Chapter 6

Chapter 6
6.1
Seismic Design
Contents
6-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-7 6-7 6-8 6-20 6-20 6-22 6-28 6-28 6-29 6-30 6-30 6-30 6-33 6-35 6-37 6-41 6-42 6-45 6-45 6-47 6-50 6-53 6-53 6-54 6-57
SeismicDesignResponsibilityandPolicy 6.1.1 ResponsibilityoftheGeotechnicalDesigner 6.1.2 GeotechnicalSeismicDesignPolicies 6.1.2.1 SeismicPerformanceObjectives 6.1.2.2 LiquefactionMitigationforBridgeWidenings 6.1.2.3 MaximumConsideredDepthforLiquefaction 6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecificationsandAdditionalResources GeotechnicalSeismicDesignConsiderations 6.2.1 Overview 6.2.2 SiteCharacterizationandDevelopmentofSeismicDesignParameters 6.2.3 InformationforStructuralDesign SeismicHazardandSiteGroundMotionResponseRequirements 6.3.1 DeterminationofSeismicHazardLevel 6.3.2 SiteGroundMotionResponseAnalysis 6.3.3 2006IBCforSiteResponse 6.3.4 AdjustingGroundSurfaceAccelerationtoOtherSiteClasses 6.3.5 EarthquakeMagnitude SeismicGeologicHazards 6.4.1 FaultRupture 6.4.2 Liquefaction 6.4.2.1 MethodstoEvaluatePotentialSusceptibilityofSoilto Liquefaction 6.4.2.2 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotential 6.4.2.3 MinimumFactorofSafetyAgainstLiquefaction 6.4.2.4 LiquefactionInducedSettlement 6.4.2.5 ResidualStrengthParameters 6.4.2.6 AssessmentofLiquefactionPotentialandEffectsUsing LaboratoryTestData 6.4.2.7 WeakeningInstabilityDuetoLiquefaction 6.4.2.8 CombiningSeismicInertialLoadingwithAnalysesUsing LiquefiedSoilStrength 6.4.3 SlopeInstabilityDuetoInertialEffects 6.4.3.1 Pseudo-StaticAnalysis 6.4.3.2 Deformations 6.4.4 SettlementofDrySand
6.2
6.3
6.4
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010
M 46-03.01
Page 6-i
Contents
Chapter 6
6.5
InputforStructuralDesign 6.5.1 FoundationSprings 6.5.1.1 ShallowFoundations 6.5.1.2 DeepFoundations 6.5.2 EarthquakeInducedEarthPressuresonRetainingStructures 6.5.3 DowndragLoadsonStructures 6.5.4 LateralSpread/SlopeFailureLoadsonStructures 6.5.4.1 DisplacementBasedApproach 6.5.4.2 ForceBasedApproaches 6.5.4.3 MitigationAlternatives References
6-57 6-57 6-58 6-59 6-63 6-63 6-64 6-64 6-66 6-67 6-70
6.6
Appendix6-A SiteSpecificSeismicHazardandSiteResponse 6-75 6-A.1 BackgroundInformationforPerformingSiteSpecificAnalysis 6-75 6-A.1.1 RegionalTectonics 6-75 6-A.1.2 SeismicSourceZones 6-76 6-A.2 DesignEarthquakeMagnitude 6-78 6-A.3 ProbabilisticandDeterministicSeismicHazardAnalyses 6-79 6-A.4 SelectionofAttenuationRelationships 6-81 6-A.5 SiteSpecificGroundResponseAnalysis 6-81 6-A.5.1 Design/ComputerModels 6-81 6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecificResponseAnalysis6-83 6-A.6 AnalysisUsingAcceleration-TimeHistories 6-84
Page 6-ii
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010
Chapter 6
6.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy
6.1.1 Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer
Seismic Design
Thegeotechnicaldesignerisresponsibleforprovidinggeotechnical/seismic inputparameterstothestructuralengineersfortheiruseinstructuraldesignof thetransportationinfrastructure(e.g.,bridges,retainingwalls,ferryterminals, etc.).Specificelementstobeaddressedbythegeotechnicaldesigner includethedesigngroundmotionparameters,siteresponse,geotechnical designparameters,andgeologichazards.Thegeotechnicaldesignerisalso responsibleforprovidinginputforevaluationofsoil-structureinteraction (foundationresponsetoseismicloading),earthquake-inducedearthpressures onretainingwalls,andanassessmentoftheimpactsofgeologichazardson thestructures. 6.1.2 6.1.2.1 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies Seismic Performance Objectives Ingeneral,theAASHTOLoadandResistanceFactorDesign(LRFD)Bridge DesignSpecificationsshallbefollowedforstructureclassificationofbridges. Critical,essential,andotherstructuresaredefinedinAASHTOLRFDBridge DesignSpecifications.Inthecurrentinventory,moststructuresareconsidered otherwithafewbeingessentialorcritical.Inkeepingwiththecurrent seismicdesignapproachesemployedbothnationallyandinternationally, geotechnical seismic design shall be consistent with the philosophy for structuredesignthatlossoflifeandseriousinjuryduetostructurecollapseare minimized,totheextentpossibleandeconomicallyfeasible.Thisperformance objectiveshallbeachievedataseismicrisklevelthatisconsistentwiththe seismicrisklevelrequiredintheAASHTOspecifications(e.g.,7percent probabilityofexceedancein75yearsforotherstructures,orlowerprobability ofexceedancesuchas2percentin50yearsforcriticaloressentialbridges, asdeterminedbytheStateBridgeEngineerseeGeotechnical Design ManualM46-03(GDM)Section6.3.1).Thedefinitionofstructurecollapse isprovidedintheWSDOTLRFDBridge Design ManualM23-50(BDM). Bridges,regardlessoftheirAASHTOclassification,maysufferdamageand mayneedtobereplacedafteradesignseismicevent,buttheyaredesignedfor non-collapseduetoearthquakeshakingandgeologichazardsassociatedwith adesignseismicevent. Inkeepingwiththenocollapsephilosophy,bridgeapproachembankments andfillsthroughwhichcut-and-covertunnelsareconstructedshouldbe designedtoremainstableduringthedesignseismiceventbecauseofthe potentialtocontributetocollapseofthestructureshouldtheyfail.Theaerial
M 46-03.01
Page 6-1
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
extentofapproachembankment(andembankmentsurroundingcut-and-cover tunnels)seismicdesignandmitigation(ifnecessary)shouldbesuchthatthe structureisprotectedagainstinstabilityorloadingconditionsthatcouldresult incollapse.Thetypicaldistanceofevaluationandmitigationiswithin100ft oftheabutmentortunnelwall,buttheactualdistanceshouldbeevaluatedon acase-by-casebasis.Instabilityorotherseismichazardssuchasliquefaction, lateralspread,downdrag,andsettlementmayrequiremitigationnearthe abutmentortunnelwalltoensurethatthestructureisnotcompromised duringadesignseismicevent.Thegeotechnicaldesignershouldevaluate the potential for differential settlement between mitigated and non mitigated soils.Additionalmeasuresmayberequiredtolimitdifferentialsettlementsto tolerablelevelsbothforstaticandseismicconditions.Thebridgeinteriorpier foundationsshouldalsobedesignedtobeadequatelystablewithregardto liquefaction,lateralflow,andotherseismiceffectstopreventbridgecollapse. Allretainingwallsandabutmentwallsshallbeevaluatedanddesignedfor seismicstabilityinternallyandexternally(i.e.slidingandoverturning).With regardtooverallseismicslopestability(oftenreferredtoasglobalstability) involvingaretainingwall,withorwithoutliquefaction,thegeotechnical designershallevaluatetheimpactsoffailureduetoseismicloading,iffailure ispredictedtooccur.Ifcollapseofthewallislikelyduringthedesignseismic event(i.e.,doesnotmeetminimumslopestabilitylevelofsafetyrequirements duringseismicloadinginaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1), andifthatcollapseislikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjurytothe travelingpublic,thestabilityofthewallshallbeimprovedsuchthatthelife safetyofthetravelingpublicduringthedesignseismiceventispreserved.As ageneralguide,wallsthatarelessthan10ftinheight,orwallsthatarewell awayfromthetraveledway,arenotlikelytocauselossoflifeorsevereinjury tothetravelingpublic.Therefore,thewalldesignmayallowtheselower heightwalls,orwallsthatarewellawayfromthetraveledway,todeform, translate,orrotateduringaseismiceventandoverallstabilityoftheselower heightwallsmaybecompromised. Notethatthepolicytostabilizeretainingwallsforoverallstabilitydueto design seismic events may not be practical for walls placed on or near large marginallystablelandslideareasorotherwisemarginallystableslopes.In general,iftheplacementofawallwithinamarginallystableslope(i.e., marginallystableforstaticconditions)hasonlyaminoreffectontheseismic stabilityofthelandslideorslope,orifthewallhasarelativelylowriskof causinglossoflifeorsevereinjurytothetravelingpublicifwallcollapse occurs,therequirementofthewallandslopetomeetminimumseismic overallstabilityrequirementsmaybewaived,subjecttotheapprovalofthe StateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Page 6-2
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Cutslopesinsoilandrock,fillslopes,andembankmentsshouldbeevaluated forinstabilityduetodesignseismiceventsandassociatedgeologichazards. Instabilityassociatedwithcutsandfillsisusuallynotmitigatedduetothe highcostofapplyingsuchadesignpolicyuniformlytoallslopesstatewide. However,slopesthatcouldcausecollapseofanadjacentstructureiffailure duetoseismicloadingoccursshouldbestabilized. 6.1.2.2 Liquefaction Mitigation for Bridge Widenings The Policy.Forthecasewhereanexistingbridgeistobewidenedand liquefiablesoilispresent,thefoundationsforthewidenedportionofthe bridgeandbridgeapproachesshouldbedesignedtoremainstableduringthe designseismiceventsuchthatbridgecollapsedoesnotoccur.Inaddition, iftheexistingbridgefoundationisnotstableandcouldcausecollapseof thebridgewidening,totheextentpractical,measuresshouldbetakento preventcollapseoftheexistingbridgeduringthedesignseismicevent.The foundationsforthewideningshouldbedesignedinsuchawaythatthe seismic response of the bridge widening can be made compatible with the seismicresponseoftheexistingbridgeasstabilizedintermsoffoundation deformationandstiffness.Ifitisnotfeasibletostabilizetheexistingbridge suchthatitwillnotcausecollapseofthebridgewideningduringthedesign seismicevent,considerationshouldbegiventoreplacingtheexistingbridge ratherthanwideningit.Specificdesignandmitigationrequirementstoaddress theinstabilityintheexistingbridgetocausecollapseofthenewbridge wideningwillbeassessedbytheWSDOTBridgeandGeotechnicalOffices. Inaccordancewithexecutivedepartmentalpolicy,thedepartmentmaychoose todeferliquefactionmitigationfortheexistingbridge,programmingthe implementationoftheliquefactionmitigationoftheexistingbridgeaspart oftheoverallWSDOTseismicretrofitprogram.SeeWSDOTInstructional LetterIL4074.00forthespecificpolicyregardingthisissue. Scoping for Bridge Widening and Liquefaction Mitigation.Duetothehigh costofliquefactionmitigation,itisextremelyimportantthatinputbereceived fromtheBridgeOfficeandGeotechnicalOfficewhendevelopingthescope ofbridgewideningprojectswhereliquefiablesoilsmaybepresent,sothat goodprojectdeliverydecisionscanbemade.Therefore,theregionproject managershouldcontacttheBridgeOfficeforbridgewideningandretaining wallscopingassistancebeforeprojectfundingcommitmentsaremadetothe legislatureandthepublic.TheBridgeOfficewillworkwiththeGeotechnical Officetoassessthepotentialforliquefactionorotherseismichazardsthat couldaffectthecostoftheproposedstructures.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-3
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.1.2.3
Maximum Considered Depth for Liquefaction Whenevaluatingliquefactionpotentialanditsimpactstotransportation facilities,themaximumconsideredliquefactiondepthbelowthenatural groundsurfaceshallbelimitedto80ft.However,forsitesthatcontain exceptionallyloosesoilsthatareapparentlyhighlysusceptibletoliquefaction togreaterdepths,effectivestressanalysistechniquesmaybeusedwiththe approvaloftheStateGeotechnicalEngineertoevaluatethepotentialfor deeperliquefactionandthepotentialimpactsofthatliquefaction.Thereasons forthisdepthlimitationareasfollows: LimitsofSimplifiedProcedures.Thesimplifiedproceduresmostcommonly usedtoassessliquefactionpotentialarebasedonhistoricaldatabasesof liquefiedsiteswithshallowliquefaction(i.e.,ingeneral,lessthan50ft). Thus,theseempiricalmethodologieshavenotbeencalibratedtoevaluate deepliquefaction.Inaddition,thesimplifiedequationusedtoestimate theearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR)isbasedonastress reductioncoefficient,rd,whichishighlyvariableatdepth.Forexample,at shallowdepth(15ft),rdrangesfromabout0.94to0.98.Asdepthincreases, rdbecomesmorevariableranging,forexample,from0.40to0.80atadepth of65ft.Theuncertaintyregardingthecoefficientrdandlackofverification ofthesimplifiedproceduresusedtopredictliquefactionatdepth,aswellas someofthesimplifyingassumptionsandempiricismwithinthesimplified methodwithregardtothecalculationofliquefactionresistance(i.e.,thecyclic resistanceratioCRR),limitthedepthatwhichthesesimplifiedprocedures shouldbeused.Therefore,simplifiedempiricalmethodsshouldnotbeusedto predictliquefactionatdepthsgreaterthan50to60ft,andshallnotbeusedat depthsofgreaterthan80ft. LackofVerificationandComplexityofMoreRigorousApproaches. Severalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramshavebeendeveloped byresearchersandcanbeusedtoestimateliquefactionpotentialatdepth. However,therehasbeenlittlefieldverificationoftheabilityoftheseprograms topredictliquefactionatdepthbecausetherearefewwelldocumentedsites withdeepliquefaction.Keyistheabilityoftheseapproachestopredictpore pressureincreaseandredistributioninliquefiablesoilsduringandafterground shaking.Calibrationofsuchporepressuremodelshassofarbeenlimited tocomparisontolaboratoryperformancedatatestresultsandcentrifuge modeling.Furthermore,thesemorerigorousmethodsrequireconsiderable experiencetoobtainandapplytheinputdatarequired,andtoconfidently interprettheresults.Hence,useofsuchmethodsrequiresspecificapproval fromtheStateGeotechnicalEngineeraswellasindependentpeerreviewby expert(s)intheuseofsuchmethodsforliquefactionanalysis.
Page 6-4
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Decreasing Impact with Depth. Observation and analysis of damage in pastearthquakessuggeststhatthedamagingeffectsofliquefactiongenerally decreaseasthedepthofaliquefiablelayerincreases.Thisreductionin damageislargelyattributedtodecreasedlevelsofrelativedisplacementand theneedforpotentialfailuresurfacestoextenddowntotheliquefyinglayer. Theeffectsofa10ftthicksoillayerliquefyingbetweendepthsof80and90ft willgenerallybemuchlessseverethanthoseofalayerbetweenthedepthsof 10and20ft.Notethattheseimpactsarefocusedonthemostdamagingeffects ofliquefaction,suchaslateraldeformationandinstability.Deeperliquefaction can,however,increasethemagnitudeandimpactofverticalmovement (settlement)andloading(downdrag)onfoundations. DifficultiesMitigatingforDeepLiquefaction.Thegeotechnicalengineering professionhaslimitedexperiencewithmitigationofliquefactionhazards atlargedepths,andvirtuallynofieldcasehistoriesonwhichtoreliably verifytheeffectivenessofmitigationtechniquesforverydeepliquefaction mitigation.Inpracticality,thecoststoreliablymitigateliquefactionbyeither groundimprovementordesigningthestructuretotoleratetheimpactsofvery deepliquefactionareexcessiveandnotcosteffectiveformoststructures. 6.1.3 GoverningDesignSpecificationsandAdditionalResources Thespecificationsapplicabletoseismicdesignofagivenprojectdependupon thetypeoffacility. ThemostcurrentversionoftheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFD SeismicBridgeDesignandAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications shallbeusedforgeotechnicalseismicdesign,inadditiontotheWSDOT BDMandGDM.UntiltheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDBridge SeismicDesignarefullyadoptedintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications,theseismicdesignprovisionsintheGuideSpecifications regardingfoundationdesign,liquefactionassessment,earthquakehazard assessment,andgroundresponseanalysisshallbeconsideredtosupersede theparallelseismicprovisionsintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesign Specifications.TheBDMandGDMprovidespecificapplicationofthe AASHTOspecificationstoWSDOTdesignpolicyandpractice. Forseismicdesignofnewbuildingsandnon-roadwayinfrastructure,the2006 InternationalBuildingCode(IBC)(InternationalCodeCouncil,2006)should beused. Inadditiontotheabovementioneddesignspecifications,geotechnical designersmayutilizeotherresourcesthatareavailableforgeotechnical earthquakeengineeringtoprovidemoredetailedguidanceinseismic designfordesignissuesandareasnotaddressedindetailintheAASHTO specificationsorherein.Abriefdescriptionoffouroftheseadditional referencesisasfollows:
M 46-03.01
Page 6-5
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 3 (Kavazanjian, et al., 1997).ThisFHWAdocumentprovidesdesignguidanceforgeotechnical earthquakeengineeringforhighways.Specifically,thisdocumentprovides guidanceonearthquakefundamentals,seismichazardanalysis,groundmotion characterization,sitecharacterization,seismicsiteresponseanalysis,seismic slopestability,liquefaction,andseismicdesignoffoundationsandretaining walls.Thedocumentalsoincludesdesignexamplesfortypicalgeotechnical earthquakeengineeringanalyses. NCHRP Report 472 (ATC-MCEER Joint Venture, 2001 and 2002). TheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgramReport472(2002), ComprehensivespecificationsfortheSeismicDesignofBridges,isa reportcontainingthefindingsofastudycompletedtodeveloprecommended specificationsforseismicdesignofhighwaybridges.Thereportcoverstopics includingdesignearthquakesandperformanceobjectives,foundationdesign, liquefactionhazardassessmentanddesign,andseismichazardrepresentation. Ofparticularinterest,thisdocumentcontainsacase-studyonliquefaction assessmentofahypotheticalbridgeinWashingtonStateincludingestimating lateralspreadinducedloadsonthebridge. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Website.TheUSGSNational HazardMappingProjectwebsiteisavaluabletoolforcharacterizingthe seismichazardforaspecificsite.Thewebsiteallowstheusertoidentifythe peakgroundacceleration(PGA)onsoftbedrock/verydenseorhardsoilsand spectralaccelerationordinatesatperiodsof0.2,0.3and1secondforhazard levelsof2,5and10percentprobabilitiesofexceedance(PE)in50years. Thewebsitealsoprovidesinteractivedeaggregationofasitesprobabilistic seismichazard.Thedeaggregationisusefulinunderstandingthecontribution ofearthquakesofvaryingmagnitudeanddistancetotheseismichazardata siteandisespeciallyusefulforliquefactionhazardevaluations.Thewebsite addressishttp://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/. Theresultsofthehazardsanalysisusingthe2006USGSwebsitehazard modelatareturnperiodof5percentin50yearsarethesameasthosefrom theAASHTOhazardanalysismaps.However,theUSGSiscurrentlyupdating theirhazardsmaps(seeUSGSwebsitefor2008update).OncetheUSGS updatehasbeenadopted,thehazardresultsfromtheUSGScoulddiffer somewhatfromtheresultsfromtheAASHTOhazardsmapsforthesame location.InthiscasetheAASHTOhazardmapsshouldbeusedasthebasis fordesignunlessspecificapprovalisreceivedfromtheStateBridgeEngineer andStateGeotechnicalEngineer. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Textbook.Thetextbooktitled Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering(Kramer,1996)providesawealth ofinformationtogeotechnicalengineersforseismicdesign.Thetextbook includesacomprehensivesummaryofseismichazards,seismology
Page 6-6
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
andearthquakes,stronggroundmotion,seismichazardanalysis,wave propagation,dynamicsoilproperties,groundresponseanalysis,designground motions,liquefaction,seismicslopestability,seismicdesignofretaining walls,andgroundimprovement. Geotechnicalseismicdesignisarapidlydevelopingsub-disciplinewithinthe broadercontextofthegeotechnicalengineeringdiscipline,andnewresources suchastechnicaljournalarticles,aswellasacademicandgovernmentagency researchreports,arebecomingavailabletothegeotechnicalengineer.Itis importantwhenusingtheseotherresources,aswellasthosenotedabove, thatareviewbeperformedtoconfirmthattheguidancerepresentsthecurrent stateofknowledgeandthatthemethodshavereceivedadequateindependent review.WherenewmethodsnotgivenintheAASHTOSpecificationsor herein(i.e.,WSDOTGDMChapter6)areproposedinthesubjectliterature, useofthenewmethod(s)shallbeapprovedbytheStateGeotechnical Engineerforuseintheprojectunderconsideration.
6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations

6.2.1 Overview Thegeotechnicaldesignerhasfourbroadoptionsavailableforseismicdesign. Theyare: Usespecification/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1) withspecification/codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDM Section6.3.2) Usespecification/codebasedhazard(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.1)with sitespecificgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A) Usesitespecifichazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withspecification/ codebasedgroundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMSection6.3.2) Usesitespecifichazard(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A)withsitespecific groundmotionresponse(WSDOTGDMAppendix6-A) Geotechnicalparametersrequiredforseismicdesigndependuponthetypeand importanceofthestructure,thegeologicconditionsatthesite,andthetype ofanalysistobecompleted.Formoststructures,specificationbaseddesign criteriaappropriateforthesitessoilconditionsmaybeallthatisrequired. Unusual,critical,oressentialstructuresmayrequiremoredetailedstructural analysis,requiringadditionalgeotechnicalparameters.Finally,siteconditions mayrequiredetailedgeotechnicalevaluationtoquantifygeologichazards.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-7
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.2.2
Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters Aswithanygeotechnicalinvestigation,thegoalistocharacterizethesite soilconditionsanddeterminehowthoseconditionswillaffectthestructures orfeaturesconstructedwhenseismiceventsoccur.Inordertomakethis assessment,thegeotechnicaldesignershouldreviewanddiscusstheproject withthestructuralengineer,asseismicdesignisacooperativeeffortbetween thegeotechnicalandstructuralengineeringdisciplines.Thegeotechnical designershoulddothefollowingasaminimum: Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,structural characteristics(e.g.,fundamentalfrequency/period),anticipatedmethod(s) ofstructuralanalysis,performancecriteria(e.g.,collapseprevention, allowablehorizontaldisplacements,limitingsettlements,targetloadand resistancefactors,componentsrequiringseismicdesign,etc.)anddesign hazardlevels(e.g.,7percentPEin75years). Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,whattypeofground motionparametersarerequiredfordesign(e.g.,responsespectraortime histories),andtheirpointofapplication(e.g.,mudline,bottomofpilecap, ordepthofpilefixity). Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuralengineer,howfoundation stiffness will be modeled and provide appropriate soil stiffness properties orsoil/foundationsprings. Identifypotentialgeologichazards,areasofconcern(e.g.softsoils),and potentialvariabilityoflocalgeology. Identifypotentialforlargescalesiteeffects(e.g.,basin,topographic,and nearfaulteffects). Identify,incoordinationwiththestructuraldesigner,themethodby whichrisk-compatiblegroundmotionparameterswillbeestablished (specification/code,deterministic,probabilistic,orahybrid). Identifyengineeringanalysestobeperformed(e.g.sitespecificseismic responseanalysis,liquefactionsusceptibility,lateralspreading/slope stabilityassessments). Identifyengineeringpropertiesrequiredfortheseanalyses. Determinemethodstoobtainparametersandassessthevalidityofsuch methodsforthematerialtype. Determinethenumberoftests/samplesneededandappropriatelocations toobtainthem.
Page 6-8
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Itisassumedthatthebasicgeotechnicalinvestigationsrequiredfor nonseismic(gravityload)designhavebeenorwillbeconductedasdescribed inWSDOTGDMChapters2,5andtheindividualprojectelementchapters (e.g.,WSDOTGDMChapter8forfoundations,WSDOTGDMChapter15 forretainingwalls,etc.).Typically,thesubsurfacedatarequiredforseismic designisobtainedconcurrentlywiththedatarequiredfordesignoftheproject (i.e.,additionalexplorationforseismicdesignoverandabovewhatisrequired fornonseismicfoundationdesignistypicallynotnecessary).However, theexplorationprogrammayneedtobeadjustedtoobtainthenecessary parametersforseismicdesign.Forinstance,aseismicconemightbeused inconjunctionwithaCPTifshearwavevelocitydataisrequired.Likewise, ifliquefactionpotentialisasignificantissue,mudrotarydrillingwithSPT samplingshouldbeused.Inthiscase,preferenceshouldbegiventodrillrigs furnishedwithenergycalibratedautomaticSPThammers.Hollow-stemauger drillingandnon-standardsamplers(e.g.,down-the-holeorwire-linehammers) shallnotbeusedtocollectdatausedinliquefactionanalysisandmitigation design,otherthantoobtainsamplesforgradation. Thegoalofthesitecharacterizationforseismicdesignistodevelopthe subsurfaceprofileandsoilpropertyinformationneededforseismicanalyses. Soilparametersgenerallyrequiredforseismicdesigninclude: Dynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrainsorshearwavevelocity; Shearmodulusandmaterialdampingcharacteristicsasafunctionofshear strain; Cyclicandpost-cyclicshearstrengthparameters(peakandresidual); ConsolidationparameterssuchastheCompressionIndexorPercent VolumetricStrainresultingfromporepressuredissipationaftercyclic loading,and Liquefactionresistanceparameters. Table6-1providesasummaryofsitecharacterizationneedsandtesting considerationsforgeotechnical/seismicdesign.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-9
Page 6-10
Seismic Design
Geotechnical Issues Site Response Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Engineering Evaluations
source characterization and ground motion attenuation site response spectra time history SPT CPT seismic cone geophysical testing (shear wave velocity) piezometer
Atterberg limits grain size distribution specific gravity moisture content unit weight resonant column cyclic direct simple shear test torsional simple shear test cyclic triaxial tests
Geologic Hazards Evaluation (e.g., liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope stability, faulting)
liquefaction susceptibility liquefaction triggering liquefaction induced settlement settlement of dry sands lateral spreading flow failure slope stability and deformations
SPT CPT seismic cone Becker penetration test vane shear test piezometers geophysical testing (shear wave velocity)
grain size distribution Atterberg Limits specific gravity organic content moisture content unit weight soil shear strength tests (static and cyclic) post-cyclic volumetric strain
Chapter 6
Required Information for Analyses subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, depth to rock) shear wave velocity shear modulus for low strains relationship of shear modulus with increasing shear strain, OCR, and PI equivalent viscous damping ratio with increasing shear strain, OCR, and PI Poissons ratio unit weight relative density seismicity (design earthquakes - source, distance, magnitude, recurrence) subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, rock) shear strength (peak and residual) unit weights grain size distribution plasticity characteristics relative density penetration resistance shear wave velocity seismicity (PGA, design earthquakes, deaggregation data, ground motion time histories) site topography
Engineering Evaluations CPT SPT seismic cone piezometers geophysical testing (shear wave velocity, resistivity, natural gamma) vane shear test pressuremete
Chapter 6
Geotechnical Issues Input for Structural Design Field Testing Laboratory Testing
soil stiffness for shallow foundations (e.g., springs) P-Y data for deep foundations down-drag on deep foundations residual strength lateral earth pressures lateral spreading/slope movement loading post earthquake settlement Kenematic soil-structure interaction
grain size distribution Atterberg limits specific gravity moisture content unit weight resonant column cyclic direct simple shear test triaxial tests (static and cyclic) torsional shear test direct shear interface tests
M 46-03.01
Required Information for Analyses subsurface profile (soil, groundwater, rock) shear strength (peak and residual) coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction seismic horizontal earth pressure coefficients shear modulus for low strains or shear wave velocity relationship of shear modulus with increasing shear strain unit weight Poissons ratio seismicity (PGA, design earthquake, response spectrum, ground motion time histories) site topography Interface strength
Seismic Design
Page 6-11
Summary of Site Characterization Needs and Testing Considerations for Seismic Design (Adapted From Sabatini, et al., 2002).
Table 6-1
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
WSDOTGDMChapter5coverstherequirementsforusingtheresultsfrom thefieldinvestigation,thefieldtesting,andthelaboratorytestingprogram separatelyorincombinationtoestablishpropertiesforstaticdesign.Manyof theserequirementsarealsoapplicableforseismicdesign. Forroutinedesigns,in-situfieldmeasurementsorlaboratorytestingfor parameterssuchasthedynamicshearmodulusatsmallstrains,shearmodulus anddampingratiocharacteristicsversusshearstrain,andresidualshear strengtharegenerallynotobtained.Instead,correlationsbasedonindex propertiesmaybeusedinlieuofin-situorlaboratorymeasurementsfor routinedesigntoestimatethesevalues.However,ifasitespecificground motionresponseanalysisisconducted,fieldmeasurementsoftheshearwave velocityVsshouldbeobtained. Ifcorrelationsareusedtoobtainseismicsoildesignproperties,andsite-or region-specificrelationshipsarenotavailable,thenthefollowingcorrelations shouldbeused: Table6-2,whichpresentscorrelationsforestimatinginitialshearmodulus basedonrelativedensity,penetrationresistanceorvoidratio. Shearmodulusreductionandequivalentviscousdampingratioequations byDarendelli(2001),applicabletoallsoils,asprovidedbelow,orFigure 6-1,whichpresentsshearmodulusreductioncurvesandequivalent viscousdampingratioforsandsasafunctionofshearstrainanddepth, and,Figures6-2and6-3,whichpresentshearmodulusreductioncurves andequivalentviscousdampingratio,respectively,asafunctionofcyclic shearstrainandplasticityindexforfinegrainedsoils. Figures6-4through6-7,whichpresentchartsforestimatingequivalent undrainedresidualshearstrengthforliquefiedsoilsasafunctionof SPTblowcounts.Itisrecommendedthatallthesefiguresbechecked toestimateresidualstrengthandaveragedusingaweightingscheme. Table6-3presentsanexampleofaweightingschemeasrecommended byKramer(2008).Designersusingthesecorrelationsshouldfamiliarize themselveswithhowthecorrelationsweredeveloped,assumptions used,andanylimitationsofthecorrelationsasdiscussedinthesource documentsforthecorrelationsbeforeselectingafinalweightingscheme touseforagivenproject.AlternatecorrelationsbasedonCPTdatamay alsobeconsidered. Otherpropertyvaluecorrelationsmaybeused,subjecttotheapprovalofthe StateGeotechnicalEngineer.Designersareencouragedtodevelopregionor projectspecificcorrelationsfortheseseismicdesignproperties. RegardingFigure6-6,twocurvesareprovided,oneinwhichvoid redistributionislikely,andoneinwhichvoidredistributionisnotlikely.Void redistributionbecomesmorelikelyifarelativelythickliquefiablelayeris cappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayer.Sufficientthicknessofasaturated
Page 6-12
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
liquefiablelayerisnecessarytogenerateenoughwaterforvoidredistribution tooccur,andneedcappingbyarelativelyimpermeablelayertopreventpore pressuresfromdissipating,allowinglocalizedlooseningnearthetopofthe confinedliquefiablelayer.Engineeringjudgmentwillneedtobeappliedto determinewhichcurveinFigure6-6touse. Whenusingtheabovecorrelations,thepotentialeffectsofvariationsbetween the dynamic property from the correlation and the dynamic property for the particularsoilshouldbeconsideredintheanalysis.Thepublishedcorrelations weredevelopedbyevaluatingtheresponseofarangeofsoiltypes;however, foranyspecificsoil,thebehaviorofanyspecificsoilcandepartfromthe average,fallingeitheraboveorbelowtheaverage.Thesedifferencescan affectthepredictedresponseofthesoil.Forthisreasonsensitivitystudies shouldbeconductedtoevaluatethepotentialeffectsofpropertyvariationon thedesignprediction.Typicalvariationsareasfollows: Insitushearwavevelocity:+10to20percent Shearmodulusandviscousdampingversusshearstrain:+20percent Residualstrength:+20percent Forthosecaseswhereasinglevalueofthepropertycanbeusedwiththe knowledgethatthespecificpropertyselectionwillproducesafedesignresults or for cases when the design is not very sensitive to variations in the property beingconsidered,asensitivityanalysismaynotberequired.
Reference Seed et al. (1984) Correlation Gmax = 220 (K2)max (m) (K2)max = 20(N1)601/3 Units(1) Limitations kPa (K2)max is about 30 for very loose sands and 75 for very dense sands; about 80 to 180 for dense well graded gravels; Limited to cohesionless soils kPa Limited to cohesionless soils psf Limited to cohesionless soils kPa(2) Limited to cohesive soils; Pa = atmospheric pressure
Imai and Tonouchi (1982) Gmax = 15,560 N600.68 Ohta and Goto (1976) Gmax = 20000(N1) 60 (60) Mayne and Rix (1993) Gmax = 99.5(Pa)0.305(qc)0.695/(e0)1.13
Notes: (1) 1 kPa = 20.885 psf (2) Pa and qc in kPa
Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus (adapted from Kavazanjian, et al., 1997).
Table 6-2
M 46-03.01
Page 6-13
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Modulus Reduction Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Themodulusreduction curveforsoil,asafunctionofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshownin Equations6-1and6-2.

G Gmax 1
a
1
r
(6-1)
where, G = shearmodulusatshearstrain,inthesameunitsasGmax = shearstrain(%),and = 0.92 a risdefinedinEquation6-2as:

r 1 2
PI OCR
' 0
(6-2)
where, 1 = OCR= 0 = PI =
0.0352;2=0.0010;3=0.3246;4=0.3483(fromregression), overconsolidationratioforsoil effectiveverticalstress,inatmospheres,and plasticindex,in%
Damping Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Thedampingratioforsoil,asafunction ofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshowninEquations6-3through6-7. Initialstep:Computeclosed-formexpressionforMasingDampingfora=1.0 (standardhyperbolicbackbonecurve):
DMasing,a =1()[%]=
100
ln
r 2 r
(6-3)
Forothervaluesofa(e.g.,a=0.92,asusedtocalculateG): DMasing,a ()[%]=c1(Dmasing,a=1)+c2(Dmasing,a=1)2+c3(Dmasing,a=1)3 Where, c1 = 0.2523+1.8618a1.1143a2 c2 = 0.00950.0710a+0.0805a2 c3 = 0.0003+0.0002a0.0005a2 (6-4)
Page 6-14
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Finalstep:Computedampingratioasfunctionofshearstrain:
D( )
where
Dmin
G bDMa sin g ( ) Gmax
0.1
(6-5)
Dmin b
6
11 12
PI OCR ln( N )
' 0
10
ln( freq)
(6-6) (6-7)
where, freq = N = 6 = 9 =
frequencyofloading,inHz numberofloadingcycles 0.8005; 7=0.0129; 8=-0.1069; -0.2889; 10=0.2919; 11=0.6329; 12=-0.0057

Model Idriss Olson-Stark Idriss-Boulanger Hybrid Weighting Factor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4
Weighting factors for residual strength estimation (Kramer, 2008).

Table 6-3
M 46-03.01
Page 6-15
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Shear modulus reduction and damping ratio curves for sand (EPRI, 1993).
Figure 6-1
Page 6-16
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Shear modulus reduction curves for fine grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-2
Equivalent viscous damping ratio for fine grained soils (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 6-3
M 46-03.01
Page 6-17
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Estimation of residual strength from SPT resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-4
Estimation of residual strength ratio from SPT resistance (Olson and Stark, 2002).
Figure 6-5
Page 6-18
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Estimation of Residual Strength Ratio from SPT Resistance (Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 6-6
Variation of Residual Strength Ratio with SPT Resistance and Initial Vertical Effective Stress Using Kramer-Wang Model (Kramer, 2008).
Figure 6-7
M 46-03.01
Page 6-19
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.2.3
Information for Structural Design Thegeotechnicaldesignershallrecommendadesignearthquakeground motion,andshallevaluategeologichazardsfortheproject.Forcodebased groundmotionanalysis,thegeotechnicaldesignershallprovidetheSiteClass Bspectralaccelerationsatperiodsof0.2and1.0seconds,thePGA,thesite class,andthemultiplierstothePGAandspectralaccelerationstoaccount fortheeffectofthesiteclassonthedesignaccelerations.Notethatthesite classshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface,not justsoilbelowthefoundations.Inaddition,thegeotechnicaldesignershould evaluatethesiteandsoilconditionstotheextentnecessarytoprovidethe followinginputforstructuraldesign: Foundationspringvaluesfordynamicloading(lateralandvertical), aswellasgeotechnicalparametersforevaluationofslidingresistance applicabletothefoundationdesign.Ifliquefactionispossible,spring valuesforliquefiedconditionsshouldalsobeprovided(primarilyapplies todeepfoundations,asingeneral,shallowfootingsarenotusedover liquefiedsoils). Earthquakeinducedearthpressures(activeandpassive)forretaining structuresandbelowgradewalls,andothergeotechnicalparameters,such asslidingresistance,neededtocompletetheseismicdesignofthewall. Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,passivesoilspringstousetomodel theabutmentfillresistancetoseismicmotionofthebridge. Impactsofseismicgeologichazardsincludingfaultrupture,liquefaction, lateralspreading,flowfailure,andslopeinstabilityonthestructure, includingestimatedloadsanddeformationsactingonthestructuredueto theeffectsofthegeologichazard. Ifrequestedbythestructuraldesigner,forlongbridges,potentialfor incoherentgroundmotioneffects. Optionstomitigateseismicgeologichazards,suchasground improvement.Notethatseismicsoilpropertiesusedfordesignshould reflectthepresenceofthesoilimprovement.
6.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements

Formostprojects,designcode/specification/basedseismichazardandground motionresponse(referredtoastheGeneralProcedureintheAASHTO GuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign)areappropriateand shouldbeused.However,asitespecifichazardanalysisshouldbeconsidered inthefollowingsituations: Thefacilityisidentifiedascriticaloressentialandamoreaccurate assessmentofhazardlevelisdesired,or
Page 6-20
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Informationaboutoneormoreactiveseismicsourcesforthesitehas becomeavailablesincetheUSGS/AASHTOSeismicHazardMapswere developed(USGS2002),andthenewseismicsourceinformationmay resultinasignificantchangeoftheseismichazardatthesite. Ifthesiteislocatedwithin6milesofaknownactivefaultcapableof producingamagnitude5earthquakeandnearfaulteffectsarenotmodeled inthedevelopmentofnationalgroundmotionmaps,directivityand directionalityeffectsshouldbeconsideredasdescribedinArticle3.4.3.1of theAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignandits commentary. Asitespecificgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldbeperformedinthe followingsituations: Thefacilityisidentifiedascriticaloressential, Siteswheregeologicconditionsarelikelytoresultinun-conservative spectralaccelerationvaluesifthegeneralizedcoderesponsespectrais used,or SitesubsurfaceconditionsareclassifiedasSiteClassF. Asitespecificgroundmotionresponseanalysisshouldalsobeconsidered, subjecttotheapprovaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnical Engineer,forsiteswheretheeffectsofliquefactiononthegroundmotion couldcausethegroundmotionresponsetobeoverlyconservativeor unconservative,orwheretheAASHTOorIBCsiteclassesdonotfitthe subsurfaceconditionsadequately. Ifasitespecifichazardanalysisisconducted,itshallbeconductedin accordancewithAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridge DesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Notethatwheretheresponse spectrumisdevelopedusingasite-specifichazardanalysis,asitespecific groundmotionresponseanalysis,orboth,theAASHTOspecificationsrequire thatthespectrumnotbelowerthantwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumat thegroundsurfacedeterminedusingthegeneralprocedureoftheAASHTO GuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,Article3.4.1,adjusted bythesitecoefficients(Fpga)inArticle3.4.2.3intheregionof0.5TFto2TF of thespectrum,whereTFisthebridgefundamentalperiod.Forotheranalyses suchasliquefactionassessmentandretainingwalldesign,thefreefield accelerationatthegroundsurfacedeterminedfromasitespecificanalysis shouldnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthePGAmultipliedbythespecification basedsitecoefficientFpga. Whenestimatingtheminimumgroundsurfaceresponsespectrumusing two-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumfromthespecificationbasedprocedures providedintheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridge Design,therearenositecoefficientsforliquefiablesitesorforsitesthat fallinSiteClassF.Noconsensuscurrentlyexistsregardingtheappropriate
M 46-03.01
Page 6-21
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
sitecoefficientsforthesecases.UnlessdirectedotherwisebytheState GeotechnicalEngineerandtheStateBridgeEngineer,thefollowingapproach shouldbeused: Forliquefiablesites,usethespecificationbasedsitecoefficientforsoil conditionswithoutanymodificationsforliquefaction.Thisapproach isbelievedtobeconservativeforhigherfrequencymotions(i.e.,TF < 1.0sec).Ifasitespecificgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,the responsespectrumshouldbenolowerthantwo-thirdsofthenon-liquefied specificationbasedspectrum,unlessspecificallyapprovedbytheState BridgeandGeotechnicalEngineerstogolower.However,whenaccepting aspectrumlowerthantwo-thirdsofthespecificationbasedspectrum, theuncertaintiesintheanalysismethodshouldbecarefullyreviewed, particularlyforlongerperiods(i.e.,T>1.0sec.)whereincreasesin thespectralordinatemayoccur.Becauseofthis,forstructuresthatare characterizedashavingafundamentalperiod,TF,greaterthan1.0sec.,a sitespecificgroundresponseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifliquefiable soilsaredeterminedtobepresent. ForSiteClassFsoils,conductasitespecificgroundresponseanalysis.In previousguidancedocuments,thesuggestionwasmadetouseaSiteClass EsitecoefficientforSiteClassFsoils.UseofFpga,Fa andFvfromSite ClassEforSiteClassFsoilsappearstobeoverlyconservativeandisnot recommended. Ifasitespecificanalysistoestablisharesponsespectrumthatislowerthan two-thirdsofthespecificationbasedspectrumisapprovedbytheState GeotechnicalandBridgeEngineers,thesitespecificanalysisshouldbe independentlypeerreviewedbysomeonewithexpertiseinthesitespecific groundresponseanalysistechniqueusedtoconducttheanalysis. 6.3.1 Determination of Seismic Hazard Level Alltransportationstructures(e.g.,bridges,pedestrianbridges,walls,andWSF terminalstructuressuchasdocks,wingwalls,etc.)classifiedasother(i.e., notcriticaloressential)bytheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications aredesignedforno-collapsebasedonahazardlevelof7percentPEin75 years(i.e.,thesameas5percentPEin50yearsandanapproximately1,000 yearrecurrenceinterval).Therefore,geotechnicalseismicdesignforthese structuresshallbeconsistentwiththenocollapsedesignobjectiveandthe seismicrisklevelusedforthosestructures. TheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,or Figures6-8,6-9,and6-10shallbeusedtoestimatethePGA,0.2sec.spectral acceleration(Ss),and1.0sec.spectralaccelerationvalues(S1),respectively, forWSDOTtransportationfacilitiesforcode/specificationbasedseismic hazardevaluation.Bydefinition,PGA,SSandS1areforSiteClassB(very hardorverydensesoilorsoftrock)conditions.ThePGAcontoursinFigure 6-8,inadditionSsandS1infigures6-9and6-10,arebasedoninformation
Page 6-22
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
publishedbytheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProject(USGS, 2002)andpublishedbyAASHTOintheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsfor LRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.InterpolationbetweencontoursinFigure6-8 shouldbeusedwhenestablishingthePGAforSiteClassBforaproject. Whenatransportationstructure(e.g.,bridges,walls,andWSFterminal structuressuchasdocks,etc.)isdesignatedascriticaloressentialbyWSDOT, amorestringentseismichazardlevelmayberequiredbytheStateBridge Engineer.IfadifferenthazardlevelthanthatspecifiedintheAASHTOLRFD Seismicdesignspecificationsisselected,themostcurrentseismichazard mapsfromtheUSGSNationalSeismicHazardsMappingProjectshouldbe used,unlessasitespecificseismichazardanalysisisconducted,subjecttothe approvaloftheStateBridgeEngineerandStateGeotechnicalEngineer. Ifasitespecificprobabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)isconducted, itshallbeconductedinamannertogenerateauniform-hazardacceleration responsespectrumconsideringa7percentprobabilityofexceedancein75 yearsforspectralvaluesovertheentireperiodrangeofinterest.Thisanalysis shallfollowthesamebasicapproachasusedbytheUSGSindeveloping seismichazardsmapsforAASHTO.Inthisapproachitisnecessaryto establishthefollowing: Thecontributingseismicsources, Amagnitudefault-rupture-lengthorsourcearearelationforeach contributingfaultorsourceareatoestimateanupper-boundearthquake magnitudeforeachsourcezone, Medianattenuationrelationsforaccelerationresponsespectralvaluesand theirassociatedstandarddeviations, Amagnitude-recurrencerelationforeachsourcezone,and Weightingfactors,withjustification,forallbranchesoflogictreesused toestablishgroundshakinghazards. AASHTOallowssite-specificgroundmotionhazardlevelstobebasedon adeterministicseismichazardanalysis(DSHA)inregionsofknownactive faults,providedthatdeterministicspectrumisnolessthantwo-thirdsofthe probabilisticspectrum(seeAASHTOArticle3.10.2.2).Thisrequiresthat: Thegroundmotionhazardataparticularsiteislargelyfromknown faults(e.g.,randomseismicityisnotasignificantcontributortothe hazard),and Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesontheknownfaultsare generallylessthanthereturnperiodcorrespondingtothespecifiedseismic risklevel(e.g.,theearthquakerecurrenceintervalislessthanareturn periodof1,000yearsthatcorrespondstoaseismicrisklevelof7percent probabilityofexceedancein75years).
M 46-03.01
Page 6-23
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Currently,theseconditionsaregenerallynotmetforsitesinWashington State.ApprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer isrequiredbeforeDSHA-basedgroundmotionhazardlevelisusedona WSDOTproject. Whereuseofadeterministicspectrumisappropriate,thespectrumshallbe either: Theenvelopeofamedianspectracalculatedforcharacteristicmaximum magnitudeearthquakesonknownactivefaults;or Thedeterministicspectraforeachfault,andintheabsenceofaclearly controllingspectrum,eachspectrumshouldbeused. Ifthesitespecificdeterministichazardanalysisiscombinedwithasite specificgroundmotionresponseanalysis,theresponsespectralordinates maybeaslowastwo-thirdsoftheresponsespectrumatthegroundsurface determinedusingthespecificationbasedproceduresintheAASHTOLRFD SeismicGuideSpecifications(Articles3.4.1and3.4.2.3)intheregionof 0.5TFto2TF.ThesamewouldalsoapplytothefreefieldaccelerationAs in thiscase. Uncertaintiesinsourcemodelingandparametervaluesshallbetakeninto considerationinthePSHAandDSHA.Detaileddocumentationofseismic hazardanalysisshallbeprovidedandshallbepeerreviewedasappropriate. Forbuildings,restrooms,shelters,andcoveredwalkways,specificationbased seismicdesignparametersrequiredbythe2006IBCshouldbeused.The seismicdesignrequirementsofthe2006IBCarebasedonarisklevelof2 percentPEin50years.The2percentPEin50yearsrisklevelcorresponds tothemaximumconsideredearthquake(MCE).The2006IBCidentifies procedurestodevelopamaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration responsespectrum,atthegroundsurfacebyadjustingSiteClassBspectrafor localsiteconditions,similartothemethodsusedbyAASHTOexceptthatthe probabilityofexceedanceislower(i.e.,2percentin50yearsversus7percent in75years).However,the2006IBCdefinesthedesignresponsespectrumas two-thirdsofthevalueofthemaximumconsideredearthquakeacceleration responsespectrum.ThesitefactorsusedinIBC2006arethesameasusedby AASHTOformodifyingtheSiteClassBspectrumforlocalsiteeffects.As istruefortransportationstructures,forcriticaloruniquestructures,forsites characterizedassoilprofileTypeF(thicksequenceofsoftsoilsorliquefiable soils),orforsoilconditionsthatdonotadequatelymatchthespecification basedsoilprofiletypes,sitespecificresponseanalysismayberequiredas discussedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.
Page 6-24
Chapter 6
M 46-03.01 Seismic Design
Page 6-25
Peak horizontal acceleration (%g) for 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years for Site Class B (adapted from AASHTO 2007).
Figure 6-8
Page 6-26
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Horizontal spectral acceleration at 0.2 second period (%g) for 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years with 5% of critical damping for Site Class B (adapted from AASHTO 2007).
Figure 6-9
Chapter 6
M 46-03.01 Seismic Design
Page 6-27
Horizontal spectral acceleration at 1.0 second period (%g) for 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years with 5% of critical damping for Site Class B (adapted from AASHTO 2007).
Figure 6-10
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.3.2
Site Ground Motion Response Analysis TheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire thatsiteeffectsbeincludedindeterminingseismicloadsfordesignofbridges. TheguidespecificationscharacterizeallsubsurfaceconditionswithsixSite Classes(AthroughF)andprovidessitesoilcoefficientsforPGA(Fpga),SS (Fa),andS1(Fv)forfiveoftheSiteClasses(AthroughE).Code/specification basedresponsespectrathatincludetheeffectofgroundmotionamplification ordeamplificationfromthesoil/rockstratigraphyatthesitecanbedeveloped fromthePGA,SS,S1andtheSite-Class-basedsitecoefficientsFpga,Fa,and Fv.Thegeotechnicaldesignershalldeterminetheappropriatesitecoefficient (FpgaforPGA,FaforSS,andFvforS1)toconstructthecode/specification basedresponsespectrumforthespecificsitesubsurfaceconditions.Tables 3.4.2.3-1,3.4.2.3-2,and3.4.2.3-3oftheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsfor LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignpresentthevaluesoftheSiteCoefficientsfor SoilClassesAthroughE.Nospecificationbasedsiteclassvaluesareavailable forSiteClassF,howeverinthatcase,asitespecificgroundresponse analysismustbeconducted(seetheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsfor LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignforadditionaldetailsonsiteconditionsthatare consideredtobeincludedinSiteClassF). TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsdonotspecifically requirethatasitespecificseismicgroundresponseanalysesbecompleted forsiteswhereliquefactionisanticipatedduringadesignearthquake.The AASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesignrequire thatthespecificationbasedgroundmotionspectralresponsefornonliquefied conditionsbeusedunlessasitespecificgroundmotionresponseanalysisis conducted.However,asdiscussedatthebeginningofSection6.3herein,for structureswithafundamentalperiod,TF,greaterthan1.0sec.,asitespecific responseanalysisshouldbeconsideredifthesoilsatthesitearepotentially liquefiable. Sitesthatcontainastrongimpedancecontrast,i.e.,aboundarybetween adjacentlayerswithshearwavevelocitiesthatdifferbyafactorof2ormore, maybenefitfromasite-specificseismicgroundresponseanalysis.Thestrong impedancecontrastcanoccurwhereathinsoilprofile(e.g.,<20to30ft) overliesrockorwherelayersofsoftandstiffsoilsoccur. Ifasitespecificgroundmotionresponseanalysisisconducted,itshallbe doneinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDBridge SeismicDesignandWSDOTGDMAppendix6A.
6.3.3
2006 IBC for Site Response The2006IBC,Sections1613through1615,providesprocedurestoestimate theearthquakeloadsforthedesignofbuildingsandsimilarstructures. Earthquakeloadsperthe2006IBCaredefinedbyaccelerationresponse spectra,whichcanbedeterminedthroughtheuseofthe2006IBCgeneral
Page 6-28
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
responsespectrumproceduresorthroughsite-specificprocedures.The intentofthe2006IBCMCEistoreasonablyaccountforthemaximum possibleearthquakeatasite,topreservelifesafetyandpreventcollapseof thebuilding. Thegeneralresponsespectrumperthe2006IBCutilizesmappedMaximum ConsideredEarthquake(MCE)spectralresponseaccelerationsatshortperiods (Ss)andat1-second(S1)todefinetheseismichazardataspecificlocationin theUnitedStates. The2006IBCusesthesixsiteclasses,SiteClassAthroughSiteClassF,to accountfortheeffectsofsoilconditionsonsiteresponse.Thegeotechnical designershouldidentifytheappropriateSiteClassforthesite.Notethatthe siteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptothegroundsurface, notjustsoilbelowthefoundations. OncetheSiteClassandmappedvaluesofSsandS1aredetermined,values oftheSiteCoefficientsFaandFv(siteresponsemodificationfactors)can bedetermined.TheSiteCoefficientsandthemappedspectralaccelerations SsandS1canthenbeusedtodefinetheMCEanddesignresponsespectra. ThePGAatthegroundsurfacemaybeestimatedas0.4ofthe0.2secdesign spectralacceleration. ForsiteswhereSiteClassFsoilsarepresent,the2006IBCrequiresthata site-specificgeotechnicalinvestigationanddynamicsiteresponseanalysisbe completed,seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Dynamicsiteresponseanalysis maynotberequiredforliquefiablesoilsitesforstructureswithpredominant periodsofvibrationlessthan0.5seconds. 6.3.4 Adjusting Ground Surface Acceleration to Other Site Classes ThesitecoefficientFpgatoaccountforthedifferenceingroundresponse betweenClassBsoil/rockconditionstoothersiteclasseswithregardtothe estimation of acceleration As are directly incorporated into the development ofthestandardresponsespectraforstructuraldesignofbridgesandsimilar structuresintheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecificationsandforthe structuraldesignofbuildingsandnon-transportationrelatedstructuresinthe 2003IBC.However,thePGAshouldalsobemultipliedbyFpgatoaccount forthesiteclasswhenassessingthepotentialforliquefactionandforthe estimationofseismicearthpressuresandinertialforcesforretainingwall andslopedesign.Forliquefactionassessmentandretainingwallandslope design,thesitecoefficientpresentedintheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsfor LRFDBridgeSeismicDesignshouldbeused,unlessasitespecificevaluation ofgroundresponseconductedinaccordancewiththeseAASHTOGuide specificationsandGDMSection6.3andAppendix6-Aisperformed.Note thatthesiteclassshouldbedeterminedconsideringthesoilsuptotheground surface,notjustsoilbelowthefoundations.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-29
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.3.5
Earthquake Magnitude Assessmentofliquefactionandlateralspreadingrequireanestimateofthe earthquakemagnitude.Themagnitudeshouldbeassessedusingtheseismic deaggregationdataforthesite,availablethroughtheUSGSnationalseismic hazardwebsite(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/)asdiscussed inWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Thedeaggregationusedshouldbefora seismichazardlevelconsistentwiththehazardlevelusedforthestructurefor whichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityof exceedanceof5percentin50yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuide SpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Additionaldiscussionand guidanceregardingtheselectionofearthquakemagnitudevaluesisprovided intheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDBridgeSeismicDesign.
6.4 Seismic Geologic Hazards

Thegeotechnicaldesignershallevaluateseismicgeologichazardsincluding faultrupture,liquefaction,lateralspreading,groundsettlement,andslope instability.Thepotentialeffectsassociatedwithseismicgeologichazardsshall beevaluatedbythegeotechnicaldesigner. 6.4.1 Fault Rupture WashingtonStateisrecognizedasaseismicallyactiveregion;however,only arelativelysmallnumberofactivefaultshavebeenidentifiedwithinthe state.Thicksequencesofrecentgeologicdeposits,heavyvegetation,andthe limitedamountofinstrumentallyrecordedeventsonidentifiedfaultsaresome ofthefactorsthatcontributetothedifficultyinidentifyingactivefaultsin WashingtonState.ConsiderableresearchisongoingthroughoutWashington Statetoidentifyandcharacterizetheseismicityofactivefaults,andnew technologymakesitlikelythatadditionalsurfacefaultswillbeidentifiedin thenearfuture. Figure6-11presentstheearthquakefaultsintheNorthAmericanplate consideredtobepotentiallyactive.Thefollowingfaultsareexplicitly includedinthe2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsthatwereusedinthe developmentoftheAASHTOseismichazardsmaps: SeattleFaultZone SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault UtsaladyFault StrawberryPointFault DevilsMountainFault HorseHeavenHillsAnticline
Page 6-30
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem MillCreekFault SaddleMountainsFault HiteFaultSystem Thepotentialimpactsoffaultruptureincludeabrupt,large,differentialground movementsandassociateddamagetostructuresthatmightstraddleafault, suchasabridge.Untiltherecentapplicationofadvancedmappingtechniques (e.g.,LIDARandaeromagnetics)incombinationwithtrenchingandage datingofapparentgroundoffsets,littleinformationwasavailableregarding thepotentialforgroundsurfacefaultrupturehazardinWashingtonState. However,WSDOTexpectsthatasthesetechniquesareappliedthroughout thestate,additionalHolocenefaultstracesandfaultzoneswilllikelybe identified,andtheunderstandingofgroundsurfacerupturehazardmaychange significantlywithtime. Inviewoftheadvancesthatwilllikelybemadeintheareaoffault identification,thepotentialforfaultruptureshouldbeevaluatedandtakeninto considerationintheplanninganddesignofnewfacilities.Theseevaluations shouldincorporatethelatestinformationidentifyingpotentialHolocene grounddeformation.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-31
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Page 6-32
Earthquake Faults in Washington State (adapted from USGS, 2002).
Figure 6-11
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
6.4.2
Liquefaction Liquefactionhasbeenoneofthemostsignificantcausesofdamagetobridge structuresduringpastearthquakes(ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002). Liquefactioncandamagebridgesandstructuresinmanywaysincluding: Modifyingthenatureofgroundmotion; Bearingfailureofshallowfoundationsfoundedaboveliquefiedsoil; Changesinthelateralsoilreactionfordeepfoundations; Liquefactioninducedgroundsettlement; Lateralspreadingofliquefiedground; Largedisplacementsassociatedwithlowfrequencygroundmotion; Increasedearthpressuresonsubsurfacestructures; Floatingofbuoyant,buriedstructures;and Retainingwallfailure. Liquefactionreferstothesignificantlossofstrengthandstiffnessresulting fromthegenerationofexcessporewaterpressureinsaturated,predominantly cohesionlesssoils.Kramer(1996)providesadetaileddescriptionof liquefactionincludingthetypesofliquefactionphenomena,evaluationof liquefactionsusceptibility,andtheeffectsofliquefaction. Allofthefollowinggeneralconditionsarenecessaryforliquefactiontooccur: Thepresenceofgroundwater,resultinginasaturatedornearly saturatedsoil. Predominantlycohesionlesssoilthathastherightgradationand composition.Liquefactionhasoccurredinsoilsrangingfromlow plasticitysiltstogravels.Cleanorsiltysandsandnon-plasticsiltsaremost susceptibletoliquefaction. Asustainedgroundmotionthatislargeenoughandactingoveralong enoughperiodoftimetodevelopexcesspore-waterpressure,equaltothe effectiveoverburdenstress,therebysignificantlyreducingeffectivestress andsoilstrength, Thestateofthesoilischaracterizedbyadensitythatislowenoughfor thesoiltoexhibitcontractivebehaviorwhenshearedundrainedunderthe initialeffectiveoverburdenstress. Methodsusedtoassessthepotentialforliquefactionrangefromempirically baseddesignmethodstocomplexnumerical,effectivestressmethodsthat canmodelthetime-dependentgenerationofpore-waterpressureanditseffect onsoilstrengthanddeformation.Furthermore,dynamicsoiltestssuchas cyclicsimpleshearorcyclictriaxialtestscanbeusedtoassessliquefaction susceptibilityandbehaviortoguideinputforliquefactionanalysisanddesign.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-33
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Liquefactionhazardassessmentincludesidentifyingsoilssusceptibleto liquefaction,evaluatingwhetherthedesignearthquakeloadingwillinitiate liquefaction,andestimatingthepotentialeffectsofliquefactionontheplanned facility.LiquefactionhazardassessmentisrequiredintheAASHTOGuide SpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesignifthesiteSeismicDesign Category(SDC)isclassifiedasSDCCorD,andthesoilisidentifiedasbeing potentiallysusceptibletoliquefaction(seeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.1). TheSDCisdefinedonthebasisofthesite-adjustedspectralaccelerationat 1second(i.e.,SD1=FvS1)whereSDCCisdefinedas0.30SD1<0.5and SDCDisdefinedasSD10.50.Whereloosetoveryloose,saturatedsandsare withinthesubsurfaceprofilesuchthatliquefactioncouldimpactthestability ofthestructure,thepotentialforliquefactioninSDCB(0.15SD1<0.3) shouldalsobeconsideredasdiscussedintheAASHTOGuideSpecifications forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign. Todeterminethelocationofsoilsthatareadequatelysaturatedforliquefaction tooccur,theseasonallyaveragedgroundwaterelevationshouldbeused. Groundwaterfluctuationscausedbytidalactionorseasonalvariationswill causethesoiltobesaturatedonlyduringalimitedperiodoftime,significantly reducingtheriskthatliquefactioncouldoccurwithinthezoneoffluctuation. Forsitesthatrequireanassessmentofliquefaction,thepotentialeffectsof liquefactiononsoilsandfoundationsshallbeevaluated.Theassessmentshall considerthefollowingeffectsofliquefaction: Lossinstrengthintheliquefiedlayer(s)withconsiderationofpotential forvoidredistributionduetothepresenceofimperviouslayerswithinor boundingaliquefiablelayer Liquefaction-inducedgroundsettlement Flowfailures,lateralspreading,andslopeinstability. Duringliquefaction,pore-waterpressurebuild-upoccurs,resultinginlossof strengthandthensettlementastheexcesspore-waterpressuresdissipateafter theearthquake.Thepotentialeffectsofstrengthlossandsettlementinclude: Slopefailure,flowfailure,orlateralspreading.Thestrengthloss associatedwithpore-waterpressurebuild-upcanleadtoslopeinstability. Generally,ifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionislessthan approximately1.2to1.3,apotentialforpore-waterpressurebuild-up willoccur,andtheeffectsofthisbuild-upshouldbeassessed.Ifthesoil liquefies,thestabilityisdeterminedbytheresidualstrengthofthesoil. Theresidualstrengthofliquefiedsoilscanbeestimatedusingempirical methods.Lossoflateralresistancecanallowabutmentsoilstomove laterally,resultinginbridgesubstructuredistortionandunacceptable deformationsandmomentsinthesuperstructure. Reduced foundation bearing resistance.Theresidualstrengthof liquefiedsoilisoftenafractionofnonliquefiedstrength.Thislossin strengthcanresultinlargedisplacementsorbearingfailure.Forthis
Page 6-34 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
reasonspreadfootingfoundationsarenotrecommendedwhereliquefiable soilsexistunlessthespreadfootingislocatedbelowthemaximumdepth ofliquefactionorsoilimprovementtechniquesareusedtomitigatethe effectsofliquefaction. Reduced soil stiffness and loss of lateral support for deep foundations. Thislossinstrengthcanchangethelateralresponsecharacteristicsofpiles andshaftsunderlateralload. Vertical ground settlement as excess pore-water pressures induced by liquefaction dissipate, resulting in downdrag loads on and loss of vertical support for deep foundations.Ifliquefaction-induceddowndrag loadscanoccur,thedowndragloadsshouldbeassessedasspecifiedin WSDOTGDMSections6.5.3and8.12.2.7,andinArticle3.11.8inthe AASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications. Theeffectsofliquefactionwilldependinlargepartontheamountofsoilthat liquefiesandthelocationoftheliquefiedsoilwithrespecttothefoundation. Onslopingground,lateralflow,spreading,andslopeinstabilitycanoccur evenongentleslopesonrelativelythinlayersofliquefiablesoils,whereasthe effectsofthinliquefiedlayeronthelateralresponseofpilesorshafts(without lateralgroundmovement)maybenegligible.Likewise,athinliquefiedlayer atthegroundsurfaceresultsinessentiallynodowndragloads,whereasthe sameliquefiedlayerdeeperinthesoilprofilecouldresultinlargedowndrag loads.Giventhesepotentialvariations,thesiteinvestigationtechniquesthat canidentifyrelativelythinlayersareafundamentalpartoftheliquefaction assessment. Thefollowingsectionsproviderequirementsforliquefactionhazard assessmentanditsmitigation. 6.4.2.1 Methods to Evaluate Potential Susceptibility of Soil to Liquefaction Evaluationofliquefactionpotentialshouldbecompletedbasedonsoil characterizationusingin-situtestingsuchasStandardPenetrationTests (SPT)andConePenetrationTests(CPT).Liquefactionpotentialmayalso beevaluatedusingshearwavevelocity(Vs)testingandBeckerPenetration Tests(BPT);however,thesemethodsarenotpreferredandareusedless frequentlythanSPTorCPTmethods.VsandBPTtestingmaybeappropriate insoilsdifficulttotestusingSPTandCPTmethods,suchasgravellysoils. IftheCPTmethodisused,SPTsamplingandsoilgradationtestingshallstill beconductedtoobtaindirectinformationonsoilgradationparametersfor liquefactionsusceptibilityassessmentandtoprovideacomparisontoCPT basedanalysis. Simplifiedscreeningcriteriatoassessthepotentialliquefactionsusceptibility ofsandsandsiltsbasedonsoilgradationandplasticityindicesshould beused.Ingeneral,gravellysandsthroughlowplasticitysiltsshouldbe consideredpotentiallyliquefiable,providedtheyaresaturatedandveryloose tomediumdense.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010 M 46-03.01 Page 6-35
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Ifamorerefinedanalysisofliquefactionpotentialisneeded,laboratory cyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluate liquefactionsusceptibilityandinitiationinlieuofempiricalsoilgradation/PI/ densitycriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6. Preliminary Screening.Adetailedevaluationofliquefactionpotentialis requiredifallofthefollowingconditionsoccuratasite,andthesiteSeismic DesignCategoryisclassifiedasSDCCorD: Theestimatedmaximumgroundwaterelevationatthesiteisdeterminedto bewithin50ftoftheexistinggroundsurfaceorproposedfinishedgrade, whicheverislower. Thesubsurfaceprofileischaracterizedintheupper75ftashavinglow plasticitysiltsorsandswithameasuredSPTresistance,correctedfor overburdendepthandhammerenergy(N160),of25blows/ft,oraconetip resistanceqciNof150,orageologicunitispresentatthesitethathasbeen observedtoliquefyinpastearthquakes.Forlowplasticitysiltsandclays, thesoilisconsideredliquefiableasdefinedbytheBrayandSancio(2006) orBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criteria. Forloosetoveryloosesandsites[e.g.,(N1)60,<10bpforqc1N,<75],a potentialexistsforliquefactioninSDCB,iftheaccelerationcoefficient,As (i.e.,PGAxFpga),is0.15orhigher.Thepotentialforandconsequencesof liquefactionforthesesiteswilldependonthedominantmagnitudeforthe seismichazardandjusthowloosethesoilis.Asthemagnitudedecreases, theliquefactionresistanceofthesoilincreasesduetothelimitednumber ofearthquakeloadingcycles.Generally,ifthemagnitudeis6orless,the potentialforliquefaction,evenintheseveryloosesoils,iseitherverylow ortheextentofliquefactionisverylimited.Nevertheless,aliquefaction assessmentshouldbemadeifloosetoveryloosesandsarepresenttoa sufficientextenttoimpactbridgestabilityandAsisgreaterthanorequalto 0.15.Theseloosetoveryloosesandsarelikelytobepresentinhydraulically placedfillsandalluvialorestuarinedepositsnearriversandwaterfronts. Ifthesitemeetstheconditionsdescribedabove,adetailedassessmentof liquefactionpotentialshallbeconducted.Ifallconditionsaremetexceptthat thewatertabledepthisgreaterthan50ftbutlessthan75ft,aliquefaction evaluationshouldstillbeconsidered,andifdeepfoundationsareused,the foundationtipsshallbelocatedbelowthebottomoftheliquefiablesoilthatis belowthewatertable,oradequatelyabovetheliquefiablezonesuchthatthe impactoftheliquefactiondoesnotcausebridgeorwallcollapse. Liquefaction Susceptibility of Silts.Liquefactionsusceptibilityofsilts shouldbeevaluatedusingthecriteriadevelopedbyBrayandSancio(2006)or BoulangerandIdriss(2006)iflaboratorycyclictriaxialorcyclicsimpleshear testsarenotconducted.TheModifiedChineseCriteria(Finn,etal.,1994) thathasbeeninuseinthepasthasbeenfoundtobeunconservativebasedon laboratoryandfieldobservations(BoulangerandIdriss,2006).Therefore,
Page 6-36
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
thenewcriteriaproposedbyBrayandSancioorBoulangerandIdrissare recommended.AccordingtotheBrayandSanciocriteria,fine-grainedsoils areconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionif: Thesoilhasawatercontent(wc)toliquidlimit(LL)ratioof0.85ormore; and Thesoilhasaplasticityindex(PI)oflessthan12. Forfinegrainedsoilsthatareoutsideoftheserangesofplasticity,cyclic softeningresultingfromseismicshakingmayneedtobeconsidered. AccordingtotheBoulangerandIdriss(2006)criterion,finegrainedsoilsare consideredsusceptibletoliquefactionifthesoilhasaPIoflessthan7.Since thereisasignificantdifferenceinthescreeningcriteriaforliquefactionof siltsinthecurrentliterature,forsoilsthataremarginallysusceptibleornot susceptibletoliquefaction,cyclictriaxialorsimpleshearlaboratorytesting ofundisturbedsamplesisrecommendedtoassesswhetherornotthesiltis susceptibletoliquefaction,ratherthanrelyingsolelyonthescreeningcriteria. Liquefaction Susceptibility of Gravels.Nospecificguidanceregarding susceptibilityofgravelstoliquefactioniscurrentlyavailable.Theprimary reasonwhygravelsmaynotliquefyisthattheirhighpermeabilityfrequently precludesthedevelopmentofundrainedconditionsduringandafter earthquakeloading.Whenboundedbylowerpermeabilitylayers,however, gravelsshouldbeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefactionandtheirliquefaction potentialevaluated.Agravelthatcontainssufficientsandtoreduceits permeabilitytoalevelnearthatofthesand,evenifnotboundedbylower permeabilitylayers,shouldalsobeconsideredsusceptibletoliquefaction anditsliquefactionpotentialevaluatedassuch.Beckerhammertesting andsamplingcouldbeusefulforobtainingarepresentativesampleofthe sandygravelthatcanbeusedtogetanaccuratesoilgradationforassessing liquefactionpotential.Downholesuspensionlogging(suspensionloggingina mudrotaryhole,notcasedboring)shouldalsobeconsideredinsuchsoils,as highqualityVstestingcanovercomethevariationinSPTtestresultscaused bythepresenceofgravels. 6.4.2.2 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Themostcommonmethodofassessingliquefactioninvolvestheuseof empiricalmethods(i.e.,SimplifiedProcedures).Thesemethodsprovidean estimateofliquefactionpotentialbasedonSPTblowcounts,CPTconetip resistance,BPTblowcounts,orshearwavevelocity.Thistypeofanalysis shouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation,evenwhenmorerigorous methodsareused.Morerigorous,nonlinear,dynamic,effectivestress computermodelsmaybeusedforsiteconditionsorsituationsthatarenot modeledwellbythesimplifiedmethods,subjecttotheapprovaloftheState GeotechnicalEngineer.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-37
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
SimplifiedProcedures.Proceduresthatshouldbeusedforevaluating liquefactionsusceptibilityusingSPT,CPT,Vs,andBPTcriteriaareprovided inYoudetal.(2001).Youdetal.summarizetheconsensusoftheprofession uptoyear2000regardingtheuseofthesimplified(i.e.,empirical)methods. Sincethepublicationofthisconsensuspaper,variousothermodificationsto theconsensusapproachhavebeenintroduced,includingthosebyCetinet al.(2004),Mossetal.(2006),BoulangerandIdriss(2006),andIdrissand Boulanger(2008).Thesemorerecentmodificationstothesemethodsaccount foradditionstothedatabaseonliquefaction,aswellasrefinementsinthe interpretationofcasehistorydata.Theupdatedmethodspotentiallyoffer improvedestimatesofliquefactionpotential,andshouldbeconsideredfor use. Thesimplifiedproceduresarebasedoncomparingthecyclicresistance ratio(CRR)ofasoillayer(i.e.,thecyclicshearstressrequiredtocause liquefaction)totheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratio(CSR).The CRRisafunctionofthesoilrelativedensityasrepresentedbyanindex propertymeasure(e.g.,SPTblowcount),thefinescontentofthesoiltaken intoaccountthroughthesoilindexpropertyused,thein-situverticaleffective stress as represented by a factor K,anearthquakemagnitudescalingfactor, andpossiblyotherfactorsrelatedtothegeologichistoryofthesoil.The soilindexpropertiesareusedtoestimateliquefactionresistancebasedon empiricalchartsrelatingtheresistanceavailabletospecificindexproperties (i.e.,SPT,CPT,BPTorshearwavevelocityvalues)andcorrectedtoan equivalentmagnitudeof7.5usingamagnitudescalingfactor.Theearthquake magnitudeisusedtoempiricallyaccountforthedurationofshakingor numberofcycles. Thebasicformofthesimplifiedproceduresusedtocalculatetheearthquake inducedCSRfortheSimplifiedMethodisasshowninEquation6-8: rd A o CSR = 0.65 max (6-8) g o MSF Where Amax = peakgroundaccelerationaccountingforsiteamplification effects g = accelerationduetogravity o = initialtotalverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated o = initialeffectiveverticalstressatdepthbeingevaluated rd = stressreductioncoefficient MSF= magnitudescalingfactor NotethatAmaxisthePGAtimestheaccelerationduetogravity,sincethePGA isactuallyanaccelerationcoefficient,andAmax/gisequaltoAs.
Page 6-38
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
ThefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionisdefinedbyEquation6-9: FSliq=CRR/CSR (6-9)
TheSPTprocedurehasbeenmostwidelyusedandhastheadvantageof providingsoilsamplesforgradationandAtterberglimitstesting.TheCPT providesthemostdetailedsoilstratigraphy,islessexpensive,canprovide shearwavevelocitymeasurements,andismorereproducible.IftheCPTis used,soilsamplesshallbeobtainedusingtheSPTorothermethodssothat detailedgradationalandplasticityanalysescanbeconducted.Theuseofboth SPTandCPTprocedurescanprovideadetailedliquefactionassessmentfor asite. WhereSPTdataisused,samplingandtestingshallbeconductedin accordancewithWSDOTGDMChapter3.Inaddition: Correctionfactorsforboreholediameter,rodlength,hammertype,and samplerlinersshouldbeused,whereappropriate. Wheregravelsorcobblesarepresent,theuseofshortintervaladjusted SPTNvaluesmaybeeffectiveforestimatingtheNvaluesfortheportions ofthesamplenotaffectedbygravelsorcobbles. BlowcountsobtainedwhensamplingusingDamesandMooreor modifiedCaliforniasamplersornon-standardhammerweightsanddrop heights,includingwirelineanddownholehammers,shallnotbeusedfor liquefactionevaluations. AsdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.1.2.2,thelimitationsofthe simplifiedproceduresshouldberecognized.Thesimplifiedprocedureswere developedfromempiricalevaluationsoffieldobservations.Mostofthecase historydatawascollectedfromleveltogentlyslopingterrainunderlainby Holocene-agealluvialorfluvialsedimentatdepthslessthan50ft.Therefore, thesimplifiedproceduresaremostdirectlyapplicabletothesesiteconditions. Cautionshouldbeusedforevaluatingliquefactionpotentialatdepths greaterthan50ftusingthesimplifiedprocedures.Inaddition,thesimplified proceduresestimatetheearthquakeinducedcyclicshearstressratiobasedona coefficient,rd,thatishighlyvariableatdepthasdiscussedinWSDOTGDM Section6.1.2.2. Asanalternativetotheuseoftherdfactor,toimprovetheassessmentof liquefactionpotential,especiallyatgreaterdepths,ifsoftorloosesoils arepresent,equivalentlinearornonlinearsitespecific,onedimensional groundresponseanalysesmaybeconductedtodeterminethemaximum earthquakeinducedshearstressesatdepthintheSimplifiedMethod.For example,thelineartotalstresscomputerprogramsProShake(EduProCivil Systems,1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000)maybeusedforthispurpose. Considerationshouldbegiventotheconsistencyofsitespecificanalyseswith theproceduresusedtodeveloptheliquefactionresistancecurves.Aminimum ofsevenspectrallymatchedtimehistoriesshouldbeusedtoconductthese analyses to obtain a reasonably stable mean rdvalueasafunctionofdepth.
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Nonlinear Effective Stress Methods.Analternativetothesimplified proceduresforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibilityistocompletea nonlinear,effectivestresssiteresponseanalysisutilizingacomputercode capableofmodelingporewaterpressuregenerationanddissipation,suchas D-MOD2000(Matasovi,etal.,2007).Thisisamorerigorousanalysisthat requiresadditionalparameterstodescribethestress-strainbehaviorandpore pressuregenerationcharacteristicsofthesoil. Theadvantageswiththismethodofanalysisincludetheabilitytoassess liquefactionpotentialatalldepths,includingthosegreaterthan50ft,and theeffectsofliquefactionandlargeshearstrainsonthegroundmotion.In addition,pore-waterredistributionduringandfollowingshakingcanbe modeled,seismicallyinduceddeformationcanbeestimated,andthetimingof liquefactionanditseffectsongroundmotionatandbelowthegroundsurface canbeassessed. Severalone-dimensionalnon-linear,effectivestressanalysisprogramsare availableforestimatingliquefactionsusceptibilityatdepth,andthesemethods arebeingusedmorefrequentlybygeotechnicaldesigners.However,agreat dealofcautionneedstobeexercisedwiththeseprograms,astherehasbeen littleverificationoftheabilityoftheseprogramstopredictliquefaction atdepthsgreaterthan50ft.Thislimitationispartlytheresultofthevery fewwelldocumentedsiteswithpore-waterpressuremeasurementsduring liquefaction,eitheratshallowordeepdepths,andpartlytheresultofthe one-dimensionalapproximation.Forthisreasongreaterreliancemustbe placedonobservedresponsefromlaboratorytestingorcentrifugemodeling when developing the soil andporepressuremodelsusedintheeffectivestress analysismethod.Thesuccessoftheeffectivestressmodelis,therefore,tied inparttotheabilityofthelaboratoryorcentrifugemodelingtoreplicatefield conditions. Akeyissuethatcanaffecttheresultsobtainedfromnonlineareffective stressanalysesiswhetherornot,orhowwell,theporepressuremodelused addressessoildilationduringshearing.Evenifgoodporepressuredatafrom laboratoryliquefactiontestingisavailable,themodelsusedinsomeeffective stressanalysismethodsmaynotbesufficienttoadequatelymodeldilation duringshearingofliquefiedsoils.Thislimitationmayresultinunconservative predictionsofgroundresponsewhenadeeplayerliquefiesearlyduring groundshaking.Theinabilitytotransferenergythroughtheliquefiedlayer couldresultinshieldingofupperlayersfromstronggroundshaking, potentiallyleadingtoanunconservativesiteresponse.SeeWSDOTGDM Appendix6-Aforadditionalconsiderationsregardingmodelingaccuracies. Two-dimensionaleffectivestressanalysismodelscanovercomesomeofthese deficiencies,providedthatagoodsoilandporepressuremodelisused(e.g., theUBCsandmodel)seeWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.However,theyare evenmorecomplextouseandcertainlynotfornovicedesigners.
Page 6-40
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Itshouldalsoberecognizedthattheresultsofnonlineareffectivestress analysescanbequitesensitivetosoilparametersthatareoftennotaswell establishedasthoseusedinequivalentlinearanalyses.Therefore,itis incumbentupontheusertocalibratethemodel,evaluatethesensitivityofits resultstoanyuncertainparametersormodelingassumptions,andconsider thatsensitivityintheinterpretationoftheresults.Therefore,thegeotechnical designermustprovidedocumentationthattheirmodelhasbeenvalidated andcalibratedwithfielddata,centrifugedata,and/orextensivesensitivity analyses. Analysisresultsfromnonlineareffectivestressanalysesshallnotbe consideredsufficientjustificationtoconcludethattheupper40to50ftof soilwillnotliquefyasaresultofthegroundmotiondampeningeffect(i.e., shielding,orlossofenergy)causedbydeeperliquefiablelayers.However, theempiricalliquefactionanalysesidentifiedinthisWSDOTGDMsection maybeusedtojustifythatsoillayersandlenseswithintheupper65ftof soilwillnotliquefy.Thissoil/porepressuremodeldeficiencyfornonlinear effectivestressmethodologiescouldbecrudelyandconservativelyaddressed byselectivelymodifyingsoilparametersand/orturningofftheporepressure generationingivenlayerstobrackettheresponse. Duetothehighlyspecializednatureofthesemoresophisticatedliquefaction assessmentapproaches,approvalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineeris requiredtousenonlineareffectivestressmethodsforliquefactionevaluation. 6.4.2.3 Minimum Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction Liquefactionhazardsassessmentandthedevelopmentofhazardmitigation measuresshallbeconductedifthefactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction (Equation6-9)islessthan1.2orifthesoilisdeterminedtobeliquefiable forthereturnperiodofinterest(e.g.,975years)usingtheperformancebased approachasdescribedbyKramerandMayfield(2007)andKramer(2008). PerformancebasedtechniquescanbeaccomplishedusingtheWSLIQ software(Kramer,2008).Thehazardlevelusedforthisanalysisshallbe consistentwiththehazardlevelselectedforthestructureforwhichthe liquefactionanalysisisbeingconducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedance of7percentin75yearsinaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecifications forLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign).Liquefactionhazardstobeassessed includesettlementandrelatedeffects,andliquefactioninducedinstability (e.g.,flowfailureorlateralspreading),andtheeffectsofliquefaction onfoundations.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-41
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.4.2.4
Liquefaction Induced Settlement Bothdryandsaturateddepositsofloosegranularsoilstendtodensifyand settleduringand/orfollowingearthquakeshaking.Settlementofunsaturated granulardepositsisdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3.Settlement ofsaturatedgranulardepositsduetoliquefactionshallbeestimatedusing techniquesbasedontheSimplifiedProcedure,orifnonlineareffectivestress modelsareusedtoassessliquefactioninaccordancewithWSDOTGDM Section6.5.2.1,suchmethodsmayalsobeusedtoestimateliquefaction settlement. IftheSimplifiedProcedureisusedtoevaluateliquefactionpotential, liquefactioninducedgroundsettlementofsaturatedgranulardepositsshould beestimatedusingtheproceduresbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)orIshihara andYoshimine(1992).TheTokimatsuandSeed(1987)procedureestimates thevolumetricstrainasafunctionofearthquakeinducedCSRandcorrected SPTblowcounts.TheIshiharaandYoshimine(1992)procedureestimatesthe volumetricstrainasafunctionoffactorofsafetyagainstliquefaction,relative density,andcorrectedSPTblowcountsornormalizedCPTtipresistance. Examplechartsusedtoestimateliquefactioninducedsettlementusingthe TokimatsuandSeedprocedureandtheIshiharaandYoshimineprocedureare presentedasFigures6-12and6-13,respectively. Ifamorerefinedanalysisofliquefactioninducedsettlementisneeded, laboratorycyclictriaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedto evaluatetheliquefactioninducedverticalsettlementinlieuofempiricalSPT orCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6. Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation, evenwhenlaboratoryvolumetricstraintestresultsareobtainedandusedfor design,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytestresults.
Page 6-42
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Tokimatsu & Seed procedure (Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987).
Figure 6-12
M 46-03.01
Page 6-43
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Liquefaction induced settlement estimated using the Ishihara and Yoshimine procedure (Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1992)
Figure 6-13
Page 6-44
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
6.4.2.5
Residual Strength Parameters Liquefactioninducedinstabilityisstronglyinfluencedbytheresidualstrength oftheliquefiedsoil.Instabilityoccurswhentheshearstressesrequired tomaintainequilibriumexceedtheresidualstrengthofthesoildeposit. Evaluationofresidualstrengthofaliquefiedsoildepositisoneofthemost difficultproblemsingeotechnicalpractice(Kramer,1996).Avarietyof empiricalmethodsareavailabletoestimatetheresidualstrengthofliquefied soils.TheempiricalrelationshipsprovidedinFigures6-4through6-7and Table6-3shouldbeusedtoestimateresidualstrengthofliquefiedsoilunless soilspecificlaboratoryperformancetestsareconductedasdescribedbelow. Theseproceduresforestimatingtheresidualstrengthofaliquefiedsoil depositarebasedonanempiricalrelationshipbetweenresidualundrained shearstrengthandequivalentcleansandSPTblowcountsorCPTqc1nvalues, usingtheresultsofback-calculationoftheapparentshearstrengthsfromcase historiesoflargedisplacementflowslides.Thesignificantlevelofuncertainty intheseestimatesofresidualstrengthshouldbeaccountedforindesignand evaluationcalculations. Ifamorerefinedanalysisofresidualstrengthisneeded,laboratorycyclic triaxialshearorcyclicsimplesheartestingmaybeusedtoevaluatethe residualstrengthinlieuofempiricalSPTorCPTbasedcriteria,inaccordance withWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6. Theempiricallybasedanalysesshouldbeconductedasabaselineevaluation, evenwhenlaboratoryresidualshearstrengthtestresultsareobtainedandused fordesign,toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessofthelaboratorytest results.Thefinalresidualshearstrengthvalueselectedshouldalsoconsider theshearstrainlevelinthesoilthatcanbetoleratedbythestructureorslope impactedbythereducedshearstrengthinthesoil(i.e.,howmuchlateral deformationcanthestructuretolerate?).Numericalmodelingtechniquesmay beusedtodeterminethesoilshearstrainlevelthatresultsinthemaximum tolerablelateraldeformationofthestructurebeingdesigned.
6.4.2.6 Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Effects Using Laboratory Test Data Ifamorerefinedanalysisofliquefactionpotential,liquefactioninduced settlement,orresidualstrengthofliquefiedsoilisneeded,laboratorycyclic simpleshearorcyclictriaxialsheartestingmaybeusedinlieuofempirical soilgradation/PI/density(i.e.,SPTorCPTbased)criteria,ifhighquality undisturbedsamplescanbeobtained.Laboratorycyclicsimpleshearorcyclic triaxialsheartestingmayalsobeusedtoevaluateliquefactionsusceptibility ofandeffectsonsandysoilsfromreconstitutedsoilsamples.However,due tothedifficultiesincreatingsoiltestspecimensthatarerepresentativeofthe actualin-situsoil,liquefactiontestingofreconstitutedsoilmaybeconducted onlyifapprovedbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-45
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Thenumberofcycles,andeitherthecyclicstressratios(stress-controlled testing)orcyclicshearstrain(strain-controlledtesting)usedduringthecyclic testingtoliquefyortoattempttoliquefythesoil,shouldcovertherangeof thenumberofcyclesandcyclicloadinganticipatedfortheearthquake/ground motionbeingmodeled.Testingtomorethanonestressorstrainratioshould bedonetofullycapturetherangeofstressorstrainratiosthatcouldoccur. Preliminarycalculationsorcomputeranalysestoestimatethelikelycyclic stressesand/orstrainsanticipatedshouldbeconductedtohelpprovideabasis forselectionofthecyclicloadinglevelstobeusedforthetesting.Thevertical confiningstressshouldbeconsistentwiththein-situverticaleffectivestress estimatedatthelocationwherethesoilsamplewasobtained.ThereforeKoconsolidationisrequiredintriaxialtests. Definingliquefactionintheselaboratorytestscanbesomewhatproblematic. Theoretically,initialliquefactionisdefinedasbeingachievedoncetheexcess porepressureratiointhespecimen,ru,isat100percent.Theassessment of whether or not this has been achieved in the laboratory tested specimen dependsonhowtheporepressureismeasuredinthespecimen,andthe typeofsoilcontainedinthespecimen.Asthesoilgetssiltier,thegreater thepossibilitythatthesoilwillexhibitfullyliquefiedbehavior(i.e.,initial liquefaction)atameasuredporepressureinthespecimenofsignificantly lessthan100percent.Amorepracticalapproachthatshouldbeusedinthis caseistouseastrainbaseddefinitiontoidentifytheoccurrenceofenough cyclicsofteningtoconsiderthesoiltohavereachedafailurestatecausedby liquefaction.Typically,ifthesoilreachesshearstrainsduringcyclicloading of3percentormore,thesoil,forpracticalpurposes,maybeconsideredto haveachievedastateequivalenttoinitialliquefaction. Notethatifthetestingiscarriedoutwellbeyondinitialliquefaction,cyclic triaxialtestingisnotrecommended.Inthatcase,neckingofthespecimen canoccur,makingthecyclictriaxialtestresultsnotrepresentativeoffield conditions. Forthepurposeofestimatingliquefactioninducedsettlement,afterthecyclic shearingiscompleted,withtheverticalstressleftonthespecimen,thevertical strainismeasuredastheexcessporepressureisallowedtodissipate. Notethatonceinitialliquefactionhasbeenachieved,volumetricstrains arenotjustaffectedbytheexcessporepressuregeneratedthroughcyclic loading,butarealsoaffectedbydamagetothesoilskeletonascyclic loadingcontinues.Therefore,toobtainamoreaccurateestimateofpost liquefactionsettlement,thespecimenshouldbecyclicallyloadedtothedegree anticipatedinthefield,whichmaymeancontinuingcyclicloadingafterinitial liquefactionisachieved.
Page 6-46
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifiedgroundmotionmodeling techniques(e.g.,specificationbasedgroundresponseanalysisortotalstress sitespecificgroundmotionanalysis),volumetricstrainshouldbemeasured onlyforfullyliquefiedconditions.Ifeffectivestressgroundmotionanalysis (e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,volumetricstrainmeasurementsshouldbe conductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloadingcyclespredictedby theeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeingmodeledatthelocation inthesoilprofilebeingmodeled,whetherornotthatcombinationresults inafullyliquefiedstate.Verticalsettlementpredictionshouldbemadeby usingthelaboratorytestdatatodeveloparelationshipbetweenthemeasured volumetricstrainandeithertheshearstraininthelabtestspecimensorthe excessporepressuremeasuredinthespecimens,andcorrelatingthepredicted shearstrainorexcessporepressureprofilepredictedfromtheeffectivestress analysistothelaboratorytestresultstoestimatesettlementfromvolumetric strain;however,theshearstrainapproachispreferred. Toobtaintheliquefiedresidualstrength,afterthecyclicshearingis completed,thedrainlinesinthetestshouldbeleftclosed,andthesample shearedstatically.Ifthetestresultsaretobeusedwithsimplifiedground motionmodelingtechniques(e.g.,specificationbasedgroundresponse analysisortotalstresssitespecificgroundmotionanalysis),residualstrength shouldbemeasuredonlyforfullyliquefiedconditions.Ifeffectivestress groundmotionanalysis(e.g.,D-MOD)isconducted,residualshearstrength testingshouldbeconductedatthecyclicstressratioandnumberofloading cyclespredictedbytheeffectivestressanalysisfortheearthquakebeing modeledatthelocationinthesoilprofilebeingmodeled,whetherornotthat combinationresultsinafullyliquefiedstate. SeeKramer(1996),Seed.etal.(2003),andIdrissandBoulanger(2008)for additionaldetailsandcautionsregardinglaboratoryevaluationofliquefaction potentialanditseffects. 6.4.2.7 Weakening Instability Due to Liquefaction Earthquakegroundmotioninducesstressandstraininthesoil,resultingin porepressuregenerationandliquefactioninsaturatedsoil.Asthesoilstrength decreasestowarditsresidualvalue,twotypesofslopeinstabilitycanoccur: flowfailure,andlateralspreading. Liquefaction Induced Flow Failure:Liquefactioncanleadtocatastrophic flowfailuresdrivenbystaticshearingstressesthatleadtolargedeformationor flow.Suchfailuresaresimilartodebrisflowsandarecharacterizedbysudden initiation,rapidfailure,andthelargedistancesoverwhichthefailedmaterials move(Kramer,1996).Flowfailurestypicallyoccurneartheendofstrong shakingorshortlyaftershaking.However,delayedflowfailurescausedby post-earthquakeredistributionofporewaterpressurescanoccurparticularly ifliquefiablesoilsarecappedbyrelativelyimpermeablelayers.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-47
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedflowfailuresshouldbeevaluatedusing conventionallimitequilibriumslopestabilityanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM Section6.4.3),usingresidualundrainedshearstrengthparametersforthe liquefiedsoil,anddecouplingtheanalysisfromallseismicinertialforces (i.e.,performedwithkhandkvequaltozero).Ifthelimitequilibriumfactor ofsafety,FS,islessthan1.0,flowfailureshallbeconsideredlikely.Inthese instances,themagnitudeofdeformationisusuallytoolargetobeacceptable fordesignofbridgesorstructures,andsomeformofmitigationwilllikelybe needed.Theexceptioniswheretheliquefiedmaterialandanyoverlyingcrust flowpastthestructureandthestructureanditsfoundationsystemcanresist theimposedloads.Wherethefactorofsafetyforthisdecoupledanalysisis greaterthan1.0forliquefiedconditions,deformationsshouldbeestimated usingalateralspreadinganalysis(seethesubsectionLateralSpreading, below,especiallyregardingcautionsinconductingthesetypesofanalyses). Residualstrengthvaluestobeusedintheflowfailureanalysismaybe determinedfromempiricalrelationships(SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.5) orfromlaboratorytestresults.Iflaboratorytestresultsareusedtoassessthe residualstrengthofthesoilthatispredictedtoliquefyandpotentiallycause aflowfailure,theshearingresistancemaybeverystraindependent.Asa default,thelaboratorymobilizedresidualstrengthvalueusedshouldbepicked atastrainof2percent,assumingtheresidualstrengthvalueisdetermined fromlaboratorytestingasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.6.A higherstrainvaluemaybeusedforthispurpose,subjecttotheapprovalof theStateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineer,ifitisknown thattheaffectedstructurecantoleratearelativelylargelateraldeformation withoutcollapse.Alternatively,numericalmodelingmaybeconductedto developtherelationshipbetweensoilshearstrainandslopedeformation, pickingamobilizedresidualstrengthvaluethatcorrespondstothemaximum deformationthattheaffectedstructurecantolerate. Lateral Spreading.Incontrasttoflowfailures,lateralspreadingcanoccur whentheshearstrengthoftheliquefiedsoilisincrementallyexceededbythe inertialforcesinducedduringanearthquakeorwhensoilstiffnessdegrades sufficientlytoproducesubstantialpermanentstraininthesoil.Theresult oflateralspreadingistypicallyhorizontalmovementofnon-liquefiedsoils locatedaboveliquefiedsoils,inadditiontotheliquefiedsoilsthemselves. Ifthefactorofsafetyforslopestabilityfromtheflowfailureanalysis, assumingresidualstrengthsinalllayersexpectedtoexperienceliquefied conditions,is1.0orgreater,alateralspreading/deformationanalysisshallbe conducted.Thisanalysisdoesnotneedtobeconductedifthedepthbelowthe naturalgroundsurfacetotheupperboundaryoftheliquefiedlayersisgreater than50ft. Thepotentialforliquefactioninducedlateralspreadingongentlysloping sitesorwherethesiteislocatednearafreefaceshouldbeevaluatedusing empiricalrelationshipssuchastheprocedureofYoudetal.(2002)orKramer
Page 6-48
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
(2008).TheYoud,etal.andKramerproceduresuseempiricalrelationships basedoncasehistoriesoflateralspreading.Inputintothesemodels includeearthquakemagnitude,source-to-sitedistance,sitegeometry/slope, cumulativethicknessofsaturatedsoillayersandtheircharacteristics(e.g., SPTNvalues,averagefinescontent,averagegrainsize).Theseempirical proceduresprovideausefulapproximationofthepotentialmagnitudeof deformation that is calibrated against lateral spreading deformations observed inactualearthquakes. MorecomplexanalysessuchastheNewmarktimehistoryanalysisand dynamicstressdeformationmodels,suchasprovidedintwo-dimensional, nonlineareffectivestresscomputerprograms(e.g.,PLAXISandFLAC), mayalsobeusedtoestimatelateralspreadingdeformations.However,these analysisprocedureshavenotbeencalibratedtoobservedperformancewith regardtolateralmovementscausedbyliquefaction,andtherearemany complexitieswithregardtodevelopmentofinputparametersandapplication ofthemethodtorealisticconditions. IfaNewmarktimehistoryanalysisisconductedtoobtainanestimateof lateralspreadingdisplacement,thenumberofcyclestoinitiateliquefactionfor the time history selected for analysis needs to be considered when selecting ayieldaccelerationtoapplytothevariousportionsofthetimehistory. Initially,theyieldaccelerationwillbehigh,asthesoilwillnothaveliquefied (i.e.,non-liquefiedsoilstrengthparametersshouldbeusedtodeterminethe yieldacceleration).Asthesoilexcessporepressurebeginstobuildupwith additionalloadingcycles,theyieldaccelerationwillbegintodecrease.Once initialliquefactionorcyclicsofteningoccurs,theresidualstrengthisthenused todeterminetheyieldacceleration.Notethatiftheyieldaccelerationapplied totheentireaccelerationtimehistoryisbasedonresidualstrengthconsistent withliquefiedconditions,theestimatedlateraldeformationwilllikelybe overlyconservative.Toaddressthisissue,aneffectivestressgroundmotion analysis(e.g.,D-MOD)shouldbeconductedtoestimatethebuildupof porepressureandthedevelopmentofliquefactionastheearthquakeshaking continuestoobtainanimprovedestimateofthedropinsoilshearstrengthand yieldaccelerationasafunctionoftime. SimplifiedchartsbasedonNewmark-typeanalyses(seeWSDOTGDM Section6.4.3.2)mayalsobeusedforestimatingdeformationresulting fromlateralspreading.ThesesimplifiedNewmarktypeanalyseshavesome empiricalbasisbuiltinwithregardtoestimationofdeformation.However, thesesimplified,empiricallymodifiedNewmarkanalysesmaynotbe directlyapplicabletolateralspreading,astheywerenotdevelopedforsoil thatweakensduringearthquakeshaking,asisthecaseforsoilliquefaction. Therefore,asistrueofNewmarktimehistoryanalyses,thesesimplified Newmarkbasedchartsshouldbeusedcautiously,especiallywithregardtothe selectionofayieldaccelerationtobeusedtoenterthesedesignchartsorthe equationsuponwhichtheyarebased.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-49
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Thereisnoconsensusonthebestapproachtousetoestimatelateralspreading deformations.Ifthemorerigorousapproachesareused,theempirically basedanalysesshallstillbeconductedtoprovideabaselineofcomparison, toqualitativelycheckthereasonablenessoftheestimatesfromthemore rigorousprocedures,usingthemorerigorousapproachestoevaluatetheeffect ofvariousinputparametersondeformation.SeeYoud,etal.(2002),Kramer (1996,2008),Seed,etal.(2003),andDickenson,etal.(2002)foradditional discussionontheassessmentofslopedeformationsresultingfromlateral spreading. Arelatedissueishowfarawaythefreefacemustbebeforelateralspreading neednotbeconsidered.Lateralspreadinghasbeenobserveduptoabout 1,000ftfromthefreefaceinpastearthquakes(Youd,etal.,2002).Available casehistorydataalsoindicatethatdeformationsatL/Hratiosgreaterthan20, whereListhedistancefromthefreefaceorchannelandHistheheightof thefreefaceofchannelslope,aretypicallyreducedtolessthan20percentof thelateraldeformationatthefreeface(IdrissandBoulanger,2008).Detailed analysisoftheYoud,etal.databaseindicatesthatonlytwoof97caseshad observablelateralspreadingdeformationatL/Hratiosaslargeas50to70.If lateralspreadingcalculationsusingtheseempiricalproceduresareconducted atdistancesgreaterthan1,000ftfromthefreefaceorL/Hratiosgreaterthan 20,additionalevaluationoflateralspreadingdeformationusingmorecomplex orrigorousapproachesshouldalsobeconducted. 6.4.2.8 Combining Seismic Inertial Loading with Analyses Using Liquefied Soil Strength Thenumberofloadingcyclesrequiredtoinitiateliquefaction,andhence thetimeatwhichliquefactionistriggered,tendstovarywiththerelative densityandcompositionofthesoil(i.e.,densersoilsrequiremorecyclesof loadingtocauseinitialliquefaction).Whetherornotthegeologichazardsthat resultfromliquefaction(e.g.,lateralsoildisplacementsuchasflowfailure andlateralspreading,reducedsoilstiffnessandstrength,andsettlement/ downdrag)areconcurrentwiththestrongestportionofthedesignearthquake groundmotiondependsonthedurationofthemotionandtheresistanceof thesoiltoliquefaction.Forshortdurationgroundmotionsand/orrelatively densesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredneartheendofshaking.Inthiscase, thestructureofinterestisunlikelytobesubjectedtohighinertialforcesafter thesoilhasreachedaliquefiedstate,andtheevaluationofthepeakinertial demandsonthestructurecanbeessentiallydecoupledfromevaluationof thedeformationdemandsassociatedwithsoilliquefaction.However,for long-durationmotions(whichareusuallyassociatedwithlargemagnitude earthquakes)and/orveryloosesoils,liquefactionmaybetriggeredearlyinthe motion,andthestructuremaybesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethesoil isinaliquefiedstate.Inthiscase,coupledestimationoftheinertialdemands andliquefaction-induceddeformationdemandsshouldbeconsidered.
Page 6-50
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Withregardtoflowfailureprediction,eventhoughthereisapossibilitythat seismicinertialforcesmaybeconcurrentwiththeliquefiedconditions,itis thestaticstressesthatdrivetheflowfailureandthedeformationsthatresult fromthefailure.Thedynamicstressespresenthavelittleimpactonthistype ofslopefailure.Therefore,slopestabilityanalysesconductedtoassessthe potentialforflowfailureresultingfromliquefactionshouldbeconducted withoutslopeandstructureseismicinertialforces(i.e.,khandkvaresetequal tozero). Withregardtolateralspreadingprediction,thetimingoftheonsetof liquefactionrelativetothetimingandmagnitudeofthesoilinertialforces causedbytheearthquakegroundmotionisatleastindirectlyconsideredif theempiricalmethods(e.g.,Youd,etal.2002,Kramer1996,2008andSeed, etal.2003),orthesimplifiedNewmarkanalysesdescribedinWSDOTGDM Section6.4.3.2(e.g.,BrayandTravasarou,2007),areused.Theseempirical methodstoestimatedisplacementscausedbylateralspreadingshouldbe consideredapproximate. Thereiscurrentlynoconsensusonhowtospecificallyaddressthisissueof timingofseismicaccelerationandthedevelopmentofinitialliquefaction anditscombinedimpactonthestructure.Morerigorousanalyses,suchasby usingnonlinear,effectivestressmethods,aretypicallyneededtoanalytically assessthistimingissue.Nonlinear,effectivestressmethodscanaccountfor thebuild-upinpore-waterpressureandthedegradationofsoilstiffnessand strengthinliquefiablelayers.Useofthesemorerigorousapproachesrequires considerableskillintermsofselectingmodelparameters,particularlythe porepressuremodel.Thecomplexityofthemorerigorousapproachesissuch thatapprovalbytheStateGeotechnicalEngineertousetheseapproachesis mandatory,andanindependentpeerreviewerwithexpertiseinnonlinear, effectivestressmodelingshouldbeusedtoreviewthespecificmethodsused, thedevelopmentoftheinputdata,howthemethodsareapplied,andthe resultingimpacts. Sinceseismicinertialforcesareactingonthesoilduringthedevelopmentof lateralspreading,logically,inertialforcesmayalsobeactingonthestructure itselfconcurrentlywiththedevelopmentoflateralforcesonthestructure foundation.However,thereareseveralfactorsthatmayaffectthemagnitude ofthestructuralinertialloads,ifany,actingonthefoundation.Brandenberg, etal.(2007aandb)provideexamplesfromcentrifugemodelingregarding thecombinedaffectoflateralspreadingandseismicstructuralinertialforces onfoundationloadsandsomeconsiderationsforassessingtheseinertial forces.Theyfoundthatthetotalloadonthefoundationwasapproximately 40percenthigheronaveragethantheloadscausedbythelateralspreading alone.However,thestructuralcolumnusedinthistestingdidnotdevelop anyplastichinging,which,haditoccurredcouldhaveresultedinstructural inertialloadstransmittedtothefoundationthatcouldhavebeenaslowasonefourthofwhatwasmeasuredinthistesting.Anotherfactorthatcouldaffect thepotentialcombinationoflateralspreadingandstructuralinertialoadsis howclosethefoundationistotheinitiationpoint(i.e.,downslopeend)forthe
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
lateralspreading,asittakestimeforthelateralspreadtopropagateupslope anddeveloptoitsfullextent.ThecurrentAASHTOGuideSpecifications forseismicdesigndoallowthelateralspreadingforcestobedecoupled fromanybridgeseismicinertialforces.However,thepotentialforsome combinedeffectoflateralspreadforceswithstructuralinertialloadsshouldbe consideredifthestructureislikelytobesubjectedtostrongshakingwhilethe soilisinaliquefiedstate,ifthefoundationislocatednearthetoeofthelateral spread,andifminimalplastichingingofthecolumnisanticipated. Thistimingissuealsoaffectsliquefaction-inducedsettlementanddowndrag, inthatsettlementanddowndragdonotgenerallyoccuruntilthepore pressuresinducedbygroundshakingbegintodissipateaftershakingceases. Therefore,ade-coupledanalysisisappropriatewhenconsideringliquefaction downdragloads. Whenconsideringtheeffectofliquefactionontheresistanceofthesoilto structurefoundationloadsbothintheaxial(vertical)andlateral(horizontal) directions,twoanalysesshouldbeconductedtoaddressthetimingissue.For siteswhereliquefactionoccursaroundstructurefoundations,structuresshould beanalyzedanddesignedintwoconfigurationsasfollows: NonliquefiedConfiguration.Thestructureshouldbeanalyzedand designed,assumingnoliquefactionoccursusingthegroundresponse spectrumappropriateforthesitesoilconditionsinanonliquefiedstate, i.e.,usingP-Ycurvesderivedfromstaticsoilproperties. LiquefiedConfiguration.Thestructureasdesignedinnonliquefied configurationaboveshouldbereanalyzedassumingthatthelayerhas liquefiedandtheliquefiedsoilprovidestheappropriateresidualresistance forlateralandaxialdeepfoundationresponseanalysesconsistentwith liquefiedsoilconditions(i.e.,modifiedP-Ycurves,modulusofsubgrade reaction,T-Zcurves,axialsoilfrictionalresistance).Thedesignspectrum shouldbethesameasthatusedinnonliquefiedconfiguration. WiththeapprovaloftheStateBridgeandStateGeotechnicalEngineers, asite-specificresponsespectrum(forsitespecificspectralanalysis)or nonlineartimehistoriesdevelopednearthegroundsurface(fornonlinear structuralanalysis)thataccountsforthemodificationsinspectralcontent fromtheliquefyingsoilmaybedeveloped.Themodifiedresponsespectrum, andassociatedtimehistories,resultingfromthesite-specificanalysesat thegroundsurfaceshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthespectrum(i.e.,as appliedtothespectralordinateswithintheentirespectrum)developedusing thegeneralproceduredescribedintheAASHTOGuideSpecificationsfor LRFDBridgeSeismicDesign,Article3.4.1,modifiedbythesitecoefficients inArticle3.4.2.3.IfthesoilandbedrockconditionsareclassifiedasSiteClass F,however,thereisnoAASHTOgeneralprocedurespectrum.Inthatcase,the reducedresponsespectrum,andassociatedtimehistories,thataccountsfor theeffectsofliquefactionshallnotbelessthantwo-thirdsofthesitespecific responsespectrumdevelopedfromanequivalentlineartotalstressanalysis (i.e.,nonliquefiedconditions).
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Designingstructuresforthesetwoconfigurationsshouldproduceconservative results.Typically,thenonliquefiedconfigurationwillcontroltheloads appliedtothestructureandthereforeisusedtodeterminetheloadswithin thestructure,whereastheliquefiedconfigurationwillcontrolthemaximum deformationsinthestructureandisthereforeusedtodesignthestructurefor deformation.Insomecases,thisapproachmaybemoreconservativethan necessary,andthedesignermayuseamorerefinedanalysistoassessthe combinedeffectofstrongshakingandliquefactionimpacts,consideringthat botheffectsmaynotactsimultaneously.However,YoudandCarter(2005) suggestthatatperiodsgreaterthan1second,itispossibleforliquefactionto resultinhigherspectralaccelerationsthanoccurforequivalentnonliquefied cases,allotherconditionsbeingequal.Site-specificgroundmotionresponse evaluationsmayberequiredtoevaluatethispotential. 6.4.3 Slope Instability Due to Inertial Effects Slopeinstabilitycanoccurduringearthquakesduetoinertialeffects associatedwithgroundaccelerations.Inertialslopeinstabilityiscausedby temporaryexceedanceofthesoilstrengthbydynamicearthquakestresses.In general,thesoilstrengthremainsunaffectedbytheearthquakeshakinginthis case. Slopeinstabilitycanalsobeinitiatedduringaseismiceventduetothe weakeningofthesoilcausedbyearthquakeshakinginducedsoilstrain.For example,sensitivefinegrainedsoilscanloosestrengthduetoearthquake shakingandthesoildeformationitcauses.Forearthquakeinducedslope instability,withorwithoutsoilstrengthlossresultingfromdeformation inducedbyearthquakeshaking,thetargetfactorofsafetyorresistancefactor areasspecifiedinWSDOTGDMSection6.4.3.1.However,ifliquefactionis thecauseoftheslopeinstability,itshallbeevaluatedasspecifiedinWSDOT GDMSection6.4.2.7. 6.4.3.1 Pseudo-Static Analysis Pseudo-staticslopestabilityanalysesshouldbeusedtoevaluatetheseismic stabilityofslopesandembankments.Thepseudo-staticanalysisconsistsof conventionallimitequilibriumstaticslopestabilityanalysisasdescribedin WSDOTGDMChapter7completedwithhorizontalandverticalpseudo-static accelerationcoefficients(khandkv)thatactuponthecriticalfailuremass. Kramer(1996)providesadetailedsummaryonpseudo-staticanalysis. Ahorizontalpseudo-staticcoefficient,kh,of0.5Asandaverticalpseudo-static coefficient,kv,equaltozeroshouldbeusedwhenseismicstabilityofslopesis evaluated,notconsideringliquefaction.Fortheseconditions,thetargetfactor ofsafetyis1.1.Whenbridgefoundationsorretainingwallsareinvolved,the LRFDapproachshallbeused,inwhichcasearesistancefactorof0.9shallbe usedforslopestability.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-53
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Notethattheuseofareducedaccelerationcoefficientconsiderstheability oftheslopetodisplacelaterallybasedonaNewmarktypeanalysis,thereby reducingtheaccelerationthatcanbeexperiencedbytheslopefailuremass. SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)foradditionalguidanceonthisissue.Forsoils thatexhibitasignificantdropinstrengthtoaresidualvalue,thesoilstrength losscausedbythedeformationshouldbeconsideredintheslopedesign.In thiscase,theslopestabilityshouldbeevaluatedusingresidualshearstrengths butwithoutseismicinertialforces,asthedropinshearstrengthwillnotbe completeuntilafterseismicshakingiscomplete. Duetothefactthatthesoilistreatedasarigidbodyinpseudo-staticlimit equilibriumanalyses,andthattheseismicinertialforceisproportionalto thesquareofthefailuresurfaceradiuswhereastheresistanceisproportional tojusttheradius,thetendencyisforthefailuresurfacetomovedeeperand fartheruphillrelativetothestaticfailuresurfacewhenseismicinertialloading isadded.Thatis,thepseudo-staticanalysisassumesthatthekhvalueof0.5As appliesuniformlytotheentirefailuremassregardlessofhowbigthefailure massbecomes.Sincethesoilmassisfarfromrigid,thiscanbeanoverly conservativeassumption,inthattheaveragevalueofkhforthefailuremass willlikelydecreaserelativetotheinputvalueof0.5Asusedforthestability assessmentduetowavescatteringeffects.SeeAnderson,etal.(2008)for guidanceonhowtoaddressthisissue. 6.4.3.2 Deformations Deformationanalysesshouldbeemployedwhereanestimateofthe magnitudeofseismicallyinducedslopedeformationisrequired,andtheslope stabilityfactorofsafetyunderthepeakhorizontalseismiccoefficient(As)is lessthan1.0.Acceptablemethodsofestimatingthemagnitudeofseismically inducedslopedeformationincludeNewmarkslidingblock(timehistory) analysis,simplifieddisplacementchartsandequationsbasedonNewmarktypeanalyses(SaygiliandRathje,2008;andRathjeandSaygili,2008;Bray andTravasarou,2007),ordynamicstress-deformationmodels.Thesemethods shouldnotbeemployedtoestimatedisplacementsifthepostearthquake shaking(i.e.,assumekhandkvarezero)slopestabilityfactorofsafetyisless than1.0,astheslopewillbeunstableduringgravity(static)loading. Moredetaileddescriptionsoftheseanalysisproceduresareprovidedas follows: Newmark Time History Analysis. Newmark(1965)proposedaseismic slopestabilityanalysisthatprovidesanestimateofseismicallyinducedslope deformation.TheadvantageoftheNewmarkanalysisoverpseudo-static analysisisthatitprovidesanindexofpermanentdeformation.Theterm indexisusedtoindicatethattheestimateofdeformationhasanumber ofsimplifyingassumptions,andtheseassumptionslimittheprecisionto whichthedisplacementestimatecanbemade.Forexample,estimatesof deformation to less than the nearest inch and perhaps the nearest several inchesareverydifficulttojustify.
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
TheNewmarktimehistoryanalysistreatstheunstablesoilmassasarigid blockonaninclinedplane.TheprocedurefortheNewmarktimehistory analysisconsistsofthreestepsthatcangenerallybedescribedasfollows: Identifytheyieldaccelerationoftheslopebycompletinglimitequilibrium stabilityanalyses.Theyieldaccelerationisthehorizontalpseudo-static coefficient,kh,requiredtobringthefactorofsafetytounity.Notethat wavescatteringeffectsmayneedtobeconsidered(seeWSDOTGDM Section6.4.3.1)toinsureconsistencybetweenthecriticalpseudo-static failuresurfaceandtheassumedpseudo-staticseismiccoefficientused. Selectearthquaketimehistoriesrepresentativeofthedesignearthquake asdescribedinWSDOTGDMAppendix6-A.Aminimumofthreetime historiesrepresentativeofthepredominantearthquakesourcezone(s) shouldbeselectedforthisanalysis.Thesetimehistoriesshouldbe responsespectrumcompatibleandmayneedtobepropagatedthrough thesoilcolumntothebaseoftheslidingsoilmasstoadjustforlocalsite effects.Fortimehistoriesrepresentingdistinctlydifferentsourcezones (e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone),thetimehistoriesmaybe spectrallymatchedorscaledtoanappropriatesource-specificspectraas discussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1andAppendix6-A.However, thedifferentsource-specificspectrainaggregateshouldenvelopethe design(target)spectrum. Doubleintegrateallrelativeaccelerations(i.e.,thedifferencebetween accelerationandyieldacceleration)whilevelocitiesarenotzerointhe earthquaketimehistories. SeeKramer(1996)foradditionaldetailsregardingtheNewmarktimehistory analysisanditsapplication. Anumberofcommerciallyavailablecomputerprogramsareavailableto completeNewmarkanalysis,suchasShake2000(Ordoez,2000)orJava ProgramforusingNewmarkMethodandSimplifiedDecoupledAnalysisto ModelSlopeDeformationDuringEarthquakes(JibsonandJibson,2003). Newmark Based Displacement Charts.BrayandRathje(1998)developed an approach to estimate permanent base sliding deformation for solid waste landfills.ThemethodwasbasedontheNewmarkslidingblockmodel,andis similartotheMakdisiandSeed(1978)approach.Althoughthechartswere developedforsolidwastelandfills,themethodologyissuitableforuseatsoil androcksites,sincethedeformationrelationshipestimateisbasedontheratio ofyieldaccelerationtopeakgroundacceleration,andthisratioisrelatively independentofthematerialtype.TheBray-Rathjechartsarebasedon significantlymoreanalysesandawiderrangeofearthquakemagnitudes,peak groundaccelerationsandfrequencycontentthantheMakdisi-Seedcharts,and maybemorereliable.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-55
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
RecentworkbySaygiliandRathje(2008)andRathjeandSaygili(2008) haveextendedtheworkbyBrayandRathje(1998)toprovideequations forestimatingdisplacementsfromseismicloading.Bothdeterministicand probabilisticmethodsarediscussed. ABray-Travasarouchart,asdevelopedbyIdrissandBoulanger(2008)based onthemethoddevelopedbyBrayandTravasarou(2007),depictingpermanent basedeformationasafunctionofyieldacceleration(Ky)actingontheslide massispresentedinFigure6-14.SeeBrayandTravasarou(2007)andIdriss andBoulanger(2008)foradditionaldiscussionregardingthedetermination ofdeformationfromthismethod.Thesemorerecentmethods(i.e.,Brayand Travasarou2007;SaygiliandRathje2008;andRathjeandSaygili2008) shouldbeusedifNewmarkbaseddisplacementchartsareused.
Permanent Base Sliding Block Displacements as a Function of Yield Acceleration (after Idriss and Boulanger, 2008).
Figure 6-14
Dynamic Stress-Deformation Models.Seismicallyinducedslope deformationscanbeestimatedthroughavarietyofdynamicstressdeformationcomputermodelssuchasPLAXIS,DYNAFLOW,FLAC,and OpenSees.Thesemethodscanaccountforvaryinggeometry,soilbehavior, andporepressureresponseduringseismicloading.Theaccuracyofthese modelsishighlydependentuponthequalityoftheinputparametersandthe levelofmodelvalidationperformedbytheuserforsimilarapplications.As thequalityoftheconstitutivemodelsusedindynamicstress-deformation modelsimproves,theaccuracyofthesemethodswillimprove.Akeybenefit ofthesemodelsistheirabilitytoillustratemechanismsofdeformation,which canprovideusefulinsightintotheproperinputforsimplifiedanalyses.
Page 6-56
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Ingeneral,dynamicstressdeformationmodelsshouldnotbeusedforroutine designduetotheircomplexity,andduetothesensitivityofdeformation estimatestotheconstitutivemodelselectedandtheaccuracyoftheinput parameters.Ifdynamicstressdeformationmodelsareused,theyshouldbe validatedfortheparticularapplication.Useofdynamicstress-deformation modelsfordesignonWSDOTprojectsshallbeapprovedbytheState GeotechnicalEngineer. 6.4.4 Settlement of Dry Sand Seismicallyinducedsettlementofunsaturatedgranularsoils(drysands)is welldocumented.Factorsthataffectthemagnitudeofsettlementincludethe densityandthicknessofthesoildepositandthemagnitudeofseismicloading. Themostcommonmeansofestimatingthemagnitudeofdrysandsettlement arethroughempiricalrelationshipsbasedonproceduressimilartothe SimplifiedProcedureforevaluatingliquefactionsusceptibility.Theprocedures providedbyTokimatsuandSeed(1987)fordrysandsettlementshouldbe used.TheTokimatsuandSeedapproachestimatesthevolumetricstrainas afunctionofcyclicshearstrainandrelativedensityornormalizedSPTN values.ThestepbystepprocedureispresentedinSection8.5ofGeotechnical EngineeringCircularNo.3(Kavazanjian,etal.,1997). Sincesettlementofdrysandwilloccurduringearthquakeshakingwith downdragforceslikelytodevelopbeforethestrongestshakingoccurs,the axialforcescausedbythisphenomenonshouldbecombinedwiththefull spectralgroundmotionappliedtothestructure.
6.5 Input for Structural Design

6.5.1 Foundation Springs Structuraldynamicresponseanalysesincorporatethefoundationstiffness intothedynamicmodelofthestructuretocapturetheeffectsofsoilstructure interaction.Thefoundationstiffnessistypicallyrepresentedasasystemof equivalentspringsusingafoundationstiffnessmatrix.Thetypicalfoundation stiffness matrix incorporates a set of six primary springs to describe stiffness withrespecttothreetranslationalandthreerotationalcomponentsofmotion. Springsthatdescribethecouplingofhorizontaltranslationandrockingmodes ofdeformationmayalsobeused. Theprimaryparametersforcalculatingtheindividualspringstiffnessvalues arethefoundationtype(shallowspreadfootingsordeepfoundations), foundationgeometry,dynamicsoilshearmodulus,andPoissonsRatio.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-57
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6.5.1.1
Shallow Foundations Forevaluatingshallowfoundationsprings,theWSDOTBridgeandStructures Officerequiresvaluesforthedynamicshearmodulus,G,Poissonsratio,and theunitweightofthefoundationsoils.Themaximum,orlow-strain,shear modulusG0canbeestimatedusingindexpropertiesandthecorrelations presentedinTable6-2.Alternatively,themaximumshearmoduluscanbe calculatedusingEquation6-10below,iftheshearwavevelocityisknown: G0 = (Vs)2 (6-10) g where: G0 = lowstrain,maximumdynamicshearmodulus = soilunitweight Vs = shear wave velocity g = accelerationduetogravity Themaximumdynamicshearmodulusisassociatedwithsmallshear strains(typicallylessthan0.0001percent).Astheseismicgroundmotion levelincreases,theshearstrainlevelincreases,anddynamicshearmodulus decreases.IfthespecificationbasedgeneralproceduredescribedinWSDOT GDMSection6.3isused,theeffectiveshearmodulus,G,shouldbecalculated inaccordancewithTable4-7inFEMA356(ASCE,2000),reproducedbelow forconvenience.NotethatSXS/2.5inthetableisessentiallyequivalenttoAs (i.e.,PGAxFpga).ThistablereflectsthedependenceofGonboththeshear straininducedbythegroundmotionandonthesoiltype(i.e.,Gdropsoff morerapidlyasshearstrainincreasesforsofterorloosersoils). Thistablemustbeusedwithsomecaution,particularlywhereabrupt variationsinsoilprofileoccurbelowthebaseofthefoundation.Ifthesoil conditionswithintwofoundationwidths(vertically)ofthebottomofthe foundationdepartsignificantlyfromtheaverageconditionsidentifiedfor thespecificsiteclass,amorerigorousmethodmayberequired.Themore rigorousmethodmayinvolveconductingone-dimensionalequivalentlinear groundresponseanalysesusingaprogramsuchasSHAKEtoestimatethe averageeffectiveshearstrainswithinthezoneaffectingfoundationresponse.
Site Class A B C D E F
SXS/2.5 = 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 *
Effective Peak Acceleration, SXS/2.5 SXS/2.5 = 0.1 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.60 * SXS/2.5 = 0.4 1.00 0.95 0.75 0.50 0.05 *
SXS/2.5 = 0.8 1.00 0.90 0.60 0.10 * *
Notes: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of Sxs/2.5. * Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses shall be performed.
Effective Shear Modulus Ratio (G/G0)

Table 4-7
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Alternatively,sitespecificmeasurementsofshearmodulusmaybeobtained. Measuredvaluesofshearmodulusmaybeobtainedfromlaboratorytests, suchasthecyclictriaxial,cyclicsimpleshear,orresonantcolumntests,or theymaybeobtainedfromin-situfieldtesting.Ifthespecificationbased generalprocedureisusedtoestimategroundmotionresponse,thelaboratory orin-situfieldtestresultsmaybeusedtocalculateG0.Thenthetablefrom FEMA356(ASCE,2000)reproducedabovecanbeusedtodetermineG/G0. However,cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenusinglaboratorytestingtoobtain thisparameterduetothestrongdependencyofthisparameteronsample disturbance.Furthermore,thelow-strainmodulusdevelopedfromlabtest shouldbeadjustedforsoilageifthefootingisplacedonnativesoil.Theage adjustmentcanresultinanincreaseinthelabmodulusbyafactorof1.5or more,dependingonthequalityofthelaboratorysampleandtheageofthe nativesoildeposit.Theageadjustmentisnotrequiredifengineeredfillwill belocatedwithintwofoundationwidthsofthefootingbase.Thepreferred approachistomeasuretheshearwavevelocity,Vs,throughin-situtestingin thefield,toobtainG0. Ifadetailedsitespecificgroundresponseanalysisisconducted,eitherFigures 6-1and6-2maybeusedtoestimateGinconsiderationoftheshearstrains predictedthroughthesitespecificanalysis(theeffectiveshearstrain,equal to65percentofthepeakshearstrain,shouldbeusedforthisanalysis),or laboratorytestresultsmaybeusedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweenG/G0 andshearstrain. PoissonsRatio,v,shouldbeestimatedbasedonsoiltype,relativedensity/ consistencyofthesoils,andcorrelationchartssuchasthosepresentedin WSDOTGDMChapter5orinthetextbook,Foundation Analysis and Design(Bowles,1996).PoissonsRatiomayalsobeobtainedfromfield measurementsofp-ands-wavevelocities. OnceGandvaredetermined,thefoundationstiffnessvaluesshouldbe calculatedasshowninFEMA356(ASCE,2000). 6.5.1.2 Deep Foundations Lateralsoilspringsfordeepfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordance withWSDOTGDMChapter8. Existingdeepfoundationlateralloadanalysiscomputerprograms,and themethodologiesuponwhichtheyarebased,doprovideapproachesfor modelingtheresponseofliquefiedsoiltolateraldeepfoundationloads.These approaches,andtheirlimitations,areasfollows: ThecomputerprogramL-PilePlusversion5.0(Reese,etal.,2005) includesP-Ycurvesforliquefiedsandsthatareintendedtomore accuratelymodelthestrainhardeningbehaviorobservedfromliquefied soils.However,thatparticularmodeltendstopredicttoosoftaresponse andisverylimitedregardingtheconditionsitcanconsider.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-59
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
AsimilarapproachcanbeusedwiththeDFSAPcomputerprogram (Singh,etal.,2006),whichisbasedontheStrainWedgeModel(see WSDOTGDMChapter8foradditionalinformationonthestrainwedge model).DFSAPhasanoptionbuiltintotheprogramforestimating liquefiedlateralstiffnessparametersandlateralspreadloadsonasingle pileorshaft.However,theaccuracyoftheliquefiedsoilstiffnessand predictedlateralspreadloadsusingstrainwedgetheory,inparticular theDFSAPprogram,hasnotbeenwellestablished(seeDiscussionand ClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefiedSoil underLateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyle M.Rollins,2005,ASCE,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102,ASCE2006,pp. 1238-1241. Weaver,etal.(2005)andRollins,etal.(2005)providedacomparison betweenthevariousmethodsofdevelopingP-Yparametersforliquefied soilandthemeasuredlateralloadresponseofafullscalepilefoundation inliquefiedsoil(i.e.,liquefiedusingblastloading).Theyconcludedthat noneofthesimplifiedmethodsthatutilizeadjustedsoilparametersapplied tostaticP-Yclayorsandmodelsaccuratelypredictedthemeasuredlateral pileresponsetoloadduetothedifferenceincurveshapeforstaticversus liquefiedconditions(i.e.,convex,orstrainsoftening,versusconcave,orstrain hardening,shape,respectively).Furthermore,infullyliquefiedsand,there appearstobevirtuallynolateralsoilresistanceforthefirst1to2inchesof lateralmovement,basedontheirobservations.However,availablestaticP-Y curvemodelsreducedadequatelytoaccountforthelossofstrengthcausedby liquefaction,suchasap-multiplierapproach,couldprovideanapproximate predictionofthemeasuredP-Yresponse.Rollins,etal.(2005)alsoconcluded thatgroupreductionfactorsforlateralpileresistancecanbeneglectedinfully liquefiedsand(i.e.,Ru>0.9),andthatgroupreductioneffectsreestablish quicklyasporepressuresdissipate.Furthermore,theyobservedthatgroup reductionfactorswereapplicableinsoilthatisnotfullyliquefied. Ifthedemandonthefoundationduringearthquakeshakingisnotveryhigh, butthesoilstillliquefies,theconvex-upshapeofthestaticP-Ycurvesmay alsoresultinanunder-predictionofthedeformationforliquefiedconditions. Assumingthatthestatic(i.e.,convexup)P-Ycurveisreducedtoliquefied conditionsusingap-multiplierorsimilarapproach,relativelylowseismic foundationloadingmaynotbegreatenoughtogetpasttheearlysteeper portionoftheliquefiedsoilP-Ycurveandontotheflatterportionofthecurve wheredeformationcanincreasefairlyreadilyinresponsetotheappliedload. Thiscouldpossiblyresultinanunconservativeestimateoflateralfoundation deformationfortheliquefiedconditionaswell.
Page 6-60
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
(Yu, Pult) Static P-Y curve Load, P Currently available liquefied P-Y models Pult
Pultliq
Deflection, Y
Conceptual P-Y curve model for liquefied conditions.
Figure 6-15
TheliquefiedP-Ycurvesshouldbeestimatedusingoneoftwooptions.These optionsareasfollows: 1. UsethestaticsandmodelandtheP-multiplierapproachasprovidedby Brandenberg,etal.(2007b)andBoulanger,etal.(2003)toreducePult calculatedforthestaticP-Ycurvetoaliquefiedvalue.Thisapproach isillustratedconceptuallyinFigure6-15.Thep-multiplier,mp,usedto reducethestaticcurvetoaliquefiedcurveisdeterminedfromFigure6-16. Thep-multiplierapproachisprimarilyapplicabletouseinL-Pileora similarcomputerprogram. 2. Usethestaticsandmodel,usingtheresidualstrengthandtheoverburden stressatthedepthatwhichtheresidualstrengthwascalculatedtoestimate areducedsoilfrictionvalue.Thereducedsoilfrictionangleiscalculated usingtheinversetangentoftheresidualundrainedshearstrengthdivided bytheeffectiveverticalstressatwhichtheresidualshearstrengthwas determinedormeasured,i.e., reduced = tan -1(Sr/vo),whereSr is the residualshearstrengthandv0 istheeffectiveverticalstress.Usethe reducedsoilfrictionangle(i.e.,forliquefiedconditions)togeneratethe liquefiedP-Ycurves.Thisapproachisapplicabletoboththestrainwedge (DFSAPcomputerprogram)andL-Pilecomputerprogrammethods.The entirestaticcurveneedstobereducedfromstatictoliquefiedconditions, asillustratedinFigure6-15.Parametersrepresentingtheinitialstiffness
M 46-03.01
Page 6-61
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
oftheP-Ycurvesmayalsoneedtobereducedinamannersimilartothe reductionappliedtoobtainPultliq.FortheDFSAPcomputerprogram,this adjustmenttoliquefiedconditionswouldbeappliedtoE50.ForL-Pile,this adjustmentwouldbeappliedtothemodulusofsubgradereaction,k.For bothapproaches,thesoilunitweightshouldnotbeadjustedforliquefied conditions. Ifthefirstoptionisselected,thep-multipliervaluesshouldbeselectedfrom Figure6-16,Brandenberg(2005)curve.Ifthesecondoptionisselected, residual(i.e.,liquefied)soilshearstrengthshouldbeestimatedusingamethod thatconsiderstheeffectofoverburdenstress(e.g.,Figures6-5through6-7). Thep-multipliervaluesrepresentfullyliquefiedconditions.Notethatfor partiallyliquefiedconditions,thep-multiplierscanbeincreasedfromthose valuesshowninthetable,linearlyinterpolatingbetweenthetabulatedvalues and1.0basedontheporepressureratio,ru,achievedduringshaking(e.g., Dobry,etal.,1995).ForOption2,apartiallyliquefiedshearstrengthmaybe usedtocalculatethereducedfrictionangleandPultliq. IfOption2isselectedandtheresidualshearstrengthsarebasedonlaboratory testdata,thestrainatwhichtheliquefiedshearstrengthisdeterminedmay beakeyfactor,astheresidualstrengthcanbehighlystraindependent.If empiricalcorrelationsareusedtoestimatetheresidualshearstrength,the soilconditionsthoseempiricalresidualshearstrengthsrepresentrelativeto thesoilconditionsatthesiteinquestionshouldbeconsideredwhenpicking residualshearstrengthvaluestouseintheP-Ycurvedevelopment. Ingeneral,iftheliquefiedP-Ycurvesresultinfoundationlateraldeformations thatarelessthanapproximately2inchesnearthefoundationtopforthe liquefiedstate,theliquefiedP-Ycurvesshouldbefurtherevaluatedtomake suretheparametersselectedtocreatetheliquefiedP-Ycurvesrepresent realisticbehaviorinliquefiedsoil. Forpileorshaftgroups,forfullyliquefiedconditions,P-Ycurvereduction factorstoaccountforfoundationelementspacingandlocationwithinthe groupmaybesetat1.0.Forpartiallyliquefiedconditions,thegroupreduction factorsshallbeconsistentwiththegroupreductionfactorsusedforstatic loading. Forotherdeepfoundationsoilsprings,i.e.,axial(t-z)andtip(q-z),the methodologydescribedaboveforP-Ycurvesshouldalsobeusedtoassessthe effectsofliquefactionont-zandq-zcurves.
Page 6-62
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Recommended p-multipliers for liquefied soil (after Brandenberg, et al., 2007b).

Figure 6-16
6.5.2
Earthquake Induced Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures TheMononobe-Okabepseudo-staticmethodshallbeusedtoestimatethe seismiclateralearthpressure,asspecifiedinWSDOTGDMChapter15. Alternatively,slopestabilityanalysesmaybeusedtocalculateseismicearth pressuresusingthesamekhvaluethatwouldbeusedforMononobe-Okabe analysis,andshouldbeusedforsituationsinwhichMononobe-Okabe analysisisnotapplicable(seeWSDOTGDMChapter15).Duetothehigh rateofloadingthatoccursduringseismicloading,theuseofundrained strengthparametersintheslopestabilityanalysisshouldbeconsideredfor soilsotherthancleancoarsegrainedsandsandgravels.
6.5.3
Downdrag Loads on Structures Downdragloadsonfoundationsshallbedeterminedinaccordancewith Article3.11.8oftheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,WSDOT GDMChapter8,andasspecifiedherein. TheAASHTOLRFDBridgeDesignSpecifications,Article3.11.8, recommendstheuseofthenonliquefiedskinfrictioninthelayerswithin andabovetheliquefiedzonethatdonotliquefy,andaskinfrictionvalue aslowastheresidualstrengthwithinthesoillayersthatdoliquefy,to calculatedowndragloadsfortheextremeeventlimitstate.Ingeneral,vertical settlementanddowndragcannotoccuruntiltheporepressuresgeneratedby theearthquakegroundmotionbegintodissipateaftertheearthquakeshaking
M 46-03.01
Page 6-63
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
ceases.Atthispoint,theliquefiedsoilstrengthwillbenearitsminimum residualstrength.Atsomepointaftertheporepressuresbegintodissipate,and aftersomeliquefactionsettlementhasalreadyoccurred,thesoilstrengthwill begintoincreasefromitsminimumresidualvalue.Therefore,theactualshear strengthofsoilalongthesidesofthefoundationelementsintheliquefied zone(s)maybehigherthantheresidualshearstrengthcorrespondingtofully liquefiedconditions,butstillsignificantlylowerthanthenonliquefiedsoil shearstrength.Verylittleguidanceontheselectionofsoilshearstrengthto calculatedowndragloadsduetoliquefactionisavailable;thereforesome engineeringjudgmentmayberequiredtoselectasoilstrengthtocalculate downdragloadsduetoliquefaction. 6.5.4 Lateral Spread / Slope Failure Loads on Structures Ingeneral,therearetwodifferentapproachestoestimatethelateralspread/ slopefailureinducedloadondeepfoundationssystemsadisplacement basedmethodandaforcebasedmethod.Displacementbasedmethodsare moreprevalentintheUnitedStates.Theforcebasedapproachhasbeen specifiedintheJapanesecodesandisbasedoncasehistoriesfrompast earthquakes,especiallythepilefoundationfailuresobservedduringthe1995 Kobeearthquake.Overviewsofbothapproachesarepresentedbelow. 6.5.4.1 Displacement Based Approach Therecommendeddisplacementbasedapproachforevaluatingtheimpactof liquefactioninducedlateralspreadingloadsondeepfoundationsystemsis presentedinBoulanger,etal.(2003)andBrandenberg,etal.(2007aandb). Thegeneralprocedureisasfollows: Deepfoundationsinliquefied,lateralspreadinggroundcanbedesigned toresistlateralforcesimposedonthepilebythelateralspreadingground. L-Pileorsimilarcomputerprogramscanbeusedtoperformthisanalysis byincorporatingthedesignstepsbelow.Thedesignstepsthatconsiderthe kinematicloadingfromtheliquefaction-inducedlateralspreadinggroundare asfollows(Boulangeretal.2007aandb): 1. Estimatethefree-fieldgroundsurfacedisplacementscausedbylateral spreading.Free-fieldsoildisplacementassumesnoinfluencefromthe individualpilesorpilegroup.Free-fieldsoildisplacementsshallbe estimatedasspecifiedinWSDOTGDMSections6.4.2.7and6.4.3.2.The freefielddisplacementanditsdistribution(Step2below)isusedasinput intoalateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pileincombinationwithsoil stiffnessproperties(Steps3and4)toestimateloadinthefoundation. 2. Estimatethedistributionofthelateralspreadingdisplacementasa functionofdepth.Optionsinclude:
Page 6-64
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
a. TheshearstrainprofileapproachdescribedinZhangetal.(2004) and illustrated by Idriss and Boulanger (2008).Theshearstrain profileisestimatedfromSPTorCPTbasedliquefactionanalysesto providethedistributionoflateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepth aboveanon-liquefiedlayer.Themaximumshearstrainisobtained usingtherelationshipbetweenmaximumshearstrain,CSR,andthe correctedSPTblowcountornormalizedcorrectedCPTtipresistance. Thelateralspreadingdisplacementisobtainedbyintegrationof maximumshearstrainforeachdepthincrement.However,forcases ofdeepliquefactionthemaximumdepthoflateralspreadingwould havetobeassumed.Thismaximumdepthshouldconsiderthesite topographyandheightofthefreeface.Alateralspreadisunlikely to develop for depths greater than twice the height of a free face or a maximumof50ft. b. Non-lineareffectivestressdynamicfinite-differencetimehistory analyses.Severalinputtimehistorieswouldlikelyberunthroughthe soilprofileandarepresentativedistributionoflateralspreadingwith depthwouldhavetobeselectedfromtheseoutputs. c. Agenericsimplifiedsoilprofilethatassumesconstantground surfacedisplacementinanon-liquefiedcrustandalinear variationwithdepthacrossliquefiedlayers.Theconstantground surfacedisplacementwouldbebasedonstep1above.Thelinear variationwouldextendfromthebottomofthenon-liquefiablecrustto thebottomofthelateralspreadinglayer.AccordingtoBoulangeretal. (2007aandb)pilesthatprovidesatisfactoryperformanceandlateral stiffnessarerelativelyinsensitivetotheassumeddisplacementprofile. Forflexiblefoundations,arangeofsoildisplacementprofilesmay havetobeassumedtocapturetherangeofbendingmoment,shear, andpiledisplacementsversusdepth. 3. Lateralresistanceoftheliquefiedsoilspringsshallbeestimatedas specifiedinWSDOTGDMSection6.5.1.2andasdiscussedbelow.For soillayersthatliquefy,scaletheultimatestaticP-Yresistance(Pult)to anultimateliquefiedresistance(Pultliq)asdescribedinWSDOTGDM Section6.5.1.2.Theultimateliquefiedresistanceshouldalsobenogreater than0.6vo*bforthisanalysis,wherevoistheeffectiveoverburden stressbeforeseismicloadingandbispilewidth(Boulangeretal2003). TheP-Ycurvesforthenonliquefiedlayerswithinthesoilprofileforthis analysisshouldbedeterminedusingthestaticanalysisprocedures(see WSDOTGDMChapter8). 4. Toestimatekinematicloadingeffectsondeepfoundationsfromlateral spreading,theabovelateralspreadingdisplacementversusdepthprofile shouldbeinputdirectlyasafreefielddisplacement(soilmovement)into alateralloadanalysisprogramsuchasL-Pile.ThemodifiedP-Ycurves calculatedasdescribedaboveshouldbeusedtocharacterizethesoilin
M 46-03.01
Page 6-65
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
thisanalysis.Thecomputerlateralloadanalysisprogramwilldetermine thenetfoundationmovementconsideringthestructuralstiffnessofthe foundationandthelateralresistanceofthesoilinfrontofthefoundation. Conceptually,thisisillustratedinFigure6-17.
Methods for imposing kinematic loads from laterally spreading ground (after Boulanger, et al., 2003).
Figure 6-17
Theestimatedinducedloadsarethencheckedagainsttheabilityofthe foundationsystemtoresistthoseloads.Theultimatefoundationresistance is based in part on the resistance provided by the portion of the pile/shaft embeddedinnon-liquefiablesoilsbelowthelateralspreadzoneandthe structuralcapacityofthepile/shaft.Largepiledeformationsmayresultin plastichingesforminginthepile/shaft.Iffoundationresistanceisgreater thanthatappliedbythelateralspreadingsoil,thesoilwillflowaroundthe structure.Ifthepotentialloadappliedbythesoilisgreaterthanthefoundation systemresistance,thepile/shaftislikelytomoveinconcertwiththesoil. Also,thepassivepressureandsidefrictiongeneratedonthepilecapby the spreading soil needs to be considered in the total load applied to the foundationsystem.Sincelarge-scalestructuraldeformationsmaybedifficult andcostlytoaccommodateindesign,mitigationoffoundationsubsoilswill likelyberequired. Similarapproachestothoseoutlinedabovecanbeusedtoestimateloadsthat othertypesofslopefailuremayhaveonthebridgefoundationsystem. 6.5.4.2 Force Based Approaches Aforcebasedapproachtoassesslateralspreadinginducedloadsondeep foundationsisspecifiedintheJapanesecodes.Themethodisbasedonbackcalculationsfrompilefoundationfailurescausedbylateralspreading.The pressuresonpilefoundationsaresimplyspecifiedasfollows: Theliquefiedsoilexertsapressureequalto30percentofthetotal overburdenpressure(lateralearthpressurecoefficientof0.30appliedto thetotalverticalstress).
Page 6-66
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Non-liquefiedcrustallayersexertfullpassivepressureonthefoundation system. Datafromsimulatedearthquakeloadingofmodelpilesinliquefiablesandsin centrifugetestsindicatethattheJapaneseForceMethodisanadequatedesign method(FinnandFujita,2004). Anotherforce-basedapproachtoestimatelateralspreadinginduced foundationloadsistousealimitequilibriumslopestabilityprogramto determinetheloadthefoundationmustresisttoachieveatargetsafetyfactor of1.1.Thisforceisdistributedoverthefoundationintheliquefiablezone asauniformstress.Thisapproachmaybeutilizedtoestimatetheforces thatfoundationelementsmustwithstandiftheyaretoactasshearelements stabilizingtheslope.SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.5.3forspecificstability analysisprocedures. 6.5.4.3 Mitigation Alternatives Thetwobasicoptionstomitigatethelateralspreadinducedloadsonthe foundationsystemaretodesignthestructuretoaccommodatetheloadsor improvethegroundsuchthatthehazarddoesnotoccur. Structural Options (design to accommodate imposed loads).SeeWSDOT GDMSections6.5.4.1(displacementbasedapproach)and6.5.4.2(forcebased approach)formoredetailsonthespecificanalysisprocedures.Oncetheforces and/ordisplacementscausedbythelateralspreadinghavebeenestimated, thestructuraldesignershouldusethoseestimatestoanalyzetheeffectof thoseforcesand/ordisplacementswillhaveonthestructuretodetermineif designingthestructuretotoleratethedeformationand/orlateralloadingis structurallyfeasibleandeconomical. Ground Improvement. It is often cost prohibitive to design the bridge foundationsystemtoresisttheloadsanddisplacementsimposedby liquefactioninducedlateralloads,especiallyifthedepthofliquefaction extendsmorethanabout20ftbelowthegroundsurfaceandifanonliquefiedcrustispartofthefailuremass.Groundimprovementtomitigatethe liquefactionhazardisthelikelyalternativeifitisnotpracticaltodesignthe foundationsystemtoaccommodatethelateralloads. Theprimarygroundimprovementtechniquestomitigateliquefactionfallinto threegeneralcategories,namelydensification,alteringthesoilcomposition, andenhanceddrainage.Ageneraldiscussionregardingtheseground improvementapproachesisprovidedbelow.WSDOTGDMChapter11, GroundImprovement,shouldbereviewedforamoredetaileddiscussion regardingtheuseofthesetechniques. DensificationandReinforcement:Groundimprovementbydensification consistsofsufficientlycompactingthesoilsuchthatitisnolongersusceptible toliquefactionduringadesignseismicevent.Densificationtechniquesinclude
M 46-03.01
Page 6-67
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
vibro-compaction,vibro-flotation,vibro-replacement(stonecolumns),deep dynamiccompaction,blasting,andcompactiongrouting.Vibro-replacement andcompactiongroutingalsoreinforcethesoilbycreatingcolumnsof stoneandgrout,respectively.Theprimaryparametersforselectioninclude grainsizedistributionofthesoilsbeingimproved,depthtogroundwater, depthofimprovementrequired,proximitytosettlement/vibrationsensitive infrastructure,andaccessconstraints. Forthosesoilsinwhichdensificationtechniquesmaynotbefullyeffectiveto densifythesoiladequatelytopreventliquefaction,thereinforcementaspectof thosemethodsmaystillbeusedwhenestimatingcompositeshearstrengthand settlementcharacteristicsoftheimprovedsoilvolume.SeeWSDOTGDM Chapter11fordetailsandreferencesthatshouldbeconsultedforguidancein establishingcompositepropertiesfortheimprovedsoilvolume. Ifthesoilisreinforcedwithverticalstructuralinclusions(e.g.,drilledshafts, drivenpiles,butnotincludingthestructurefoundationelements)butnot adequatelydensifiedtopreventthesoilfromliquefying,thedesignofthe groundimprovementmethodshouldconsiderboththeshearandmoment resistanceofthereinforcementelements.Forverticalinclusionsthatare typicallynotintendedtohavesignificantbendingresistance(e.g.,stone columns,compactiongroutcolumns,etc.),therequirementtoresistthe potentialbendingstressescausedbylateralgroundmovementmaybewaived, consideringonlyshearresistanceoftheimprovedsoilplusinclusions,ifall threeofthefollowingconditionsaremet: Thewidthanddepthoftheimprovedsoilvolumeareequaltoorgreater thantherequirementsprovidedinFigure6-18, threeormorerowsofreinforcementelementstoresisttheforces contributingtoslopefailureorlateralspreadingareused,and thereinforcementelementsarespacedcenter-to-centeratlessthan5times thereinforcementelementdiameteror10ft,whicheverisless. Figure6-18showstheimprovedsoilvolumeascenteredaroundthewall baseorfoundation.However,itisacceptabletoshiftthesoilimprovement volumetoworkaroundsiteconstraints,providedthattheedgeofthe improvedsoilvolumeislocatedatleast5ftoutsideofthewallorfoundation beingprotected.Greaterthan5ftmaybeneededtoinsurestabilityofthe foundation,preventseveredifferentialsettlementduetotheliquefaction,and toaccountforanyporepressureredistributionthatmayoccurduringorafter liquefactioninitiation. Forthecasewhereacollarofimprovedsoilisplacedoutsideandaround thefoundation,bridgeabutmentorotherstructuretobeprotectedfromthe instabilitythatliquefactioncancause,assumeBinFigure6-18isequalto zero(i.e.,theminimumwidthofimprovedgroundisequaltoD+15ft,butno greaterthanZ).
Page 6-68
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Ifthesoilisofthetypethatcanbedensifiedthroughtheuseofstonecolumns, compactiongroutcolumns,orsomeothermeanstoimprovethesoilsuchthat itisnolongersusceptibletoliquefactionwithintheimprovedsoilvolume, Figure6-18shouldalsobeusedtoestablishtheminimumdimensionsofthe improvedsoil. Ifitisdesiredtousedimensionsofthegroundimprovementthatareless thantheminimumsillustratedinFigure6-18,moresophisticatedanalyses todeterminetheeffectofusingreducedgroundimprovementdimensions shouldbeconducted(e.g.,effectivestresstwodimensionalanalysessuch asFLAC).Theobjectivesoftheseanalysesincludepreventionofsoilshear failureandexcessivedifferentialsettlementduringliquefaction.Theamount of differential settlement allowable for this limit state will depend on the toleranceofthestructurebeingprotectedtosuchmovementwithoutcollapse. Useofsmallergroundimprovementareadimensionsshallbeapprovedofthe WSDOTStateGeotechnicalEngineer. Anotherreinforcementtechniquethatmaybeusedtomitigatetheinstability causedbyliquefactionistheuseofgeosyntheticreinforcementasabase reinforcementlayer.Inthiscase,thereinforcementisdesignedasdescribedin WSDOTGDMChapter9,buttheliquefiedshearstrengthisusedtoconduct theembankmentbasereinforcementdesign.
B
Critical Failure surface
> 5 ft
> 5 ft
1 2 Liquefiable Soil Minimum dimensions of improved soil > 15 ft D
1 2
Min. width > B +(D + 15 ft) and no less than width required for shear resistance needed to get FS > 1.1 for critical failure surface, but no greater than Z Min. depth of ground improvement below foundation or wall base > D + 15 ft, but no greater than Z. Dense or very stiff, non-liquefiable soil or rock
Minimum Dimensions for Soil Improvement Volume Below Foundations and Walls
Figure 6-18
M 46-03.01
Page 6-69
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Altering Soil Composition: Altering the composition of the soil typically referstochangingthesoilmatrixsothatitisnolongersusceptibleto liquefaction.Examplegroundimprovementtechniquesincludepermeation grouting(eitherchemicalormicro-finecement),jetgrouting,anddeepsoil mixing.Thesetypesofgroundimprovementaretypicallymorecostlythan thedensification/reinforcementtechniques,butmaybethemosteffective techniquesifaccessislimited,constructioninducedvibrationsmustbekept toaminimum,and/ortheimprovedgroundhassecondaryfunctions,suchasa seepagebarrierorshoringwall. Drainage Enhancements:Byimprovingthedrainagepropertiesofsoils susceptibletoliquefaction,itmaybepossibletopreventthebuild-upof excessporewaterpressures,andthusliquefaction.However,drainage improvementisnotconsideredadequatelyreliablebyWSDOTtoprevent excessporewaterpressurebuildupduetoliquefactionduetodrainagepath timeforporepressuretodissipate,andduetothepotentialfordrainage structurestobecomecloggedduringinstallationandinservice.Inaddition, withdrainageenhancementssomesettlementisstilllikely.Therefore, drainageenhancementsshallnotbeusedasameanstomitigateliquefaction. However,drainageenhancementsmayprovidesomepotentialbenefitswith densificationandreinforcementtechniquessuchasstonecolumns.
6.6 References
AASHTO,2007.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,FourthEdition. AASHTO,2008,AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,FirstEdition. Anderson,D.E.,Lam,P.,Martin,G.,andWang,J.,2008(inpress),Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments,NCHRPReport611, TransportationResearchBoard,Washington,DC,___pp. ASCE,2000,PrestandardandCommentaryfortheSeismicRehabilitationofBuildings,FEMA 356,518pp. ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2001,Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Parts I and II,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,NCHRP Project12-49,WashingtonDC. ATC-MCEERJointVenture,2002.Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic Design of Bridges,NCHRPReport472,NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram, WashingtonDC. Atwater,BrianF.,1996.Coastal Evidence for Great Earthquakes in Western Washington. AssessingEarthquakeHazardsandReducingRiskinthePacificNorthwest,USGS ProfessionalPaper1560Vol.1:pp.77-90. Bakun,W.H.,Haugerud,R.A.,Hopper,M.G.,andLudwin,R.S.,2002.TheDecember1872 WashingtonStateEarthquake.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol.92,No. 8,pp.3239-3258.
Page 6-70
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Bommer,J.J.,andAcevedo,A.B.,2004,TheUseofRealEarthquakeAccelerogramsasInput toDynamicAnalysis,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.8,SpecialIssue1,Imperial CollegePress,pp.43-91. Bowles,J.E.,1996.Foundation Analysis and Design,FifthEdition.TheMcGraw-Hill Companies,Inc.,NewYork. Brandenberg,S.J.,2005.Behavior of Pile Foundations in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground,Ph.D.dissertation,Univ.ofCaliforniaatDavis,Davis,CA. Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007a.LiquefactionInduced SofteningofLoadTransferBetweenPileGroupsandLaterallySpreadingCrusts.ASCE Journal of. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Enginerring,Vol.133,No.1,pp.91-103. Brandenberg,S.J.,Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,andChang,D.,2007b,StaticPushover AnalysesofPileGroupsinLiquefiedandLaterallySpreadingGroundinCentrifugeTests, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.9,pp. 1055-1066. Boulanger,R.W.andIdriss,I.M.,2006,LiquefactionSusceptibilityCriteriaforSiltsandClays, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCEVol.132,No.11,Nov., pp.1413-1426. Boulanger,R.W.,Kutter,B.L.,Brandenberg,S.J.,Singh,P.,andChang,D.,2003,Pile Foundations in Liquefied and Laterally Spreading Ground During Earthquakes: Centrifuge Experiments & Analyses,CollegeofEngineering,UniversityofCaliforniaatDavis,205pp. Bray,J.andRathje,E.,1998.EarthquakeInducedDisplacementsofSolidWasteLandfills. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.124,pp.242-253. Bray,J.D.,andSancio,R.B.,2006,AssessmentoftheLiquefactionSusceptibilityofFine GrainedSoils,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.132, No.9,pp.1165-1177. Bray,J.D.,andTravasarou,T.,2007,SimplifiedProcedureforEstimatingEarthquake-Induced DeviatoricSlopeDisplacements,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.4,pp.381-392. Cetin,K.O.,Seed,R.B.,DerKiureghian,A.,Tokimatsu,K.Harder,L.F.,Kayen,R.E.,andMoss, R.E.S.,2004.StandardPenetrationTest-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessment ofSeismicSoilLiquefactionPotential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.130,No.12,Dec.,pp.1314-1340. Dickenson,S.E.,McCullough,N.J.,Barkau,M.G.,andWavra,B.J.,2002,Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon,Final ReportSPR361,FHWA-OR-RD-03-04,210pp. DiscussionandClosureofResponseof0.6mCast-in-Steel-ShellPileinLiquefiedSoilunder LateralLoadingbyThomasJ.Weaver,ScottA.Ashford,andKyleM.Rollins,2005,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102, ASCE2006,pp.1238-1241.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-71
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Dobry,R.,Taboada,V,andLiu.,L.,1995.Centrifugemodelingofliquefactioneffectsduring earthquakes.Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. On Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,K.Ishihara, ed.,Tokyo,Japan,Vol.3,pp.1291-1324. Darendeli,M.,2001,Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves,Ph.D.Dissertation,Department.ofCivilEngineering,University ofTexas,Austin,362pp. EduProCivilSystems,Inc.,1999.ProShake Version 1.10,ComputerSoftware. ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI),1993.Guidelines for Site Specific Ground Motions. PaloAlto,CA.ElectricalPowerResearchInstitute,November-TR-102293. Finn,W.D.Liam,Ledbetter,R.H.andWu,G.,1994.LiquefactioninSiltySoils:Designand Analysis.Ground Failures Under Seismic Conditions,GeotechnicalSpecialPublication44. ASCE,NewYork,NewYork,pp.51-76. Finn,W.D.LiamandFujita,N.,2004.BehaviorofPilesinLiquefiableSoilsduring Earthquakes:AnalysisandDesignIssues.Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,NewYork,NewYork,April13-17,2004. Goter,S.K.,1994.Earthquakes in Washington and Oregon; 1872-1993, 1994,USGSOpen-File ReportNo.94-226A. InternationalCodeCouncil,Inc.,2006.2006 International Building Code.CountryClubHills, IL. Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2007,ResidualShearStrengthofLiquefiedSoils, Proceedings of the 27th USSD Annual Meeting and Conference, Modernization and Optimization of Existing Dams and Reservoirs. Idriss,I.M.,andBoulanger,R.W.,2008,Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,Earthquake EngineeringResearchInstitute(EERI),MNO-12,226pp. Ishihara,K.,andYoshimine,M.,1992.Evaluationofsettlementsinsanddepositsfollowing liquefactionduringearthquakes.Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE,Vol.32,No.1,March, pp.173-188. JibsonR.andJibsonM.,2003.Java Program for using Newmarks Method and Simplified Decoupled Analysis to Model Slope Deformations During Earthquakes.ComputerSoftware. USGSOpenFileReport03-005. Johnson,S.Y.,Dadisman,S.V.,Childs,J.R.,andStanley,W.D.,1999.ActiveTectonicsofthe SeattleFaultandCentralPugetSound,Washington:ImplicationsforEarthquakeHazards. Geological Society of America Bulletin,Vol.111,No.7,pp.1042-1053. Kavazanjian,E.,Matasovic,N.,Hadj-Hamou,T.andSabatini,P.J.,1997.Geotechnical Engineering Circular #3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Volume I Design Principles.ReportNo.FHWA-SA-97-077.U.S.Departmentof Transportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C. Kramer,S.L.,1996.Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.Prentice-Hall,Inc.,UpperSaddle River,NJ. Kramer,S.L.,2008.Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards in Washington State,WashingtonState DepartmentofTransportation,ReportWA-RD_______,pp.
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Kramer,S.L.andPaulsen,S.B.,2004.PracticalUseofGeotechnicalSiteResponseModels. PEER Lifelines Program Workshop on the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and the Impact on Modeling Dynamic Soil Response.Berkeley,CA.March18-19,2004. Kramer,S.L.andMayfield,R.T.,2007,ReturnPeriodofSoilLiquefaction,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.133,No.7,pp.802-813. Lee,M.andFinn,W.,1978.DESRA-2, Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential.SoilMechanicsSeriesNo.38,Dept.ofCivilEngineering,UniversityofBritish Columbia,Vancouver,B.C. Makdisi,F.I.andSeed,H.B.,1978.SimplifiedProcedureforEstimatingDamandEmbankment Earthquake-InducedDeformations.ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,Vol.104,No.GT7,July,1978,pp.849-867. Matasovi,Neven,andOrdez,Gustovo,2007,D-MOD2000,GeoMotions,LLC,Computer Software. McGuire,R.K.,2004.Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis.MonographMNO-10,Earthquake EngineeringResearchInstitute,Oakland,CA.221pp. Moss,R.E.S.,Seed,R.B.,Kayen,R.E.,Stewart,J.P.,DerKiureghian,A.andCetin,K.O.,2006. CPT-BasedProbabilisticandDeterministicAssessmentofInSituSeismicSoilLiquefaction Potential,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.132, No.8,Aug.,pp.1032-1051. Newmark,N.M.,1965.EffectsofEarthquakesonDamsandEmbankments.Geotechnique, 15(2),pp.139-160. Olson,S.M.andStark,T.D.,2002.LiquefiedStrengthRatiofromLiquefactionFlowFailure CaseHistories,Canadian Geotechnical Journal,Vol.39,June,pp629-647. Ordoez,G.A.,2000.Shake 2000,ComputerSoftware. Rathje,E.M.,andSaygili,G.,2008,ProbabilisticSeismicHazardAnalysisfortheSliding DisplacementofSlopes:ScalarandVectorApproaches,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.804-814. Rollins,K.M.,Gerber,T.M.,Lane,J.D.,andAshford,S.A.,2005,LateralResistance ofaFull-ScalePileGroupinLiquefiedSand,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.115-125. Reese,L.C.,Wang,S.T.Isenhower,W.M.,andArrellaga,J.A.,2004,ComputerProgram L-PilePlus,Version5.0,TechnicalManual,ENSOFT,Inc,.Austin,Texas. Sabatini,P.J.,Bachus,R.C.,Mayne,P.W.,Schneider,J.A.,andZettler,T.E.,2002.Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties,ReportNo.FHWAIF-02-034.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration, Washington,D.C. Saygili,G.,andRathje,E.M.,2008,EmpiricalPredictiveModelsforEarthquake-Induced SlidingDisplacementsofSlopes,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.134,No.6,pp.790-803.
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Satake,Kenji,etal.,1996.TimeandSizeofaGiantEarthquakeinCascadiaInferredfrom JapaneseTsunamiRecordsofJanuary1700.Nature,Vol.379,pp.247-248. Seed,R.B.,Cetin,K.O.,Moss,R.E.S.,Kammerer,A.M.,Pestana,J.M.,Riemer,M. F.,Sancio,R.B.,Bray,J.D.,Kayen,R.E.,Faris,A.,2003,Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A unified and Consistent Framework,EarthquakeEngineering ResearchCenter,Univ.ofCABerkeley,ReportNo.EERC2003-06,71pp. Singh,J.P.,Ashour,M.,andNorris,G.,2006,Laterally and Axially Loaded Deep Foundation Systems Computer Program DFSAP,WSDOTReport,172pp. Stewart,J.P.,Archuleta,R.J.,andPower,M.S.,2008,Earthquake Spectra, Special Issue on the Next Generation Attenuation Project,24(1),EERI. Tokimatsu,K.andSeed,H.B.,1987.EvaluationofSettlementinSandsDuetoEarthquake Shaking.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol.113,No.8,August1987. UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey,2002.Earthquake Hazards Program.Websitelink:http:// eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/ Vucetic,M.andDobry,R.(1991).Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response.Journalof GeotechnicalEngineering,Vo.117,No.1,pp.89-107. WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation,2008, LRFD Bridge Design Manual. PublicationNumberM23-50. Weaver,T.J.,Ashford,S.A.,andRollins,K.M.,2005,Responseofa0.6mCast-in-SteelShellPileinLiquefiedSoilUnderLateralLoading,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.131,No.1,pp.94-102. Yelin,T.S.,Tarr,A.C.,Michael,J.A.,andWeaver,C.S.,1994.Washington and Oregon Earthquake History and Hazards.USGS,OpenFileReport94-226B. Youd,T.L.;Idriss,I.M.;Andrus,R.D.;Arango,I.;Castro,G.;Christian,J.T.;Dobry,R.;Finn, W.D.;Harder,L.;Hynes,M.E.;Ishihara,K.;Koester,J.P.;Liao,S.S.C.;Marcuson,W.F.; Martin,G.R.;Mitchell,J.K.;Moriwaki,Y.;Power,M.S.;Robertson,P.K.;Seed,R.B.and Stokoe,K.H.,2001.LiquefactionResistanceofSoils:SummaryReportfromthe1996 NCEERand1998NCEER/NSFWorkshopsonEvaluationofLiquefactionResistanceof Soils.ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.127,No.10, pp.817-833. Youd,T.L.;Hansen,C.M.andBartlett,S.F.,2002.RevisedMultilinearRegressionEquations forPredictionofLateralSpreadDisplacement..ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.128,No.12,pp.1007-1017. Youd,T.L.andCarter,B.L.,2005.InfluenceofSoilSofteningandLiquefactiononSpectral Acceleration,Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,Vol.131, No.7,pp.811-825. Zhang,G.,Robertson,P.K.,Brachman,R.W.I.,2004,EstimatingLiquefaction-InducedLateral DisplacementsUsingtheStandardPenetrationTestorConePenetrationTest,ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,Vol.130,No.8,pp.861-871.
Page 6-74
Appendix 6-A
SiteSpecificSeismic Hazard and Site Response
Sitespecificseismichazardandresponseanalysesshallbeconducted inaccordancewithWSDOTGDMSection6.3andtheAASHTOGuide SpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Whensitespecifichazard characterizationisconducted,itshallbeconductedusingthedesignrisklevels specifiedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1.
6-A.1 Background Information for Performing Site Specific Analysis

WashingtonStateislocatedinaseismicallyactiveregion.Theseismicity variesthroughoutthestate,withtheseismichazardgenerallymoreseverein WesternWashingtonandlesssevereinEasternWashington.Earthquakesas largeasmagnitude8to9areconsideredpossibleoffthecoastofWashington State.TheregionaltectonicandgeologicconditionsinWashingtonState combinetocreateauniqueseismicsetting,wheresomeearthquakesoccur onfaults,butmorecommonlyhistoricearthquakeshavebeenassociated withlargebroadfaultzoneslocateddeepbeneaththeearthssurface.The potentialforsurfacefaultingexists,andasdiscussedinthisappendixa numberofsurfacefaultshavebeenidentifiedasbeingpotentialsourcesof seismicgroundshaking;however,surfacevegetationandterrainhavemade itparticularlydifficulttolocatesurfacefaults.Inviewofthiscomplexity,a clearunderstandingoftheregionaltectonicsettingandtherecognizedseismic sourcezonesisessentialforcharacterizingtheseismichazardataspecificsite inWashingtonState. 6-A.1.1 Regional Tectonics WashingtonStateislocatedattheconvergentcontinentalboundaryknown astheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ).TheCSZisthezonewherethe westwardadvancingNorthAmericanPlateisoverridingthesubductingJuan deFucaPlate.TheCSZextendsfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthern California.Theinteractionofthesetwoplatesresultsinthreepotentialseismic sourcezonesasdepictedonFigure6-A-1.Thesethreeseismicsourcezones are:(1)theshallowcrustalsourcezone,(2)theCSZBeniofforintraplate sourcezone,and(3)theCSZinterplateorinterfacesourcezone.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-75
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
The three potential seismic source zones present in the Pacific Northwest (Yelin et al., 1994).
Figure 6-A-1
6-A.1.2
Seismic Source Zones Ifconductingasitespecifichazardcharacterization,asaminimum,the followingsourcezonesshouldbeevaluated(allreportedmagnitudesare momentmagnitudes): ShallowCrustalSourceZone.Theshallowcrustalsourcezoneisusedto characterizeshallowcrustalearthquakeactivitywithintheNorthAmerican PlatethroughoutWashingtonState.Shallowcrustalearthquakestypically occuratdepthsrangingupto12miles.Theshallowcrustalsourcezone ischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesuptoabout magnitude7.5.Largeshallowcrustalearthquakesaretypicallyfollowedbya sequenceofaftershocks. Thelargestknownearthquakesassociatedwiththeshallowcrustalsource zoneinWashingtonStateincludeaneventontheSeattleFaultabout900 ADandthe1872NorthCascadesearthquake.TheSeattleFaulteventwas believedtohavebeenmagnitude7orgreater(Johnson,1999),andthe1872 NorthCascadesearthquakeisestimatedtohavebeenbetweenmagnitudes 6.8and7.4.Thelocationofthe1872NorthCascadesearthquakeisuncertain; however,recentresearchsuggeststheearthquakesintensitycenterwas nearthesouthendofLakeChelan(Bakunetal,2002).Otherlarge,notable shallowearthquakesinandaroundthestateincludethe1936Milton Freewater,Oregonmagnitude6.1earthquakeandtheNorthIdahomagnitude 5.5earthquake(Goter,1994).
Page 6-76
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
BenioffSourceZone.CSZBenioffsourcezoneearthquakesarealsoreferred toasintraplate,intraslab,ordeepsubcrustalearthquakes.Benioffzone earthquakesoccurwithinthesubductingJuandeFucaPlatebetweendepths of20and40milesandtypicallyhavenolargeaftershocks.Extensivefaulting resultsastheJuandeFucaPlateisforcedbelowtheNorthAmericanplateand intotheuppermantle.Benioffzoneearthquakesprimarilycontributetothe seismichazardwithinWesternWashington. TheOlympia1949(M=7.1),theSeattle1965(M=6.5),andtheNisqually 2001(M=6.8)earthquakesareconsideredtobeBenioffzoneearthquakes. TheBenioffzoneischaracterizedasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakes uptomagnitude7.5.Therecurrenceintervalforlargeearthquakesoriginating fromtheBenioffsourcezoneisbelievedtobeshorterthanfortheshallow crustalandCSZinterpolatesourcezonesdamagingBenioffzone earthquakesinWesternWashingtonoccurevery30yearsorso.Thedeep focaldepthoftheseearthquakestendstodampentheshakingintensitywhen comparedtoshallowcrustalearthquakesofsimilarmagnitudes. CSZInterplateSourceZone.TheCascadiaSubductionZone(CSZ)is anapproximately650-milelongthrustfaultthatextendsalongthePacific Coastfrommid-VancouverIslandtoNorthernCalifornia.CSZinterplate earthquakesresultfromruptureofalloraportionoftheconvergentboundary betweenthesubductingJuandeFucaplateandtheoverridingNorthAmerican plate.Thefaultsurfacesapproximately50to75milesofftheWashington coast.ThewidthoftheseismogenicportionoftheCSZinterplatefaultvaries alongitslength.Asthefaultbecomesdeeper,materialsbeingfaultedbecome ductileandthefaultisunabletostoremechanicalstresses.CSZinterplate earthquakesprimarilycontributetotheseismichazardwithinWestern Washington,thoughnotasgreatastheBenioffsourcemechanismformuchof westernWashington.ThisisparticularlythecasefortheI-5corridorbecause ofthedistanceoftheCSZinterplatesourcetotheI-5corridor. TheCSZisconsideredasbeingcapableofgeneratingearthquakesof magnitude8tomagnitude9.NoearthquakesontheCSZhavebeen instrumentallyrecorded;however,throughthegeologicrecordandhistorical recordsoftsunamisinJapan,itisbelievedthatthemostrecentCSZevent occurredintheyear1700(Atwater,1996andSatake,etal,1996).Recurrence intervalsforCSZinterplateearthquakesarethoughttobeontheorderof 400to600years.Paleogeologicevidencesuggestsfivetoseveninterplate earthquakesmayhavebeengeneratedalongtheCSZoverthelast3,500years atirregularintervals.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-77
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6-A.2 Design Earthquake Magnitude

Inadditiontoidentifyingthesitessourcezones,thedesignearthquake(s) producedbythesourcezonesmustbecharacterizedforuseinevaluating seismicgeologichazardssuchasliquefactionandlateralspreading.Typically, designearthquake(s)aredefinedbyaspecificmagnitude,source-to-site distance,andgroundmotioncharacteristics. Thefollowingguidelinesshouldbeusedfordeterminingasitesdesign earthquake(s): Thedesignearthquakeshouldconsiderhazard-compatibleevents occurringoncrustalandsubduction-relatedsources. Morethanonedesignearthquakemaybeappropriatedependinguponthe sourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismichazardandtheimpactthat theseearthquakesmayhaveonsiteresponse. Thedesignearthquakeshouldbeconsistentwiththedesignhazardlevel prescribedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3.1. TheUSGSinteractivedeaggregationtool(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ research/hazmaps/)providesasummaryofcontributiontoseismichazard forearthquakesofvariousmagnitudesandsourcetositedistancesfora givenhazardlevelandmaybeusedtoevaluaterelativecontributionto groundmotionfromseismicsources.Notethatmagnitudespresentedinthe deaggregationdatarepresentcontributiontoaspecifiedhazardleveland shouldnotsimplybeaveragedforinputintoanalysessuchasliquefactionand lateralspreading.Instead,thedeaggregationdatashouldbeusedtoassessthe relativecontributiontotheprobabilistichazardfromthevarioussourcezones. Ifanysourcezonecontributesmorethanabout10percentofthetotalhazard, designearthquakesrepresentativefromeachofthosesourcezonesshouldbe usedforanalyses. Forliquefactionorlateralspreadinganalysis,oneofthefollowingapproaches shouldbeusedtoaccountfortheearthquakemagnitude,inorderof preference: 1. Useallearthquakemagnitudesapplicableatthespecificsite(from thedeggregation)usingthemultiplescenarioorperformancebased approachesforliquefactionassessmentasdescribedbyKramer andMayfield(2007)andKramer(2008).Thesetechniquescanbe accomplishedusingtheWSLIQsoftware(Kramer,2008).Thehazard levelusedforthisanalysisshallbeconsistentwiththehazardlevel selectedforthestructureforwhichtheliquefactionanalysisisbeing conducted(typically,aprobabilityofexceedanceof7percentin75years inaccordancewiththeAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismic BridgeDesign).
Page 6-78
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
2. Ifasingleorafewlargermagnitudeearthquakesdominatethe deaggregation,themagnitudeofthesingledominantearthquakeorthe meanofthefewdominantearthquakesinthedeaggregationshouldbe used. 3. Forroutinedesign,adefaultmomentmagnitudeof7.0shouldbeused forwesternWashingtonand6.0foreasternWashington,exceptwithin 30milesofthecoastwhereCascadiaSubductionzoneeventscontribute significantlytotheseismichazard.Inthatcase,thegeotechnicaldesigner shoulduseamomentmagnitudeof8.0.Thesedefaultmagnitudes shouldnotbeusediftheyrepresentasmallerhazardthanshowninthe deaggregationdata.Notethatthesedefaultmagnitudesareintendedfor useinsimplifiedempiricallybasedliquefactionandlateralspreading analysisonlyandshouldnotbeusedfordevelopmentofthedesignground motionparameters.
6-A.3 Probabilistic and Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analyses

Probabilisticseismichazardanalysis(PSHA)anddeterministicseismic hazardanalysis(DSHA)canbecompletedtocharacterizetheseismichazard atasite.ADSHAconsistsofevaluatingtheseismichazardatasiteforan earthquakeofaspecificmagnitudeoccurringataspecificlocation.APSHA consistsofcompletingnumerousdeterministicseismichazardanalysesfor allfeasiblecombinationsofearthquakemagnitudeandsourcetositedistance foreachearthquakesourcezone.TheresultofaPSHAisarelationshipofthe meanannualrateofexceedanceofthegroundmotionparameterofinterest witheachpotentialseismicsourceconsidered.SincethePSHAprovides informationontheaggregateriskfromeachpotentialsourcezone,itismore usefulincharacterizingtheseismichazardatasiteifnumerouspotential sourcescouldimpactthesite.TheUSGS2002probabilistichazardmapson theUSGSwebsiteandaspublishedinAASHTO(2007)arebasedonPSHA. PSHAsandDSHAsmayberequiredwherethesiteislocatedclosetoafault, long-durationgroundmotionisexpected,oriftheimportanceofthebridge issuchthatalongerexposureperiodisrequiredbyWSDOT.Foramore detaileddescriptionandguidelinesfordevelopmentofPSHAsandDSHAs, seeKramer(1996)andMcGuire(2004). Sitespecifichazardanalysisshouldincludeconsiderationoftopographicand basineffects,faultdirectivityandnearfieldeffects. Ataminimum,seismichazardanalysisshouldconsiderthefollowingsources: Cascadiasubductionzoneinterpolate(interface)earthquake Cascadiasubductionzoneintraplate(Bennioff)earthquake Crustalearthquakesassociatedwithnon-specificordiffusesources (potentialsourcesfollow).Thesesourceswillaccountfordiffering
M 46-03.01
Page 6-79
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
tectonicandseismicprovincesandincludeseismiczonesassociatedwith Cascade volcanism Earthquakesonknownandpotentiallyactivecrustalfaults.Thefollowing listofpotentialseismicsourcesmaybeusedforhazardassessmentand siteresponsedevelopment.Theapplicabilityofthesesourceswilldepend ontheirproximitytothesite. SeattleFaultZone SouthernWhidbeyIslandFault UtsaladyFault StrawberryPointFault DevilsMountainFault HorseHeavenHillsAnticline Rattlesnake-WallulaFaultSystem MillCreekFault SaddleMountainsFault HiteFaultSystem WhenPSHAorDSHAareperformedforasite,thefollowinginformation shallbeincludedasaminimuminprojectdocumentationandreports: Overviewofseismicsourcesconsideredinanalysis Summaryofseismicsourceparametersincludinglength/boundaries, sourcetype,sliprate,segmentation,maximummagnitude,recurrence modelsandrelationshipsused,sourcedepthandgeometry.Thissummary shouldincludetherationalebehindselectionofsourceparameters. Assumptionsunderlyingtheanalysisshouldbesummarizedineithera table(DSHA)orinalogictree(PSHA) The2002USGSprobabilistichazardmapsaspublishedinAASHTO(2007) essentiallyaccountforregionalseismicityandattenuationrelationships, recurrencerates,maximummagnitudeofeventsonknowfaultsorsource zones,andthelocationofthesitewithrespecttothefaultsorsourcezones. TheUSGSdataissufficientformostsites,andmoresophisticatedseismic hazardanalysesaregenerallynotrequired;theexceptionsmaybetocapture theeffectsofsourcesnotincludedintheUSGSmodel,toassessnearfieldor directivityinfluences,ortoincorporatetopographicimpactsorbasineffects. TheAASHTOseismichazardmapsdonotexplicitlyaccountfortheeffects ofnear-faultmotions(i.e.,groundmotiondirectivityorpulseeffects)or bedrocktopography(i.e.,socalledbasineffects).Theseeffectsmodifyground motions,particularlyatcertainperiods,forsiteslocatednearactivefaults (typicallywith6miles)orforsiteswheresignificantchangesinbedrock topographyoccurs.Forspecificrequirementsregardingnearfaulteffects,see theAASHTOGuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.
Page 6-80
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
6-A.4 Selection of Attenuation Relationships

Attenuationrelationshipsdescribethedecayofearthquakeenergyasit travelsfromtheseismicsourcetotheprojectsite.Manyofthenewer publishedrelationshipsarecapableofaccommodatingsitesoilconditions aswellasvaryingsourceparameters(e.g.,faulttype,locationrelativetothe fault,near-fieldeffects,etc.)Inaddition,duringthepast10years,specific attenuationrelationshipshavebeendevelopedforCascadiasubduction zonesources.Forbothdeterministicandprobabilistichazardassessments, attenuationrelationshipsusedinanalysisshouldbeselectedbasedon applicabilitytoboththesiteconditionsandthetypeofseismicsourceunder consideration.Rationalefortheselectionofandassumptionsunderlyingthe useofattenuationrelationshipsforhazardcharacterizationshallbeclearly documented. AttenuationrelationshipsusedindevelopingtheUSGS/AASHTOSeismic HazardMapsfortheseGuideSpecificationsdonotincludetheNext GenerationAttenuation(NGA)relationshipsdevelopedin2006and2007.It isrecommendedthattheNGArelationships(Stewart,etal.,2008)beusedfor anyfuturesite-specificstudiesformodelingcrustalsources. Ifdeterministicmethodsareusedtodevelopdesignspectra,thespectral ordinatesshouldbedevelopedusingarangeofgroundmotionattenuation relationshipsconsistentwiththesourcemechanisms.Atleastthreetofour attenuationrelationshipsshouldbeused.
6-A.5 Site Specific Ground Response Analysis

6-A.5.1 Design/Computer Models Sitespecificgroundresponseanalysesaremostcommonlydoneusingonedimensionalequivalent-linearornonlinearprocedures.Aonedimensional analysisisgenerallybasedontheassumptionthatsoilsandgroundsurface arelaterallyuniformandhorizontalandthatgroundsurfacemotions canbemodeledbyverticallypropagatingshearwavethroughlaterally uniformsoils.Theinfluenceofverticalmotions,surfacewaves,laterally non-uniformsoilconditions,incoherenceandspatialvariationofground motionsarenotaccountedforinconventional,one-dimensionalanalyses (Kavazanjian,etal.,1997).Avarietyofsiteresponsecomputermodelsare availabletogeotechnicaldesignersfordynamicsiteresponseanalyses.In general,therearethreeclassesofdynamicgroundresponsemodels:1)one dimensionalequivalentlinear,2)onedimensionalnonlinear,and3)multidimensionmodels. One-Dimensional Equivalent Linear Models.One-dimensionalequivalent linearsiteresponsecomputercodes,suchasProShake(EduProCivilSystems, 1999)orShake2000(Ordoez,2000),useaniterativetotalstressapproach toestimatethenonlinear,inelasticbehaviorofsoils.Theseprogramsusean averageshearmodulusandmaterialdampingovertheentirecycleofloading toapproximatethehysteresisloop.
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Theequivalentlinearmodelprovidesreasonableresultsforsmallstrains(less thanabout1to2percent)(KramerandPaulsen,2004).Equivalentlinear analysisshouldbeusedwithcautionwherelargestrainislikelytooccur. One-Dimensional Nonlinear Models.One-dimensional,nonlinearcomputer codes,suchasD-MOD2000,orDESRA,usedirectnumericalintegrationof the incrementalequationofmotioninsmalltimestepsandaccountforthe nonlinearsoilbehaviorthroughuseofconstitutivesoilmodels.Depending upontheconstitutivemodelused,theseprogramscanmodelporewater pressurebuildupandpermanentdeformations.Theaccuracyofnonlinear modelsdependsontheproperselectionofparametersusedbyconstitutivesoil modelandtheabilityoftheconstitutivemodeltorepresenttheresponseofthe soiltogroundshaking. AnotherissuethatcanaffecttheaccuracyofthemodelishowtheG/Gmax and damping relations are modeled and the ability of the design model to adapt thoserelationstositespecificdata.Additionally,theproperselectionofa Rayleighdampingvaluecanhaveasignificanteffectonthemodelingresults. Ingeneral,avalueof1to2%isneededtomaintainnumericalstability. ItshouldberecognizedthattheRayleighdampingwillactinadditionto hystereticdampingproducedbythenonlinear,inelasticsoilmodel.Rayleigh dampingshouldthereforebelimitedtothesmallestvaluethatprovidesthe requirednumericalstability.Theresultsofanalysesusingvaluesgreaterthan 1to2%shouldbeinterpretedwithgreatcaution. SeeWSDOTGDMSection6.4.2.2forspecificissuesrelatedtoliquefaction modelingwhenusingone-dimensionalnonlinearanalysismethods. Two and Three Dimensional Models.Two-andthree-dimensionalsite responseanalysescanbeperformedusingcomputercodes,suchasQUAD4, PLAXIS,FLAC,andDYNAFLOW,andusebothequivalentlinearand nonlinearmodels.Manyattributesofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodels aresimilartothosedescribedabovefortheone-dimensionalequivalent linearandnonlinearmodels.However,thetwo-andthree-dimensional computercodestypicallyrequiresignificantlymoremodeldevelopmentand computationaltimethanone-dimensionalanalyses.Theimportantadvantages ofthetwo-andthree-dimensionalmodelsincludetheabilitytoconsidersoil anisotropy,irregularsoilstratigraphy,surfacewaves,irregulartopography, andsoil-structureinteraction.Anotheradvantagewiththetwo-andthreedimensionalmodelsisthatseismicallyinducedpermanentdisplacements canbeestimated.Successfulapplicationofthesecodesrequiresconsiderable knowledgeandexperience.Expertpeer review of the analysis shouldbe conducted,unlessapprovaltonotconductthepeerreviewisobtainedfrom theStateGeotechnicalEngineer.
Page 6-82
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
6-A.5.2 InputParametersforSiteSpecificResponseAnalysis Theinputparametersrequiredforbothequivalent-linearandnonlinearsite specificgroundresponseanalysisincludethesitestratigraphy(including soillayeringanddepthtorockorrock-likematerial),dynamicproperties foreachstratigraphiclayer(includingsoilandrockstiffness,e.g.,shear wavevelocity),andgroundmotiontimehistories.Soilandrockparameters requiredbytheequivalentlinearmodelsincludetheshearwavevelocityor initial(smallstrain)shearmodulusandunitweightforeachlayer,andcurves relatingtheshearmodulusanddampingratioasafunctionofshearstrain(See Figures6-1through6-3). Theparametersrequiredforcyclicnonlinearsoilmodelsgenerallyconsist ofabackbonecurvethatmodelsthestressstrainpathduringcyclicloading andrulesforloadingandunloading,stiffnessdegradation,porepressure generationandotherfactors(Kramer,1996).Moresophisticatednonlinearsoil constitutivemodelsrequiredefinitionofyieldsurfaces,hardeningfunctions, andflowrules.Manyofthesemodelsrequirespecificationofmultiple parameterswhosedeterminationmayrequireasignificantlaboratorytesting program. Oneofthemostcriticalaspectsoftheinputtoasite-specificresponseanalysis isthesoilandrockstiffnessandimpedancevaluesorshearwavevelocity profile.Greatcareshouldbetakeninestablishingtheshearwavevelocity profileitshouldbemeasuredwheneverpossible.Equalcareshouldbe takenindevelopingsoilmodels,includingshearwavevelocityprofiles,to adequatelymodelthepotentialrangeandvariabilityingroundmotionsatthe siteandadequatelyaccountfortheseinthesitespecificdesignparameters (e.g.,spectra).Alongbridge,forexample,maycrossmaterialsofsignificantly differentstiffness(i.e.,velocities)and/orsoilprofilesbeneaththevarious bridgepiersandabutments.Becausedifferentsoilprofilescanrespond differently,andsometimes(particularlywhenverysoftand/orliquefiable soilsarepresent)verydifferently,greatcareshouldbetakeninselectingand averagingsoilprofilesandpropertiespriortoperformingthesiteresponse analyses.Inmostcases,itispreferabletoanalyzetheindividualprofiles and then aggregate the responses rather than to average the soil properties or profilesandanalyzeonlytheaveragedprofile. Asuiteofgroundmotiontimehistoriesisrequiredforbothequivalentlinear andnonlinearsiteresponseanalysesasdescribedinWSDOTGDMSection 6-A.6.Theuseofatleastthreeinputgroundmotionsisrequiredandsevenor moreispreferredforsitespecificgroundresponseanalysis(total,regardless ofthenumberofsourcezonesthatneedtobeconsidered.Guidelinesfor selectionanddevelopmentofgroundmotiontimehistoriesarealsodescribed inWSDOTGDMSection6-A.6.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-83
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
6-A.6 Analysis Using Acceleration-Time Histories

ThesitespecificanalysesdiscussedinWSDOTGDMSection6.3andinthis appendixarefocusedonthedevelopmentofsitespecificdesignspectraand useinothergeotechnicalanalyses.However,sitespecifictimehistoriesmay berequiredasinputinnonlinearstructuralanalysis. Timehistorydevelopmentandanalysisforsite-specificgroundresponse orotheranalysesshallbeconductedasspecifiedintheAASHTOGuide SpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign.Forconvenience, Article3.4.4andcommentaryoftheAASHTOGuideSpecifications isprovidedbelow: Earthquake acceleration time histories will be required for site-specific ground motion response evaluations and for nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis of bridge structures. The time histories for these applications shall have characteristics that are representative of the seismic environment of the site and the local site conditions, including the response spectrum for the site. Response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be developed from representative recorded earthquake motions. Analytical techniques used for spectrum matching shall be demonstrated to be capable of achieving seismologically realistic time series that are similar to the time series of the initial time histories selected for spectrum matching. The recorded time histories should be scaled to the approximate level of the design response spectrum in the period range of significance unless otherwise approved by the Owner. At least three response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be used for representing the design earthquake (ground motions having 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years) when conducting dynamic ground motion response analyses or nonlinear inelastic modeling of bridges. For site-specific ground motion response modeling single components of separate records shall be used in the response analysis. The target spectrum used to develop the time histories is defined at the base of the soil column. The target spectrum is obtained from the USGS/ AASHTO Seismic Hazard Maps or from a site-specific hazard analysis as described in Article 3.4.3.1. For nonlinear time history modeling of bridge structures, the target spectrum is usually located at or close to the ground surface, i.e., the rock spectrum has been modified for local site effects. Each component of motion shall be modeled. The issue of requiring all three orthogonal components (x, y, and z) of design motion to be input simultaneously shall be considered as a requirement when conducting a nonlinear time-history analysis. The design actions shall be taken as the maximum response calculated for the three ground motions in each principal direction.
Page 6-84
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
If a minimum of seven time histories are used for each component of motion, the design actions may be taken as the mean response calculated for each principal direction. For near-field sites (D < 6 miles) the recorded horizontal components of motion selected should represent a near-field condition and that they should be transformed into principal components before making them response-spectrum-compatible. The major principal component should then be used to represent motion in the fault-normal direction and the minor principal component should be used to represent motion in the fault-parallel direction. Characteristics of the seismic environment of the site to be considered in selecting time-histories include: tectonic environment (e.g., subduction zone; shallow crustal faults in western United States or similar crustal environment; eastern United States or similar crustal environment); earthquake magnitude; type of faulting (e.g., strike-slip; reverse; normal); seismic-source-to-site distance; basin effects, local site conditions; and design or expected ground-motion characteristics (e.g., design response spectrum; duration of strong shaking; and special ground-motion characteristics such as near-fault characteristics). Dominant earthquake magnitudes and distances, which contribute principally to the probabilistic design response spectra at a site, as determined from national ground motion maps, can be obtained from deaggregation information on the U.S. Geological Survey website: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/. It is desirable to select time-histories that have been recorded under conditions similar to the seismic conditions at the site listed above, but compromises are usually required because of the multiple attributes of the seismic environment and the limited data bank of recorded time-histories. Selection of time-histories having similar earthquake magnitudes and distances, within reasonable ranges, are especially important parameters because they have a strong influence on response spectral content, response spectral shape, duration of strong shaking, and near-source ground-motion characteristics. It is desirable that selected recorded motions be somewhat similar in overall ground motion level and spectral shape to the design spectrum to avoid using very large scaling factors with recorded motions and very large changes in spectral content in the spectrum-matching approach. If the site is located within 6 miles of an active fault, then intermediate-to-long-period ground-motion pulses that are characteristic of near-source time-histories should be included if these types of ground motion characteristics could significantly influence structural response. Similarly, the high short-period spectral content of near-source vertical ground motions should be considered.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-85
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Ground-motion modeling methods of strong-motion seismology are being increasingly used to supplement the recorded ground-motion database. These methods are especially useful for seismic settings for which relatively few actual strong-motion recordings are available, such as in the central and eastern United States. Through analytical simulation of the earthquake rupture and wave-propagation process, these methods can produce seismologically reasonable time series. Response spectrum matching approaches include methods in which time series adjustments are made in the time domain (Lilhanand and Tseng, 1988; Abrahamson, 1992) and those in which the adjustments are made in the frequency domain (Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976; Silva and Lee, 1987; Bolt and Gregor, 1993). Both of these approaches can be used to modify existing time-histories to achieve a close match to the design response spectrum while maintaining fairly well the basic timedomain character of the recorded or simulated time-histories. To minimize changes to the time-domain characteristics, it is desirable that the overall shape of the spectrum of the recorded time-history not be greatly different from the shape of the design response spectrum and that the time-history initially be scaled so that its spectrum is at the approximate level of the design spectrum before spectrum matching. When developing three-component sets of time histories by simple scaling rather than spectrum matching, it is difficult to achieve a comparable aggregate match to the design spectra for each component of motion when using a single scaling factor for each time-history set. It is desirable, however, to use a single scaling factor to preserve the relationship between the components. Approaches for dealing with this scaling issue include: Use of a higher scaling factor to meet the minimum aggregate match requirement for one component while exceeding it for the other two, Use of a scaling factor to meet the aggregate match for the most critical component with the match somewhat deficient for other components, and Compromising on the scaling by using different factors as required for different components of a time-history set. While the second approach is acceptable, it requires careful examination and interpretation of the results and possibly dual analyses for application of the horizontal higher horizontal component in each principal horizontal direction. The requirements for the number of time histories to be used in nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis and for the interpretation of the results take into account the dependence of response on the time domain character of the time histories (duration, pulse shape, pulse sequencing) in addition to their response spectral content.
Page 6-86
Chapter 6
Seismic Design
Additional guidance on developing acceleration time histories for dynamic analysis may be found in publications by the Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Adhoc Committee (CSABAC) on Soil-FoundationStructure Interaction (1999) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000). CSABAC (1999) also provides detailed guidance on modeling the spatial variation of ground motion between bridge piers and the conduct of seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) analyses. Both spatial variations of ground motion and SFSI may significantly affect bridge response. Spatial variations include differences between seismic wave arrival times at bridge piers (wave passage effect), ground motion incoherence due to seismic wave scattering, and differential site response due to different soil profiles at different bridge piers. For long bridges, all forms of spatial variations may be important. For short bridges, limited information appears to indicate that wave passage effects and incoherence are, in general, relatively unimportant in comparison to effects of differential site response (Shinozuka et al., 1999; Martin, 1998). Somerville et al. (1999) provide guidance on the characteristics of pulses of ground motion that occur in time histories in the near-fault region. Inadditiontotheinformationsourcescitedabove,Kramer(1996)and BommerandAcevedo(2004)provideexcellentguidanceontheselection, scaling,anduseoftimehistoriesforgroundmotioncharacterizationand dynamicanalysis. Finalselectionoftimehistoriestobeusedwilldependontwofactors: Howwelltheresponsespectrumgeneratedfromthescaledtimehistories matchesthedesignresponsespectrum,and Similarityofthefaultmechanismsforthetimehistoriestothoseof recognizedseismicsourcezonesthatcontributetothesitesseismic hazardAlso,iftheearthquakerecordsareusedinthesitespecificground responsemodelasbedrockmotion,therecordsshouldberecordedon siteswithbedrockcharacteristics.Thefrequencycontent,earthquake magnitude,andpeakbedrockaccelerationshouldalsobeusedascriteria toselectearthquaketimehistoriesforuseinsitespecificgroundresponse analysis. Therequirementsinthefirstbulletaremostimportanttomeetifthefocusof theseismicmodelingisstructuralandfoundationdesign.Therequirements inthesecondbulletaremostimportanttomeetifliquefactionanditseffects areamajorconsiderationinthedesignofthestructureanditsfoundations. Especiallyimportantinthelattercaseisthedurationofstrongmotion. Notethatapotentialissuewiththeuseofaspectrum-compatiblemotion thatshouldbeconsideredisthatinwesternWashington,theuniformhazard spectrum(UHS)mayhavesignificantcontributionsfromdifferentsources thathavemajordifferencesinmagnitudesandsite-to-sourcedistances.The UHScannotconvenientlybeapproximatedbyasingleearthquakesource.
M 46-03.01
Page 6-87
Seismic Design
Chapter 6
Forexample,thelowperiod(highfrequency)partoftheUHSspectrummay becontrolledbyalow-magnitude,short-distanceeventandthelongperiod (lowfrequency)portionbyalarge-magnitude,long-distanceevent.Fittinga singlemotiontothattargetspectrumwillthereforeproduceanunrealistically energeticmotionwithanunlikelyduration.Usingthatmotionasaninput toananalysisinvolvingsignificantamountsofnonlinearity(suchassome sortofpermanentdeformationanalysis,ortheanalysisofastructurewith severeloading)canleadtooverpredictionofresponse(soiland/orstructural). However,ifthesoilisoverloadedbythispotentiallyunrealisticallyenergetic predictionofgroundmotion,thesoilcouldsoftenexcessivelyanddampena lotofenergy(largestrains),morethanwouldbeexpectedinreality,leadingto anunconservativepredictionofdemandsinthestructure. Toaddressthispotentialissue,timehistoriesrepresentingthedistinctly differentseismicsources(e.g.,shallowcrustalversussubductionzone) shouldbespectrallymatchedorscaledtocorrespondinglydistinct,sourcespecificspectra.Asource-specificspectrumshouldmatchtheUHSordesign spectrumovertheperiodrangeinwhichthesourceisthemostsignificant contributortothegroundmotionhazard,butwilllikelybelowerthanthe UHSordesignspectrumatotherperiodsforwhichthesourceisnotthemost significantcontributortothehazard.However,thedifferentsource-spectra inaggregateshouldenvelopetheUHSordesignspectrum.Approvalbythe StateGeotechnicalEngineerandStateBridgeEngineerisrequiredforuseof source-specificspectraandtimehistories.
Page 6-88

Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Chapter 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 6

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

6.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Geotechnical Issues Site Response Field Testing Laboratory Testing

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

Notes: (1) 1 kPa = 20.885 psf (2) Pa and qc in kPa

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

Modulus Reduction Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Themodulusreduction curveforsoil,asafunctionofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshownin Equations6-1and6-2.

where, G = shearmodulusatshearstrain,inthesameunitsasGmax = shearstrain(%),and = 0.92 a risdefinedinEquation6-2as:

0.0352;2=0.0010;3=0.3246;4=0.3483(fromregression), overconsolidationratioforsoil effectiveverticalstress,inatmospheres,and plasticindex,in%

Damping Curve (Darendelli, 2001):Thedampingratioforsoil,asafunction ofshearstrain,shouldbecalculatedasshowninEquations6-3through6-7. Initialstep:Computeclosed-formexpressionforMasingDampingfora=1.0 (standardhyperbolicbackbonecurve):

Forothervaluesofa(e.g.,a=0.92,asusedtocalculateG): DMasing,a ()[%]=c1(Dmasing,a=1)+c2(Dmasing,a=1)2+c3(Dmasing,a=1)3 Where, c1 = 0.2523+1.8618a1.1143a2 c2 = 0.00950.0710a+0.0805a2 c3 = 0.0003+0.0002a0.0005a2 (6-4)

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

G bDMa sin g ( ) Gmax

frequencyofloading,inHz numberofloadingcycles 0.8005; 7=0.0129; 8=-0.1069; -0.2889; 10=0.2919; 11=0.6329; 12=-0.0057

Weighting factors for residual strength estimation (Kramer, 2008).

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

6.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

M 46-03.01 Seismic Design

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

M 46-03.01 Seismic Design

2006 IBC for Site Response The2006IBC,Sections1613through1615,providesprocedurestoestimate theearthquakeloadsforthedesignofbuildingsandsimilarstructures. Earthquakeloadsperthe2006IBCaredefinedbyaccelerationresponse spectra,whichcanbedeterminedthroughtheuseofthe2006IBCgeneral

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

6.4 Seismic Geologic Hazards

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

Earthquake Faults in Washington State (adapted from USGS, 2002).

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

ThefactorofsafetyagainstliquefactionisdefinedbyEquation6-9: FSliq=CRR/CSR (6-9)

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual January 2010

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.01 January 2010