Pengantar Kegempaan Geoteknik

6/27/2022
Pengantar
Kegempaan Geoteknik
(Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering)
Prof. Agus S. Muntohar, Ph.D.
Pertemuan ke-12: 1-6 Juni 2015
Kegempaan Geoteknik berkaitan

dengan :
• Penentuan gerakan permukaan tanah (ground motions) –
terutama pengaruh kondisi lokal tanah.
• Likuifaksi (Liquefaction) dan bahaya ikutannya (penurunan,
gerakan tanah lateral, dll.)
• Evaluasi gerakan tanah pada lereng
• Bendungan/embankments
• Desain struktur penahan tanah
• Analisis fondasi
• Struktur bawah permukaan tanah (Underground structures)
: terowongan, dll.)
2
1
6/27/2022
Acuan :
• Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice

Hall 3
2
6/27/2022
3
6/27/2022
Gedung runtuh
Struktur lantai dasar yang lemah (Soft first story)
Loma Prieta earthquake damage in San Francisco. The soft first story is due to construction of garages in the first story and
resultant reduction in shear strength. (Photo from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/bytopic/photos.html)
On October 17, 1989, at 5:04:15 p.m. (P.d.t.), a magnitude 6.9 (moment magnitude; surface-wave magnitude, 7.1)
4
6/27/2022
Sambungan fondasi yang tidak memadai
House shifted off its foundation, Northridge earthquake.

(Photo from: Dewey, J.W., Intensities and isoseismals, Earthquakes and Volcanoes, Vol. 25, No. 2, 85-93, 1994)
Keruntuhan pilar jembatan
Foundation and column of a dwelling at the long-bean-shaped

hill (Kashmir October 8, 2005)
10
5
6/27/2022
Suspension Bridge in Balakot (Kashmir October 8, 2005)

Right Abutment Moved Downstream
11
Keruntuhan akibat likufaksi
12
6
6/27/2022
Kegagalan struktur jalan

rel
13
Pergerakan tanah pada lereng
14
7
6/27/2022
Likuefkasi
Nishinomia Bridge 1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan
15
Sand boiling selama gempa
Sand blow in mud flats used for salt production southwest of Kandla Port, Gujarat
16
8
6/27/2022
Gerakan tanah lateral akibat likuifaksi
Upslope portion of lateral spread at Budharmora, Gujarat
17
Lateral spreading in the soil beneath embankment causes the

embankment to be pulled apart, producing the large crack down the
center of the road.
Cracked Highway, Alaska, 1964
18
9
6/27/2022
Liquefied soil exerts higher pressure on retaining

walls,which can cause them to tilt or slide.
19
Increased water pressure causes collapse of

dams
20
10
6/27/2022
PENGUKURAN MAGNITUDO
GEMPA
21
21
How Richter magnitude (ML) was

measured
ML = log10 of the maximum ground motion (in millimeters) recorded on a

Wood-Anderson short-period seismometer 100 km from the earthquake
22
11
6/27/2022
Source Study of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake by David J. Wald David J. Wald, Hiroo Kanamori and Donald V. Helmberger
Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 83, 981-1019, 1993
23
Other magnitude scales
Magnitude Symbol Wave

Local (Richter) ML S or Surface Wave*
Body-Wave mb P
Surface-Wave Ms Rayleigh
Moment Mw Rupture Area, Slip
24
12
6/27/2022
Moment Magnitude - Mw
• Mw = (2/3)log10Mo – 10.7
• Mo = Seismic Moment
Mo = μAu
o μ = shear modulus (typically 30 x 109 N/m2 or 30 x 1010
dyne/cm2)
o A = area of fault rupture
o u =average displacement along fault
25
Rambatan gempa
26
26
13
6/27/2022
Newton’s 2nd Law:

H=mxa
H
Motion at Bedrock
27
Konservasi energi menyeabkan amplifikasi gerakan

permukaan tanah
28
28
14
6/27/2022
Definisi amplifikasi
29
29
SNI 1726: 2019

Tata cara perencanaan ketahanan gempa untuk
struktur bangunan gedung dan nongedung
30
30
15
6/27/2022
31
31
Klasifikasi Situs Untuk Desain Seismik
32
32
16
6/27/2022
33
33
34
34
17
6/27/2022
35
35
36
36
18
6/27/2022
LIKUEFAKSI
Prof. Agus Setyo Muntohar, Ph.D.
37
Likuefaksi
• Definisi likuefaksi
• Cyclic shear loading under undrained condition causes the increase of excess
pore water pressure, then effective stress becomes almost zero.
• Phase changes from solid to liquid. Soil loses the stiffness and strength.
• Faktor-faktor penyebab likuefaksi
• Loose sandy ground such as reclaimed land and fill ground
• High ground water level
• Strong earthquake motion
38
19
6/27/2022
Mekanisme Likuefaksi
Shear test of dry loose sand

Dilatancy of granular material: Volumetric change due to shear
Positive dilatancy of dense sand: dilation, increase in volume
Negative dilatancy of loose sand: contraction, decrease in volume
39
Shear test of saturated loose sand

Negative dilatancy, decrease in pore → out flow of pore water
Positive dilatancy, increase in pore → in flow of pore water
40
20
6/27/2022
• Undrained shear test of saturated loos sand
• Permeability of soil < Duration time of EQ: nearly undrained
Negative dilatancy → increase in pore water pressure

Positive dilatancy → decrease in pore water pressure
41
Tegangan Total
(konstan selama gempa bumi)
＝
Tegangan Efektif
Interaksi aktual antar partikel tanah
+
Tekanan Air Pori
Valensi gaya vertikal:

Negative dilatancy → increase in PWP, decrease in ES
Positive dilatancy → decrease in PWP, increase in ES
42
21
6/27/2022
Mekanisme “sand boil” dan Penurunan

ES + PWP ES + PWP
MAT MAT
Kedalaman
Kedalaman
ES PWP EPWP PWP
ES=0
Sebelum gempa bumi Selama gempa bumi
Upward seepage flow due to excess PWP (EPWP)

43
Mekanisme “sand boil” dan Penurunan
ES + PWP ES + PWP
GWL GWL
Depth
Depth
ES PWP ES PWP
before EQ EPWP=0 during EQ
• Consolidation due to dissipation of EWPW, recovery of ES
44
22
6/27/2022
EVALUASI POTENSI LIKUIFAKSI DAN

PENURUNAN PERMUKAAN TANAH
Muntohar, A.S. (2012), Studi Parametrik Potensi Likuifaksi dan Penurunan Permukaan Tanah
Berdasarkan Uji Sondir, Prosiding PIT HATTI ke-16, Jakarta, 4 Desember 2012, pp. 139-144
45
Asesmen Potensi Likuifaksi

(Robertson & Wride,1998)
• Faktor aman terhadap likuifaksi (FSL) :

 CRR7,5 
FS L =    MSF
 CSR 
• CSR : perilaku seismik tanah
• CRR : kemampuan tanah untuk menahan likuifaksi
• MSF = faktor pembesaran
174
MSF =
M w2,56
46
23
6/27/2022

(Robertson & Wride,1998)
 av a    vo 
CSR = = 0, 65  max    rd
 'vo  g    'vo 
qc1N(cs) < 50
 ( qc1N )cs 
CRR7.5 = 0.833   + 0.05
 1000 
50 < qc1N(cs) < 160
 ( qc1N )cs 
3
CRR7.5 = 93   + 0.08
 1000 
qc1N(cs) > 160 ➔ No Liquefiable
Gambar 2.8 Faktor pengurangan tegangan
rd dan kedalaman (Seed &Idriss, 1971)
47
Indeks Potensi Likuifaksi

(Iwasaki dkk.,1978)
• Indeks Potensi Likuifaksi atau Liquefaction Potential

Index (LPI) : estimasi potensi likuifaksi yang
menyebabkan kerusakan fondasi.
n
LPI =  Fi w( zi ) z
i =1
FS  1 : F = 1 – FS
FS > 1 : F = 0
w(z) merupakan fungsi bobot = 10 – 0.5 z
48
24
6/27/2022
Estimasi Penurunan Permukan Tanah

(Zhang dkk.,(2002)
j
S =  e v ,i zi
i =1
ev = regangan volumetrik pasca likuifaksi

z = ketebalan lapisan tanah
49
Derajat Kerusakan dan

Penurunan
Tabel 2.1 Hubungan antara penurunan permukaan tanah dan derajat
kerusakan bangunan (Ishihara & Yosimine, 1992)
Derajat Kerusakan Penurunan (cm) Fenomena di permukaan tanah
Tidak ada kerusakan 0 – 10 Retakan minor
hingga ringan
Menengah 10 – 30 Retakan kecil, pasir halus keluar

dari pemukaan tanah
Berat 30 – 70 Retakan besar, pasir halus

menyembur, deformasi lateral
50
25
6/27/2022
HASIL STUDI
Studi Parametrik Potensi Likuifaksi dan Penurunan
Permukaan Tanah Berdasarkan Uji Sondir
51
Hasil Studi Parametrik Potensi Likuifaksi dan Penurunan Permukaan Tanah Berdasarkan Uji Sondir
SB1 (Mw = 6.3; amax = 0.25g)
52
26
6/27/2022
SB1 (Mw = 6.3; amax = 0.4g)
53
Estimasi Penurunan Permukaan Tanah
Ishihara & Yoshime, 1992)

Rentang a max yang
CPT based diperkirakan dari
rekaman di YOG1
(Elnashai dkk., 2007)
SPT based
Mw = 6.3 (Yogyakarta 27 Mei 2006) Mw = 7.5 (Niigata 16 June 1964)
54
27
6/27/2022
Estimasi Penurunan Permukaan Tanah
25
Penurunan Permukaan Tanah, S (cm)

20
Rentang amax
yang diperkirakan
oleh stasiun YOG1
15 (Elnashai dkk., 2007)
SB1
SB4
SB5
10
SB8
SB9
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Percepatan Permukaan Tanah, amax (g)
55
Catatan Akhir
• Estimasi potensi likuifaksi merupakan site specific.
• Likuifaksi mulai terjadi pada hampir 50% lapisan

tanah pada nilai amax = 0,25g. Pada keadaan ini nilai
Mw lebih berpengaruh.
• Penurunan di permukaan tanah meningkat tajam

dengan bertambahnya magnitudo gempa Mw 7,5–10
dan percepatan gempa maksimum amax = 0,4g – 0,6g.
56
28
6/27/2022
Prediksi Likuefaksi
57
Prediction of liquefaction
• Assessment of liquefaction effect on ground and structure
• Trigger of liquefaction, ground deformation
Year 日本の地震 Word EQ Research Design and mitigation
1960
• 1964
Deformation
新潟地震
and failure of structures
1964 Alaska Shaking table test Compaction method
• From “trigger” to “deformation”

1968 十勝沖地震 Cyclic shear test
Trigger
1970 1978 宮城県沖地震 1971 San Fernando Cyclic shear test FL method
• Progress in numerical
1976 Tangshan Total stress analysis
method with validation
1980 1983 日本海中部地震 1985 Mexico Countermeasure Drain method
1984 長野県西部地震 1989 Loma Prieta Dynamic centrifuge test solidification method
Effective stress analysis
1990 1993 釧路沖地震 1990 Luzon Residual deformation analysis Lateral flow force
1993 北海道南西沖地震 1999 Kocaeli
1995 兵庫県南部地震 1999 Chi-Chi
Deform.
2000 2000 鳥取県西部地震 2001 Gujarat Large scale test Retrofitting method
2003 十勝沖地震 2004 Sumatra
2007 新潟県中越沖地震 2008 Wenchuan
2010 2011 東北地方太平洋沖地震 2011 Haiti
2011 Christchurch
58
29
6/27/2022
Prediction of liquefaction
• Input
• Simplified method: in-situ test, physical property
• Numerical analysis: mechanical property with soil sample
• Output Input Output Target area Accuracy
• Soil
Simplified method: trigger
Structure EQ of liquefaction
Geological - - Potential map Wide area Low
• Numerical method: deformation of ground and structure
Geomorphological
Boring data - Surface ACC Potential map

In-situ test FL, PL
Boring data Simplified Surface ACC Stability of structure

In-situ test
Soil sample Detailed 3D ACC time Deformation of ground and A structure High
Laboratory test history structure
59
Old microtopography map
（国土地理院）
60
30
6/27/2022
Simplified method: FL method

Shear stress ratio
L: External force by EQ
Shear stress ratio

R: Strength with N-value
FL= R/L
FL: Factor of liquefaction

FL>1: no liquefaction
FL<1: liquefaction
(Tokimatsu and Yoshimi 1983)
61
Validation of FL method after

2011 Tohoku EQ
• 関東地方112箇
所
• 少なくとも液状
化の見逃しは
なく，FL法は安
全側の評価
• 細粒分含有率，
地震動継続時
間についても
既往の知見と
変わらず．
（国交省）
62
31
6/27/2022
Boring database
(http://www.geo-stn.bosai.go.jp/jps/index.html)
63
Soil profile from database
Sand
Silt
(http://www.geo-stn.bosai.go.jp/jps/index.html)
64
32
6/27/2022
Liquefaction potential map
（徳島県第一次被害想定，H25.7）
65
Validation of effective stress

analysis
• Simulation of vertical array records during 1995 Kobe EQ
66
33
6/27/2022
Soil profile at vertical array site
67
Numerical results
68
34
6/27/2022
6 6
Comparison with ACC records

4 GL-83EWa 4 GL-0EWa
Acceleration (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s)
ax- 1 ax- 125
2
2
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
6 6
4 GL-83NSa 4 GL-0NSa
Acceleration (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s)
ay- 1 ay- 125
2
2
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
6 6
4 GL-83UDa 4 GL-0UDa
Acceleration (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s)
az- 1 az- 125
2
2
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure Time histories of acceleration (GL-83m, GL-0m)
69
Comparison with VEL and DIS

1.0 0.4
records
GL-0EWrv GL-0EWrd
Displacement (m/s)
0.5 vx- 125 0.2 dx- 125

Velocity (m/s)
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.2
-1.0 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
1.0 0.4
GL-0NSrv
Displacement (m/s)
0.5 vy- 125 0.2

Velocity (m/s)
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.2 GL-0NSrd

dy- 125
-1.0 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
1.0 0.4
GL-0UDrv
Displacement (m/s)
0.5 vz- 125 0.2

Velocity (m/s)
0.0 0.0
-0.5 -0.2 GL-0UDrd

dz- 125
-1.0 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure Time histories of relative velocity and displacement (GL-0m)
70
35
6/27/2022
Validation of effective stress

analysis
Reproduction of failure mode

• Building with piles behind quay wall during 1995 Kobe
EQ
71
Finite element model and BC
• Only eastern part of building

• Only NS direction for EQ motion
• Free field at northern and southern boundary
72
36
6/27/2022
Numerical results
73
Numerical results
0
Pile S-6 Pile N-6
Bs_u
-5
Bs_l
Depth (m)
• Reproduction of different
-10 failure mode of piles
As
Ac
-15
3D at 25s 3D at 25s
2D at 25s 2D at 25s
8) 8)
Measured Measured
-20
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5
Horizontal displacement relative to rigid base (m)
74
37

Pengantar Kegempaan Geoteknik

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pengantar Kegempaan Geoteknik

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/27/2022

Pertemuan ke-12: 1-6 Juni 2015

Kegempaan Geoteknik berkaitan

• Kramer, S.L. (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice

Struktur lantai dasar yang lemah (Soft first story)

Sambungan fondasi yang tidak memadai

House shifted off its foundation, Northridge earthquake.

Keruntuhan pilar jembatan

Foundation and column of a dwelling at the long-bean-shaped

Suspension Bridge in Balakot (Kashmir October 8, 2005)

Keruntuhan akibat likufaksi

Kegagalan struktur jalan

Pergerakan tanah pada lereng

Nishinomia Bridge 1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan

Sand boiling selama gempa

Gerakan tanah lateral akibat likuifaksi

Upslope portion of lateral spread at Budharmora, Gujarat

Lateral spreading in the soil beneath embankment causes the

Cracked Highway, Alaska, 1964

Liquefied soil exerts higher pressure on retaining

Increased water pressure causes collapse of

How Richter magnitude (ML) was

ML = log10 of the maximum ground motion (in millimeters) recorded on a

Other magnitude scales

Magnitude Symbol Wave

Newton’s 2nd Law:

Konservasi energi menyeabkan amplifikasi gerakan

SNI 1726: 2019

Klasifikasi Situs Untuk Desain Seismik

Shear test of dry loose sand

Shear test of saturated loose sand

Negative dilatancy → increase in pore water pressure

Tekanan Air Pori

Valensi gaya vertikal:

Mekanisme “sand boil” dan Penurunan

Sebelum gempa bumi Selama gempa bumi

Upward seepage flow due to excess PWP (EPWP)

Mekanisme “sand boil” dan Penurunan

before EQ EPWP=0 during EQ

• Consolidation due to dissipation of EWPW, recovery of ES

EVALUASI POTENSI LIKUIFAKSI DAN

Asesmen Potensi Likuifaksi

• Faktor aman terhadap likuifaksi (FSL) :

Asesmen Potensi Likuifaksi

Indeks Potensi Likuifaksi

• Indeks Potensi Likuifaksi atau Liquefaction Potential

Estimasi Penurunan Permukan Tanah

ev = regangan volumetrik pasca likuifaksi

Derajat Kerusakan dan

Menengah 10 – 30 Retakan kecil, pasir halus keluar

Berat 30 – 70 Retakan besar, pasir halus

Asesmen Potensi Likuifaksi

SB1 (Mw = 6.3; amax = 0.25g)

Asesmen Potensi Likuifaksi

SB1 (Mw = 6.3; amax = 0.4g)

Estimasi Penurunan Permukaan Tanah

Ishihara & Yoshime, 1992)

Mw = 6.3 (Yogyakarta 27 Mei 2006) Mw = 7.5 (Niigata 16 June 1964)

Estimasi Penurunan Permukaan Tanah

Penurunan Permukaan Tanah, S (cm)

Percepatan Permukaan Tanah, amax (g)

• Likuifaksi mulai terjadi pada hampir 50% lapisan

• Penurunan di permukaan tanah meningkat tajam

• From “trigger” to “deformation”