Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CONTENT OF PRESENTATION
2. What is liquefaction?
5. Mitigation actions?
1. Mechanical behavior of granular soils: basic concepts
MECHANICAL RESPONSE OF SOILS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS
before during
Observed behaviour
1. Non linearity
2. Non reversibility
3. Dissipation of energy
4. Residual deformations
MECHANICAL RESPONSE OF SOILS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS
Dependency on strain level
1 25
As g increases:
- Shear stiffness G decreases 0,8 20
- Damping D increases gl
D (%)
There are two “threshold”
deformations: gl
0,4 10
- Linear threshold, gl
- Volumetric threshold, gv gv
0,2 5
0 0
0,0001 0,001 0,01 0,1 1
Shear strain,
deformazione g (%) g (%)
tangenziale,
Drained conditions
Under shear stresses soils exhibit
volumetric deformations
1 Loose sand
2 Dense sand
3 Very dense sand
VOLUMETRIC - DISTORSIONAL COUPLING
In both monotonic and cyclic conditions….
Unrained conditions
In undrained conditions (i.e. at constant volume, in saturated soils), the volumetric-
distorsional coupling leads to the generation of pore pressure increments Du
Du dissipation (T')
Taiwan, 06/02/2018
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
The steps to evaluate liquefaction potential and (if needed!) to mitigate the related
risk are:
a. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
• Definition of the seismic event and variables to be considered
• Knowledge of ground water conditions (table and regime)
• Detailed knowledge of stratigraphy
• Knowledge of the mechanical and physical properties of the soils
b. EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION
• Evaluation of liquefaction potential
• Evaluation of risk
historic
distance
Conventional
Maximum investigation
Safety factor, SF
acceleration, Basic (penetration tests)
Empirical Liquefaction
amax (rigid-plastic) Shear wave
potential indexes
Magnitude, M velocity
measurement, VS
Simplified
Simplified (visco-elastic, Stress, strain,
elasto- acceleration
dynamic plastic)
As above plus As above plus
Accelerogram, cyclic and excess pore
Advanced dynamic pressure,
a(t)
Advanced (multi-, two- laboratory tests Effective stress
phase and residual
dynamic medium) displacements.
Evaluation of
failure
mechanism
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Qualitative criteria
There are cases in which there is no need to check liquefaction potential either
because of the design earthquake characteristics or because of soil properties:
1. Mw <5
2. ag<0.1 g.
3. ag < 0.15 g and, at the same time, soils belong to one of the following
categories:
• fine content FC* higher than 20% and Ip > 10;
• fine content FC higher than 35% and N1(60)** > 20
• fine content FC lower than 5% but N1(60) > 25
* The so called fine content FC is the part of soil passing at sieve 200 ASTM (hole 0.074
mm), but can be estimated based on CPT results (shown in the following)
** N1(60) is the NSPT, normalized for the stress state, and calculated assuming an energetic
efficiency of the SPT machine equal to 0.6.
0.5
p
( N1 ) 60 C N N 60 C N a
s' v
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Qualitative criteria
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Fine soil
s’v
s’h
Loose sand u = u0 + Du u0 s’v
Fine soil
eq lim
rock z
a Check not
satisfied if
t eq > lim
in the loose sand
Seismic action
layer
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
action
step 1: evaluate seismic action (CSR) liquefaction
CSR
step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties
(normalized soil property, R1, like CPT or SPT results)
CRR no
step 3: use of empirical charts liquection
(cyclic resistance ratio, CRR = f(R1)
R1 soil property
if CSR > CRR (FS<1) liquefaction is assumed to take place
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
if possible, calculate CSR from (z) obtained with Seismic Site Response Analysis (SSRL)
alternatively, use the empirical relation (Seed & Idriss, 1971):
eq a s
CSR 0.65 max v 0 rd (1)
sv 0 g sv 0
amax = peak acceleration at ground level
sv0 = total vertical stress
s’v0 = effective vertical stress
rd = depth reducing factor
rigid
deformable
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR) amax
eq. (1) (with β=0.65)
Seismic response of a soil column for vertically
propagating shear (S) waves eq
a(z) \ amax szv 0
CSR 0.65 rd
sv 0 g sv 0
Pseudo-static analysis:
Equilibrium to horizontal translation at any depth z
z z
a (z)
Shear stress = inertial force a (z)dz g dz
0 0
g
a
Irregular action Equivalent uniform stress ( (<1)) eq max rd max s v
g
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
stress reduction coefficient, rd
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
0
Iwasaki et al. (1978)
Liao & Whitman (1986)
5 Blake (1996)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=5.5
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=6.5
10
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=7.5
depth, z (m)
15
rd
20
25
30
Liao e Whitman (1986) rd = 1 - 0.00765z (z < 9.15 m); rd = 1.174 - 0.0267z (9.15 m < z < 23 m)
z z
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) rd exp 1.012 1.126sin 5.133 0.106 0.118sin 5.142 M
11.73 11.28
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
CSR from eq. (1) (which refers to a generic magnitude M) must be modified:
1) to take into account duration effects (i.e. number and relative amplitude of
loading cycles), referring it to the reference magnitude M=7.5;
2) to take into account possible effects of depth (stress correction).
LIQUEFACTION
LIQUEFACTION
NO LIQUEFACTION
Again, few iterations needed for
convergence
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties
Fines Content (FC) can be estimated on CPT results using the «soil behaviour type Index» IC
q (kPa)
0.30 eps (%) ea(%)
100 CSR 2.0
0.20
1.0
50 0.10
0.00 0.0
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.10 eDA>2.5%
ea (%) -1.0
-50
-0.20
-2.0
-100 -0.30
-0.40 -3.0
-150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
300 FL
0.40 1.0
PT
q (kPa)
250
0.30 0.8
200 CSR 0.6 Ru
150 0.20
0.4
100 0.10 0.2
50 0.00 0.0
0 -0.2
-0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250
-50 p'(kPa) -0.4
-0.20 CSR
-100 -0.6
-0.30 Ru
-150 Ru=0.9 -0.8
PT
FL -0.40 -1.0
-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
0.189583 0.800
0.00 0.0
-0.40 -3.0
-150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
300 FL
Lab testing Ncyc
q (kPa)
q (kPa)
0.8 ea(%)
250
0.300.30 eps (%)
200 100 CSR
CSR 2.0
0.6 Ru
150 0.200.20
0.41.0
50
100 0.100.10 0.2
50 0.00 0.0
0 0.00 0.0
-2
0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.10 eDA>2.5%
-0.2
ea (%) -0.10 -1.0
0 50 100 150
-50 200 250
-50 p'(kPa) -0.20 -0.4
-0.20 CSR
-100 -2.0
-0.6
-100 -0.30 Ru
-0.30 -0.8
-150 Ru=0.9
PT -0.40 -3.0
FL -150 -0.40 -1.0
-200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
a s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
sv 0 g sv 0
PT
q (kPa)
250
0.8
eq
0.30
200 CSR 0.6 Ru
150 0.20
0.4
so 100
50
Liq 0.10
0.00
0.2
0.0
0 -0.2
-0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250
-0.4
-50
Cyclic resistance
p'(kPa)
-0.20 curve
CSR -0.6
CRR(M) -100
-0.30 Ru
-150
-200 No Liq FL
PT CRR=f(N) -0.40
Ru=0.9 -0.8
-1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
0.189583 0.800
NC
N eq f (M , etc.)
CRR
FSliq=
CSR
Evaluation of equivalent number of constant amplitude cycles, Neq
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK
Once we have calculated a distribution FS(z), how do we assess if there is a risk for the
site? How do we decide if mitigation actions are needed?
where:
10 per z 0
w( z ) 10 0.5 z
0 per z 20m
Liquefaction • Very popular (the first • Calculated only for FS<1 (full liquefaction).
potential index proposed one) Damage can be caused even in non liquefied
IL • Easy to calculate soils
=0 nil
0 < IL 5 moderate
5 < IL 15 high
CRRM=7.5,s’v=1 atm
qc1Ncs ; s’v
CSRM=7.5,s’v=1= CSRM,s’v /(MSFKs)
FS=CRR/CSR
MSFKsCRRM=7.5,s’v=1 atm
FS =
CSRM,s’v
This is a free field calculation (geotechnical limit
state) and says nothing on pore pressure build
up and its implications.
Is it enough?
ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Du, Ru
liquefaction Bearing capacity failure
attainment of a
critical mechanism
CRRM=7.5
Ks CRRM=7.5,s’v=1atm
NM=7.5 N
M=7.5
FS=CRR/CSR
CSR
a, b = f(qc1Ncs , s’v0 )
FS > 1 FS < 1
NL
b = f(qc1Ncs , s’v0 )
NL
ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS
eq = 0.65 max eq
t t
Ru Ru
t
N/NL
1 N/NL
Ru
Ru
1 1 f(b, )
1
1
ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS
1,2
FC =0
Ru
1
qc1Ncs
30
0,8
60 1 f(b, )
90
Ru
0,6
120
150
0,4
180
0,2 200
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
FS 1
ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS
Ru(FSliq) Ru=?
Ru
1 f(b, )
R
Damage V E
MITIGATION OF THE RISK OF LIQUEFACTION
Mitigation solutions (reduction of risk R=HVE) against liquefaction risk for structures
and infrastructures can reduce:
The choice between the two completely different mitigation approaches has to be
made considering:
• If we are working on new or existing structures;
• The environmental constraints;
• Possible extra constraints (e.g. integrity of a valuable historic structure).
… to be continued in Paipa!