Sunteți pe pagina 1din 109

SOIL LIQUEFACTION:

PHENOMENON,
HAZARDS ,
REMEDIATION

Dr. Farhat Javed


Associate Prof. Military College of Engg, Risalpur

AIM
HIGLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF
LIQUEFACTION IN ENGINEERING
PRACTICE

SEQUENCE OF
PRESENTATION
Introduction
Liquefaction phenomenon
Hazards Associated with Liquefaction
Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
Remediation

During an earthquake seismic waves


travel vertically and rapid loading of
soil occurs under undrained conditions
i.e., pore water has no time to move
out.
In saturated soils the seismic
energy causes an increase in pore water
pressures
and
consequently
the
effective stresses decrease. This results
in loss of shear strength of soil and soil
starts to behave as a fluid. This fluid is
no longer able to sustain the load of
structure and the structure settles. This
phenomenon is known as liquefaction.

The Phenomenon is associated with:


soft
young
water-saturated
uniformly graded
fine grained sands and silts
During liquefaction these soils behave as
viscous fluids rather than solids .
This can be better demonstrated by a video
clip in which a glass container with
saturated sand is resting on a vibrating
table.

STRUCTURE

GLASS
CONTAINER
SATURATED
SAND

The phenomenon of liquefaction


can be well understood by
considering shear strength of
soils. Soils fail under externally
applied shear forces and the shear
strength of soil is governed by the
effective or inter-granular stresses
expressed as:
Effective stress = (total stress pore water pressure)

= - u

Shear strength of soil is given


as :

c+

tan

It can be seen that a cohesionless


soil such as sand will not posses
any shear strength when the
effective stresses approach zero
and it will transform into a
liquid state.

Assemblage of
particles

Contact forces between particles


give rise to normal stresses that are
responsible for shear strength.
This box
represents
magnitude of
pore water
pressure

During dynamic loading there is an increase in water


pressure which reduces the contact forces between the
individual soil particles, thereby softening and weakening
the soil deposit.

Increase in pore
pressure due to
dynamic loading

HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH LIQUEFACTION
PHENOMENON

Historical Evidences
1964 Nigata (Japan)
1964 Great Alaskan earthquake
Seismically induced soil
liquefaction produced
spectacular and devastating
effect in both of these events,
thrusting the issue forcefully to
the attention of engineers and
researchers

When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil


decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to suppo
foundations for buildings and bridges is reduced .
overturned apartment complex buildings in Niigata
1964.

Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on retaining walls,which can


cause them to tilt or slide. This movement can cause settlement of the
retained soil and destruction of structures on the ground surface

Kobe
1995

Retaining wall damage and lateral spreading, Kobe 1995

Increased water pressure can also trigger landslides and cause the
collapse of dams. Lower San Fernando dam suffered an underwater slide
during the San Fernando earthquake, 1971.

Sand boils and ground fissures were observed at various sites in Niigata.

Lateral spreading caused the foundations of the Showa bridge in


Nigata ,Japan to move laterally so much that the simply supported spans
became unseated and collapsed

Liquefaction-induced soil movements can push foundations out of place


to the point where bridge spans loose support or are compressed to the
point of buckling

1964 Alaskan earthquake.

The strong ground motions that led to collapse of the Hanshin Express way also caused
severe liquefaction damage to port and wharf facilities as can be seen below.

1995 Kobe
earthquake, Japan

Lateral spreading caused 1.2-2 meter drop of paved surface and local flooding, Kobe
1995.

Alaska earthquake,
USA,1964

1957 Lake Merced slide

modest movements during liquefaction produce tension


cracks such as those on the banks of the Motagua River
following the 1976 Guatemala Earthquake.

Damaged quay walls and port facilities on Rokko Island.


Quay walls have been pushed outward by 2 to 3 meters with
3 to 4 meters deep depressed areas called grabens forming
behind the walls, Kobe 1995.

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake


over 2,400 people were killed, and 11,000 were injured

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

1906 sanfransisco USA earthquake

Road damaged by lateral spread,


near Pajaro River, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

Liquefaction failure of shefield dam (1925, california USA)

Liquefaction failure of Tanks at Nigata, Japan)

Chi-Chi earthquake

Among the 467 foundation damage cases reported, 67 cases (14%


were caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction.

Evaluation of
Liquefaction
Potential

The evaluation of liquefaction


potential of soils at any site
requires parameters pertaining
to:
cyclic loads due to an
earthquake
and
soil properties which describe
the soil resistance under those
loads.

Normal Field Conditions


Where

v = effective vertical
stress

K0= at-rest earth


pressure coefficient

K0v = effective
horizontal stress

During
Earthquake

Two tests can be used to


simulate field stress
conditions
Cyclic direct shear
test
Cyclic triaxial test

Cyclic Direct Shear Test

Cyclic Triaxial Test

Relation between
cyclic direct shear and
(h/v) cyclic
= Cr (1/2test
x d/3 )
direct sheartriaxial
triaxial

where; h = horizontal shear stress


(h/v) = cyclic stress ratio CSR
v = vertical stress
d = deviator stress
3 = effective confining pressure
Cr = Correction faactor obtained from
figure given on next slide

If relative density in lab is different


from field then the equation is
modified as follows:
(avg/v)= Cr(1/2 x d/3)triaxial
RD2/RD1

at RD1

Where RD1 is relative density in


lab and RD2 is relative density in
field

Generally cyclic triaxial test is conducted at various


cyclic stress ratios CSR = (1/2 x d/3) on
undisturbed or remolded specimen till
liquefaction occurs, and corresponding number of
stress cycles is determined. A graph is plotted
between CSR and number of stress cycles.

This graph can be used to read out


CSR corresponding to any number of
stress cycles and this value is used in
following relationship to determine
shear resistance that will be
mobilized at any depth.
(avg/v)= Cr(1/2 x d/3)triaxial
RD2/RD1

at RD1

If cyclic tiaxial testing can not be conducted then this


Graph can be used to determine CSR from Mean grain
Size D 50

Results of Standard Penetration


Test can also be used to determine
CSR from this curve.
Subsequently shear resistance of
soil against cyclic loading can be
determined by:
= CSR x v

Where,

v is effective vertical stress

DETERMINATION OF

SHEAR STRESSES
INDUCED BY CERTAIN
EARTHQUAKE IN THE
FIELD BY SIMPLIFIED
PROCEDURE

Since soil prism is assumed to be a rigid


body therefore a correction factor rD
must be applied as soil is not rigid.

Where,

= rD ( h amax )/g

=
earthquake

=
amax
=
earthquake
g
=
h
=
rD
=
of depth
can be obtained

shear stress induced during an


unit weight of soil.
maximum acceleration due to
acceleration due to gravity
height of soil prism
stress reduction factor , a function
of point being analyzed. It
from next
slide

For an actual earthquake event


Acceleration v/s time
relationship
(accelerogram) looks
like

During an earthquake the


induced cyclic shear
stresses vary with time. On
the contrary in the
laboratory shear test the
specimen is subjected to a
uniform cyclic shear stress.
To incorporate this effect
a multiplication factor of
0.65 has been suggested.

Seed et al have
recommended a weighted
procedure to derive the
number of uniform stress
cycles Neq (at an amplitude
of 65% of the peak cyclic
shear stresses i.e. cyc=0.65
max) from recorded strong
ground motion

This Table can be used to determine


equivalent number of stress cycles for
an earthquake of certain magnitude.

The effect of non uniform stress cycles is


incorporated by determining equivalent
number of stress cycles for an earthquake
and shear stresses induced during an
earthquake are computed by the following
equation:

= 0.65 rD ( h amax )/g

Where,

=
amax =
g
=
h
=

shear stress induced during an earthquake

unit weight of soil.


maximum acceleration due to earthquake
acceleration due to gravity
height of soil prism
rD
=
stress reduction factor , a function of
depth
of point being analyzed. It can be obtained
from next slide

Maps like these


Can be used to
Determine max
Ground
acceleration

After determining the cyclic


shear stresses induced by an
earthquake
and
the shear resistance mobilized at
the point under consideration, a
graph is plotted between depth
and the stresses determined
above.

If induced cyclic shear


stresses are more than
shear resistance
mobilized, liquefaction
will occur.

RESEARCH ON
KAMRA SAND

Soil Stratification developed after SPT


and Boring

Compacted Earth Fill

SAND LAYER
0.5 m
SILT LAYER

Sampling being done in Test


Pit

RELATIVE DENSITY DETERMINATION AT


CMTL WAPDA LAHORE

Vibrating Table for relative


density

Mould for relative


density

Lab Relative Density =53


%
Relative Density From SPT
correlations =52.8 %

EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION

SEISMICITY OF KAMRA CITY

PHA at
Kamra =
0.24 g

Sr. No

Fault
Name

Khairabad
Fault

Distance
From
Length Kamra
(km)
(km)
370

Magnitude
of earthquake
From equation
logL=1.02M 5.77
8.2

It is concluded that an
earthquake of Magnitude 7 can
occur at Kamra with peak
horizontal acceleration of 0.24 g

Evaluation of Liquefaction potential

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)


Cyclic Triaxial Test.

Hypothesis If water table rises and sand gets saturated then


liquefaction will occur under magnitude 7 earthquake

Evaluation Of Liquefaction On the basis


of SPT

Point

Depth
(m)

1.50

1.75

2.00

Shear stress
mobilized in
field

Shear
Resistance

avg (KN/m )
2

= 0.65 rD ( h
amax )/g
4.17

4.89

5.58

r (KN / m )
2

= CSR x v

Remarks

3.24

avg > r

3.24

avg > r

4.13

avg > r

(Liquefaction will occur)

(Liquefaction will occur)

(Liquefaction will occur)

ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF


CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST.
Analysis on the basis of triaxial was based on the method
proposed by SEED AND IDRIS
Shear resistance was computed from the following formula

((avg/v)= Cr(1/2 x d/3)triaxial at RD1 x


RD2/RD1 Cr(1/2 x d / 3 )triaxial x RD2/RD1
h = Cr(1/2 x d / 3 ) x v x RD2/RD1

0.57

0.255

Analysis By Cyclic Triaxial Test


point

Shear
stress
mobilized
in field

Depth
(m) avg
(KN/m2)

= 0.65 rD ( h
amax )/g

1.50

4.17

Shear
resistance
by
Triaxial
r (KN / m2 )

Remarks

(avg/v)=Cr(1/2 x d/3)triaxial

4.08

at RD1

x RD2/RD1

avg > r
(Liquefaction will
occur)

1.75

4.89

4.46

avg > r
(Liquefaction will
occur)

2.00

5.58

5.20

avg > r

It

is concluded on the basis


of these results that the sand
will liquefy under the event of
an earthquake of Magnitude
7.

REMEDIATION
HOW CAN LIQUIFACTION HAZARDS BE
REDUCED?

Avoid

Liquefaction Susceptible

Soils
Build Liquefaction Resistant
Structures
Improve the Soil

Avoid Liquefaction Susceptible


Soils

historical

Criteria

Soils that have liquefied in the past can liquefy


again in future earthquakes.

Geological

Criteria

Saturated soil deposits that have been


created by sedimentation in rivers and lakes
deposition of debris or eroded material or
deposits formed by wind action can be very
liquefaction susceptible.

Man-made soil deposits, particularly those


created by the process of hydraulic filling

Compositional

Criteria

D10 sizes ranging from 0.05 to 1.0 mm


AND
a coefficient of uniformity ranging from 2 to 10.
Uniformly graded soil deposits
Angularity of particles

Silty soils are susceptible to liquefaction if they


satisfy the criteria given below.

Fraction finer than 0.005 mm< 15%

Liquid Limit, LL < 35%


Natural water content > 0.9 LL
Liquidity Index < 0.75

State Criteria

Relative density, Dr
Increasing confining pressure

HOW CAN LIQUIFACTION HAZARDS BE


REDUCED?

Build Liquefaction
Resistant Structures

It is important that all


Build
Liquefaction
foundation
elements
in a shallow
foundation are tied
together to make the
foundation move or
settle uniformly, thus
decreasing the
amount of shear
forces induced in the
structural elements
resting upon the
foundation.

Resistant Structures

A stiff foundation
Build
mat isLiquefaction
a good type
of shallow
foundation, which
can transfer loads
from locally liquefied
zones to adjacent
stronger ground.

Resistant Structures

Buried utilities, such as


sewage and water pipes,
should have ductile
connections to the
structure to
accommodate the large
movements and
settlements that can
occur due to liquefaction.
The pipes in the photo
connected the two
buildings in a straight
line before the
earthquake

Build Liquefaction Resistant Structures

Build Liquefaction Resistant Structures

HOW CAN LIQUIFACTION HAZARDS BE


REDUCED?

Improve the Soil

Vibroflotation

Vibroflotation

Improve the Soil

Dynamic Compaction

Stone Columns
Generally, the stone column ground improvement method is used to treat
soils where fines content exceeds that acceptable for vibrocompaction

Compaction Piles

Compaction Grouting
Compaction

grouting is a ground treatment


technique that involves injection of a thickconsistency soil-cement grout under
pressure into the soil mass, consolidating,
and thereby densifying surrounding soils inplace. The injected grout mass occupies
void space created by pressuredensification. Pump pressure, as transmitted
through low-mobility grout, produces
compaction by displacing soil at depth until
resisted by the weight of overlying soils.

Improve the Soil

Drainage techniques

Improve the Soil

Drainage techniques

Improve the Soil

Verification of
A number of methods can be used to verify
Improvement
the effectiveness
of soil improvement. In-situ

techniques are popular because of the


limitations of many laboratory techniques.
Usually, in-situ test are performed to evaluate
the liquefaction potential of a soil deposit
before the improvement was attempted. With
the knowledge of the existing ground
characteristics, one can then specify a
necessary level of improvement in terms of
insitu test parameters.

Verification of
Improvement