11/29/2011

Statically stable void

Mechanism of Liquefaction
Seismic waves propagating through soils generate shear deformations that collapse loose granular structures

LiquefactionHazardtoBridge Foundations
T.LeslieYoud,PhD NAE,DistMem ASCE,HonMem EERI ProfessorEmeritus,CivilEngineering BrighamYoungUniversity Provo,Utah,USA
Effective stress = - u

Collapses of granular structures transfer stress from particle contacts to the interstitial pore water increasing pore water pressure and reducing effective stress
Distortion causes void to collapse

When the pore pressure reaches a critical level, the previously solid granular soil transforms into a viscous liquid and liquefaction has occurred

Definition
Liquefaction: the transformation of granular material from a solid state to a liquid state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure and reduced effective stress (ASCE Committee on Soil Dynamics, 1978)

EvaluationofLiquefactionHazard

Fundamental Questions:
1. Willliquefactionoccur(basedonFS)? No noliquefactionhazard,nomitigationrequired Yes continuetoquestion2 2. Willliquefactionleadtodetrimentalgrounddeformation, grounddisplacement,orgroundfailure? No acceptliquefactionhazard;nomitigationrequired Yes continuetoQuestion3 3. Whatmitigationisrequiredtoreduceliquefactionhazardtoan acceptablerisk?

Question1.Willliquefactionoccur?
Apply a verified evaluation procedure:
Several procedures are in use worldwide for evaluating FS against triggering of liquefaction, including those of Youd et al (2001), Cetin, Seed et al (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) which are the most commonly used procedures in the US Although there are significant differences between the three procedures, they generally yield FS within +/- 30% of mean of the three procedures Although large, +/- 30% uncertainties are not usual in geotechnical engineering analyses For those instances in which FS is critical, more than one procedure should be applied, with conservative engineering judgment to select an appropriate FS

SimplifiedProcedureforEvaluationofLiquefactionResistance

Thisequation isuseddirectlyintheprocedures byYoudetal,CetinandSeedetal,and Idrissand Boulanger andnearlyallotherprocedures ThefactorofSafety(FS)against triggering ofliquefaction is: FS=(CRR/CSR7.5) MSF Where: CRR=Cyclicresistanceratio,generally determined fromfieldpenetration testssuchasSPT andCPT(capacityfunction) CSR7.5 =cyclicstressratioforM=7.5earthquakes (demand function) MSF=magnitude scaling factorusedtoscaleFSformagnitudes otherthan7.5

11/29/2011

Comparisonsbetweenprocedures
CRRplotfrom Youdetal(2001) usedtoevaluate CRRfromSPT measuremets BothCetinand Seed(2004)and Idrissand Boulanger(2008) madesignificant modificationsto thischartandalso tothetermrdin
theCSRequation

BridgesitesinArkansasforwhichcomparisonsweremade betweenproceduresof(1)IdrissandBoulanger;(2)Cetin,Seedet al;and(3)Youdetal.Site1isusedforcomparisonsinthis presentation(CoxandGriffiths2011)

8

clay sand
DepthtowhichCRRis constrainedbyempirical data

densesand

FS>2plottedas2

Comparisonofthefactorofsafety(FS)against liquefactionatSiteNo.1forthreeprocedures; MW =7.6,pga =0.82g(CoxandGriffiths2011)

Comparisonoffactorofsafety(FS)againstliquefactionfor Sapanca Hotelsite,MW =7.0,pga=0.40bythree procedures(Shawn Griffiths, UniversityofArkansas)

9 10

Question2.Willliquefactionleadto detrimentalgrounddeformation,ground displacement,orgroundfailure? Typesofliquefactioninducedgroundfailure

Flowfailure Lateralsspread Groundoscillation Lossofbearingstrength Groundsettlement

Before earthquake

After earthquake

ArkansasSite1 Watertable

Fordepthslessthan70ft, meanofcalculatedFS calculatedatanydepthare generallywithin+/10%of themeanofindividual values,withIdrissand BoulangerFSgenerally highestandCetin,Seedet alFSgenerallylowest

Sapanca Hotelsite,Turkey(1999eq)

MeanofcalculatedFS within+/ 30%of individualvalueswith IdrissandBoulanger FSgenerallyhighest andCetin,Seedetal FSgenerallylowest

Liquefiable soil

11/29/2011

Beforeearthquake

Afterearthquake

Flowfailure,HalfMoonBay,Calif.,1906SanFranciscoEarthquake

AerialViewofSanFernandoValleyJuvenileHallLateralSpread areaafter1971SanFernando,Californiaearthquake;ground slopeacrosslateralspreadzoneabout1%

Fissuresandgrounddisplacements(upto2m)generated byJuvenileHallLateralSpread
caption

SanFernandoValleyJuvenileHallDamagedbyLateralSpread During1971SanFernando,Calif.Earthquake

Groundbeneathstandingpartofbuildingmoved1mtoward camera relativetostablegroundbeyondleftendofbuilding caption

11/29/2011

Interiorviewofbuilding pulledapartbylateral spread,SanFernando ValleyJuvenileHall

DiagrammaticviewofbuildingdamagecausedbySanFernando ValleyJuvenileHalllateralspread

WallaroundSanFernandoValleyJuvenileHallpulledapartby lateralspreadduring1971earthquake;about50juveniles escapedthroughholeshortlyafterearthquake

Cratersandfloodingduetogasandwaterpipelinebreaks,San Fernando JuvenileHalllateralspread caption

MeasuredlateralspreaddisplacementaroundNBuilding followingthe1964Niigata,Japanearthquake

1985photooffracturedpilesbeneathNBuildingcausedby lateralspread captionduring1964Niigata,Japanearthquake

11/29/2011

watertable Liquefiable soil

Diagrams of (a) post earthquake pile configuration at Nbuilding site and (b) plot of standard penetration resistance, N, versus depth

Soiltoodensefor lateralspreadto occur

Tall building supported on piles pulled apart at foundation level by lateral spread toward nearby island edge; building is located on,Rokko Island; damage occurred during 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake (photo by Les
Harder)

Caption Vectors of Lateral Spread Displacement, 1964 Niigata, Japan Earthquake

Bandai bridge pier displaced toward Shinano River during 1964 Niigata, Japan earthquake (M = 7.5); bridge deck acted as buttress caption causing the bridge pier to tilt away from the river rather than toward it

RioBananitio railway bridgethattipped downstreamduring the1991Limon Province,CostaRica earthquake(M=7.6)

Lateralspreadtiltedthecaissontowardriverwithcapitalblockslidingoff, allowingbridgetrusstotip;notethatinthisinstancethetrussdidrestrain thetopsofthecaissonsallowingthemtotipfreelytowardtheriver

11/29/2011

Beforeearthquake

Afterearthquake

Pavement caption andcurb damagecausedby groundoscillation during1989 LomaPrieta, Californiaearthquake

Before earthquake

After earthquake

Apartmentbuildingsthatsettledandtippedduring1964Niigata, Japanearthquake

GroundSettlement

PredictionofLateralSpreadDisplacement

EmpiricalMLREquations Youd,HansonandBartlett,2002
Widelyusedforpredictionoflateralspread displacement Basedoncasehistorydatafromseveral U.S.andJapaneseearthquakes Datacompliedfromabout500lateral spreadlocations Equationsregressedusingmultiplelinear regression(MLR)procedure

0.75mofdifferentialgroundsettlementbetweentopofpilecap andsurroundinggroundduetoliquefactionandcompactionof 12moflooseartificialfillduring1995Kobe,Japanearthquake (M=7.6)

11/29/2011

Equations
T.L.Youd,C.M.HansenandS.F.Bartlett

Casehistorydatacompiledfo MLRanalysis:
Seismicparameters: M=Momentmagnitude R=Horizontaldistancefromsitetoseismicenergysource,inkm (sameparametersusedgroundmotionattenuationcorrelations) Topographicparameters W=Freefaceratio,inpercent or S=Groundslope,inpercent Geotechnicalparameters T15 =Thicknessoflayerwith(N1)60 <15,inm F15 =AveragefinescontentinT15 layer,inpercent D5015 =AveragemeangrainsizeinT15 layer,inmm

FreeFaceConditions
LogDH=16.713+1.532M 1.406logR* 0.012R+0.540logT15 +0.592logW +3.413log(100 F15) 0.795log(D5015 +0.1mm)

GroundSlopeConditions
LogDH=16.213+1.532M 1.406logR* 0.012R+0.540logT15+0.338logS +3.413log(100 F15) 0.795log(D5015 +0.1mm)

Where:
R*=R+RoandRo=10
(0.89M 5.64)

CostaRica
1991LimonEarthquake M=7.6

Casehistoriesof liquefactioninduced lateralspreaddamageto bridges1991Limon Province,CostaRica earthquake(M=7.6)

Measuredversuspredicteddisplacements fromrevisedMLRrelationship

Collapsed bridge over Rio Viscaya; collapse caused by 3 m lateral espread displacement of floodplain deposits toward channel; ten bridges collapsed or were severely damaged due to liquefaction

OpenfissuresinroadwayleadingtocollapsedRioViscaya bridge(behindcamera);fissures openedduetosoiltension causedbylateralspreadofflooeplain towardriver

11/29/2011

Rotatedeasternabutment
Locationmap(courtesyofGoogleEarth2011)withlocationsofdamagedbridges analyzedbyKevinFranke (BYUPhDdissertation)andbridgesdiscussedherein

Highway bridge over Rio Cuba compressed by lateral spread of floodplain toward river channel

Displaced andRotated abutment Pushedabutment contacted girder,preventing furtherdisplacement oftopofabutment

ViewofEasternabutmentandbridgegirders

Eastern abutment bridge over Rio Cuba

Bridge Plan,RioCuba crossing

Eastabutment

Lateral spread displacement

Sheared bridge seating due to compression of ground between abutments

11/29/2011

FoundationDescription
AccordingtobridgeplansprovidedbytheCostaRicanMinistryof Transportation,bridgeisfoundedonaseriesof14inchsquarereinforced concretepiles.Theabutmentsaresupportedbytworowsofpiles(8piles infrontrow,7pilesinsecondrow)thatareapproximately14meterslong andspacedat4.1diametersinthetransversedirectionand2.5diameters inthelongitudinaldirection.Thedimensionsofthepilecapateach abutmentis10.36meters(transverse)x1.90meters(longitudinal)x2.60 meters(vertical).(KevinFranke,PhDdissertation,BYU) Liquefiablelayer,2.5mthick(T15)

LogofBoringP1atRio CubaBridge,drilled April2010(courtesyof KevinFranke)

2.5m

Soildataandliquefaction FS calculation forBoreholeP1,Rio Cuba Bridge(courtesyKevin Franke)

=FSagainstrotationalslide

CrosssectionEastabutmentareaRioCubabridge

LateralSpreadDisplacement CalculationRio CubaBridge

Revised MLR Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement
T.L. Youd, C.M. Hansen, and S.F. Bartlett Project: Borehole: Date: Rio Cuba P1 11/1/2011 W Calculation** H (m) L (m) 10 60 W (%) = 16.6666667

Horizontal Displacement Calculation Does the site contain a free face (f) or a ground slope (g)? f Mw R (km) W (%) T15 (m) F15 (%) D5015 (mm) 7.6 Displacement: 41 0.27 12 m 2.5 12 1.1

R* Calculation R0 13.30 R* 54.30

Ground Slope Equation: Log D h = -16.213 + 1.532 M - 1.406 Log R* - 0.012 R + 0.338 Log S + 0.540 Log T15 + 3.413 Log (100 - F15) - 0.795 Log (D5015 + 0.1 mm) Free Face Equation: Log D h = -16.713 + 1.532 M - 1.406 Log R* - 0.012 R + 0.592 Log W + 0.540 Log T15 + 3.413 Log (100 - F15 ) - 0.795 Log (D5015 + 0.1 mm) Dh = Horizontal Displacement, (meters) M = Moment Magnitude of Earthquake, Mw R = Horizontal Distance to Nearest Seismic Energy Source or Fault Rupture, (kilometers) R* = R + R 0 R0 = 10(0.89 M -5.64) W = (H/L)*100 = Free Face Ratio, (percent) H = Height of the Free Face, (meters) L = Length to the Free Face from the Point of Displacement (meters) S = Ground Slope, (percent) T15 = Thickness of Saturated Cohesionless Soils with (N 1)60 <= 15, (meters) F15 = Average Fines Content in T15 , (particle size <0.075 millimeters, in percent) D5015 = Average D 50 in T15, (millimeters) Completed By: Checked By: Initials TLY Date

Distribution oflateralspreadsheardeformation throughsoilprofile(courtesyKevinFranke)

11/29/2011

CollapsedRioEstrella Bridge
Pinned by bridge girder

Deterministically computedpile responseforeast abutment,Rio CubaBridge (courtesyKevin Franke)

Westerntruss

Collapsed Estrella bridge with improvised temporary ramp

Central pier of collapsed Rio Estrella highway bridge

Westerntruss

Easterntruss

Easterntruss

Shattered and spread highway embankment approaching eastern end of Rio Estrella bridge

Cracked and settled highway embankment at eastern abutment of collapsed Rio Estrella highway bridge (University of Costa Rica photo)

10

11/29/2011

Western abutment

Eastern abutment

1991 Limon Costa Rica: Plans for highway bridge over Rio Estrella

Eastern abutment of Rio Estrella highway bridge

FoundationDataforEasternBentandAbutment
Theeasternbentisfoundedontwo3.94meterx4.94 meterpilecaps.Eachpilecapissupportedbytwenty 12BP53steelpiles(fourrowsoffivepiles)thatare20 metersinlengthandspacedat1meterintervalsinboth thetransverseandlongitudinaldirections.Theeastern abutmentofthebridgewasdesignedtobeconverted intoabentintheeventofabridgeexpansion.The abutmentisfoundedontwo3.96meterx5.96meterpile caps.Eachofthesepilecapsissupportedby2412BP53 steelpiles(fourrowsofsixpiles)thatare20metersin lengthandspacedat1meterintervalsinboththe transverseandlongitudinaldirections.Finally,thefront rowofpilesateachabutmentandbentarebatteredat approximately5V:1H.(Franke,BYUPhDdissertation)

WEST EAST WEST&EAST

Note:liquefaction andlateralspreaddidnotgenerate significant displacement of bridge piersorabutments atRioEstrella bridge WEST

BoreholeLogs,RioEstraela Bridge

Bridge

Easternabutment

Liquefiable sediment

11

11/29/2011

BoreholeP1
LateralSpreadDisplacement Calculation EasternAbutmentRioEstrella Bridge
Revised MLR Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement
T.L. Youd, C.M. Hansen, and S.F. Bartlett Project: Borehole: Date: Rio Estrella P1 11/1/2011 W Calculation** H (m) L (m) 10 60 W (%) = 16.6666667

4.0m

Horizontal Displacement Calculation Does the site contain a free face (f) or a ground slope (g)? f Mw R (km) W (%) T15 (m) F15 (%) D5015 (mm) 7.6 Displacement: 21 1.01 20 m 4.0 3 3

R* Calculation R0 13.30 R* 34.30

Ground Slope Equation: Log Dh = -16.213 + 1.532 M - 1.406 Log R* - 0.012 R + 0.338 Log S + 0.540 Log T15 + 3.413 Log (100 - F15) - 0.795 Log (D5015 + 0.1 mm) Free Face Equation: Log Dh = -16.713 + 1.532 M - 1.406 Log R* - 0.012 R + 0.592 Log W + 0.540 Log T15 + 3.413 Log (100 - F15 ) - 0.795 Log (D5015 + 0.1 mm) D h = Horizontal Displacement, (meters) M = Moment Magnitude of Earthquake, Mw R = Horizontal Distance to Nearest Seismic Energy Source or Fault Rupture, (kilometers) R* = R + R 0 R 0 = 10(0.89 M -5.64) W = (H/L)*100 = Free Face Ratio, (percent) H = Height of the Free Face, (meters) L = Length to the Free Face from the Point of Displacement (meters) S = Ground Slope, (percent) T15 = Thickness of Saturated Cohesionless Soils with (N1 )60 <= 15, (meters) F15 = Average Fines Content in T15 , (particle size <0.075 millimeters, in percent) D5015 = Average D 50 in T15 , (millimeters) Completed By: Checked By: Initials TLY Date

00.51.0m

ProceduresforMitigationofLiquefaction andGroundFailureHazards
Avoidliquefiablesites Acceptliquefactionhazard StrengthentheStructure Stabilizetheground

72

12

11/29/2011

AvoidtheHazard
Valdezanddocksbeforeearthquake
Valdez, Alaska, 1964Alaska Earthquake

Afterearthquake

Mw=9.2

Valdezdocksweredestroyedbyflowslidesandcommunitywaspulled apartbylateralspreadduring1964GreatAlaskaearthquake,Mw=9.2
73 74

FS<1

AcceptTheHazard
Loganalyzedinnextslide

OldValdez (abandoned) Liquefiable glacialoutwash deposit (undeveloped) OilterminalforTrans AlaskaPipeline

Toavoid liquefaction hazard,Valdezwas rebuiltonanon liquefiablesite

3km

75

Diagramsshowingdepthsandlocationsofliquefiablelayersbeneath highwayI15,SaltLakeCity,Utah,interpretedfromCPTdata 76

Strengthenthestructure
Pre2000highwayembankment for 5th SouthonramptoI15,SaltLake City,Utah 9 m

Liquefiablelayers Although verynearaseismicsourceforM=7earthquakes, duetooflattopography andsilty nature ofsoils,predicted lateralspread displacements aretoosmall(<0.1 m)tocausebridge damage.Liquefaction hazard wasacceptedwithnospecial mitigationrequired

House pulled apart at foundation level by lateral spread during 1997 Varancia, Romania earthquake, causing partial collapse

Slopestabilityanalysisforhighwayembankmentunderlainby liquefiablelayers,SaltLakeCity,Utah,USA;withFS=1.46, liquefactionhazardwasacceptedwithoutrequiringremediation77

78

13

11/29/2011

Foundation under construction at time of 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake; note foundation walls and grade beams are well reinforced creating a strong diaphragm. Strengthened foundations can withstand differential ground displacement without fracture

Ground fissures caused by lateral spread during 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake; fissures continue beneath houses but caused no damage 79

80

Liquefiable loosefill

Cross section showing pile configuration for a building on Rokko Island shaken by 1995 Kobe, Japan Earthquake; liquefaction and ground settlement (up to 0.75 m) occurred without causing detectable structural damage to buildings Pile foundations are an effective structural mitigation measure for at sites with tolerable lateral ground displacement
81

As noted previously, liquefaction and lateral spread beneath Rio Estrella highway bridge did not generate significant displacement of abutments and piers founded on sufficiently strong 12BP53steelpiles

StabilizetheGround

Compactsoilwithstonecolumns orothervibrocompaction techniques

Manyproceduresmaybeappliedtocompact,drainorcementliquefiable soilstoincreasestrengthanddecreasedeformationpotential Bottomfedstonecolumns,asshownabove,isacommonlyapplied procedureinUSAandothercountriesforstabilizingliquefiablesoils

83

14

11/29/2011

Exampleofexcavationsoilreplacementandsoilgrouting

Constructionoftopfed stonecolumn

Los Angeles County decided to rebuild the San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall on existing site, but with soils stabilized by excavation and replacement or by soil grouting caption 86

Diagrammatic crosssectionshowingground stabilization thatoccurredatSan Fernando ValleyJuvenile Hallsitepriortoreconstructing facility

TrenchcutthroughJuvenileHallsitetoinvestigateexistenceofanactivefault; trenchwasbackfilledwithcompactedsoiltoformabuttressagainstpossible 87 lateralspreaddisplacementduringfutureearthquakes

88

Rebuilt San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall was not damaged during 1994 Northridge earthquake. The 1994 earthquake shook the site as strongly as the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, but without generating destructive lateral ground displacements.

Rebuilt San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Note open minor fissure along building wall indicating minor lateral spread was generated in unmodified ground during 1994 earthquake.

89

15

11/29/2011

SoilDrains

Summary:
1.Liquefactionmaycauseanyofthefollowingtypesofgroundfailure: Flowfailure LateralSpread GroundOscillation Lossofbearingstrength GroundSettlement 2.Amountofpotentialliquefactioninducedgrounddeformationsor displacementsassociatedshouldbedetermined.Ifamountofground displacementistolerabletothestructure,mitigationisnotrequired. 3.Thefollowingmitigationmeasuresmaybeapplied: Avoidthehazard Acceptthehazard Strengthenthestructure Stabilizetheground
92

16