushi S.P.G. 2006. Mechanisms of
50. failure for shallow foundations under earthquake loading. Soil
Gazetas G., Mylonakis G. 1998. Seismic soil–structure interaction: new Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26, 91–102.
evidence and emerging issues, emerging issues paper. Koh A.S., Spanos P., and Roesset J.M. 1986. Harmonic rocking of rigid
Geotechnique, Spec. Pub. ASCE, 75, 1119–74. block on flexible foundation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Gazetas G. 1987. Simple physical methods for foundation impedances. 112, 1165–1180.
Chapter 2 in Dynamics of Foundations and Buried Structures (P. K.

62
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

Kourkoulis R., Gelagoti F., Anastasopoulos I. 2012. Rocking Isolation Paulay T., and Priestley M.J.N. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced
of Frames on Isolated Footings : Design Insights and Limitations. Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(3), 374-400. NY.
Kourkoulis R., Anastasopoulos I., Gelagoti F., Kokkali P. 2012. Pecker A. 2003. A seismic foundation design process, lessons learned
Dimensional Analysis of SDOF Systems Rocking on Inelastic Soil. from two major projects : the Vasco de Gama and the Rion Antirion
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(7), 995-1022. bridges. ACI International Conference on Seismic Bridge Design
Kutter B.L., Martin G., Hutchinson T.C., Harden C., Gajan S., Phalen and Retrofit, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
J.D. 2003. Status report on study of modeling of nonlinear cyclic Pecker A. 1998. Capacity design principles for shallow foundations in
load–deformation behavior of shallow foundations. University of seismic areas. Keynote lecture, in 11th European Conference
California, Davis, PEER Workshop, 2003. Earthquake Engineering (P. Bisch, P. Labbe, and A. Pecker, eds.)
Kutter B.L., Wilson D.L. 2006. Physical Modelling of Dynamic A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 303–315.
Behavior of Soil-foundation-superstructure Systems. International Pender M. 2007. Seismic design and performance of surface
Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 6(1), 1–12. foundations. 4th International Conference on Earthquake
Kutter B.L., Martin G., Hutchinson T.C., Harden C., Gajan S., and Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece (CD-ROM).
Phalen J. D. 2006. Workshop on modeling of nonlinear cyclic load- Priestley M.J.N. 1993. Myths and fallacies in earthquake
deformation behavior of shallow foundations. PEER Report Engineering―Conflicts between design and Reality. Bulletin, New
2005/14, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering , 26, 329–341.
University of California, Berkeley, CA. Priestley M.J.N. 2003. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering,
Le Pape Y., & Sieffert J.P. 2001.Application of thermodynamics to the revisited. Ninth Mallet-Milne Lecture, Rose School, IUSS Press,
global modelling of shallow foundations on frictional material. Instituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, Pavia, Italy.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Raychowdhury P. & Hutchinson T. 2009. Performance evaluation of a
Geomechanics, 25, 1377-1408. nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using
Luco J.E., and Westman R.A., 1971. Dynamic response of circular centrifuge test results. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
footings. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 97, Dynamics, 38(5), 679-698.
1381–1395. Roesset J.M. 1980. Stiffness and damping coefficients of foundations,
Makris N., and Roussos, Y. 2000. Rocking response of rigid blocks in Dynamic Response of Foundations: Analytical Aspects (M. W.
under near source ground motions. Géotechnique, 50, 243–262. O’Neil and R. Dobry, eds.). American Society of Civil Engineers,
Martin C.M., Houlsby G.T. 2001. Combined loading of spudcan Reston, VA, 1–30.
foundations on clay : numerical modeling. Géotechnique, 51(8), Salençon J., and Pecker A., 1995. Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
687-699. foundations under inclined and eccentric loads. Part II: Purely
Martin G.R., and Lam I.P., 2000. Earthquake resistant design of cohesive soil without tensile strength. European Journal of
foundations: Retrofit of existing foundations. Geoengineering 2000 Mechanics, A:Solids, 14, 377–396.
Conference (GeoEng2000), 19–24 November 2000, Melbourne, Shi B., Anooshehpoor A., Zeng Y., and Brune J. 1996. Rocking and
Australia. overturning of precariously balanced rocks by earthquake. Bulletin
Maugeri M., Musumeci G., Novità D., & Taylor C.A. 2000. Shaking of the Seismological Society of America 86, 1364–1371.
table test of failure of a shallow foundation subjected to an Shirato M., Kouno T., Nakatani S., and Paolucci R. 2007. Large-scale
eccentric load. Soil Dyn. and Earthq. Eng., 20 (5-8), 435-444. model tests of shallow foundations subjected to earthquake loads, in
Meek J. 1975. Effect of foundation tipping on dynamic response, Proceedings of the 2nd Japan-Greece Workshop on Seismic Design,
Journal of Structural Division, 101, 1297–1311. Observation, and Retrofit of Foundations, Japanese Society of Civil
Mergos P.E., and Kawashima K. 2005. Rocking isolation of a typical Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, 275–299.
bridge pier on spread foundation. Journal of Earthquake Shirato M., Kuono T., Asai R., Fukui J., and Paolucci R. 2008. Large
Engineering, 9(2), 395–414. scale experiments on nonlinear behavior of shallow foundations
Meyerhof G.G. 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity of subjected to strong earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 48, 673–
foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1(1), 6–26. 692.
Nakaki D.K., and Hart G.C. 1987. Uplifting response of structures Tassoulas J.L. 1984. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewalls on
subjected to earthquake motions. U.S.-Japan Coordinated Program the response of embedded circular foundations to obliquely-
for Masonry Building Research, Report No 2.1-3 (Ewing, Kariotis, incident SV and P waves. Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction,
Englekirk, and Hart, eds.). Rotterdam: A.A.Balkemal,. 55–63.
Negro P., Paolucci R., Pedrett S., and Faccioli E. 2000. Large-scale soil- Ticof J. 1977. Surface footings on sand under general planar loads,
structure interaction experiments on sand under cyclic loading. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, U.K.
Paper No. 1191, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Ukritchon B., Whittle A.J., Sloan S.W. 1998. Undrained limit analysis
Engineering, 30 January–4 February 2000, Auckland, New for combined loading of strip footings on clay. Journal of
Zealand. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmetal Engineering, ASCE, 124(3),
Nova R., & Montrasio L. 1991.Settlement of shallow foundations on 265-276.
sand. Géotechnique, 41(2), 243-256. Veletsos A.S., & Nair V.V. 1975. Seismic interaction of structures on
Panagiotidou A.I., Gazetas G., and Gerolymos N. 2012. Pushover and hysteretic foundations. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Seismic Response of Foundations on Overconsolidated Clay: 101(1), 109–29.
Analysis with P-δ Effects, Εarthquake Spectra, 28(4), 1589-1618. Vesic A.S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.
Panagiotidou A.I. 2010. 2D and 3D inelastic seismic response analysis Journal of Soil Mechanics Foundation Div., ASCE, 99, 45–73.
of foundation with uplifting and P-δ effects. thesis, National Vetetsos A.S., and Wei Y.T. 1971. Lateral and rocking vibration of
Technical University, Athens, Greece. footings. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division
Paolucci R. 1997. Simplified evaluation of earthquake induced 97, 1227–1248.
permanent displacements of shallow foundations. Journal of Wolf J.P. 1988. Soil–Structure Interaction Analysis in Time-
Earthquake Engineering 1, 563-579. Domain.Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Paolucci R. Shirato M., Yilmaz MT. 2008. Seismic behavior of shallow Zhang J., and Makris N. 2001. Rocking Response of Free-Standing
foundations : shaking table experiments vs. numerical modeling. Blocks Under Cycloidal Pulses. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(4), 577-595. 127(5), 473–483.
Paolucci R., and Pecker A. 1997. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow
strip foundations on dry soils. Soils and Foundations 37, 95–105

63
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of (a) the response of a conventional and a “rocking-isolation” design of a bridge-pier foundation; and (b) the
“capacity” design principle as conventionally applied to foundations, and its reversal in “rocking isolation”.

10

64
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

Figure 2. Typical moment−rotation relations of three foundations and corresponding snapshots of their ultimate response with the contours of plastic
deformation. The only difference between foundations : their static factor of safety.

Figure 3. Dimensionless Nu – Mu failure envelope for strip foundation

65
11
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Figure 4. Comparison of two slender systems (differing only in FS) subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading: (a) deformed mesh with plastic strain
contours at ultimate state; (b) dimensionless monotonic moment–rotation response; (c) cyclic moment–rotation response; and (d) cyclic settlement–
rotation response (the grey line corresponds to the monotonic backbone curves).

66
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

Figure 5. (a) Two bridge piers on two alternative foundations subjected to a large intensity shaking, exceeding the design limits; (b) deformed mesh
with superimposed plastic strain, showing the location of “plastic hinging” at ultimate state; (c) time histories of deck drift; (d) overturning
moment−rotation (M−θ) response of the two foundations.

67
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Figure 6. (a) Two building frames on two alternative foundation subjected to a large intensity earthquake, exceeding the design limits; (b) deformed mesh with
superimposed plastic strain, showing the location of “plastic hinging” at ultimate state; (c) bending moment–curvature response of the central columns; (d)
overturning moment–rotation (M–θ) response of the two central foundations.

68 14
 Honour Lectures / Conférences honorifiques

Figure 7. (a) Old frame retrofitted with stiff Shear Wall on two different foundations  conventional B = 6 m and unconventional B = 3.5 m; (b) time histories on
top floor drift ratio; (c) settlement–rotation curves of the Shear Wall footings.

15
69
 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

Figure 8. Sketches of damaged states of the three structures.

16

70