Seismic design of footing
Seismic design of footing
(OP)
Hi,
I am designing a steel rack for very high seismic zone in South America. For seismic design of steel structure i am using responce reduction factor R as 3.25 (ASCE-7), means i am designing my structure for a less seismic load taken into account it's ability to entre into post elastic mode with some inelastic deformation. So far so good. Now my question is while designing foundation of this structure why i use the support reaction directly from this analysis as seismic loads have been reduced by a factor "R". To my understanding foundation should be designed for actual seismic loads without any reduction.(FOS in sliding or overturning can be taken as 1 but against the actual seismic loads received by this foundation......without any reduction)
I coudn't find any literature on this topic. So i would like to receive some suggestion or comment on my views.
I am designing a steel rack for very high seismic zone in South America. For seismic design of steel structure i am using responce reduction factor R as 3.25 (ASCE-7), means i am designing my structure for a less seismic load taken into account it's ability to entre into post elastic mode with some inelastic deformation. So far so good. Now my question is while designing foundation of this structure why i use the support reaction directly from this analysis as seismic loads have been reduced by a factor "R". To my understanding foundation should be designed for actual seismic loads without any reduction.(FOS in sliding or overturning can be taken as 1 but against the actual seismic loads received by this foundation......without any reduction)
I coudn't find any literature on this topic. So i would like to receive some suggestion or comment on my views.






RE: Seismic design of footing
Hence after analysing your steel rack, what ever reaction comes, the E will be taken the value it comes, if you are designing your conc ftg using Strength method and factored loads.
when your are checking soil bearing capacity, divide E values with 1.4. Actually if you are using the
ASCE load comb, you are doing it any way.
R to my knowledge is reduced based on the energy dissipation or dampness ability. So the
structure will throw less load on ftg too as it has lost some energy.
RE: Seismic design of footing
I would ask why you are using an R value of 3.25. If I am correct, using an R>3 means that you have to follow the AISC's seismic provisions. If you use R=3 or less, you do not (unless you are in seismic design catefory D, E, or F. I can't imagine that getting that extra 0.25 is worth all of the detailing that you will have to do to make R>3.
RE: Seismic design of footing
Actually i have got site specific spectra for this site and the accelerations are huge (peak spectral acc is 1.3g in OBE and 1.81g in SSE cases). That's why i need to consider the actual value of R, and would have been happier if it was even more than that.
RE: Seismic design of footing
But even after dividing the reaction from steel analysis(which in fact LRFD load comb as per ASCE7) by 1.4 ( or infact using ASD load comb for foundation in which E load factor is 0.7, as you said)should one allow some relexation in allowable bearing capacity.
For overturning 12.13.4 allows 10% reduction in the FOS, what about the sliding ( i guess it is applicable for sliding as well).
RE: Seismic design of footing
RE: Seismic design of footing
RE: Seismic design of footing
RE: Seismic design of footing
Unless there are some specific ductility requirements, the "R" value is empirical and I doubt that the difference from 3 to 3.25 can be quantified as accurately as the code implies.
I digress, the original post isn't about seismic philosophy it's about the code application.
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Seismic design of footing
Therefore, You need to use steel member section moment capacity multiply by an overstrength factor roughly about 1.1 - 1.25, to make sure your steel member yield first before the foundation fails.
RE: Seismic design of footing
you want to say that moment capacity of column divided by 1.4(strength design factor), multiplied by 1.1-1.25 should be used in the overturning requirement of the foundation.
seems to be unrealistic to me, specially when your section sizes are governed by the deflections.
RE: Seismic design of footing
I am not quite sure whether you're familiar with capacity design or not. However, since you decided to design the steel member using ductility factor = 3.25, You don't have any other choices but to design with capacity design.
That means you will expect to have some yielding at your steel member during extreme earthquake.Therefore your foundation has to be able to carry the forces that causes the steel member to yield.
Steel member moment capacity = S * Fy
But you need to take into account the overstrength factor due to strain hardening and material variation = 1.10 -1.25 ( roughly).
Therefore, your foundation need to be able to cary = 1.25 * S * Fy (rough estimate).
That's why for petrochemical piperack, where the displacement limit is governed we tend to design it with ductility factor of 1 -1.25 ( elastically). The steel member will be bigger but it may save the foundation cost.
RE: Seismic design of footing
Due to my limited knowledge on seismic design, one more thing i really need to know.
even if the pass ratio of the column id in the range of 0.6-0.8, do i need to design the foundation to cary = 1.25 * S * Fy.
RE: Seismic design of footing
I think design codes state that you can avoid using overstrength factor when you design the foundation as long as S*fy*overstrenght factor < design moment if you use elastic spectra.