Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T.G. Sitharam
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg., IISc, Bangalore560 012, India. E-mail: sitharam@civil.iisc.ernet.in
K.S. Vipin
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engg., IISc, Bangalore560 012, India. E-mail: vipin@civil.iisc.ernet.in
ABSTRACT: One of the most devastating effects of earthquakes is the seismic soil liquefaction. Many research works have
been done in this area and at present different methods are available to evaluate the assessment of liquefaction potential. In
this paper an over view of different methods to evaluate liquefaction potential are presented. Further, in this paper emphasis
has been given for the evaluation of liquefaction initiation based on the field tests such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT),
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) and Shear wave velocity (V S) test data. The probabilistic liquefaction evaluation method, which
accounts for the uncertainty in the earthquake loading, is also discussed and presented in detail. Case studies of liquefaction
potential evaluation were done for the city of Bangalore, where geotechnical data from SPT and Shear wave velocity were
available, and for south India (using NEHRP site classes) based on the probabilistic performance based approach. The
probabilistic liquefaction analysis of Bangalore shows that most of the study area is safe against liquefaction. From the
analyses, the spatial variation of SPT and CPT values required to prevent liquefaction for the entire south India are also
presented.
89
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
90
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
factor. In a recent work Cetin and Seed (2004) has developed ( N1 )60 (1 1 FC ) 2 ln CSReq
a new relation to evaluate the depth reduction factor. In this
relation, the value of rd is taken as a function of depth, earth- 3 ln Mw 4 (ln( v 0 / Pa ) 5 FC 6
PL (3)
quake magnitude, ground acceleration and the soil stiffness.
rd (d , MW , amax )
9.147 4.173amax
0.652M Where PL Probability of liquefaction(as a fraction);
1 W standard normal cumulative distribution function; (N1)60
10.567 0.089e0.089( d 7.760ai 78.567) corrected N value; FC fineness content in percentage;
CSReq cyclic stress ratio without MSF; Mw moment
(2)
r magnitude of earthquake 'v 0 - effective vertical pressure at
9.147 4.173amax d
the given depth; Pa atmospheric pressure (in the same unit
0.652M
1 W as 'v 0 ); 1 6 - regression coefficients; - model
10.567 0.089e 0.089( 7.760 amax 78.567)
uncertainty. A probabilistic curve with a probability of 15 %
can be taken as an approximate equivalent of the
deterministic liquefaction evaluation procedure by Youd et
Where, amax and MW correspond to the peak ground al. (2001).
acceleration and moment magnitude values and d is the depth
(iii) Probabilistic Performance Based Approach: The
and r is the standard error in the model.
d evaluation of earthquake loading in liquefaction potential
evaluation requires the quantification of the uncertainties in
earthquake loading. Both the above methods, probabilistic
and deterministic, use a single ground acceleration and
earthquake magnitude. The results obtained from the PSHA
analysis shows that several magnitudes contribute towards
the ground acceleration and their percentage of contribution
also varies. This is clear from a seismic hazard curves given
in Figure 2. From this figure it is clear that it wont be fair to
come to the conclusion that a particular ground acceleration
was created by a particular magnitude, instead it is being
contributed by different magnitudes. More over the
frequency of occurrence of lower acceleration values will be
more and that of higher acceleration values will be less. In the
conventional liquefaction analysis such variations in
frequency of occurrence is also not taken into account. Hence
a new probabilistic performance based approach will help in
considering the uncertainty in earthquake loading for the
liquefaction triggering in a better way. A probabilistic
performance based approach for liquefaction analysis based
on SPT values was suggested by Kramer & Mayfield (2007).
N IM
EDP*
P EDP EDP* imi
imi (4)
i 1
Fig. 1: Deterministic Cyclic Resistance Curves Proposed Where EDP Engineering damage parameter like factor of
by Youd et al. 2001 safety etc.; EDP*a selected value of EDP; IM intensity
measure which is used to characterize the earthquake loading
(ii) Probabilistic Approach: One of the first probabilistic like peak ground acceleration, etc; imithe discretized value
approaches proposed for evaluation of liquefaction potential
of IM; mean annual rate of exceedance of EDP*;
based on SPT values was developed by Liao et al. (1988). A EDP*
recent and comprehensive work in this area was by Cetin imi incremental mean annual rate of exceedance of
et al. (2004). The probability of liquefaction can be evaluated
intensity measure im. The following equation can be derived
using the procedure suggested by Cetin et al. (2004).
by considering the EDP as factor of safety and the intensity
measure of ground motion as a combination of PGA and
magnitude.
91
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
Where
P[N req Nreq a i , m j ]
Nreq 2 ln(CSReq,i )
3 ln(m j ) 4 (ln( v 0 / Pa ) 6 (9)
The value of N req is the corrected N value (for both over
burden pressure and percentage of fines) required to prevent
Fig. 2: A Typical Deaggregated Seismic Hazard Curve the liquefaction with an annual frequency of exceedance of
* .
N req
Where FS *L annual rate at which factor of safety will be
less than FSL ; FSLfactor of safety against liquefaction; 3.2.2 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Based on CPT
Values
FS L targeted value of factor of safety against liquefaction; In the previous section the discussion was centered around
NMnumber of magnitude increments; Nanumber of peak the correlations to evaluate the liquefaction potential based
acceleration increments; ai ,m j incremental annual on SPT values. Due to the better accuracy and repeatability,
several correlations are available for estimating the CRR
frequency of exceedance for acceleration ai and magnitude values based on CPT values. The first to propose liquefaction
mj (this value is obtained from the deaggregated seismic triggering model based on CPT values was Robertson &
hazard curves with respect to magnitude). The conditional Campanella (1985) and Seed & de Alba (1986). One of the
probability in the previous equation is: most widely used correlations now a days is the one
proposed by Robertson & Wride (1998). The two set of
P[FSL FSL a , m j ] relations proposed by Robertson and Wride (1998) are:
i
qc1N CS
3
( N1 )60 (1 1 FC ) 2 ln(CSReq,i FS L* )
CRR 0.833 0.05 for qc1N CS < 50 (10)
3 ln( m j ) 4 (ln( v 0 / Pa ) 5 FC 6 (6) 1000
qc1N CS
3
CRR 93 0.08 for 50 qc1N CS <160
1000
Where standard normal cumulative distribution; (N1)60 (11)
penetration resistance of the soil from the standard Where qc1N CS
is the normalized cone penetration
penetration test (SPT) corrected for energy and overburden resistance corrected for overburden pressure and percentage
pressure; FCfines content of the soil in percent; v 0 fines. A logistic regression approach was proposed for the
effective over burden pressure; Paatmospheric pressure in liquefaction potential evaluation by Lai et al. (2006). The
general form of the equation suggested by Lai et al. (2006)
the same unit as v 0 ; i and model coefficients
is:
developed by regression.
1
a PL
CSReq,i 0.65 i vo rd
g vo
(7)
1 exp 0 1 ln(CSR7.5 ) 2 qC1N (12)
CSReq,i, the CSR value calculated without using the MSF for This work has proposed different values for the regression
an acceleration ai, will be calculated for all the acceleration coefficients, based on the types of soils (sands, sand mixtures
92
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
1.045
qc1 qc1 (0.110 R f ) 0.001R f c (1 0.850 R f ) One of the most important steps in the evaluation of
liquefaction susceptibility is the assessment of earthquake
7.177 ln(CSReqi .FS L ) 0.848 ln m j 0.002(ln( v 0 ) 20.923
*
loading. There are two different methods for evaluating the
earthquake loadingbased on deterministic and probabilistic
1.632
approaches. Since the uncertainties involved in the
earthquake occurrence is well accounted in the probabilistic
approach, this is widely being followed in hazard evaluation.
(15)
The uncertainties involved in the magnitude of earthquake,
In a similar way the CPT values required to prevent recurrence rate, hypocentral distance and the attenuation
liquefaction for a given return period can be evaluated using characteristics of the seismic waves were considered in the
the following equations.
analysis. By using the PSHA method, the entire range of
NM Na ground acceleration values and the entire earthquake
qc*1 req
P[qc1 qc*1 req a i , m j ] ai , m j (16) magnitude range can be used in the liquefaction analysis. The
j 1 i 1 different methods used to calculate the uncertainties involved
Where the conditional probability in the previous equation in the seismic hazard analysis is similar to the one adopted
can be evaluated by: by Vipin et al. (2009). In the liquefaction susceptibility
analysis, the earthquake acceleration at ground surface needs
to be evaluated. The site classification was done based on the
93
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
94
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
Factor of (N1)60
qc1 Required
safety Required to
Location to prevent
against prevent
liquefaction
liquefaction liquefaction Fig. 6: SPT Values Required to Prevent Liquefaction for
Hebbal 0.88 13.77 11.06 South India for a Return Period of 475 Years
Hudson
0.74 13.55 10.74
Circle
Indira Nagar 0.73 12.81 10.44
Koramangala 2.18 13.65 10.65
REFERENCES
Anbazhagan, P. and Sitharam, T.G. (2008). Mapping of
Average Shear Wave Velocity for Bangalore Region: A
Fig. 5: CPT Values Required to Prevent Liquefaction for Case Study, Journal of Environmental & Engineering
Bangalore for a Return Period of 475 years Geophysics, 13(2): 6984.
Andrews, D.C. and Martin, G.R. (2000). Criteria for
7. CONCLUSIONS Liquefaction of Silty Sands, Proceedings of the 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
An over view of different methods to evaluate the New Zealand.
liquefaction potential is presented in this work. The Andrus, R.D. and Stokoe, K.H. II. (1997). Liquefaction
conventional liquefaction analysis methods do not consider Resistance Based on Shear Wave Velocity, Proc.,
the uncertainty in the earthquake loading. Hence the adoption NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction
of a performance based probabilistic methods will help in Resistance of Soils, Tech. Rep. NCEER970022, T.L.
considering the uncertainties due to earthquake loading in a Youd and I.M. Idriss, eds., National Center for Earthquake
better manner. The entire procedure for liquefaction analysis Engineering Research, Buffalo, 89128.
based on the probabilistic approach is explained in this work.
95
Seismic Soil Liquefaction Based on in situ Test Data
Andrus, R.D. and Stokoe, K.H. II (2000). Liquefaction Rao, K.S. and Neelima, Satyam (2007). Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils from Shear Wave Velocity, J. Studies for Seismic Microzonation of Delhi Region,
Geotech. Geoenviron. Engg., 126(11): 10151025. Curr. Sci, 92(5): 646654.
BSSC (2001). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1985). Liquefaction
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Potential of Sand Using the CPT, J. Geotech. Engg.,
Structures 2000 Edition, Part 1: Provisions, Report No. 111(3): 384403.
FEMA 368, Building Seismic Safety Council for the Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1998). Evaluating Cyclic
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test,
D.C., USA. Can Geotech J 35(3): 442459.
Cetin, K.O. and Seed, R.B. (2004). Non-linear Shear Mass Seed, H.B. and de Alba, P. (1986). Use of SPT and CPT
Participation Factor (rd) for Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio Tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction Resistance of
Evaluation, Soil Dyn. and Earthquake Engg., 24: 103 Sands, In Use of in situ Tests in Geotechnical
113. Engineering. Edited by S.P. Clemence. American Society
Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Kiureghian, D.A., Tokimastu, K., of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication, 6:
Harder, L.F., Kayen, R.E. and Moss, R.E.S. (2004). 281302.
Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1990). SPTbased Analysis of
Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and Undrained Residual
Potential, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engg., 130(12): Strength, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium
13141340. Proceedings, Vol. 2, BiTech Publishers Ltd, Vancouver,
Goh, A.T.C. (2002). Probabilistic Neural Network for B.C., Canada.
Evaluating Seismic Liquefaction Potential, Can. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971). Simplified Procedure for
Geotech. J., 39: 219232. Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, J. of Soil Mech.
Juang, C.H., Susan, Hui Yang and Haiming, Yuan M. (2005). and Found. 97, 12491273.
Model Uncertainty of Shear Wave Velocity-Based Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K. Harder, L.F. and Chung, R.M.
Method for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation, J. (1985). Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction
Geotech. Geoenviron. Engg., 131(10): 12741282. Resistance Evaluations, J. Geotech. Engg., 111(12):
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, 14251445.
Published by Pearson Education Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, India. Vipin, K.S., Anbazhagan, P. and Sitharam, T.G. (2009).
Kramer, S. and Mayfield, R.T. (2007). Return Period of Soil Estimation of Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral
Liquefaction, J. of Geotech. and Geoenv. Engg., 133(7): Acceleration for South India with Local Site Effects:
802813. Probabilistic Approach, Nat. Haz. and Ear. Sys. Sci, 9:
Lai, Sheng-Yao, Wen-Jong, Chang and Ping-Sien, Lin 865878.
(2006). Logistic Regression Model for Evaluating Soil Youd, T.L. (1993). Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread
Liquefaction Probability Using CPT Data, J. Geotech. Displacement, US Navy, NCEL Technical Note N-1862,
Geoenviron. Engg., 132(6): 694704. p. 44.
Liao, S.C.C., Veneziano, D. and Whitman, R.V. (1988) Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, Ronald D., Arango, I.,
Regression Models for Evaluating Liquefaction Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D.L.,
Probability, J. Geotechnical Engg., ASCE, 114(4): 389 Harder, Jr. L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P.,
411. Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, III 13 W.F., Martin, G.R.,
Moss, R.E., Seed, R.B., Kayen, R.E., Stewart, J.P. and Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson,
Kiureghian, A.D. (2006). CPT-Based Probabilistic and P.K., Seed, R.B. and Stokoe, K. H. (2001). Liquefaction
Deterministic Assessment of In situ Seismic Soil Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996
Liquefaction Potential, J of Geotech and Geoenv Engg., NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation
132(8): 10321051. of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engg., 127: 817833.
RaghuKanth, S.T.G. and Iyengar, R.N. (2007). Estimation
of Seismic Spectral Acceleration in Peninsular India, J.
of Earth Sys. Sci., 116(3): 199214.
96