17-11-2017

Building design: Buildings that are not

designed for earthquake loads suffer
more

1
17-11-2017

2
 17-11-2017

no significant structural damage occurred, even glass is intact

The solid building tilted as a rigid body and the raft

foundation rises above the ground.

3
 17-11-2017

This inclined building sank unevenly and leans

against a neighbouring building

4
17-11-2017

5
 17-11-2017

The 1999 great earthquakes of Turkey and Taiwan

contributed to the knowledge of liquefaction-related
movements on structural and foundation performance
of buildings (EERI, 2001).
In order to determine and interpret the reason for
buildings having no structural damage (Fig. 5)
but having suffered severely from liquefaction in
Adapazari after the Turkey earthquake of August 17,
1999.

Those low-rise or high-rise buildings with shallow

foundation and satisfying structural codes and
practices settled, tilted or overturned, depending on
such factors as founding depth, structural geometry
and stories of the building.
Five- and/or six-storey buildings having symmetrical
structural shapes (square, circular, etc.) settled
almost uniformly about a meter (Fig. 8).

6
 17-11-2017

Nepal Bihar 1934

7
 17-11-2017

Narrow escape of Tinsukia Mail Hanginging railway track

Burma-India earthquake 1988

Liquefied soil exerts higher pressure on retaining

walls,which can cause them to tilt or slide.

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

8
 17-11-2017

Increased water pressure causes collapse of

dams

D. Choudhury, IIT Bombay, India

JAPAN GREAT EQ 2011

9
17-11-2017

10
 17-11-2017

Lateral Deformation and Spreading

Fissures caused by lateral spreading at North Wharf, Haiti

21
Earthquake, 2010

Lateral Deformation and Spreading

Cracked Highway due to liquefaction induced lateral

22
spreading, Puerto Limon, 1991

11
 17-11-2017

EFFECTIVE DAMAGE DUE TO LIQUEFACTION Cont

Wide open cracks showing prominent

displacement affecting the Malya-Bhuj
road near Surajbadi. This is an example
of 'lateral spread' consequent to
earthquake induced liquefaction of the
underlying marshy tract of Gulf of
Kutch

Lateral spreading due to

liquefaction leading to
submergence of part of rail-road
embankment in the Gulf of Kutch
near Naolakhi Port.

2011 JAPAN EQ

12
 17-11-2017

2011 JAPAN EQ

2011 JAPAN EQ

13
 17-11-2017

Predicting Liquefaction Resistance

Design of new structures

Retrofitting of existing structures

14
 17-11-2017

Liquefied soil has

residual strength
and exhibits complex
Stress-strain behavior

LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY
IS 1893 (PART 1): 2016
(CLAUSES 3.12 AND 6.3.5.3)

15
 17-11-2017

IS:1893-Part-I

3.12 LIQUEFACTION
3.12 It is a state primarily in saturated
cohesion-less soils wherein the effective shear
strength is reduced to negligible value for all
engineering purposes, when the pore
pressure approaches the total confining
pressure during earthquake shaking. In this
condition, the soil tends to behave like a fluid
mass.

31

16
 17-11-2017

Liquefaction Susceptibility of Gravels.

(WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual)
*No specific guidance regarding susceptibility of gravels
to liquefaction is currently available.
*The primary reason why gravels may not liquefy is that
their high permeability frequently precludes the
development of undrained conditions during and after
earthquake loading.
*When bounded by lower permeability layers,
however, gravels should be considered susceptible to
liquefaction and their liquefaction potential evaluated.
*A gravel that contains sufficient sand/silt to reduce its
permeability to a level near that of the sand, even if not
bounded by lower permeability layers, should also be
considered susceptible to liquefaction

and its liquefaction potential evaluated as such. Becker

hammer testing and sampling could be useful for obtaining a
representative sample of the sandy gravel that can be used to
get an accurate soil gradation for assessing liquefaction
potential.
Down-hole suspension logging (suspension logging in a
mud rotary hole, not cased boring) should also be considered
in such soils, as high quality Vs testing can overcome the
variation in SPT test results caused by the presence of
gravels.

17
 17-11-2017

6.3.5.2, Page 8 of IS:1893-Part-I-2016

In soil deposits consisting of submerged loose sands and
soils falling under classification SP with corrected
standard penetration N-values less than 15 in seismic
Zones III, IV, V and less than 10 in seismic Zone II, the
shaking caused by earthquake ground motion may cause
liquefaction or excessive total and differential
settlements.
Such sites should preferably be avoided while locating
new settlements and should be avoided for locating
structure of important projects.
Otherwise, this aspect of the problem needs to be
investigated and appropriate methods of compaction or
stabilization adopted to achieve suitable N-values as
indicated Table (next slide)

IS:1893-Part-I-2016

18
 17-11-2017

6.3.5.2, Page 8 of IS:1893-Part-I-2016

6.3.5.3 in soil deposits consisting of submerged loose

sand or soils falling under classification of SP with
corrected standard penetration values N, less than 15
in seismic zones III, IV and V, and less than 10 in
Seismic Zone II, the shaking caused by earthquake
ground motion may cause liquefaction or excessive
total and differential settlements. Such sites should be
avoided preferably for locating new structures, and
should be avoided for locating structures of important
project.
37

Otherwise, settlements need to be

investigated, and appropriate methods
adopted of compaction or stabilization to
achieve N values indicated in Note 4 of
Table 1. Alternatively, deep pile foundations
may be adopted and anchored at depths well
below the underlying soil layers, which are
likely to liquefy or undergo excessive
settlements.

38

19
 17-11-2017

Also, marine clay layers and other sensitive clay

layers are known to liquefy undergo excessive
settlements or even collapse, owing to low shear
strength of the said soil; such soils will need
special treatment according to site condition (Table
2)

A simplified method is given in Annex F, for

evaluation of liquefaction potential.

39

If soils of lower N values are encountered than those specified in the

table above, then suitable ground improvement techniques shall be
adopted. Alternatively, deep pile foundations should be used, which are
anchored in stronger strata, underlying the soil layers that do not meet
requirement.

Piles shall be designed for lateral loads neglecting lateral resistance of

soil layers (if any), which are liable to liquefy.

IS 1498 and IS 2131 may be referred for soil notation, and corrected N
values shall be determined by applying correction factor CN for effective
overburden pressure vo using relation N = CNN1 where =

1.7, Pa is the atmospheric pressure and N1 is the uncorrected
SPT value for soil.
40

20
 17-11-2017

IS1893-(Part1)-2002
Zone II (PGA = 0.1 g)
Zone III (PGA = 0.16 g)
Zone IV (PGA = 0.24 g)
Zone V (PGA = 0.36 g)

21
17-11-2017

22
 17-11-2017

2011 JAPAN EQ

23
 17-11-2017

Suitably intense earthquake shakes

Loose, saturated sand

Grain structure tends to consolidate to more compact

packing

Process being very rapid

No pore water pressure dissipation

Effective stress becomes zero

Deposit liquefies

24
 17-11-2017

Liquefaction
Most important
Interesting
Complex
Controversial

Soil deformations
caused by
Monotonic
Transient
Repeated disturbances

25
 17-11-2017

Liquefaction Susceptibility

Historical Criteria
Geologic Criteria
Compositional Criteria
State Criteria
(stress and density)

Liquefaction Zones are areas meeting one

or more of the following:
1. Areas where liquefaction has occurred during
historical earthquakes.
2 . Areas of un-compacted or poorly compacted fills
containing liquefaction-susceptible materials that
are saturated, nearly saturated, or may be expected
to become saturated.
3. Areas where sufficient existing geotechnical data
and analyses indicate that the soils are potentially
susceptible to liquefaction.

26
 17-11-2017

4. For areas where geotechnical data are lacking zones are

delineated using one or more of the following criteria:
a) Areas containing soil of late Holocene age (less than
1,000 years old, current river channels and their
historical flood plains, marshes, and estuaries) where the
groundwater is less than 40 feet (12.2 m) deep and the
anticipated earthquake peak ground acceleration (PGA)
having a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years
is greater than 0.1g.
b) Areas containing soils of Holocene age (less than
11,000 years old) where the groundwater is less than 30
feet (9.2 m) below the surface and the PGA (10% in 50
years) is greater than 0.2g.
c) Areas containing soils of latest Pleistocene age
(11,000 to 15,000 years before present) where the
groundwater is less than 20 feet (6.1 m) below the
surface and the PGA (10% in 50 years) is greater than
0.3g.

Quantitative evaluation of
liquefaction hazard potential is not required:
If the estimated maximum-past-, current-, and
future-ground-water-levels are determined to be
deeper than 15m below the existing ground surface
or proposed finished grade liquefaction assessments
are not required.
For shallow foundations , liquefaction evaluation
may be omitted when the saturated sandy soils
are found at depths greater than 15 m. (Eurocode
8)

27
 17-11-2017

EARTHQUAKE SAFE CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY BUILDINGS:

Simplified Guideline for All New Buildings in the
Seismic Zone V ( & IV)
of India by P r e p a r e d b y : Professor Anand S. Arya and Jnananjan Panda,
for National Disaster Management Division, Prepared under the GoI UNDP
Disaster Risk Management Programme

In sandy soils with high water table within

8m (5m for zone III) depth below ground
level, which may get liquefied during
earthquake of MSK intensity VIII to IX,
(MSK intensity VIII, for zone IV, MSK
intensity VII, for zone III) pile foundation
need to be used in consultation with the
Structural/ Geotechnical Engineer.

EURO CODE 8 part5

(8) The liquefaction hazard may be neglected when
S < 0,15 and at least one of the following
conditions is fulfilled:
- the sands have a clay content greater than 20%
with plasticity index PI > 10;
- the sands have a silt content greater than 35%
and, at the same time, the SPT blow count value
normalised for overburden effects and for the (N1)60
> 20;
- the sands are clean, with the SPT blow count
value normalised for overburden effects and for the
energy ratio (N1)60 > 30.

28
 17-11-2017

Evaluation of Liquefaction
Susceptibility

Cyclic
Stress Cyclic
Approach Strain
Approach

Other approaches :
Energy Dissipation,
Probabilistic approach etc.

29
 17-11-2017

Cyclic Stress Approach

Earthquake Loading Cyclic Shear stresses

Liquefaction resistance Cyclic shear stresses

Loading > Resistance Liquefaction occurs

Cyclic Stresses Induced

Cyclic resistance Available

Laboratory Testing

Field Testing

30
 17-11-2017

Cyclic Stresses Induced

Site Amplification Study

Simplified Procedure

Characterization of Earthquake Loading

Neq Equivalent Uniform Number of Stress cycles

Stresses Induced in the Soil

h
max .a max
g
g = Acceleration due to gravity; = Unit weight of soil

31
 17-11-2017

Number of Equivalent Uniform Stress Cycles

amax

max=(h/g)amax
Maximum Shear Stress at a Depth for a Rigid Soil Column

32
 17-11-2017

IS1893-(Part1)-2002
Zone II (PGA = 0.1 g)
Zone III (PGA = 0.16 g)
Zone IV (PGA = 0.24 g)
Zone V (PGA = 0.36 g)

max act rd . max rd h .a max

g

rd = Stress reduction factor

33
17-11-2017

34
 17-11-2017

h
av 0.65 a max rd
g
Seed and Idriss (1971) formulated the following equation for
calculation of CSR:

Evaluation of Liquefaction
Resistance

Laboratory Tests
Dynamic/Cyclic Triaxial Tests
Cyclic Simple Shear Tests

Field Tests
SPT
CPT
Shear Wave Velocity
BPT

35
 17-11-2017

Feature Test Type

SPT CPT VS

Past measurements at Abundant Abundant Limited

liquefaction sites

Type of stress-strain Partially drained, large Drained, large strain Small strain
behaviour influencing test strain

Quality control and Poor to good Very good Good

repeatability

Detection of variability of Good for closely spaced Very good Fair

soil deposits tests

Soil types in which test is Non gravel Non gravel All

recommended

Soil sample retrieved Yes No No

Test measures index or Index Index Engineering

engineering property

36
 17-11-2017

Field Testing

Depositional and environmental history is

preserved

SPT

37
 17-11-2017

This equation is valid for (N1)60 less than 30 and may be used in
spreadsheets.

38
 17-11-2017

where Nm is the measured standard penetration resistance,

39
 17-11-2017

Pa=100kPa

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATION OF

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

The most common procedure for the assessment of liquefaction

potential of sands and silts is the simplified procedure. The
procedure may be used with either standard penetration test
(SPT) blow count or cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance or
shear wave velocity Vs measured within the deposit as described
below:

Step 1 The subsurface data used to assess liquefaction

susceptibility should include the location of the water table, either
SPT blow count N or tip resistance qc of a CPT cone or shear
wave velocity Vs, unit weight and fines content of the soil
(percent by weight passing the IS Standard sieve No. 75)

40
 17-11-2017

Step 2 Evaluate total vertical overburden stress vo and effective

vertical overburden stress voat different depths for all potentially
liquefiable layers within the deposit.

Step 3 Evaluate stress reduction factor rd using:

1 0.00765 0 < 9.15

=
1.174 0.0267 9.15 < 23
where z is the depth (in metre) below the ground surface.

Step 4 Calculate cyclic stress ratio CSR induced by the earthquake

using:

= 0.65
g
where
= peak ground acceleration (PGA) preferably in terms of g (If PGA
is not available, (amax/g) = seismic zone factor Z),

g = acceleration due to gravity, and

= stress reduction factor

Step 5 Calculate cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) using:

= 7.5

7.5 = standard cyclic resistance ratio for a 7.5 magnitude

earthquake obtained using values of SPT or CPT or shear wave
velocity

NOTE: The above equation is valid for (N1)60<30. For (N1)60 30, clean
sand granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-
liquefiable.
MSF = magnitude scaling factor (required when magnitude is
different than 7.5) given by following equation:
= 102.24
2.56

41
 17-11-2017

=sloping ground correction factor

=1 when slope is zero

= Correction for high overburden stresses (depth>15m) can be

found using following equation:

(1)
= ( )

where

= effective overburden pressure, and

= atmospheric pressure
f = exponent whose value depends on relative density (Dr)
0.8~0.7 = 40%~60%
f =
0.7~0.6 = 60%~80%

Assessing liquefaction susceptibility using SPT:

Step 6(a) Evaluate N60 for hammer efficiency = 60%

If equipment used is of non-standard type:

N60 = NC60

where
C60 = CHTCHWCSSCRLCBD [Table 12 of IS 1893(Part
1):2016]

42
 17-11-2017

Overburden Correction Factor

It is applied to normalize the N value to an effective overburden

pressure of approximately 100 kPa (1atm)

Influence of Fines Content

1 60 = + 1 60

=0, =1.0 5%

=exp
[1.76(190/2 )], =[0.99+(1.5/1000)] 5%<<35%

=5.0, =1.2 35%

43
 17-11-2017

Calculation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio

[IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016

CRR7.5 can be also be determined from the following equation:

1 (1 )60 50 1
7.5 = + + 2

34 (1 )60 135 [10 1 60 + 45] 200

44
 17-11-2017

Step 7- Calculate Factor of safety FS against initial liquefaction

using:

CRR is as estimated in Step 4 and CRR in Step 5

When the design ground motion is conservative, earthquake related

permanent ground deformation is generally small, if FS 1.2.

Step 8 If FS < 1, the soil is assumed to liquefy.

IRC: 75-2015

The procedure is same as above.

FOS against liquefaction = CRR/CSR

If FOS >1; soil is non-liquefiable.

90

45
 17-11-2017

FS= (CRR7.5/CSR). MSF. K . K

1893-Part1-draft-2016

Atmospheric pressure Pa = 100 kPa =1 atm

46
 17-11-2017

Zone of liquefaction in the field

EUROCODE 8 PART5
If the field correlation approach is used, a soil shall be
considered susceptible to liquefaction under level ground
conditions whenever the earthquake-induced shear
prEN 1998-5:2003 (E)18 stress exceeds a certain fraction
of the critical stress known to have caused liquefaction in
previous earthquakes.
NOTE The value ascribed to for use in a Country may be
found in its National Annex.

The recommended value is = 0.8, which implies a safety

factor of 1.25.

47