Indian Association of Structural Engineers

Refresher Course on
"Application of New Seismic Code for Highway
Bridges - IRC:SP:114-2018"
28th September 2019
PHD House, New Delhi

Handouts of the Presentations

Sponsor

Sanfield (India) Ltd

 28th September 2019

Lecture 13 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Analysis with

09:00 AM to 11:00 AM Worked Example
Prof. Mahesh Tandon, Past President IAStructE &
Managing Director - Tandon Consultants Pvt Ltd

Panel Discussion and Question Answer Session

11:15 AM to 01:00 PM
 HANDOUTS OF THE PRESENTATIONS

Prof. Mahesh Tandon

Past President IAStructE &
Managing Director Tandon Consultants Pvt Ltd
 Indian Association of Structural Engineers

PROF MAHESH TANDON

MANAGING DIRECTOR, TANDON CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL (INDIA)
GUEST PROFESSOR @ GANDHINAGAR
28th September, 2019 1
 THE PHENOMENON

FALLOUTS OF LIQUEFACTION

ASSESSMENT BY IRC SP114

EXAMPLE CALCULATION

LATERAL SPREADING EVALUATION

LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION BY GROUND IMPROVEMENT

4
WHY PILE FOUNDATIONS ARE
KEY TO SAFETY IN SOILS
WITH POTENTIAL OF LIQUEFCTION

RESULT OF
NO PILE FOUNDATIONS

OVERTURNED APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN

NIIGATA, JAPAN DUE TO LIQUEFACTION IN
1964. 5
THE PHENOMENON

6
 LIQUEFACTION
SOIL LIQUEFACTION IS A PHENOMENON
WHEREBY A SATURATED OR PARTIALLY
SATURATED SOIL SUBSTANTIALLY LOSES
STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS IN RESPONSE
TO EARTHQUAKE SHAKING CAUSING IT
TO BEHAVE LIKE A LIQUID.

PILE FOUNDATIONS
EC 8-5 : The side resistance of soil layers for carrying vertical and horizontal loads
that are susceptible to liquefaction shall be ignored.
7
Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential in geotechnical
engineering is impoprtant for the safety, integrity and
serviceability of structures.

Assessment of effects of liquefaction is required by

theStructural Engineer to arrive at vertical loads, shear
forces and Bending moments in the deep foundation
system which is designed to transfer loads to
competent strata.

8
LIQUEFACTION PHENOMENON DEMONSTATION
9
 LIQUEFACTION ILLUSTRATED

SOIL GRAINS IN INCREASED WATER

FORCES CREATED BY
NORMAL STATE. PRESSURE CREATED BY
INTERACTION OF
SATURATED SOIL EXTERNAL LOADING. SOIL
THE SOIL GRAINS
DEPOSIT PARTICLES BECOME
IS STABLE ‘SUSPENDED’ IN WATER.
LOSE STRENGTH

10
 THE PHENOMENON
The shear strength of cohesionless soil,, depends mainly on
the angle of internal friction and the effective stress acting on
the soil grains and can be expressed as
 =  tan  ……………………………………………(1)
 =  - u ……………………...……………………….(2)
Where  = shear strength,  = effective normal stress,  = total
normal stress, u = pore pressure,  = angle of internal friction

During Earthquake the duration of the cyclic stress application

is so short compared to the time required for water to drain, that
excess pore pressure progressively builds up. When the pore
pressure equals the total stress, thereby reducing the effective
stress to zero, the soil will experience a sudden loss of strength
and stiffness. 11
 WHEN NOT TO WORRY ABOUT LIQUEFACTION ?
Granular soils with an SPT blow count (N1)60 < 30,
are potentially liquefiable. However, increased fines content
reduces the liquefaction potential and granular soils with the
following combinations of (N1)60 and percent fines are not
liquefiable:
(N1)60 % Fines
>30 ≥5%
> 25 ≥15%
> 21 ≥35%

PRESENCE OF FINES GREATLY REDUCES POTENTIAL OF LIQUEFACTION

12
FALLOUTS OF LIQUEFACTION

13
 TWO FALLOUTS OF LIQUEFACTION
ONE. INERTIAL EFFECTS

TWO. KINEMATIC EFFECTS

THE TWO ARE NOT ADDITIVE AS THERE IS A SMALL DELAY BEFORE

THE SECOND EFFECT KICKS IN AFTER THE PEAK OF THE SEISMIC EVENT
HAS PASSED.

Caltrans (2011) suggests the following combinations:

• 100% inertial + 50% kinematic
• ± 50% inertial + 100% kinematic

Liquefaction Impacts Vertical and Lateral Resistance

Liquefaction Impacts Vertical and Lateral Loads

14
 ONE. INERTIAL EFFECTS
PILE FOUNDATIONS

LIQUEFIED HEIGHT CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO PROVIDE SUPPORT. THE RESULTING
DEFORMATIONS (INCLUDING P-DELTA EFFECTS) AND BENDING AND VERTICAL EFFECTS
CAN BE SIGNIFICANT . THIS PART OF THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS RELATES TO THE
“INERTIAL EFFECTS’’ OF LIQUEFACTION.

PILES MUST BE CHECKED FOR BUCKLING INSTABILITY DUE TO BOTH INERTIAL AND
KINEMATIC EFFECTS.

BENDING AND BUCKLING REQUIRE DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN DESIGN. BENDING

IS A STABLE MECHANISM AND IS DEPENDENT ON STRENGTH WHEREAS BUCKLING
IS DEPENDENT ON GEOMETRIC STIFFNESS AND IS INDEPENDENT OF STRENGTH.
DESIGNING FOR BENDING CAN NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENSURE THAT BUCKLING
WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE
15
 INERTIAL EFFECT of LIQUEFACTION
Could result in : V
 Deeper piles
 Increase in pile numbers PIER
or diameter
H
 Addl reinforcement PILE CAP
Non Liquefiable
Soil support Zone offers
lost for both lateral and
vertical and vertical
horizontal resistance.
resistance.

Equivalent nonlinear static soil springs whose

analysis can give reliable properties are
results. represented by p-y
3D MODEL of BRIDGE PIER
AND FOUNDATION
16
AASHTO LRFD

17
 TWO. KINEMATIC EFFECTS

Flow of liquefied soil caused by ground slope results in lateral

spreading forces acting on the bridge foundations. This is particularly
relevant to water front or free face situations. The equivalent static
forces due to small slopes can be estimated by simplified provisions.
This part of the analytical process relates to the “kinematic effects’’
of liquefaction.

CALTRANS 2011. Software LPILE 18

 ICONIC EXAMPLE OF THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION.

1964 Niigata earthquake. Shinano river, Niigata City

SHOWA BRIDGE COLLAPSE DUE TO LIQUEFACTION, LATERAL SPREADING

The post liqufaction phenomenon (few minutes after termination of
main seismic action) 19
 INSTABILITY (BUCKLING)

Slenderness ratio of < 50 to

avoid buckling instability (JRA) 20
The 1964 Niigata earthquake magnitude 7.5 . The epicenter was on the continental
shelf off the northwest coast of Honshu, 50 kilometres north of the city of Niigata

Following the 1964 collapse, a law was passed to prohibit bridge piers being
Founded on single row of piles.

21
 EFFECTS DUE TO LATERAL SPREADING
The evaluation of the mode and magnitude of liquefaction induced lateral ground
deformations involves considerable uncertainty and is the subject of on-going research

qNL= Passive earth

Pressure

qL= 30% of overburden

pressure

JRA Provisions (1996)

• The non-liquefied crust exerts passive earth pressure
• The liquefied crust exerts passive earth pressure on the pile and the liquefied soil
offers 30% of total overburden pressure.
23
ASSESMENT BY
IRC SP 114

25
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION
POTENTIAL
Estimation of two parameters are required to evaluate
liquefaction potential

(1) CSR: Cyclic Stress Ratio – Demand on soil layers

expressed in term of CSR

(2) CRR: Cyclic Resistance Ratio – Capacity of soil to

resist liquefaction

Check for liquefaction:

FOS = CRR/CSR > 1
(IS1893 suggests 1.2)
26
 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION SEQUENCE

1. Determine groundwater elevation. A higher elevation may

be used if there is evidence for seasonal or long-term
fluctuations. Do not combine liquefaction analysis with
other extreme events.
2. Correct SPT Blow Counts
3. Determine Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)- demand
4. Determine Fines Content Correction
5. Calculate Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)7.5 - capacity
6. Calculate the Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)
7. Calculate the Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual Page 1 of 7 December 2014 Liquefaction Evaluation

27
 MAIN REFERENCE

LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SOILS: SUMMARY REPORT FROM THE

1996 NCEER AND 1998 NCEER/NSF WORKSHOPS ON EVALUATION
OF LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE OF SOILS
By T. L. Youd,1 Chair, Member, ASCE, I. M. Idriss,2 Co-Chair, Fellow, ASCE,
Ronald D. Andrus,3 Ignacio Arango,4 Gonzalo Castro,5 John T. Christian,6
Richardo Dobry,7 W. D. Liam Finn,8 Leslie F. Harder Jr.,9 Mary Ellen Hynes,10
Kenji Ishihara,11 Joseph P. Koester,12 Sam S. C. Liao,13 William F. Marcuson III,14 Geoffrey R.
Martin,15 James K. Mitchell,16 Yoshiharu Moriwaki,17 Maurice S. Power,18 Peter K.
Robertson,19 Raymond B. Seed,20 and Kenneth H. Stokoe II 21
29
 EVALUATION OF CYCLIC STRESS
RATIO (CSR)
CSR = 0.65 (amax/g) (v / v) rd
Seed & Idris 1971
rd = Stress Reduction Factor which depends on depth
below ground level

amax/g = (Ratio of Peak Horizontal Ground acceleration/

acceleration due to gravity), Table 4. For Zone IV, for
instance, Zone Factor equals 0.24

v / v = (Total vertical Stress/Effective vertical Stress) should

be evaluated for all potentially liquefiable layers
within the substrata under consideration
30
 CSR = 0.65 (amax/g) (v / v) rd
v / v = Total Stress / Effective Stress = Varies
from approx. 2 to 1 depending upon
Water Table considered for
calculations
Effective Stress = Total Stress – Pore Water Pressure

rd = stress reduction coefficient

with depth

rd = 1.0 – 0.00765z for z  9.15 m

rd = 1.174 – 0.0267z for 9.15 m < z  23 m

NOTE: DISTINCTION REQD BETWEEN WATER

33
TABLE DURING SPT TESTS AND DURING SERVICE CONDITIONS
 VALUE OF amax

Estimate of amax is by empirical correlations with earthquake

magnitude, distance from the seismic energy source, and local site
conditions. Several correlations are available.

National Center for Seismology setup in 2014 by the Ministry of Earth Sciences doing
work on this and related subjects.

Information also available in BTMC Hazard Maps and IS 1893

34
 Fig 2: Epicenters of Past-Earthquakes
(from IS 1893)

Fig 3: Earthquake Hazard Maps Developed

by BMTPC
36
EVALUATION OF CYCLIC RESISTANCE
RATIO (CRR)
- Specimen of granular soil retrieved with typical
sampling
techniques are too disturbed to give meaningful results

- Field test are used for evaluation of liquefaction

potential
- Standard penetration test (SPT ) : Most frequently
used in India

Optional route
- Cone penetration test ( CPT )
- Shear wave velocity (Vs)

37
 COMPARISONS OF FIELD TESTS

SPT, GENERALLY APPLIES ONLY TO THE GROSS BEHAVIOR OF A RELATIVELY LARGE

300 MM INTERVAL OF THE BORING AND THUS CANNOT BE USED TO
CHARACTERIZE THE LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THIN LENSES OF SOIL
VISUALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE SPLIT-SPOON SAMPLE.

THE CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) CAN BE USED TO DEVELOP CONTINUOUS PROFILES
OF THE SOIL LAYERS AND THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF THE SOIL

CRR CAN IS EVALUATED BY

NORMALIZED STANDARDIZED SPT BLOW COUNT, (N1)60 OR
THE NORMALIZED CPT TIP RESISTANCE, QC1.

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY MAY BE MEASURED DIRECTLY BY A VARIETY OF

GEOPHYSICAL METHODS

38
 Correction factors for SPT as per IS1893
(N60)- is the standard penetration test for hammer
of efficiency 60%. CHT = Energy ratio
CHw = Hammer wt.
N60 = NxC60 Where, CSS = sampling method
N = Observed field SPT value CRL = Rod length
C60 = CHTCHwCSSCRL CBD CBD = Bore Hole diameter
Five correction factors depend on eqpt
Normalized standardized SPT blow count (N1)60- is
normalized to effective overburden pressure of 98 kpa.
(N1)60 = CN N60= N CNC60 = N CNCHTCHwCSSCRL CBD
CN = Correction due to overburden pressure
Total 5 nos of correction are applied on observed N to arrive at
(N1)60
IS 1893:2016 PROVISION :
“C60 MAY BE assumed as 1.0 for SPT conducted as per
IS:2131” 39
 Evaluation of CRR7.5
𝑪𝑹𝑹 𝟏 𝑵 𝟓𝟎 𝟏
𝟕.𝟓 = + 𝟏 𝟔𝟎 + −
𝟑𝟒− 𝑵𝟏 𝟔𝟎 𝟏𝟑𝟓 𝟏𝟎. 𝑵𝟏 𝟔𝟎 +𝟒𝟓 𝟐 𝟐𝟎𝟎

Above equation is
applicable for (N1) 60 < 30 .
For (N1) 60 > 30 clean
granular soils are too
dense to liquefy.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRR7.5 &

(N1) 60 FOR CLEAN SAND FOR Mw
7.5 - -INFLUNCE LINES

Note: Use (N1)60cs instead of (N1)60

for adjustment for fines -PTO-
 Adjustment to Influence Lines for Fines
Content (FC)
- % by weight passing through IS standard sieve no. 75
micron.

Equivalent clean sand value 𝑵𝟏 𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔 = 𝜶 + 𝜷 𝑵𝟏 𝟔𝟎

= 0 for FC  5%
= exp [ 1.76 – (190/FC2)] for 5% < FC < 35%
= 5.0 for FC  35%
 = 1.0 for FC  5%
 = [ 0.99 + (FC1.5/1,000)] for 5% < FC < 35%
 = 1.2 for FC  35%
 Evaluation of CRR from CRR7.5

𝑪𝑹𝑹 = 𝑪𝑹𝑹𝟕.𝟓 . 𝒌𝑴 𝒌𝝈 . 𝒌𝜶

KM = Earthquake magnitude scaling factor

K = Overburden correction ~1.0 if overburden not

greater than 15m. Otherwise use :

K = Sloping ground correction ~1.0

 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE
SCALING FACTOR km

What value of
Mw should be
considered ?

1.4 if Mw= 7.0

1.7 if Mw= 6.5

No correction for
magnitude 7.5
LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION BY
GROUND IMPROVEMENT

45
 SOIL IMPROVEMENT
OPTIONS
INJECTION & GROUTING

EXAMPLE OF FOUNDATION DESIGN

THAT SPANS OVER A SOFT SPOT

DYNAMIC
COMPACTION
 Indian Association of Structural Engineers

PROF MAHESH TANDON

MANAGING DIRECTOR, TANDON CONSULTANTS PVT LTD
INTERNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL (INDIA)
GUEST PROFESSOR @ GANDHINAGAR
28th September, 2019 1
2
CORRECTION FACTORS

3
CORRECTION FACTORS
4
CORRECTION FACTORS

5
CORRECTION FACTORS

6
 TRIP/AUTO

ROPE and PULLEY

7
 INPUT DATA

Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (amax /g) = 0.24

Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) = 7.0
Magnitude Scale Factor KM = 1.4 From Fig 1
Depth of water table assumed below Ground Level = 0 m
Sloped Stratigraphy correction factor Kα = 1.0
Effective Stress Correction factor Kσ = 1.0
Hammer Energy Correction factor CHT = 0.75 Rope and Pulley

Weight of Hammer used = 63.5 Kg

Height of Fall = 760 mm
Therefore, as per Table G-2 of Appendix G of RDSO guidelines,
Correction for Hammer Weight and fall CHW = 997
As per Table G-2 of Appendix G of RDSO guidelines,
Correction for Bore Hole Diameter CBD = 1.05 for 150 mm diameter
As per Table G-2 of Appendix G of RDSO guidelines,
Correction for Sampler Setup CSS = 1 for Standard Sampler setup

Correction for Rod Length CRL = 0.75 for depth 0 - 3 m

= 0.8 for depth 3 - 4 m
= 0.85 for depth 4 - 6 m
= 0.95 for depth 6 - 10 m
= 1 for depth greater or equal to 10 m
Stress Normalisation Factor CN = (Pa/σv')0.5 <= 1.7
where Pa is the atmospheric pressure = 9.8 t/m 2
9.8 t/m2
For (N1)60CS greater than 30, the FOS is assumed to be greater than 1 and the soil is assumed to be non-liquefiable.

As per Step 3 and 4 of Appendix G of RDSO guidelines,

Critical Stress Ratio CSR = 0.65 (amax / g) rd (σ/σ'v)
where Stress Reduction Factor rd = 1-0.00765 * z for z<= 9.15 m
= 1.174-0.0267 * z for 9.15m < z <= 23 m

Depth of water table assumed for Design = 0 m below Ground Level

Actual Water Table for Borehole during SPT = 0 m below Ground Level
BORE HOLE DATA WITH CALCULATIONS

Water Table for Design = 0 m below Ground Level

Water Table during SPT = 0 m below Ground Level
CSR
Depth Effective Effective Effective Critical
Observe Total Effective Fine Stress Total
Below Density - Overburden - Overburden - Stress
d SPT Density Density - Content Reduction Overburden
G.L. (z) in Design Design (σ'o), SPT (σ'o), Ratio
Value (t/m3) SPT (t/m3) (%) Coefficient (rd) Press (σo), t/m2
m (t/m3) t/m2 t/m2 (CSR)
1.5 6 1.95 0.95 0.95 16 0.989 2.93 1.43 1.43 0.317
3 7 1.97 0.97 0.97 17 0.977 5.91 2.88 2.88 0.313
4.5 11 1.97 0.97 0.97 17 0.966 8.87 4.34 4.34 0.308
6 14 1.97 0.97 0.97 15 0.954 11.82 5.79 5.79 0.304
7.5 16 1.97 0.97 0.97 16 0.943 14.78 7.25 7.25 0.300

10.5 16 2 1 1 15 0.894 21.00 10.25 10.25 0.286

13.5 16 2 1 1 15 0.814 27.00 13.25 13.25 0.259
16.5 20 2 1 1 15 0.733 33.00 16.25 16.25 0.232
23 20 2 1 1 15 0.560 46.00 22.75 22.75 0.177 CRR

Depth
Stress SPT
Below
CHT CHW CSS CRL CBD C60 Normalization Corrected α β (N1)60CS CRRM=7.5
G.L. (z) in
Factor(CN) (N1)60
m
1.5 0.75 0.999 0.90 0.85 1.05 0.602 1.70 6.1 2.77 1.05 9.24 0.106
3 0.75 0.999 0.90 0.85 1.05 0.602 1.70 7.2 3.01 1.06 10.60 0.118
4.5 0.75 0.999 0.90 0.85 1.05 0.602 1.50 10.0 3.01 1.06 13.56 0.146
6 0.75 0.999 0.90 0.85 1.05 0.602 1.30 11.0 2.50 1.05 13.99 0.150
7.5 0.75 0.999 0.90 0.85 1.05 0.602 1.16 11.2 2.77 1.05 14.57 0.156

10.5 0.75 0.999 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.787 0.98 12.3 2.50 1.05 15.40 0.164
13.5 0.75 0.999 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.787 0.86 10.8 2.50 1.05 13.85 0.149
16.5 0.75 0.999 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.787 0.78 12.2 2.50 1.05 15.31 0.163
23 0.75 0.999 1.00 1.00 1.05 0.787 0.66 10.3 2.50 1.05 13.32 0.144

Depth
Below
KM Kα Kσ CRRMw FOS Conclusion
G.L. (z) in
m
1.5 1.4 1 1 0.149 0.47 Liquefiable
3 1.4 1 1 0.166 0.53 Liquefiable
4.5 1.4 1 1 0.204 0.66 Liquefiable
6 1.4 1 1 0.210 0.69 Liquefiable
7.5 1.4 1 1 0.218 0.73 Liquefiable

10.5 1.4 1 1 0.230 0.80 Liquefiable

13.5 1.4 1 1 0.208 0.80 Liquefiable
16.5 1.4 1 1 0.228 0.98 Liquefiable
23 1.4 1 1 0.201 1.14 Non Liquefiable
8
 With Best Compliments from

MANUFACTURER OF BRIDGE BEARINGS, EXPANSION JOINTS, STU & STEEL GIRDER FABRICATION
EXPERTISE IN REHABILITATION, P. T. SLABS, POST TENSIONING, ROCK ANCHORS & REBAR COUPLERS

SANFIELD is proud to be a Group Company of MAURER SE

WORLD LEADERS IN EXPANSION JOINTS, BEARINGS
AND
STRUCTURAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS SINCE 1876

Factory & Office in India:- Factory & Office in Germany:-

13-A & 12-D, SECTOR D, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FRANKFURTER RING 193,
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL 462023, INDIA 80807 MUNICH, GERMANY
Ph: +91 755 4233535 (30 Lines) Ph: +49 89 32394-0
Fax: 2602663 / 4270730 Fax: +49 89 32394-306
E-mail: sanfield@sanfieldindia.in; e-mail: inquiries@maurer.eu
sanfieldindia@gmail.com Web-site: www.maurer.eu
 With Best Compliments from

MANUFACTURER OF BRIDGE BEARINGS, EXPANSION JOINTS, STU & STEEL GIRDER FABRICATION
EXPERTISE IN REHABILITATION, P. T. SLABS, POST TENSIONING, ROCK ANCHORS & REBAR COUPLERS

SANFIELD is proud to be a Group Company of MAURER SE

WORLD LEADERS IN EXPANSION JOINTS, BEARINGS
AND
STRUCTURAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS SINCE 1876

Factory & Office in India:- Factory & Office in Germany:-

13-A & 12-D, SECTOR D, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FRANKFURTER RING 193,
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL 462023, INDIA 80807 MUNICH, GERMANY
Ph: +91 755 4233535 (30 Lines) Ph: +49 89 32394-0
Fax: 2602663 / 4270730 Fax: +49 89 32394-306
E-mail: sanfield@sanfieldindia.in; e-mail: inquiries@maurer.eu
sanfieldindia@gmail.com Web-site: www.maurer.eu