Geotechnical Design Considerations PDF

Chapter 3
Geotechnical Design Considerations
Marshall Lew, Ph.D., G.E.

Corporate Consultant, Law/Crandall, a division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (A LAWGIBB Group
Member), Los Angeles
Key words: Building Code, Earthquake Ground Motion, Fault Rupture, International Building Code, Landslides, Lateral
Spreading, Liquefaction Analysis, Liquefaction Mitigation, Near-Source Effects, Response Spectra,
Settlement, Site Effects, Soil-Structure Interaction, Soil Profiles, Tsunamis, Uniform Building Code.
Abstract: This chapter surveys the interactions between structural and geotechnical engineering in earthquake-resistant
design. The effects of the local site conditions and geology are presented as applied in the Uniform Building
Code and in the new International Building Code. Methods of characterizing the site conditions, as well as
consideration of near-source effects, are discussed. This chapter also addresses the issues of soil
liquefaction. Methods of analysis for soil liquefaction are presented, incorporating various techniques
generally accepted by the profession. The consequences resulting from liquefaction, namely liquefaction-
induced settlement, lateral spreading, and loss of bearing capacity, are presented as well as methods of
estimating these effects. Various methods and strategies to mitigate the effects of soil liquefaction are
presented as well as the merits of each. The latter part of the chapter discusses other geologic-seismic
hazards, including seismic settlement, landsliding, tsunamis, and earthquake fault rupture. There is also a
discussion of soil-structure interaction and design of walls below grade for seismic earth pressures.
125
126 Chapter 3
3. Geotechnical Design Considerations 127
In a seismic environment, there may exist a

3.1 INTRODUCTION potential for ground failures. It is obvious that if
the ground should fail beneath a structure, the
Structures come in different shapes, forms, structure could be severely or totally damaged.
and sizes. However, all structures have at least Such an event would threaten real property and
one feature in common; they all have a life safety. Several different ground failure
foundation. A foundation is the means by which mechanisms will be discussed in this chapter.
the superstructure interfaces with the
underlying soil or rock. Under static conditions, 3.2 SITE AND SOIL
generally only the vertical loads of a structure CONDITIONS
need be transferred to the supporting soil or
rock. In a seismic environment, the loads Because a foundation must be capable of
imposed on a foundation from a structure under adequately supporting a structure in an
seismic excitation can greatly exceed the static economical manner, it is imperative that there
vertical loads or even produce uplift; in be a proper geotechnical investigation. This
addition, there will be horizontal forces and geotechnical investigation should provide
possibly moments at the foundation level. information about the soil types beneath the site
Consideration must also be given to what and their physical characteristics (i.e., strength,
could happen to the supporting soil or rock compressibility, permeability, etc.). The
under seismic excitation. For example, an investigation should also provide economical
earthquake might cause the phenomenon of and feasible alternatives for the support of the
liquefaction to occur in loose sandy soils which structure. These recommendations should take
would cause a virtually complete loss of all into account the functionality and purpose of
bearing capacity of the soil; needless to say, a the structure. In a seismic environment, the
structure founded on such soils would suffer geotechnical investigation would also need to
great distress and upset. evaluate the behavior of the supporting soils
This chapter will attempt to identify those under earthquake excitation and determine or
phenomena that would affect the design of predict the impact and consequences upon the
foundations and structures in a seismic structure and the foundation types
environment. Some of these phenomena can be recommended.
effectively designed for by structural detailing, Not only is it important to investigate the
but some of these phenomena are beyond the soil conditions, the general site conditions also
magic and wizardry of the structural merit deep scrutiny. This investigation should
engineering profession and geotechnical include features near the building area and also
wizardry may also be needed. In some distant features. Important nearby site features
instances, there may not be an economical would include water levels, topographic
engineering solution for the problem. features, and the presence of other structures
This chapter will be different from other both above and below ground. Offsite and even
chapters in this handbook in the respect that not distant features could have some influence upon
all of the solutions to the seismic problems will the proposed structure, especially in a
be an engineering solution. This just points out seismically active area. For example, there
the limitations of the science and art we know could be large bodies of water retained by earth
as engineering. We as engineers must be able to dams that could fail in an earthquake; if the
recognize our limitations and shortcomings and structure is in the path of this potential
realize that we cannot always be the white inundation, the consequences could be very
knight that is able to save the damsel in distress. grave indeed.
If we can attain at least this little enlightenment,
we will all be better engineers.
128 Chapter 3
3.3 SITE EFFECTS to a maximum of 1.5. This concept of the soil

factor remained in the UBC up to the 1985
edition(3-2) and was removed in the 1988
3.3.1 Effects of Soils on Earthquake edition. (3-3)
Loads on Structures In the 1985 edition, a second method of
determining the Soil Factor was introduced.
It has become recognized that the local site This method is not dependent on the ratio of
conditions have a very important role on the T/Ts. Instead, the code defined three soil profile
response of structures. The soil and rock at a types, which essentially were rock, deep soil,
site have specific characteristics that can and soft soil and the Soil Profile types were
significantly amplify the incoming earthquake designated S1, S2, and S3, respectively. The
motions traveling from the earthquake source. values of the Soil Factor were 1.0, 1.2, and 1.5
The importance of local site conditions was for S1, S2, and S3, respectively. In response to
recognized in the 1960s by the influence of the Mexico City earthquake, a fourth Soil
ground motions on midheight buildings in the Profile type, S4, was added in 1988 for very
Caracas, Venezuela earthquake. For buildings deep soft soils like those found in Mexico City
of about the same height with similar and perhaps in some parts of the San Francisco
construction, it was observed that such Bay region; the S4 factor was equal to 2.0.
buildings founded on deep soils were more
damaged than the similar buildings founded on Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition
rock. These observations were further The 1994 UBC(3-4) specifies the design base
confirmed with the 1985 Mexico City shear in a given direction to be:
earthquake where ground motions in Mexico ZICW
City, some several hundreds of kilometers from V=
Rw
the fault rupture, were amplified in the deep
1.25 S
soft lakebed deposits that underlie the city; where C =
these ground motions had a long period and T 2/3
affected many high-rise buildings adversely
with some collapses. I = Importance Factor
3.3.2 Uniform Building Code Z = Seismic Zone Factor

Recognition
The value of C need not exceed 2.75 and
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) may be used for any structure without regard to
acknowledged the importance of local site soil type or structure period. The value of the
effects and the concept of a “Soil Factor” was Seismic Zone Factor, Z, is given in Table 3-1:
added to the lateral force design procedure in
the 1976 edition of the UBC.(3-1) At that time, a Table 3-1. — Seismic Zone Factor
Soil-Structure Resonance Factor, S, was part of From Table 16-I of the 1994 UBC (Ref. 3-4)
Zone 1 2A 2B 3 4
the design base shear equation; the value of the
Z 0.075 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40
“S-factor” was dependent upon the ratio of
T/Ts, where T is the fundamental building
The Site Coefficients, S, for the four soil
period and Ts is the characteristic site period.
types in the 1994 UBC are given in Table 3-2:
The “S-factor” ranged from a minimum of 1.0
Table 3-2. — Site Coefficients, S

From Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC (Ref. 3-4)
TYPE DESCRIPTION S FACTOR
A soil profile with either:
(a) A rock-like material characterized by a shear-wave velocity greater than 2,500 feet per
S1 second (762 m/s) or by other suitable means of classification, or 1.0
(b) Medium-dense to dense or medium-stiff to stiff soil conditions, where soil depth is less
than 200 feet (60,960 mm)
A soil profile with predominantly medium-dense to dense or medium stiff to stiff soil
S2 1.2
conditions, where the soil depth exceeds 200 feet (60,960 mm)
A soil profile containing more than 20 feet (6,096 mm) of soft to medium-stiff clay but not
S3 1.5
more than 40 feet (12,192 mm) of soft clay
A soil profile containing more than 40 feet (12,192 mm) of soft clay characterized by a shear
S4 2.0
wave velocity less than 500 feet per second (152.4 m/s)
The site factor is to be established from parallel effort by the Building Seismic Safety
properly substantiated geotechnical data. In Council (BSSC) for the 1997 NEHRP
locations where the soil properties are not Provisions.(3-7) (NEHRP is an acronym for the
known in sufficient detail to determine the soil National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
type, soil profile S3 is to be used. Soil profile S4 Program.) The NEHRP Provisions serve as the
need not be assumed unless the building official source document for other United States model
determines that soil profile S4 may be present at building codes (BOCA and Southern Building
the site, or in the event that soil profile S4 is Code). Therefore, this change is seen not only
established by geotechnical data. as an important advancement in seismic design
requirements, but as a critical step toward the
Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition cooperative development of a single national
The 1997 UBC(3-5) has some major changes building code for the United States by the
from the earlier editions. The first major year 2000.
difference is that it is a strength-based code. The 1997 UBC code incorporates a number
From an earth science or geotechnical of important lessons from recent earthquakes
perspective, the 1997 UBC has tried to and recent advances from other sources. In
incorporate new understanding about ground general it is intended to provide parity with
motion amplification and attempts to account previous requirements, except for longer period
for near-source effects. buildings in near-field locations and for
The 1997 UBC contains a number of very structural systems with poor redundancy.
significant changes affecting the seismic design
of buildings. The code was developed by the 3.3.3 Overview of 1997 UBC
Seismology Committee of the Structural
Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) The following key concepts are contained in the
over a period of three years and is contained in 1997 UBC:
Appendix C of the 1996 Recommended Lateral 1. The adoption of ASCE-7 load factors for
Force Requirements and Commentary, also strength-based load combinations. In
known as the SEAOC Blue Book.(3-6) In addition, working stress load combinations
addition to converting the code from a working are maintained as an alternative.
stress to a strength basis, it was intended to 2. The incorporation of a
advance the seismic provisions in several Redundancy/Reliability Factor (ρ), which is
important areas. The Seismology Committee intended to encourage redundant lateral
developed the proposal in coordination with a force resisting systems by penalizing non-
130 Chapter 3
redundant ones through higher lateral force calculation could not be codified in simple
requirements. language while guaranteeing accuracy, so
3. The incorporation of near-source factors (Na the single R value was adopted. However,
and Nv ) in Seismic Zone 4 which are the two component R has been maintained
intended to recognize the amplified ground in the SEAOC Blue Book version,
motions which occur at close distances to essentially for its educational value.
the fault.
4. The adoption of a new set of soil profile The Na and Nv factors represent the most
categories (from 1994 NEHRP) which are significant difference between the 1997 UBC
used in combination with Seismic Zone and the developing 1997 NEHRP Provisions,
Factors (Z) and near-source factors, to which will address near field effects through the
provide site-dependent ground motion use of spectral values maps which are being
coefficients (Ca and Cv) defining ground developed by BSSC based on new seismic risk
motion response within the acceleration and maps developed by the United States
velocity-controlled ranges of the spectrum. Geological Survey (USGS). The maps represent
The design response spectrum differs from a major research effort which was not
the spectrum in the 1994 and earlier UBC in completed (for design application) in time for
two ways: the constant velocity portion is use in the 1997 UBC code.
now defined by 1/T, as opposed to 1/T2/3, An important concept in the 1997 UBC code
causing it to drop more rapidly in that range, is the use of elastic response parameters to
and the plateau in the constant acceleration define unreduced forces and displacements
domain varies with Ca rather than being a (R=1) for calculations involving drift and
constant value for all soil profiles. deformation compatibility and in dynamic
5. Substantial revisions to lateral force analysis. In addition, the parameter EM has been
requirements for elements of structures, introduced to represent the maximum
nonstructural components and equipment earthquake force that can be developed in the
supported by structures. These provisions structure for use in addressing non-ductile
more accurately represent lateral forces on conditions, similar to the 3RW/8 parameter in
elements by recognizing varying diaphragm the 1994 UBC. EM is used to define collector
accelerations, component amplification, strength requirements.
component response modification, and
ground motion response. Similar changes Near-Source Factors and Code Elastic
are proposed for non-building structures. Design Response Spectra
6. A simplified design base shear calculation The design base shear, as determined in the
permitted for one- and two-story dwellings, 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC, is a
one to three-story light frame construction function of an assumed level of ground motion.
and other one- and two-story buildings as In Seismic Zone 4, this level of ground motion
permitted. has been taken as being an effective peak
7. The R-factor has been adjusted to provide a ground acceleration (EPA) of 0.4g. While no
strength level base shear. Earlier editions of formal relationship exists between the EPA and
the code change proposal submitted to the the peak ground acceleration (PGA), it may be
International Conference of Building taken that the EPA is about two-thirds of the
Officials (ICBO) contained a two- PGA.
component R-factor, with values for R0 and Strong motion measurements in recent large
Rd representing overstrength and system earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge and
ductility. However, it was found that the 1995 Kobe events, showed that ground motions
requirements for defining the plastic are significantly greater near the earthquake
mechanism analysis required for the R0 source. These events had near-source ground
Table 3-3. — Soil Profile Types, 1997 UBC

From Table 16-J, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Soil Profile Average Shear Wave Velocity, vs, for upper 100 feet of
Soil Profile Name/Generic Description
Type soil profile, feet/second (m/s)
>5,000
SA Hard Rock
(1,500)
2,500 to 5,000
SB Rock
(760 to 1,500)
1,200 to 2,500
SC Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock
(360 to 760)
600 to 1,200
SD Stiff Soil
(180 to 360)
<600
SE Soft Soil
(180)
SF Soils Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation
motions that greatly exceeded the EPA level for specific evaluation. The near-source factor, Na,
Zone 4 in the 1994 UBC codes. It has also been for short periods is shown in Table 3-4 as a
observed that the amplification of long-period function of the three seismic source types; the
ground motions is also greater with less near-source factor, Nv, for long periods is
competent site soil conditions. shown in Table 3-5 for the different seismic
These near-source factors apply only to source types.
Seismic Zone 4 because it is believed that the The types of soils requiring site-specific
near-source effect is only significant for large evaluation in Soil Profile Type SF are:
earthquakes. Research of the ground motions
from Northridge, Kobe, and other events have 1. Soil vulnerable to potential failure or
indicated that the amount of near-source effect collapse under seismic loading such as
is greater at the long periods than the short liquefiable soils, quick and highly sensitive
periods. Therefore, two near-source factors clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils.
were introduced that result in a greater 2. Peats and/or highly organic clays [H > 10
amplification of the ground motions for long feet of peat and/or highly organic clay,
periods than for those for short periods. The where H = thickness of soil].
near-source factors were introduced in the 1997 3. Very high plasticity clays [H > 25 feet with
UBC strength-based seismic code to account Plasticity Index > 75].
for this increase as a function of the earthquake 4. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays [H > 120
potential of a known earthquake source and the feet].
distance from source to the given site.
As mentioned earlier, a new set of soil The closest distance to the seismic source is
profile types has been introduced into the 1997 to be taken as the minimum distance between
UBC. These soil profile types are based on the the site and the area described by the vertical
average soil properties for the upper 100 feet of projection of the source on the ground surface
the soil profile. An abbreviated description as a (i.e., surface projection of the fault plane). For
function of the average shear wave velocity in dipping faults, the surface projection is to
the upper 100 feet (approximately 30 meters) is include those portions of the source within 10
given in Table 3-3 for five “stable” profile km of the surface as illustrated in Figure 3-1.
types, designated as SA through SE; there is a The definitions of the seismic source types are
sixth profile type (SF) which require a site- shown in Table 3-6. For seismic sources
132 Chapter 3
Table 3-5. Near-Source Factor for Short Periods, Na

From Table 16-S, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source
Type ≤ 2 km 5 km ≥ 10 km
A 1.5 1.2 1.0
B 1.3 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0
Table 3-6. — Near-Source Factor for Long Periods, Nv

From Table 16-T, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source
Type ≤ 2 km 5 km ≥ 10 km ≥ 15 km
A 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.0
B 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Table 3-4. — Seismic Source Type

From Table 16-U, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Seismic Source Definition
Seismic Maximum Moment Slip Rate, SR
Seismic Source Description
Source Type Magnitude, M (mm/yr)
Faults that are capable of producing large magnitude
A M ≥ 7.0 and SR ≥ 5
events and which have a high rate of seismic activity.
M ≥ 7.0 and SR< 5
B All faults other than Types A or C. M < 7.0 and SR > 2
M ≥ 6.5 and SR < 2
Faults which are not capable of producing large
C magnitude earthquakes and which have a relatively low M < 6.5 and SR ≤ 2
rate of seismic activity.
capable of larger earthquakes and having a

higher seismicity or slip rate, the near-source
factors are higher than for faults capable of
lesser maximum earthquakes or with lower slip
rates. Faults or seismic sources with lower
maximum moment magnitude and low slip
have N-factors with the value of unity (1.0).
Figure 3-1. Treatment of Dipping Faults

Table 3-7. — Seismic Coefficient, Ca

From Table 16-Q, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Soil Profile Type Z = 0.075 Z = 0.15 Z = 0.2 Z = 0.3 Z = 0.4
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Na
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Na
SC 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.40Na
SD 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.44Na
SE 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.36Na
Table 3-8. — Seismic Coefficient, Cv

From Table 16-R, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Soil Profile Type Z = 0.075 Z = 0.15 Z = 0.2 Z = 0.3 Z = 0.4
SA 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.24 0.32Nv
SB 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40Nv
SC 0.13 0.25 0.32 0.45 0.56Nv
SD 0.18 0.32 0.40 0.54 0.64Nv
SE 0.26 0.50 0.64 0.84 0.96Nv
The Seismic Coefficients, Ca and Cv, are For short periods (i.e., T < Cv / 2.5Ca), the
shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8. As mentioned following equation defines the constant
earlier, the near-source factor is only applicable acceleration range:
in Seismic Zone 4, and only the seismic
coefficients for Zone 4 are dependent on the 2.5 C a I
near-source factors. The International V= W
R
Conference of Building Officials has published
a set of maps defining the near-source zones in
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total
the state of California and adjacent portions of
base shear is also governed by a minimum
Nevada.(3-8)
“floor” value at longer periods by the following
The total design base shear, V, in a given
equation:
direction is determined by the following
equation:
0.8ZN V I
V= W
CV I R
V= W
RT
The elastic design response spectra, as
defined by Ca and Cv, is shown in Figure 3-2.
where I = importance factor
Figure 3-3 shows a comparison of the basic
W = total seismic dead load
elastic design response spectra for UBC
R = numerical coefficient representative of
Seismic Zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 for Soil
ductility and overstrength
Profile Type SD; this profile type is probably
T = fundamental period of vibration, in
the most common soil profile in most of
seconds
California. For this comparison, the near-source
factors have both been assumed to have a value
This formula defines the long period or
of unity (1.0). The floor caused by the special
constant velocity range.
Zone 4 restriction is misleading
134 Chapter 3
Figure 3-4 shows a comparison of the elastic

response spectra for the five stable soil profile
types (SA through SE) for only Zone 4 assuming
both near-source factors to be equal to unity
(1.0). It is unlikely that Soil Profile Type SA
would exist in any significant metropolitan area
in California. It should be noted that the
spectral accelerations are larger at longer
periods as the soil profile types become softer.
The “floor” minimum spectral acceleration is
the same regardless of soil profile type.
Figure 3-2. 1997 UBC Design Response Spectra. From

Figure 16-3, 1997 UBC (Ref. 3-5)
Figure 3-4. Response Spectra, Uniform Building Code

1997 Edition, Zone 4, Na = Nv = 1.0 [After Lew and
Bonneville (Ref. 3-9)]
Figure 3-5 compares the elastic response

spectra in Zone 4 for a Soil Profile Type SD for
distances from a site to a Seismic Source A, the
Figure 3-3. Response Spectra, UBC 1997 Edition, Soil most active faults. The elastic response spectra
Profile Type SD for distances of less than 2, 5, 10, and 15 km
are shown; at a distance of 15 km or greater,
as the base shear computed from the design both Na and Nv are equal to unity (1.0). Sites
response spectrum will be greatly reduced when near a Seismic Source A will be subject to
the “R” factor is divided through. There is design base shears significantly greater than
another long period minimum “floor” value presently prescribed in the 1994 UBC. Similar
(that is not reduced by “R”) that applies to all plots of the elastic design response spectra for
seismic zones that the total base shear should soil profile SD near a Seismic Source Type B
not be less than the following: for distances of less than 2, 5, and 10 km are
shown in Figure 3-6.
V = 0.11 Ca I W The California State Geologist has prepared
near-source maps for the State of California for
With this additional minimum “floor,” the implementation with the adoption of the 1997
differences in the base shear for longer periods UBC. Near-source effects are only considered
between Zone 4 and the lesser zones at the
longer structural periods are somewhat reduced.
Table 3-9. — Additional Definitions for Soil Profiles SC through SE (Ref. 3-5)
Soil Profile Average Standard Average Undrained Shear Strength Average Undrained Shear Strength
Type Penetration Blow Count (pounds per square ft) (kPA)
SC >50 >2,000 >100
SD 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 50 to 100
>10 feet of soft clay with PI > 20, >3048 mm of soft clay with PI > 20,
SE <15
wmc > 40%, and su < 500 psf wmc > 40%, and su < 500 psf
Site Categorization Procedure

As mentioned in the previous section, there
are six soil profile types of the 1997 UBC as
given in Table 3-3. Only an abbreviated
definition in terms of shear wave velocity for
the soil profile types was given. The additional
1997 UBC definitions for soil profiles SC
through SE are given below in Table 3-9.
When the soil properties are not known in
sufficient detail to determine the soil profile
type, the Code specifies that Type SD be used.
Soil Profile Type SE need not be assumed
unless the local building official determines that
Soil Profile Type SE may be present at the site
1997 Edition Zone 4, Seismic Source A, and Soil Profile or in the event that Type SE is established by
Type SD [After Lew and Bonneville (Ref. 3-9)] geotechnical data.
Determination of the Average Shear Wave

Velocity
This assumes that the shear wave velocity
profile will be known for the upper 100 feet
(30.48 m). The average shear wave velocity, vs,
is determined by the following formula:
n
∑d
i =1
i
vs = n
di
∑v
i =1 si
where:
di = thickness of Layer i in feet (or meters)

1997 Edition Zone 4, Seismic Source B, and Soil Profile vsi = shear wave velocity in Layer i in
Type SD [After Lew and Bonneville (Ref. 3-9)] feet/second (meters/second)
in Zone 4, thus, only parts of California, Hawaii Determination of the Average Standard
and Alaska are affected in the United States. Penetration Resistance
The 1997 UBC defines the average field
standard penetration resistance, N, and the
136 Chapter 3
average standard penetration resistance for 3.3.4 Site Profile Examples–1994 UBC
cohesionless soil layers, NCH, by the following
formulae: Example 1
n The soil profile at a site of a proposed
_
∑d
i =1
i hospital has been described as being
N= n
interlayered beds of medium dense to dense
di
∑N
i =1
sands and medium stiff to stiff clays. The
thickness of the interlayered beds is 250 feet, at
i
which depth, bedrock with a shear wave
_ di velocity of 2,500 feet/second is encountered.
N CH = n
di Determine the appropriate S Factor in
∑
i =1 N i
accordance with the 1994 UBC.
where: Solution: Per Table 3-2 (Table 16-J, 1994

UBC), the profile type is S2, corresponding to
di = thickness of Layer i in feet (or an S Factor of 1.2.
millimeters)
ds = the total thickness of cohesionless Example 2
soil layers in the top 100 feet (30,480 The soil profile is similar to that described
millimeters) in Example 1, except that the bedrock is
Ni = the standard penetration resistance shallower, at a depth of 127 feet. Determine the
of soil layer in accordance with appropriate S Factor in accordance with the
approved nationally recognized 1994 UBC.
standards
Solution: Per Table 3-2, Profile Type S1, S=1.0.
Determination of Average Undrained Shear
Strength. Example 3
A site on reclaimed land near a river is
The average undrained shear strength, Su, is being developed for a major commercial center.
to be determined by the following equation: The geotechnical investigation, including a
downhole seismic survey, revealed the typical
_ dc shear wave velocity profile in the upper 200
Su = n
di feet to be:
∑
i =1 S ui
Shear Wave
Depth
Soil Description Velocity
where: (feet)
(ft/sec)
0–15 Fill, silty sand 600
dc = the total thickness (100 – ds) of
15–25 Highly plastic soft clay 300
cohesive soil layers in the top 100
25–50 Plastic, soft clay 450
feet (30,480 millimeters)
50–75 Medium stiff clay 750
Sui = the undrained shear strength in
75–100 Medium stiff clay 1,000
accordance with approved nationally
recognized standards, not to exceed 100–150 Stiff clay 1,400
5,000 psf (250 kPa) 150–200 Dense sand and gravel 1,650
Determine the appropriate S Factor in

accordance with the 1994 UBC.
Solution: From 15 to 50 feet, there are 35 feet Solution: Based on the clay layer with a PI > 75
of soft clays having a shear wave velocity of and H > 25 ft, this profile type is SF, requiring
less than 500 feet per second; based on the site-specific evaluation.
description, profile is type S3, with S=1.5.
Example 2
Example 4 A site is underlain by bedrock having a
A site on San Francisco Bay is being measured shear wave velocity of 1,800 m/s in
considered for a major high-rise building. The the upper 30 m (100 ft). Determine the
geotechnical investigation has established the appropriate soil profile type.
typical soil profile at the site to be:
Solution: Soil profile type is SA, since vS >
Shear 1,500 m/sec.
Depth Wave
Soil Description Example 3
(feet) Velocity
(ft/sec) A soil profile has the following description
0–10 Compacted fill, sandy clay 650 from the boring logs:
10–60 Young bay mud, soft 350
Depth (feet) Soil Type N-value
60–100 Older bay mud, medium stiff 1,000
0–20 Sand 10
100–
Older bay mud, stiff 1,400 20–40 Sand 12
150
>150 Franciscan Formation bedrock 2,000 40–60 Sand 15
60–100 Sand 18
Determine the appropriate S Factor in

accordance with the 1994 UBC. Determine the appropriate soil profile type.
Solution: Profile contains more than 40 feet of Solution: Determine N , the average field
soft clay with shear wave velocity of less than standard penetration resistance
500 ft/sec; therefore, site profile is type S4, and n
S=2.0. _
∑d
i =1 20'+20'+20'+40'
i
N= n
=
di 20' 20' 20' 40'
3.3.5 Site Profile Examples–1997 UBC
∑
i =1 N i
+ +
10 12 15 18
+
Example 1 _ 100 100
The soil profile at a site of an industrial N= = = 13.9
facility has been investigated and the typical 2.0 + 1.67 + 1.33 + 2.22 7.22
soil profile in the 100 feet has been determined Since N is < 15, soil profile type is SE.
to be:
Example 4
Shear Given a soil profile:
Depth
Soil Description Wave “N” PI
(feet)
Velocity Depth (feet) Soil Type N-value
0–30 Clay - - 80 0–10 Sand 25
30–50 Silty Sand - 35 - 10–30 Sand 40
50–100 Sand and Gravel - 50 - 30–75 Sand 60
75–100 Sand 70
Determine the appropriate soil profile type.
138 Chapter 3
Determine the appropriate soil profile type. 3.3.6 Near-Source Factor Examples–
1997 UBC
Solution:
n Example 1
_
∑d
i =1 10'+20'+45'+25'
i For a building site located in the City of
N= n
= Palmdale, 1.1 km from the San Andreas fault,
di 10 ' 20' 45' 25'
∑
i =1 N i
+ +
25 40 60 70
+ determine the Near-Source Factors, Na and Nv.
Note: the San Andreas fault has a maximum
_ 100 100 moment magnitude of about 8¼ and an annual
N= = = 49.8 slip rate of 25 mm/yr.
0.40 + 0.50 + 0.75 + 0.36 2.01
Solution:
Since 15 ≤ N ≤ 50, soil profile type is SD.
Seismic Source Type: The San Andreas
Example 5
fault is classified as a Type A seismic source
The soil profile at a site has been determined
(Table 3-6)
to be:
Per Table 3-4, Near-Source Factor, Na, = 1.5
Depth N- Average Undrained
Soil Type Per Table 3-5, Near-Source Factor, Nv, = 2.0
(feet) value Shear Strength (kPa)
Fill, dense
0–10 50 – Example 2
sand
For the site classified in Example 1,
10–20 Clay – 75 determine the seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, if
20–50 Clay – 100 the soil profile is type SD. Note: Palmdale is in
50–60 Clay – 120 Seismic Zone 4 where the Seismic Zone Factor,
60–100 Clay – 160 Z = 0.4.
Determine the appropriate soil type. Solution:
Solution: Per Table 7, Ca = 0.44 Na = 0.44 (1.5) = 0.66

Per Table 8, Cv = 0.67 Nv = 0.67 (2.0) = 1.34
Ignore the upper 10 feet of the profile,
consider just the clays. Example 3
A site is located in West Los Angeles, 7.5
_
dc 100 − d s km from the Newport-Inglewood fault (M=7.0,
Su = n
= n SR=1 mm/yr). The site profile is SC and the site
di di
∑i =1 s ui
∑
i =1 s ui
is in Seismic Zone 4. Determine the seismic
coefficients, Ca and Cv.
100'−10'
=
10' 30' 10' 40' Solution:
+ + +
75 kPa 100 kPa 120 kPa 160 kPa
– The Newport-Inglewood fault is a seismic
90 90 source Type B.
= =
0.13 + 0.30 + 0.08 + 0.25 0.77 – Near-Source Factor, Na = 1.0 for 7.5 km
= 117.4 kPa distance.
– Near-Source Factor, Nv = 1.1 for 7.5 km
Therefore, soil profile type is S c . distance by interpolation.
For Z = 0.4 and SC site,

Ca = 0.40 Na = 0.40 (1.0) = 0.40
Cv = 0.56 Nv = 0.56 (1.1) = 0.616
Example 4
A site is located in the California desert; the
closest active faults are 3.0 and 5.0 km from the
site. Information on the faults are given as:
Fau Distance Max.

Slip Rate (mm/yr)
lt (km) Magnitude
1 3.0 6.5 1.0
2 5.0 7.0 5.0
Determine the appropriate Near-Source

Factors, Na and Nv.
Solution:
Determine the Near-Source Factors, Na and
By Table 3-6: Nv.
Fault 1 is a seismic source Type B
Fault 2 is a seismic source Type A Solution:
From Tables 3-4 and 3-5, the Near-Source The Bachman fault, per Table 3-6, is a
Factors are: seismic source Type A. The surface projection
of fault above a 10 km depth is shown below:
Fault Na Nv
1 1.2 1.47
2 1.2 1.6
Use the maximum values; therefore, Na =

1.2; Nv = 1.6.
Example 5
The recently discovered Bachman blind
thrust fault was found to underlie the site of a
new building development. Seismologists have
estimated the fault properties and geometry to
be:
1. Buried thrust fault with a 45° dip. For Type A source and 4 km distance,
2. Maximum magnitude = 7.5. Na = 1.3 (Table 3-4) and Nv = 1.73 (Table 3-5)
3. Maximum annual slip rate = 10 mm/yr.
4. Fault orientation relative to site is shown in
the figure below.
140 Chapter 3
3.3.7 NEHRP 1997 Recommended provided by the inherent conservatisms built

Provisions for Seismic Regulations into the NEHRP Provisions.
The NEHRP Recommended Provisions for 2000 IBC Seismic Base Shear Equation
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and The seismic base shear, V, in a given
Other Structures(3-7) present criteria for the direction is to be determined by the following
design and construction of structures to resist equation:
earthquake ground motions. The NEHRP 1997
Provisions form the basis of the seismic V = Cs W
provisions for the proposed unified national
building code for the United States to be called Where:
the International Building Code (IBC)(3-10).
Cs = seismic response coefficient
3.3.8 2000 International Building Code W = total dead load plus applicable
Seismic Requirements portions of other loads as defined in IBC
The International Building Code (IBC), The seismic response coefficient, Cs, is
2000 edition (3-10) has recently been published. It determined by the equation:
represents a cooperative effort to bring national S DS
Cs =
uniformity to the building codes in the United
States. The IBC code has been developed
(R I E )
jointly by the International Code Council, where:
which consists of the Building Officials and
Code Administrators International, Inc. SDS = the design spectral response
(BOCA), the International Conference of acceleration at short periods
Building Officials (ICBO), and the Southern R = response modification factor defined
Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). in the IBC
There are new earthquake definitions, IE = occupancy importance factor defined
assumptions, and procedures in the 2000 IBC, in IBC and ranges from 1.0 to 1.5
based on the 1997 NEHRP. The IBC specifies a
procedure to establish ground motion The response modification factor, R,
accelerations, represented by response spectra depends on the type of building system and
and coefficients derived from those spectra. The ranges from a value of 1½ for ordinary plain
design earthquake (DE) ground motions have masonry wall systems to values of 7 to 8 for
been defined as being two-thirds of the steel eccentrically braced frame systems. The
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) value of the seismic response coefficient Cs as
ground motions: shown above need not exceed the following:
2 S D1
Cs =
DE =
3
MCE
( )
R IE T
The MCE is defined as the “most severe but shall not be taken less than:
earthquake effects” considered by the IBC, and
is essentially the “worst case” earthquake, Cs = 0.044 SDS IE
which has been used for design of special (base
isolated) buildings or for collapse check of For buildings and structures in Seismic
existing buildings (such as defined in FEMA Design Categories E or F, and those buildings
273). The DE is the “design-basis” earthquake and structures for which the 1 second spectral
for conventional building design, with margins
response, S1, is equal to or greater than 0.6g, the response spectra. Another factor is applied to
value of Cs shall not be taken as less than: arrive at the final design response spectra.
0.5S 1
Cs = 2000 IBC Mapped Maximum Considered
R IE Earthquake Spectral Response Accelerations
The maximum considered earthquake
where: spectral response acceleration for short period
(0.2 seconds) and 1.0 second period are found
SD1 = the design spectral response on maps that are found in the 1997 NEHRP
acceleration at 1 second period Provisions. Smaller scale versions of these
T = fundamental period of the maps are reproduced in the 2000 IBC. These
building (seconds) maps were developed by the Building Seismic
S1 = maximum considered earthquake Safety Council (BSSC) and the United States
spectral response acceleration at 1 Geological Survey (USGS) for the Federal
second period Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
maps are based on probabilistic seismic hazard
Seismic Design Categories E and F are analyses using fault source models developed
assigned to structures in mapped areas with by the USGS. The analyses were made for the
spectral response acceleration at a period of 1 5% damped spectral response at 0.2- and 1.0-
second, S1, exceeding 0.75g. It appears that second periods corresponding to the ground
where S1 will be less than 0.75g in Seismic motions having a 2 percent probability of being
Zone 4, it will not be less than 0.60g; in this exceeded in 50 years; this is about a 2,500 year
case, the structures will be assigned to Seismic return period. This risk level is now referred to
Design Category D. [The seismic design as the “maximum considered earthquake.”
categories are not discussed here, but suffice it Because of the tendency of probabilistic
to say that structures in Seismic Zone 4 will be analyses to predict ground motions that greatly
either Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, exceed what has been experienced, due mostly
which have more stringent requirements than to the uncertainties in the seismic parameters
Categories A, B, or C.] and the long return period, a cap or limiting
value was imposed on the spectral ordinates in
2000 IBC Determination of Seismic the more seismically active areas of the United
Coefficient States, such as California. The probabilistic
The seismic coefficient, Cs, for the seismic spectral response values were capped by the
base shear equation, is derived from a response “deterministic maximum considered earthquake
spectra. This response spectra can be derived ground motion.”
from a site-specific study or can be determined The soil class assumed in the analyses is a
with the procedure in the 2000 IBC. In the 2000 soil class B; the Soil Classes used in the IBC
IBC, the 5% damped response spectra is are the same as the Soil Profile Types used in
constructed from the “mapped maximum the 1997 UBC. (The 1997 UBC adopted the
considered earthquake spectral response NEHRP soil profile types.)
acceleration” at two points. One point, denoted The deterministic maximum considered
as SS, corresponds to short periods and the other earthquake ground motion spectral response is
point, denoted as S1, corresponds to a 1 second to be calculated by taking into account the
period. The “mapped maximum considered characteristic earthquake on any known fault
earthquake spectral response acceleration” within the region that has a slip rate exceeding
corresponds to a “soft rock” (Site Class B) 1 mm per year. The spectral response for 5%
condition; factors are applied to account for the damping is to be calculated using a mean-plus-
site conditions to develop an appropriate one standard deviation ground motion
142 Chapter 3
Table 3-10. — Values of Site Coefficient Fa as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at
Short Periods, SS (Ref. 3-10)
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods
Site Class SS ≤ 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.0 SS ≥ 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 a
F a a a a a
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of mapped spectral acceleration at short periods, SS.
a
Site-specific geotechnical and dynamic site response analysis should be performed to determine appropriate values.
Table 3-11. — Values of Site Coefficient Fv as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1
Second Period, S1 (Ref. 3-10)
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period
Site Class SS ≤ 0.1 SS = 0.2 SS = 0.3 SS = 0.4 SS ≥ 0.5
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 a
F a a a a a
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of mapped spectral acceleration at 1.0 second period, S1.
a
Site-specific geotechnical and dynamic site response analysis should be performed to determine appropriate values.
attenuation relationship. These deterministically SMS = Fa SS

spectral response values are used as upper
bound values in the IBC maps. SM1 = Fv S1
Maps for Southern California have been
developed and are shown in Figures 3-7 and 3- where:
8. From the first map, the mapped maximum
considered earthquake spectral response Fa = site coefficient for short period response
acceleration for short period, SS, is found based Fv = site coefficient for 1 second period
on the location of the site. The second map is response
used to determine the mapped maximum
considered earthquake spectral response The values of the site coefficients Fa and Fv
acceleration for a 1-second period, S1. are given in Tables 3-10 and 3-11.
2000 IBC Adjustments to Spectral Response

for Site Class Effects
As the Ss and S1 values correspond to a Site
Class B, adjustments must be made if the site in
question is other than an Site Class B profile.
The SS and S1 values are adjusted for site
effects by the following formulas:
Figure 3-7. Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for Southern California:
Short (0.2 second) Period Spectral Response Acceleration (%g); Site Class B [After International Code Council, 2000 (Ref 3-10)]
144 Chapter 3
Figure 3-8. Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for Southern California:
1 Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration (%g); Site Class B [After International Code Council, 2000 (ref. 3-10)]
2000 IBC General Design Response

Spectrum
To determine the general design response
spectrum with 5% damping, two quantities, the
5% damped design spectral response
acceleration at short periods, SDS, and at 1-
second period, SD1, are determined by the
following equations:
2
S DS = S MS
3
2
S D1 = S M1
3
Figure 3-9. IBC Design Response Spectrum, 5% Damping
The general design response spectrum curve (Ref. 3-10)
for 5% damping is shown in Figure 3-9 with the
following additional guidelines: 2000 IBC Guidelines for Site-Specific
Procedure for Determining Ground Motions
1. For periods less than or equal to T0, the The 2000 IBC Provisions requires that the
design spectral response acceleration, Sa, is site-specific study account for: the regional
given by: seismicity and geology; the expected recurrence
rates and maximum magnitudes of events on
Sa = SDS (T/T0) + 0.4 SDS known faults and source zones; the location of
the site with respect to the faults and sources;
2. For periods greater or equal to T0 and less near-source effects, if any; and the
than or equal to TS, the design spectral characteristics of the subsurface conditions. The
response acceleration, Sa, is given by: probabilistic “Maximum Considered
Earthquake” (MCE) ground motions are those
Sa = SDS represented by a 5% damped response spectrum
having a 2% probability of exceedance within a
3. For periods greater than TS, the design 50 year period.
spectral acceleration, Sa, is given as: Because a probabilistic hazard analysis can
lead to extremely high predictions of the ground
S D1 motion, the 2000 IBC provides that where the
Sa = probabilistic MCE spectral response ordinates
T
at periods of 0.2 or 1.0 seconds exceed the
where T is the fundamental period of the corresponding ordinates of the deterministic
structure in seconds and T0 and TS are given by: maximum considered earthquake ground
motion, the MCE ground motion shall be taken
0.2 S D1
T0 = as the lesser of the probabilistic or the
S DS deterministic MCE ground motion. The
TS = S DI S DS deterministic MCE ground motion is calculated
as 150% of the median spectral response
accelerations (SaM) at all periods resulting from
a characteristic earthquake on any known active
fault within the region. The MCE ground
motion has a deterministic lower limit,
146 Chapter 3
however, as shown in Figure 3-10. The spectral response accelerations that are based
deterministic limit is determined by the site on the locations of major active earthquake
coefficients Fa and Fv that are determined as sources.
described earlier in Section 3.3.8.3, tables 3-10
and 3-11, and SS is assumed to be 1.5g and S1 is 3.4 SOIL LIQUEFACTION
assumed to be 0.6g.
Figure 3-10. Probabilistic Ceiling on Maximum

Considered Earthquake Ground Motion (Ref. 3-10)
The 2000 International Building Code has

guidelines for the calculation of the
deterministic MCE ground motion. The
deterministic MCE ground motion is to be
calculated as the spectral response accelerations
(SaM) at all periods resulting from a
characteristic earthquake on any known fault
within the region that has a slip rate exceeding
1 mm per year, using the mean-plus-one
standard deviation ground motion attenuation Figure 3-11. Liquefaction-induced bearing capacity failure
relationship. and settlement of a five-story building in Adapazari,
Turkey, most of the ground floor is below grade.
The design spectral response acceleration,
Photograph courtesy of Dr. Robert May, Gibb Ltd.,
Sa, is to be determined by: Reading, U.K.
2
Sa = S aM
3
In addition, Sa must be greater than or equal 3.4.1 Causes of Liquefaction
to 80 percent of the design spectral response
acceleration, Sa, determined by the general Soil liquefaction during an earthquake is a
response spectrum from the process that leads to loss of strength or stiffness
The procedures in the 2000 IBC will of the soil. This could result in the settlement of
undoubtedly be confusing until mastery of a structures, cause landslides, precipitate failures
new language and philosophy is achieved. The of earth dams, or cause other types of hazards.
Near-Source factors of the 1997 UBC are Soil liquefaction has been observed to occur
replaced with a set of maps of the mapped MCE most often in loose saturated sand deposits.
During strong earthquake shaking, a loose liquefaction. Figures 3-11 and 3-12 present
saturated sand deposit will have a tendency to examples of the effects of liquefaction on
compact and, thus, have a decrease in volume. buildings in the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey and Chi-
If this deposit cannot drain rapidly, there will be Chi, Taiwan earthquakes.
an increase in the pore water pressure. The
effective stress in the sand deposit is equal to 3.4.2 Evaluating the Liquefaction
the difference between the overburden pressure Potential by Standard Penetration
and the pore water pressure. With increasing Tests
oscillation, the pore water pressure will increase
to the point where the pore water pressure will There are a number of different methods by
be equal to the overburden pressure. Since the which the potential for liquefaction of a soil can
shear strength of a cohesionless soil is directly be evaluated. These methods generally compare
proportional to the effective stress, the sand will the cyclic shear resistance of the soil with the
not have any shear strength and is now in a cyclic shear stresses and strains caused by an
liquefied state. "Sand boils" appearing at the earthquake. Simplified empirical methods have
ground surface during an earthquake is been developed that utilize case histories of past
evidence that liquefaction has occurred. occurrences (or non-occurrences) of
liquefaction during significant seismic events.
Other methods use analytical techniques that
incorporate dynamic analysis and laboratory
testing. The most common and traditional
method of analysis uses correlations between
the liquefaction characteristics of soils and the
Standard Penetration Test or N-value as
originally described by Seed et al.(3-11) Since the
analysis was first introduced, the methodology
has been refined and various corrections are
applied to account for variability in sampling
and performance; a summary of recent
concensus opinion on liquefaction evaluation
was conducted by NCEER and has been edited
by Youd and Idriss(3-12); those concensus
opinions are presented herein. Thus, for
analysis, a corrected N-value is used. The value
of the corrected N-value, denoted as (N1)60 is
found by the formula:
(N1)60 = Nm . CN CE CB CR CS
where Nm is the measured standard penetration
resistance, CN is a correction factor for
overburden pressure, CE is the correction factor
for hammer energy ratio, CB is a correction
Figure 3-12. Liquefaction-induced tilting of three-story factor of borehole diameter, CR is the correction
residential structure in Central Taiwan. Photograph by
Dr. Farzad Naeim.
factor for rod length, and CS is the correction
for samplers with or without liners.
Liquefaction can have a significant and The overburden pressure correction factor,
sometimes devastating effect on buildings CN, may be calculated from the following
supported on the upper soils without formula:
consideration of the consequences of CN = (Pa/σ’vo)0.5
148 Chapter 3
where Pa is 100 kPa or approximately The range of values for the stress reduction,
atmospheric pressure (2,089 pounds per square rd, are shown in Figure 3-13.
foot) and σ’vo is the effective vertical
overburden pressure at the depth of the standard
penetration sample. Table 3-12 shows the
suggested correction factors for the other
corrections.
Table 3-12. Corrections to SPT (Ref. 3-12)

Equipment
Factor Term Correction
Variable
Overburde
CN (Pa/σ’vo)0.5
n Pressure
Energy Safety Hammer 0.60 to 1.17
CE
Ratio Donut Hammer 0.45 to 1.00
65 to 115 mm 1.0
Borehole
150 mm CB 1.05
Diameter
200 mm 1.15
3 to 4 m 0.75
4 to 6 m 0.85
Rod
6 to 10 m CR 0.95
Length
10 to 30 m 1.0
>30 m <1.0 Figure 3-13. Stress Reduction Factor, rd (Ref. 3-12)
Standard
Sampling Sampler 1.0
Method Sampler without
CS
1.2
The average value of the stress reduction
liners coefficient, rd, may be estimated by the
With respect to the energy ratio, ER, it is rd = 1.0 - 0.00765 z for z ≤ 9.15 m
believed that the approximate historical average rd = 1.174 - 0.0267 z for 9.15 m < z ≤ 23 m
SPT energy for North American practice is 60% rd = 0.744 - 0.008 z for 23 m < z ≤ 30 m
of the maximum theoretical energy achievable. rd = 0.50 for z > 30 m
The ER delivered by any particular SPT setup Having estimated the average shear stress
depends on the type of hammer and anvil in the ratio, charts similar to Figure 3-14 may be used
drilling system and on the method of hammer to determine the potential for liquefaction.
release. The correction factor, CE, normalizes Figure 3-14 shows the relationship between the
the N-value to a 60% ER. cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and the corrected
During an earthquake, the soils will be standard penetration resistance, N1, for a
subject to cyclic shear stresses induced by the magnitude 7.5 earthquake. The CRR is also
ground shaking. The average cyclic stress ratio referred to as the liquefaction resistance or
(CSR) during an earthquake may be estimated liquefaction resistance ratio. If the CSR (τav /
by the following formula: σ’o) induced by the earthquake is less than the
. . liquefaction resistance ratio, CRR, as shown on
CSR = τav / σ’o = 0.65 (amax / g) (σo / σ’o ) rd Figure 3-14, liquefaction would not be expected
where amax = maximum acceleration at the to occur; similarly if the CSR exceeds the CRR,
ground surface liquefaction would be expected to occur. A
σo = total overburden pressure at depth factor of safety against liquefaction could be
under consideration determined by the ratio of the CSR divided by
σo’ = effective overburden pressure at the CRR. For (N1)60 values greater than about
depth under consideration 30, no liquefaction would be expected and the
rd = stress reduction coefficient factor of safety would be great.
Seed have developed equations to correct the

standard penetration resistance for silty sands,
(N1)60, to an equivalent clean sand penetration
resistance (N1)60cs. These equations are:
(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
where the α and β coefficients are
determined by:
α = exp [ 1.76 - (190/FC2) ]
β = [ 0.99 + (FC1.5/1000) ]
where FC is the fines content measured
from laboratory gradation tests on soil samples.
These equations essentially represent the CRR
curves for different fines contents as shown in
Figure 3-12.
As mentioned earlier, Figure 3-14 applies
only for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake; to
evaluate the potential for liquefaction for other
magnitude events; Seed et al. (1983)(3-13)
originally determined correlation factors that
allow the induced stress ratios for other
Figure 3-14. Figure 3-14. Curve Recommended for magnitude events to be adjusted to correspond
Determining CRR from SPT Data (Ref. 3-12) to a magnitude of 7.5 by dividing the stress
ratios by the factors given in Table 3-13:
The CRR base curve for clean sands (i.e.,
<5% fines content) may be approximated by the Table 3-13. Seed and Idriss Original Magnitude Scaling
relationship: Factors (Ref. 3-13)
Earthquake Magnitude Magnitude Scaling Factor
a + cx + ex 2 + gx 3
CRR7.5 = 5.25 1.5
1 + bx + dx 2 + fx 3 + hx 4 6 1.32
6.75 1.13
where: 7.5 1.0
a = 0.048 8.5 0.89
b = -0.1248
c = 0.004721 The Seed and Idriss magnitude scaling
d = 0.009578 factors are based on estimates of equivalent
e = 0.0006136 cycles of shear stress developed during
f = -0.0003285 different magnitude earthquakes. However, it is
g = -1.673 x 10-5 generally believed now that the original Seed
h = 3.714 x 10-6 and Idriss magnitude scaling factors are very
x = (N1)60 conservative for moderate-sized earthquakes.
Idriss has proposed a new set of magnitude
This equation is valid for values of (N1)60 scaling factors after re-evaluating the data.
less than 30. Idriss has proposed that the magnitude scaling
Figure 3-14 also shows that the influence of factor, MSF, be defined as a function of the
the fines content on the potential for moment magnitude, M, as given in the
liquefaction in a way that the greater the fines equation:
content, the lesser the potential for liquefaction MSF = 102.24 / M2.56
given the same N1 value. I.M. Idriss and R.B.
150 Chapter 3
Table 3-14. Magnitude Scaling Factors Defined by Various Investigators (Ref. 3-12)
Magnitude Seed and Andrus &
Idriss Ambreseys Arango Youd and Noble
M Idriss Stokoe
(original) PL<20% PL<32% PL<50%
5.5 1.43 2.20 2.86 3.00 2.20 2.80 2.86 3.42 4.44
6.0 1.32 1.76 2.20 2.00 1.65 2.10 1.93 2.35 2.92
6.5 1.19 1.44 1.69 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.34 1.66 1.99
7.0 1.08 1.19 1.30 1.25 1.10 1.25 1.00 1.2 1.39
7.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8.0 0.94 0.84 0.67 0.75 0.85 0.8? 0.73?
8.5 0.89 0.72 0.44 0.65? 0.56?
Other researchers have also determined Thus, the factor of safety (FS) against
magnitude scaling factors; these values are liquefaction may be written in terms of the
shown in Table 3-14. The table also repeats the CRR, CSR and MSF factors as follows:
original Seed and Idriss MSF factors and also FS = (CRR7.5/CSR) MSF
presents the new Idriss MSF factors. where CRR7.5 is the cyclic resistance ratio
There is not a concensus in the geotechnical for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake from Figure 3-
community of which of the various sets of 14.
magnitude scaling factors to use except is it is
generally accepted that the original Seed and Example
Idriss MSF factors are conservative for A sand deposit has been identified beneath a
magnitudes of less than 7.5. It should be noted site located adjacent to a river. The sand deposit
that Arango has two sets of MSF factors. The is 10 feet thick and the top of the layer is 10
first set was based on farthest observed feet below the ground surface and overlain by a
liquefaction effects from the seismic energy very stiff clay and is underlain by bedrock. The
source, estimate average peak accelerations at water level has been measured to be at a depth
those distant sites, and the absorbed seismic of 10 feet. The standard penetration resistance
energy requred to cause liquefaction; the of the layer has been determined to be 12 blows
second set was developed from energy concepts per foot and a standard sampler was used; a
and the relationship developed by Seed and drill rig with a safety hammer with an
Idriss between numbers of significant stress efficiency of 60% was used. The length of the
cycles and earthquake magnitude. The second drill rod is 10 meters and the borehole diameter
Arango MSF factors are similar to the new is 5 inches (127 mm).
Idriss MSF factors. The Youd and Noble MSF The design earthquake has been designated
factors are found in three sets that are a function as a moment magnitude 6-3/4 event on a nearby
of PL, the probability that liquefaction did not fault and the maximum ground acceleration is
occur. expected to be 0.35 g.
For earthquake magnitudes greater than 7.5, The wet unit weight of the clay soils is 125
it recommended that the newer Idriss MSF pounds per cubic foot and the wet unit weight
factors be used because it is believed that the of the sand soils is 130 pounds per cubic foot.
original Seed and Idriss MSF factors were not The sands has 15% fines content according to a
sufficiently conservative in the upper grain size analysis.
magnitude range.
Compute the factor of safety against
liquefaction of the sand layer.
Solution: Borehole diameter:

CB = 1.0, since diameter is 5 in. (127
Step 1: Determine the effective overburden mm)
pressure at the center of the sand layer:
Rod length:
σ’o = (125 pcf) (10 ft) + [(130 pcf - 62.4 CR= 1.0, since rod length is 10 m
pcf) (5 ft)]
= 1,588 psf Sampling method
CS = 1.0, since standard sampler used
Step 2: Determine the total overburden
pressure at the center of the sand layer: (N1)60 = Nm . CN CE CB CR CS
= (12) (1.15) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)
σo = (125 pcf) (10 ft) + (130 pcf) (5 ft) = 13.8
= 1,900 psf
Step 6: Determine correction for fines
Step 3: Determine the stress reduction content:
factor, rd:
Since the fines content is greater than 5%,
z = 15 ft x (1 meter/3.2808 ft) correction is needed.
= 4.572 m
α= exp [ 1.76 - (190/FC2) ]
rd = 1 - 0.00765 z = exp [ 1.76 - (190/152) ]
= 1 - 0.00765 (4.572) = 2.50
= 0.965 β= [ 0.99 + (FC1.5/1000) ]
= [ 0.99 + (151.5/1000) ]
Step 4: Determine the cyclic stress ratio, = 1.05
CSR.
(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
CSR = τav / σ’o = 0.65 (amax / g)(σo / σ’o) rd = 2.50 + 1.05 (13.8)
= 0.65 (0.35 g/g) (1,900 psf / 1588 psf) = 17.0
(0.965)
= 0.263
Step 7: Determine the cyclic resistance ratio,
Step 5: Determine correction factors to SPT CRR7.5:
blowcount:
Referring to Figure 3-14, for (N1)60cs = 17.0,
Referring to Table 3-12, the correction the cyclic resistance ratio is
factors are
CRR7.5 = 0.185
Overburden pressure:
CN = (Pa/σ’vo)0.5 Step 8: Determine the magnitude scaling
= (2,089 psf /1,588 psf )0.5 factor, MSF, for magnitude 6-3/4:
= 1.15
Use the Idriss magnitude scaling factor,
Energy ratio:
CE = 1.0, since safety hammer is 60% MSF = 102.24 / M2.56 = 102.24 / (6.75)2.56
efficient = 1.31
152 Chapter 3
Step 9: Compute the factor of safety against

liquefaction:
FS = (CRR7.5/CSR) MSF
= (0.185/0.263) 1.31
= 0.92
The factor of safety against liquefaction is

less than unity (1.0), therefore, liquefaction
would be expected to occur in the event of the
design earthquake.
3.4.3 Evaluating the Liquefaction

Potential by Cone Penetration
Tests
Because of questions regarding the Figure 3-15. Curve Recommended for Determining CRR
from CPT Data (Ref. 3-12)
reliability and quality of the standard
penetration resistances, and the inability to
easily obtain a continuous profile of the The CRR curve in Figure 3-15 can be
resistances, there is more reliance now upon the approximated by the following set of equations:
cone penetration test (CPT). The CPT can If (qc1N)cs < 50
provide a nearly continuous profile of CRR7.5 = 0.833 [(qc1N)cs / 1000 ] + 0.05
penetration resistance and is generally more If 50 ≤ (qc1N)cs < 160
repeatable and consistent than other forms of CRR7.5 = 93 [(qc1N)cs / 1000 ]3 + 0.08
penetration testing. One obvious deficiency of where (qc1N)cs is the clean sand cone penetration
the CPT is the lack of a physical sample of the resistance normalized to 100 kPa
soil tested. A procedure similar to the (approximately one atmosphere of pressure).
simplified method for the SPT has been The truly normalized (i.e., dimensionless) cone
developed and is reported in the NCEER penetration resistance corrected for overburden
concensus document.(3-12) The chart in Figure 3- stress (qc1N) is given by:
15 can be used to determine the cyclic qc1N = CQ ( qc / Pa ) = qc1 / Pa
resistance ratio (CRR7.5) for clean sands having where:
a fines content of less than or equal to 5% from CQ = ( Pa / σ’o )n
CPT data. The chart is valid only for a CQ is the normalizing factor for cone
magnitude 7.5 earthquake and shows the penetration resistance; Pa is approximately one
calculated cyclic stress ratio (CSR) versus the atmosphere of pressure given in the same units
corrected normalized CPT resistance denoted as as the measured field CPT tip resistance, qc, and
qc1N. Like the chart for SPT data, the CPT chart calculated overburden pressure, σ’o. CQ is
was derived from data from sites where limited to a maximum value of 2 at shallow
liquefaction effects were or were not observed depths. The value of the exponent, n, is
following past earthquakes. The CRR curve dependent on the grain characteristics of the
separates the region indicative of liquefaction soil. The value of n ranges from 0.5 for clean
(above the line) from the region where there sands to 1.0 for clays. Discussion on the
was non-liquefaction (below the line). determination of the exponent n follows.
Q = [(qc - σvo) / σ’vo]

If the calculated Ic using the computed Q is
greater than 2.6, the soil is classified as clayey
and may be too clay-rich or plastic to liquefy;
verification by actual soil samples is highly
recommended and checking with the so-called
Chinese criteria, described later, should be
done. However, if the computed Ic is less than
2.6, the soil is most likely to be granular and Q
should be recomputed with the n exponent
assumed to be 0.5. Now, CQ should be
calculated and the normalized CPT resistance,
qc1N, should be substituted for Q in the Ic
calculation. If the Ic calculation gives a value of
less than 2.6, the soil can be classified as non-
plastic and granular. If the recalculated Ic gives
a value of greater than 2.6, the soil is likely to
be very silty and possibly plastic. If so, qc1N
should be recalculated with an intermediate
Figure 3-16. Normalized CPT Soil Behavior Type (Ref. 3- value of 0.7 for n.
12) Finally, for sands with fines, the normalized
penetration resistance, qc1N, should be corrected
Figure 3-16 can be used initially to access to an equivalent clean sand value, (qc1N)cs, with
the soil behavior type from the CPT tests. The the following relationship:
CPT friction ratio can be determined by taking (qc1N)cs = Kc qc1N
the sleeve resistance, fs, and dividing it by the where Kc is the CPT correction factor for
cone tip resistance, qc. The cone tip resistance, grain characteristics and is determined by the
qc, is determined by taking the measured tip following equations:
resistance, qt, and subtracting the total For Ic ≤ 1.64,Kc = 1.0
overburden pressure, σvo. The normalized cone For Ic > 1.64, Kc = -0.403 Ic4 + 5.581 Ic3 -
resistance, Q, is determined by the following 21.63 Ic2 + 33.75 Ic - 17.88
equation: The appropriate values of the corrected tip
Q = [(qc - σvo) / Pa] [(Pa / σ’vo)n] resistance with the grain size correction,
The normalized friction ratio, F, is (qc1N)cs, should then be used in Figure 3-15 to
determined by: determine the CRR7.5 and ultimately the factor
F = [fs/( qc - σvo)] x 100% of safety against liquefaction in the same
The soil behavior type index, Ic, is manner as presented for SPT data.
determined by the following equation:
Ic = [(3.47 - log Q)2 + (1.22 + log F)2]0.5 3.4.4 Evaluating the Liquefaction
The soil behavior chart in Figure 3-16 was Potential by Shear Wave Velocity
determined assuming an exponent, n, equal to
1.0, which is appropriate for clayey soils. To Simplified procedures have also been
use the chart, the first step is to differentiate the developed for the evaluation of liquefaction
soil types characterized as clays from the soil potential using shear wave velocities. However,
types characterized as sands and silts. The there are some severe limitations when relying
exponent n is assumed to 1.0 (characteristic of solely upon the shear wave velocities for
clays) and the dimensionless normalized CPT liquefaction evaluation; these limitations
penetration resistance, Q, is: include the fact that the shear wave velocities
154 Chapter 3
are determined in situ using low strain 3.4.5 Evaluating the Liquefaction
measurement schemes, such as seismic Potential by Becker Penetration
refraction, downhole, or crosshole surveys Tests
while the liquefaction phenomena is a large
strain event. Another limitation is these seismic Evaluation of the liquefaction potential of
wave techniques do not provide a means of gravelly soils is very difficult using the standard
determining the soil type classification, penetration test (SPT) and the cone penetration
particularly identifying clay soils that are non- test (CPT). The coarse size of the particles, as
liquefiable. The use of shear wave velocities compared with the smaller size of the SPT
must be accompanied by soil borings that can sampler, can lead to high N-values that are not
provide visual and laboratory confirmation of representative. With the CPT, the same large
soil types. particles interfere with the normal deformation
A stress-based liquefaction procedure has of soil materials around the penetrometer
been developed based on information obtained causing an artificial increase in the penetration
from the Imperial Valley earthquake of 1979. resistance. To overcome these difficulties, large
The normalized shear wave velocity, VS1, is diameter penetrometers have been tried and one
obtained from the field measured shear wave of the more effective and widely used is the
velocity, VS, by the equation: Becker Penetration Test (BPT). The BPT is
performed by driving a 3-meter-long double-
VS1 = VS (Pa / σ’vo )0.25
wall casing into the ground with a double-
where Pa again is the reference stress of 100 acting diesel-driven pile hammer. The hammer
kPa, approximately atmospheric pressure, and impacts are applied at the top of the casing and
σ’vo is the effective overburden pressure in are applied continuously. The BPT resistance is
units of kPa. The cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, defined as the number of hammer blows
is determined by the following equation: required to drive the casing a distance of 300
CRR7.5 = a(VS1 /100)2 + b (VS1c - VS1) - b / VS1c mm. It has been recommended that the casing
have an outside diameter of 168 mm; the casing
where VS1c is the critical value of VS1 which should be driven by an AP-1000 drill rig with a
separates contractive and dilative behavior, and supercharged diesel hammer and the bit should
a and b are curve fitting parameters which have be plugged. The BPT is not used directly to
been determined to be 0.03 and 0.9, estimate the liquefaction potential. The
respectively, for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. corrected Becker penetration resistance has
The values of VS1c depend on the fines content been roughly correlated with the corrected
of sand and gravel soils and are given in Table standard penetration resistance as shown in
3-15 below: Figure 3-17. The estimated N-values are then
used to determine the liquefaction potential of
Table 3-15. Values of Critical Shear Wave Velocity, VS1c the gravelly soils using the procedure for the
(Ref. 3-12)
SPT.
Fines Content in Percent VS1c (meters/second)
<5 220 3.4.6 Liquefaction of Clay Soils
about 20 210
> 35 200 For clayey soils, tests performed in China
The factor of safety against liquefaction can have shown that certain clayey materials may
be determined by comparing the CSR with the be vulnerable to severe strength loss due to
CRR. For earthquakes with magnitudes not earthquake shaking (Seed and Idriss, Ref. 3-14).
equal to 7.5, the magnitude scaling factors can A clayey soil would be considered liquefiable if
be used to adjust the CRR accordingly. all of the following criteria are met:
Figure 3-17. Correlation Between Corrected Becker Penetration Resistance and SPT Resistance (Ref. 3-12)
soil deposits which will be seen at the ground

• The weight of the soil particles finer than level as surface settlement. Because of the
0.005 mm is less than 15% of the dry generally nonhomogeneous nature of soil, these
weight of the soil. settlements will often be nonuniform and
• The liquid limit (by Atterberg Tests) of the differential settlements may affect structures
soil is less than 35%. and lifelines. A methodology to estimate the
• The moisture content of the soil is less than ground settlements resulting from liquefaction
0.9 times the liquid limit. of sand deposits has been proposed by Ishihara
and Yoshimine(3-15). This methodology relates
Clayey soils not meeting all of these criteria the factor of safety for liquefaction to the
may be considered to be non-liquefiable. maximum shear strain developed in a deposit
and a chart was developed to determine the
3.4.7 Liquefaction-Induced Settlement volumetric strain as a function of the factor of
safety as shown in Figure 3-18.
When liquefaction occurs in saturated Knowing the strain caused by the
deposits, the increases in pore water pressure liquefaction, the ground surface settlement may
that cause the liquefaction to occur will be estimated by multiplying the thickness of
eventually dissipate. This dissipation of the each layer by the strain.
pore water pressure will principally be towards
the ground surface; accompanying this
dissipation will be some volume change of the
156 Chapter 3
3.4.8 Liquefaction Induced Ground

Failures and Effects on Structures
If a soil becomes liquefied and loses its

shear strength, ground failures may result. If
there are structures founded over or near these
soil deposits, they may be damaged. Youd(3-16)
has classified ground failures caused by
liquefaction into three categories:
1) lateral spreading
2) flow failures, and
3) loss of bearing capacity.
Lateral spreading is the movement of

surficial soil layers in a direction parallel to the
ground surface which occurs when there is a
loss of shear strength in a subsurface layer due
to liquefaction. Lateral spreading usually occurs
on very gentle slopes with a slope of less than
Figure 3-18. Estimation of volumetric strain based on six percent. If there is differential lateral
calculated factor of safety against liquefaction as a spreading under a structure, there could be
function of relative density (Ref. 3-15) sufficient tensile stresses developed in the
structure that it could be literally torn apart.
Example Flexible buildings have been observed to better
A 20 foot thick sand layer has been analyzed withstand extensional displacement than more
and found to have an induced shear stress ratio stiff or brittle buildings(3-17).
(CSR) of 0.30 while the critical shear stress Lateral spreading can have a very
ratio (CRR) was found to be 0.24. The catastrophic impact upon long, linear buried
corrected standard penetration resistance, utilities or, as some may prefer, "lifelines".
(N1)60, was found to be 20. Estimate the During the great 1906 San Francisco
liquefaction-induced settlement of the layer. earthquake, it is believed that every break in the
Solution: water supply pipeline was caused by lateral
Step 1: Calculate the factor of safety against spreading. This, of course, severely hampered
liquefaction, FS: fire-fighting efforts against the fires that were
FS = CRR / CSR triggered by the earthquake which eventually
= 0.24 / 0.30 destroyed much of San Francisco. Figure 3-19
= 0.80 shows the devastating effects of lateral
Step 2: Estimate the post-liquefaction spreading on a building during the 1989 Loma
volumetric strain: Prieta earthquake.
Referring to Figure 3-18, using FS = 0.80 Flow failures occur when large zones of soil
and (N1 )60 = 20, become liquefied or blocks of unliquefied soils
εv = 1.6% flow over a layer of liquefied soils. Flow slides
Step 3: Calculate estimated settlement: can develop where the slopes are generally
Settlement = εv x (Layer Thickness) greater than six percent. This phenomenon was
= (0.016) x (20 feet) tragically observed during the 1964 Alaska
= 0.32 feet earthquake.
= 3.84 in.
Figure 3-19. Damage to building at Moss Landing due to liquefaction-caused lateral spreading during the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake (photograph courtesy of T.L. Youd)
Figure 3-20. Effects of Ground Oscillation in the Marina District of San Francisco as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake.
Figure 3-21. Liquefaction-induced loss of bearing capacity of apartment buildings during the 1964 Niigata, Japan
earthquake. (Photograph by the United States Geological Survey)
On flat ground, ground oscillation can occur occur, such as those observed in Niigata, Japan
when liquefaction at depth decouples the during the 1964 earthquake (Figure 3-21).
overlying surface layers from the underlying Where the thickness of liquefied soil is thin, or
liquefied soil. The decoupling causes the upper where there is relatively thick non-liquefied
surface layers to oscillate with sometimes large soils overlying a liquefied soil deposit, severe
displacements or visible ground waves. The tilting or overturning of structures might not
observed permanent displacements are usually occur, but differential vertical settlements could
small and show no particular orientation. occur.
Evidence of ground oscillations in the Marina Buried structures, such as underground
District of San Francisco due to the 1989 Loma tanks, may be subject to excess buoyancy
Prieta earthquake were abundant as shown in because of the increase in the pore water
Figure 3-20. pressure associated with liquefaction. Retaining
Liquefaction can also result in the loss of structures, such as retaining walls or port
bearing capacity usually accompanied by large structures, could also be subjected to an
soil deformations. Structures supported on these increase in the lateral pressures should
soils may settle, tilt, or even overturn. Buried liquefaction occur in the adjacent soils. The
structures have even been observed to have formation of sink holes (when sand boils occur)
"floated" out of the ground. In extreme cases, may cause differential settlement or tilting of
where the thickness of the liquefied soils is structures established on shallow foundations.
large, tilting or overturning failures could
Of course, the degree that structures are ground oscillation would occur will be more
affected directly or indirectly by liquefaction- subjective as to estimating whether the lateral
caused failures will depend upon how extensive extent of liquefiable deposit is not sufficient
the liquefaction is. If the liquefaction occurs in enough to allow for decoupling of the upper
a thick and horizontally extensive layer of sand, nonliquefiable soils from the lower liquefiable
the effects on structures would be expected to soils.
be very great. If, in contrast, the liquefaction is
isolated to very thin and non-continuous layers 3.4.9 Estimating Lateral Displacement
or lenses of soil, structures might have very Due to Liquefaction
minimal or even no noticeable damage.
Several methods have been developed to
estimate the lateral ground displacement at
liquefaction sites. These methods include
analytical models [Prevost et al., 1986(3-20); Finn
and Yogendrakumar, 1989(3-21)], physical
models based upon sliding block analyses
[Newmark, 1965(3-22); Byrne et al., 1992(3-23)],
and empirical models. One empirical model has
been proposed by Bartlett and Youd (1992)(3-24);
They collected case history data of lateral
spreading from six western United States and
two Japanese earthquakes. Based on their
research, they proposed two statistically
Figure 3-22. Thickness of Liquefied and Over-lying
independent models--one for areas near steep
Nonliquefied Soil Layers for Determining Occurrence and banks with a free face, the other for ground-
Nonoccurrence of Surface Effects of Liquefaction(3-50). slope areas with gently sloping terrain. The
models are expressed in the following
Ishihara in 1985 proposed a preliminary equations:
criteria for determining the potential for For free-face conditions--
disruption of the ground surface at liquefaction Log DH = - 16.3658 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275
sites based upon empirical observations during Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.6572 Log W + 0.3483
two major Japanese earthquakes and one major Log T15 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15 ) - 0.9224
Chinese earthquake.(3-18) The criteria was based D5015
upon the relationship between the thickness of For ground slope conditions--
the liquefiable soil layers beneath a site, and the Log DH = - 15.7870 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275
thickness of the overlying nonliquefiable soil. Log R - 0.0133 R + 0.4293 Log S + 0.3483 Log
Ishihara’s criteria was based on ground T15 + 4.5270 Log (100 - F15 ) - 0.9224 D5015
accelerations of 200 to 250 gals, approximately Where:
0.20 to 0.25g. The Ishihara criteria is presented DH = Estimated lateral ground
in Figure 3-22. Youd and Garris(3-19) have displacement in meters.
looked further into the Ishihara’s proposal and D5015 = Average mean grain size in
have determined that the criteria is generally granular layers included in T15 , in mm.
correct in prediction of occurrence or F15 = Average fines content (fraction of
nonoccurrence of surface liquefaction effects sediment sample passing a No. 200 sieve) for
when there is no lateral spreading or ground granular layers included in T15 , in percent.
oscillation. A methodology to estimate the M = Moment magnitude of the earthquake.
magnitude of lateral spreading is presented in R = Horizontal distance from the seismic
the following section. Determining whether energy source, in kilometers.
160 Chapter 3
S = Ground slope, in percent. content of 35%, and a corrected (N1)60 value of

T15 = Cumulative thickness of saturated 17.
granular layers with corrected blow counts,
(N1)60, less than 15, in meters. Determine the estimated lateral
W = Ratio of the height (H) of the free displacement at the near edge of the building
face to the distance (L) from the base of the free due to liquefaction.
face to the point in question, in percent.
Comparisons of the predicted displacements Solution
with the measured displacements in Barlett and
Youd's database indicates that the predicted Use the equation for free-face conditions in
displacements are generally valid within a Section 3.4.9.
factor of 2. Bartlett and Youd comment that
doubling of the predicted displacement would Only the upper layer needs to be included in
provide an estimate with a high probabililty of the analysis since the (N1)60 value of the upper
not being exceeded. layer is less than 15 and the (N1)60 value of the
deeper layer is greater than 15. Define
Example - Lateral Spread Displacement parameters for analysis of the upper layer:
Near Free Face
A building is planned adjacent to a river in a D5015 = 0.33 mm
highly seismic area in a foreign country. There F15 = 15%
is a steep bank at the river’s edge; the bank has M = 7.5
a height of 3 meters. The building is planned to R = 15 km
located a distance of 7 meters from the river at T15 = 5 m - 3 m = 2 m
its closest point. The site has a gentle uniform W= H / L
slope towards the river that drops 2 meters = (3 m) / (7 m)
vertically over a horizontal distance of 100 = 0.427
meters. The ground water is at a depth of about = 42.7%
3 meters and is parallel to the ground surface in
the direction perpendicular to the river. The Calculate Lateral Spread Displacement, DH
geotechnical investigation performed by a local
company in the foreign country provides log DH = -16.3658 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275
information about the soil conditions and the log R - 0.0133 R + 0.6572 log W
report states that there is a liquefaction potential + 0.3483 log T15 + 4.5270 log (100 -
at the site. F15) - 0.9224 D5015
The design earthquake is a Moment = -16.3658 + 8.8365 - 1.0908 - 0.1995

Magnitude 7.5 on a fault located 15 km from + 1.0715
the site. The geotechnical report identifies two + 0.1048 + 8.7345 - 0.3044
granular layers as being susceptible to
liquefaction. The first layer is encountered = 0.7868
between 3 and 5 meters below the ground
surface; this layer has an average mean grain Then,
size of 0.33 mm, a fines content (less than No.
200 Sieve) of 15%, and a corrected Standard DH = 6.1207 m
Penetration Blow Count, (N1)60, of 10. The
second layer is encountered between 8 and 10 Practically speaking, the lateral
meters below the ground surface; this layer has displacement could range from one-half to
an average mean grain size of 0.21 mm, a fines twice this estimate. Therefore, the range is:
DH = about 3 to 12 m D5015 = [ (0.25 mm) x (1 m) + (0.11

mm) x (5 m) ] / [ 1 m + 5 m ]
Example - Lateral Spread Displacement For = 0.1333 mm
A Sloping Site F15 = [ (45%) x (1 m) + (35%) x (5 m) ]
A power plant is to be located in an alluvial / [ 1 m + 5 m]
valley which has a shallow groundwater table. = 36.67%
The site has a gentle uniform slope which drops M = 6.5
0.4 meters vertically over a horizontal distance R = 5 km
50 meters. The ground water is at a depth of T15 = 1 m + 5 m
about 2 meters. The geotechnical investigation = 6m
provides information about the soil conditions
and the report states that there is a liquefaction Calculate Lateral Spread Displacement, DH
potential at the site.
The design earthquake is a Moment log DH = -15.7870 + 1.1782 M - 0.9275 log R
Magnitude 6.5 on a fault located 5 km from the - 0.0133 R + 0.4293 log S + 0.3483
site. The geotechnical report identifies two log T15 + 4.5270 log (100 - F15) - 0.9224 D5015
granular layers as being susceptible to = -15.7870 + 7.6583 - 0.6483 - 0.0665 -
liquefaction. The first layer is encountered 0.0416
between 2 and 3 meters below the ground + 0.2710 + 8.1560 - 0.1230
surface; this layer has an average mean grain
size of 0.25 mm, a fines content (less than No. = -0.5811
200 Sieve) of 45%, and a corrected Standard
Penetration Blow Count, (N1)60, of 6. The Then,
second layer is encountered between 5 and 10 DH = 0.2624 m
meters below the ground surface; this layer has
an average mean grain size of 0.11 mm, a fines Practically speaking, the lateral
content of 35%, and a corrected (N1)60 value of displacement could range from one-half to
10. twice this estimate. Therefore, the range is:
Determine the estimated lateral
displacement at the power plant site due to DH = about 0.13 to 0.52 m
liquefaction.
3.4.10 Facing the Liquefaction Problem
Solution:
If liquefaction is identified as a hazard that
Use the equation for ground slope could affect a structure, there are choices that
conditions in Section 3.5. must be made. For new construction, the
available choices are:
Determine the ground slope, S 1. design for liquefaction by modifying the site
soil conditions or strengthening the
S = V/H = (0.4 meters) / (50 meters) = 0.8 structure.
% 2. abandon or move the project, or
3. accept the risks by proceeding without
Both layers need to be included in the designing for liquefaction.
analysis since the (N1)60 value of the both layers Obviously, economics will influence the
is less than 15. Define parameters for analysis: selection process in a major way. The second
choice would be dependent on whether there
Use weighted averages: was an alternative site without the liquefaction
162 Chapter 3
problem. The third choice could invite with some additives and then properly
unwanted liability exposure and problems of compacted as an engineered fill. Another
uninsurability or even jeopardize future solution would be to waste the excavated
property values and viability of the project. The material and replace it completely with properly
second and third choices could be the subject of compacted import material that would be
much discourse but is outside the intention and nonliquefiable. As the liquefiable soils will
scope of this work and emphasis will be put most likely be below the water table,
upon designing for liquefaction. dewatering will be needed and excavation could
be difficult due to high moisture content of the
3.4.11 Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazard soils; these two factors may make recompaction
by Site Modification less desirable and uneconomical.
In-Situ Densification. The second general
There are site modification methods which category of site improvement methods is in-situ
are intended to reduce the potential or densification of the liquefiable soils. By
susceptibility of the soils beneath a site to densification, the soils would have less
liquefy(3-25). These methods are summarized potential to liquefy because a more dense soil
below: would not tend to have a decrease in volume
when subjected to earthquake shaking; instead,
1. Excavation and replacement of liquefiable a more dense soil would have a tendency to
soils become less dense thus reducing the possibility
A. Excavation and engineered compaction of excess pore pressures developing.
of the existing soil The driving of piling into ground will
B. Excavation and engineered compaction produce both vibrations and displacement in the
of existing soils with additives soils which would lead to densification and
C. Excavation of existing soils and increased soil strength. It would be more
replacement with properly compacted beneficial to drive piling that would have a
nonliquefiable soils significant cross sectional area to maximize the
2. Densification of in-situ soils lateral displacement of the soils; thus a solid
A. Compaction piles pile such as a timber, concrete, or closed-end
B. Vibratory probes pipe pile section would be much more effective
C. Vibroflotation than an H-section pile. Another form of
D. Compaction grouting compaction piling (or displacement piles) is a
E. Dynamic compaction or impact sand filled steel pipe that is withdrawn after
densification driving; the pile is pulled increments of about 6
3. In-situ improvements of soils by alteration feet and the hole is backfilled with sand. The
A. Mixing soils in-situ with additives pile is then redriven to compact the sand and
B. Removing in-situ soils by jetting and this process is repeated until the steel pile is
replacement with nonliquefiable soils completely withdrawn; this allows the steel pile
4. Grouting or chemical stabilization to be reused. Compaction piles have reportedly
been used to stabilize hydraulic fill consisting
Excavation and Replacement of of sand beneath a building at Treasure Island in
Liquefiable Soils. The first general category of San Francisco Bay (3-26); liquefaction of the
site modification methods involves the treated soils did not occur in the 1989 Loma
excavation of the potentially liquefiable soils. Prieta earthquake whereas liquefaction was
This soil may then be recompacted as an observed in non-treated areas at other parts of
engineered fill to a higher density so that the Treasure Island.
soil will have less potential to liquefy. Vibratory probes describes methods
Alternatively, the native soils may be improved commonly referred to as “vibro systems or
techniques.” Vibro systems are probably the type grout is pumped under high pressure to
most commonly used countermeasure among densify loose soils(3-26).
all of the mitigation techniques available (3-27). In-situ densification may also be
The vibrator is 12 to 18 inches in diameter and accomplished by dynamic compaction (which is
about 10 to 16 feet in length. Rotating eccentric also referred to as impact densification or heavy
weights mounted on a casing above the probe tamping). Dynamic compaction is a method
produce vibrations close to the tip of the probe. which utilizes a heavy falling weight to produce
a shock wave which is propagated to some
Vibroflotation is one such proprietary vibro depth in the ground (Fig. 3-25).
process by which a machine is lowered into the
ground and compacts loose soils by
simultaneous vibration and saturation (3-28). As
the machine vibrates, water is pumped in faster
than it can be absorbed by the soil. The more
granular particles are vibrated in a more dense
state while the excess water carries off the finer
particles to the ground surface (see Figures 3-23
and 3-24). Granular soils are added from the
ground surface to compensate for the loss of the
finer particles and the increased density. It has
been reported by Ishihara et al.(3-29) that oil
tanks supported on sand soils compacted by the Figure 3-23. Vibroflotation technique. (Illustration
Vibroflotation technique suffered little damage courtesy of Hayward Baker, Inc.)
and settlement in the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki
earthquake in Japan, while nearby similar
facilities supported on loose sand deposits that
were not densified suffered considerable
damage and significant settlement. Vibro
compaction is a similar process although the
use of water jets may not be used. Vibro
compaction is generally effective in clean sand
soils having less than 10% fines content
(passing the No. 200 sieve). Where the fines
content of sands is greater than 10%, or where
there may be sands interbedded with cohesive
layers, vibro replacement or “stone columns”
would be viable; this method is described in
more detail later in this section. Figure 3-24. Water being pumped during vibroflotation.
Another method of in-situ densification is (Photograph courtesy of Hayward Baker, Inc.)
compaction grouting. Grout pipes are typically
installed by driving or by drilling and inserting
steel pipes through which low slump, mortar-
164 Chapter 3
Figure 3-25. Dynamic Compaction technique. (Photograph courtesy of Hayward Baker, Inc.)
The effect of this compaction in granular

soils is to generate high pore water pressures.
As these high pore water pressures are
dissipated by drainage, compaction (or more
correctly, consolidation) occurs and the soils
become more dense and, therefore, more
resistant to liquefaction. In the United States, it
is typical to use weights ranging from 10 to 35
tons that are dropped from heights of 50 to 120
feet. The energy is controlled by selection of
the weight, drop height, the number of drops at
each point and the spacing of the grid of drop
points. The effective depth of treatment has
been empirically estimated as shown in Figure Figure 3-26. Chart to determine effective depth of
3-26; this figure shows the effective depth of treatment by Dynamic Compaction.(Ref. 3-30)
treatment (in meters) as a function of the metric
energy input expression of (WH)0.5, where W is In-situ densification could also be
the weight to be dropped in tonnes and H is the accomplished by deep blasting. This method
drop height in meters (3-30). The effective depth would use small explosive devices installed at
of treatment has also been expressed in the depth to densify loose sandy materials.
form of the equation: Soil Alteration. The third major category of
D = N (WH)0.5 soil improvement methods is alteration of the
soil to reduce the potential for liquefaction. The
where N is a number between 0.3 and 0.7 soil may be made more resistant by the
depending on the material to be densified. construction of mixed-in-place solidified piles
or walls. Lime, cement, or asphalt may be pressure side jetting nozzles to cut and lift the
mixed-in-place to create piles or walls to soil to the surface while simultaneously
provide shear resistance which would confine injecting grout. The resulting mixture is
an area of liquefiable soils to prevent flow. commonly called "soilcrete."
Vibro-replacement is a process by which Deep soil mixing is a technique that uses
soils can be improved and is especially suitable hollow stem auger drilling equipment with
when there are significant amounts of fine soils paddles to mix cementitious materials into the
which do not readily respond to vibratory soils to create a "soilcrete" or similar mixture (3-
27)
compaction. With vibro-replacement, a vibrator . Gangs of 2 to 5 shafts with hollow stem
is used to penetrate the soil to a desired depth augers are used. The augers could be up to 40
and the resulting cavity is filled with coarse- inches in diameter and could mix soils to depths
grained material which may consist of stone. of up to 200 feet (3-31). Each auger is a
This material is then compacted and forms a discontinuous auger shaft that has mixing
"stone column" (see Figure 3-27). The stone paddles. The augers drill into the soils and grout
provides better transmission of the vibratory is pumped through the hollow stems and
forces to the surrounding soils and therefore injected into the soil at the tip. Deep soil mixed
provides better densification. Stone columns walls are created with this process as the augers
would be installed on a pre-determined grid are used in tangent configurations. The use of
pattern. The stone columns would have a low deep soil mixing in liquefaction stabilization
compressibility and high shear strength. may involve the construction of a perimeter
Because of its coarse-grained nature, excess soil-cement cutoff wall installed to isolate loose
pore pressures developed during an earthquake cohesionless soils beneath a structure. The
in the surrounding soils can be quickly groundwater could be lowered to provide a dry
dissipated. or nonliquefiable zone beneath the structure.
Reinforcement of liquefiable soils can be
accomplished by the soil-cement walls in a
block or lattice pattern to resist the stresses
from embankments or other structures when
loose cohesionless foundation materials liquefy
as a result of an earthquake. This method of soil
reinforcement was used to stabilize the Jackson
Lake Dam in Wyoming (3-32) and a site in
Kagoshima City, in western Japan for a 3-story
Figure 3-27. Vibro-Replacement technique. (Illustration building (3-33).
courtesy of Hayward Baker, Inc.)
3.4.12 Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazard
Grouting or Chemical Stabilization. The by Structural Design
fourth category of soil improvement methods is
soil grouting or chemical stabilization. These Designing a structure to resist liquefaction
methods would improve the shear resistance of must take into account the deformations of the
the soils by injection of particulate matter, soil that could occur in the event of liquefaction
resins, or chemicals into the voids. Common occurrence. This will greatly effect the
applications are jet grouting and deep soil foundation design of the building.
mixing (3-27). Designing for liquefaction may be
Jet grouting is a system where cylindrical or accomplished by the use of piles or caissons
panel shapes of hardened soils are created to which rely upon the soil or rock beneath the
replace potentially liquefiable soils. A specially potentially liquefiable soil layers for support.
manufactured drill is used that has high These designs would need to account for
166 Chapter 3
possible downdrag forces that would develop and that almost certain remedial and corrective
on the piles or caissons because of the work will be likely after the liquefaction event.
settlement of the upper soils that could occur.
Also, special design for the lateral forces or 3.4.13 Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazard
base shear may be needed because there could by Drainage
be a significant loss of the ability to transfer
horizontal forces to the liquefied soils; this may Dewatering systems may reduce the
require the use of battered piles or the design of potential for liquefaction by removing the water
caissons as unsupported columns through the from those layers which could liquefy. Also, the
liquefied zones. However, the use of battered increase in effective overburden pressure will
piles is being discouraged because of the rigid add to the resistance of the soils against
connections the piles have with the pile caps. liquefaction. If total dewatering of a site is not
Under seismic excitation and liquefaction, these practical, providing some means of drainage
connections may be subjected to bending may mitigate the problem. Drainage solutions
moments that could result in severe damage to to mitigate liquefaction allow for the rapid
the piles and/or the pile caps. Extensive damage dissipation of excess pore pressures in the
to battered piles supporting wharf structures potentially liquefiable soil layers. If the pore
was observed in the Port of Oakland as a result pressures can be relieved quickly, the effective
of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. stresses will not decrease significantly and the
Because of the possibility of lateral soil will retain most of its shear strength not
spreading, the foundation system will need to allowing liquefaction to occur. Vertical gravel
be tied together quite well to act as a single drains placed in a grid pattern may be able to
unit. Floor slabs on grade could be subject to accomplish this. Vibro-replacement also utilizes
settlement or differential movement and may this principle as part of its mechanism to
need to be structurally supported. mitigate liquefaction as the coarse-grained
For structures of relatively low profile and stone columns would be very permeable in
relatively uniform mass distribution, a mat comparison to the surrounding soils.
foundation may be feasible. The mat would be There are methods under development to
able to bridge the local areas of settlement and utilize prefabricated drainage material similar to
the structure should be able to act more or less conventional vertical wick drains to control the
as a rigid body. Any permanent deformations of effects of liquefaction. These drains would be
the structure could be corrected by injection of sufficient size to accommodate the large
grouting or mud-jacking the structure to its volumes of water generated during a
proper level. liquefaction event without undue head loss. An
Wall structures retaining potentially integral water reservoir allows water to be
liquefiable soils, such as those that might be stored during an earthquake; the water is
found at port and harbor facilities, may be gradually drained back into the surrounding
subjected to greater than normal lateral earth soils. A water outlet would not be required for
and hydrostatic pressures should liquefaction this system.
occur. Earth pressures could increase from an
at-rest or active earth pressure condition to a
condition where the pressure distribution could
be equivalent to that imposed by a fluid having
a density equal to the total unit weight of the
soil.
With a structural solution to mitigate against
liquefaction, there will remain a significant risk
that some damage could occur to the structure
Figure 3-28. Differential compaction between an area with older natural soils and an area with loose fill soils from the 1986
San Salvador earthquake. (Photograph courtesy of Mr. Robert Chieruzzi)
the horizontal motions can cause densification

3.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT, because of the numerous shear cycles that
SUBSIDENCE AND occur. Whitman and DePablo have suggested
DIFFERENTIAL that vertical accelerations greater than 1 g (g =
acceleration of gravity) are required to cause
COMPACTION significant densification of granular soils. (3-35)
However, it has been reported that over one
Seismic settlement and subsidence are two meter (about three feet) of ground subsidence
terms used to describe surface subsidence due to densification was experienced in
which is a result of compaction or densification Valdivia, Chile during the 1960 earthquake (3-
of granular soils from earthquake-induced 36)
. It has also been reported that there was
vibrations, which may occur over large areas. ground subsidence in the order of 5 to 7 meters
Although this phenomenon produces a result over a very large area in the Mississippi Valley
which is similar to what occurs from as a result of the New Madrid earthquakes of
liquefaction, it occurs in dry or partially 1811 and 1812 (3-34). It is difficult to determine
saturated soils or in saturated soils which have whether some of these reported instances of
good drainage, that is, those soils that do not subsidence were at least partially due to
liquefy(3-34). liquefaction or some tectonic movement, or if
During an earthquake, a granular soil is they were totally a result of seismic settlement.
subjected to cyclical shear from horizontal and Differential compaction occurs when there
vertical accelerations. In a strong earthquake, is marked difference in the density of the soils
168 Chapter 3
in a horizontal sense. Such a phenomena was

observed during the San Salvador Earthquake
of 1986 (Figure 3-28).
Tokimatsu and Seed have proposed a
simplified procedure to estimate the settlement
of dry sands due to earthquake shaking without
having to perform a dynamic response
analysis.(3-37) They claim that the primary factor
controlling settlements in dry sands is the cyclic
shear strain induced in the soils at various
depths. At any given depth, the effective shear
strain, γeff, may be estimated by the
relationship:
γeff = τav / Geff = [ τav / Gmax ] / [ Geff / Gmax ]
where Gmax is the shear modulus at low

strain level, Geff is the effective shear modulus
at the induced strain level, and τav is the
average cyclic shear stress at the corresponding Figure 3-29. Plot for determination of induced shear strain
depth. τav may be computed by the following in sand deposits (Ref. 3-37)
equation:
τav = 0.65 (amax / g) . σo . rd
Substituting this into the earlier equation
and rearranging the terms, we get the following
equation:
γeff [ Geff / Gmax ] = 0.65 (amax / g) . σo rd / Gmax
The right-hand side of the equation can be
evaluated for any depth. Gmax may be evaluated
by the relationship developed by Seed and
Idriss(3-38) given below:
Gmax = 1,000 . (K2)max . (σ'm)1/2
in units of pounds per square foot
where (K2)max is approximately equal to 20
(N1)1/3 and σ'm represents the median effective
stress on the soil at the given depth. Having
computed the value of γeff [ Geff / Gmax ], Figure
3-29 may be used to determine the effective
shear strain, γeff . Knowing the effective cyclic
shear strain, the volumetric strain, εc , can be
estimated by the use of Figure 3-31 which
relates the strains for different N1 values for a
given 15 equivalent uniform strain cycles, Figure 3-30. Relationship between Volumetric Strain,
which are representative of a magnitude 7.5 Shear Strain, and Penetration Resistance for dry sands
earthquake. (Ref. 3-37)
Figure 3-31. The Turnagain Heights landslide occurred as a result of the 1964 Great Alaska earthquake and had length of
about 1.5 mi. and width from 1/4 to 1/2 mi. (Photograph by United States Geological Survey)
To account for earthquakes of different and Tokimatsu recommend that the estimated
magnitudes, Seed and Tokimatsu have volumetric strain be doubled to account for
proposed the following Table 3-16 which multidirectional effects of earthquake shaking.
relates the number of representative cycles of The amount of dry settlement due to earthquake
cyclic shear strain to different earthquake shaking may then be obtained by multiplying
magnitudes to provide a correction factor. the corrected volumetric strain by the thickness
of the sand layer.
Table 3-16. Correction Factors for Different Magnitude
Earthquakes (Ref. 3-37)
3.6 LANDSLIDING AND
Number of Volumetric
Earthquake
representative cycles strain ratio
LURCHING
Magnitude
at 0.65 τmax εc,N / εc,N=15
8-1/2 26 1.25
3.6.1 Landsliding
7-1/2 15 1.0
6-3/4 10 0.85 Earthquakes may trigger landslides or other
6 5 0.6 forms of slope instability. Slope failures may
5-1/4 2-3 0.4 occur as a result of the development of excess
pore pressures which will reduce the shear
Because the results in Figure 3-30 are based strength of the soils or cause loss of strength
on tests that were performed under along bedding or joints in rock materials. The
unidirectional simple shear conditions, Seed Turnagain Heights landslide occurred as a
170 Chapter 3
Figure 3-32. Lower Van Norman Dam after the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. (Photograph by the United States
Geological Survey)
result of the 1964 Alaska earthquake (Fig. 3- Earthquakes may also cause shallow debris
31). The epicenter of the Richter magnitude 8.5 slides in areas with high, steep slopes. These
earthquake was about 130 kilometers from slides could be quite minor or quite major, such
Anchorage but the duration of strong ground as the 1970 debris avalanche triggered by the
motion lasted more than three minutes. Seed Peruvian earthquake of May 31, 1970 which
and Wilson believe that the long duration of the buried the towns of Yungay and Ranrahirca in
ground motion caused the pore water pressures which 18,000 lives were lost.
to continually increase causing liquefaction of Careful consideration should be given to
silt and fine sand lenses which led to the structures that are sited in a location that could
landslide.(3-39) Earthquake-caused liquefaction directly or indirectly be affected by some form
within the Lower Van Norman Dam during the of slope instability. A very careful geotechnical
February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake and geologic investigation would be needed to
nearly resulted in the overtopping of the dam identify if such hazards exist and determine if
(see Figure 3-32) which would have threatened there are any practical means of mitigation of
tens or hundreds of thousands of people who the hazards.
lived beneath the dam in the densely populated
San Fernando Valley.
3.6.2 Lurching seafloor topography caused by tectonic

displacement. Such tectonic displacements may
Lurching is a phenomena where there is be caused by earthquakes, undersea landslides
movement of soil or rock masses at right angles or volcanic eruptions. It is believed that strike-
to a cliff or steep slope. Structures founded slip earthquakes are less likely to cause
either in part or whole on such masses may tsunamis and that a substantial vertical offset
experience significant lateral and vertical caused by a dip-slip earthquake mechanism is
deformations. necessary to generate large tsunamis. A tsunami
may be caused by a nearby fault rupture, or by
3.7 FLOODING, TSUNAMIS distant earthquakes which may be thousands of
AND SEICHES miles away. In the open sea, these waves travel
at great velocities, however, the amplitudes of
these waves are quite small with a very long
3.7.1 Flooding wavelength. The velocity of a tsunami water
wave is approximately given by the relationship
Seismic activities may cause some calamity
elsewhere which could result in flooding at the v = (gD)0.5
site under consideration. An important part of
the site investigation should include the where g is the acceleration of gravity and D
identification of any bodies of water or is the water depth. As the wave approaches a
structures that contain water that are located coastline, the shallower depth of water will
above or upstream of the site. The cause the amplitude of the water wave to
consequences of failure of these bodies or become greater. The wave may become even
structures should be evaluated to determine more accentuated where there are topographic
what are the probable flood limits and depths of features such as narrow bays and very shallow
inundation that could be expected. The impact waters. In fact, the meaning of the word
of this potential flooding on structure and tsunami is literally "harbor wave" in the
function could have an effect on the siting of a Japanese language. The wavefront may crash
building. It may be practical to raise the on shore and may extend its damaging
finished floor elevation to be reasonably above influence inland.
the maximum expected flood elevation; if this Tsunamis do not occur with every
is not possible, re-siting of the proposed earthquake with its source beneath the seafloor.
building may be necessary. Otherwise, Although tsunamis do not occur that often, they
emergency procedures will need to be can cause significant damage and loss of life.
established in the event that the flood hazard Tsunamis have occurred most frequently in the
becomes a reality. Pacific Ocean. Japan has been the victim of
In some regions of the United States, studies numerous tsunamis throughout recorded
of flood hazard have been performed and flood history. The city of Hilo on the big island of
maps are available. Some of these studies have Hawaii has been devastated several times by
been performed by the United States Army tsunamis; the offshore topography is conducive
Corps of Engineers; others are available from to channeling the destructive forces of a
the Federal Emergency Management Agency tsunami into waves that were estimated to be
(FEMA). from 21 to 26 feet high in the 1946 tsunami.
Great damage from tsunamis occurred as a
3.7.2 Tsunamis result of the so-called Great Alaska Earthquake
of March 27, 1964 (see Figures 3-33 and 3-34).
A tsunami is a long sea wave that could be Although not as frequent, tsunamis have also
generated by a rapidly occurring change in
Figure 3-33. Waterfront at Seward, Alaska, looking south, before the 1964 Great Alaska earthquake generated underwater
landslides, surge waves, and tsunami waves that devastated the waterfront. (Photograph by United States Geological
Survey)
Figure 3-34. Waterfront at Seward a few months after the earthquake, looking north. (Photograph by United States
Geological Survey)
occurred in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Tsunamis have even been reported in the p = 0.5 CD ρ Vs2
Mediterranean Sea (3-34; 3-40).
Structural damage from tsunamis is caused where CD is a coefficient of drag for
by the force of the water and the impact from submerged objects which is a function of the
boats and any other objects that may be carried shape of the object (which may be a wall or a
and propelled by the moving waters. Structures column), ρ is the mass density of water, and Vs
with open fronts or large areas of glass with is the speed of the water surge which is
continuous rear walls were found to have a approximated by
greater potential to be damaged. Observations
made after several tsunamis suggest that light 0.5
Vs = 2 ( g ds )
frame buildings are subject to very severe
damage or total destruction because of the
relatively flexible type of construction. Heavy where g is the acceleration of gravity and ds
timber construction is also found to be very is the height of the water surge (3-41). In addition
susceptible to damage from tsunamis. If not to the dynamic fluid pressures, there could be
firmly anchored to the foundations, such impact loading from objects carried by the
structures would have a tendency to float if the tsunamis.
water level was significant. Heavier buildings
3.7.3 Seiches
constructed of structural steel or reinforced
concrete tend to be less damaged. Although A seiche may occur when earthquake
structures have been observed to have ground motion causes water in closed or
withstood tsunami forces, the structural partially closed body (such as a bay, lake,
elements at the lower levels could sustain reservoir, or even a swimming pool) to oscillate
significant damage from the passage of the from one side to the other(3-34) . Large seiches
water and impact by objects. may occur when the frequency of the in-coming
It has been suggested that a structure could earthquake waves are the same as the natural
be designed to resist tsunami waves.(3-41) Special frequency of the water body and causes
consideration would be needed to minimize the resonant oscillation. This oscillation could
effects of a tsunami. First, the major axis or cause overtopping of dams and damage to
long dimension of the building should be structures located near the water, and could
oriented parallel to the expected direction of the continue for hours.
wave. A building with this orientation would
have a minimal surface area that could be 3.8 SOIL-STRUCTURE
attacked by the on-coming waves. In addition, INTERACTION
the building will have greater strength to resist
the wave forces because of the greater amount
of structural elements providing resistance 3.8.1 Conventional Structural Dynamic
along the major axis. Consideration should also Analysis and Soil-Structure
be given to leaving the lower portion of the Interaction
building completely open which would greatly
reduce the total load applied to the structure In the normal dynamic analysis of a
from the tsunami wave. building, the usual method of dynamic analysis
The forces exerted on a structure by a is to determine the free field ground motion at
tsunami are not easy to predict. The horizontal the site of the building, and to apply that free
fluid pressure exerted by flowing waters, p, can field ground motion at the base of the building
be estimated by the equation assuming that the base is fixed. This may be
174 Chapter 3
true for the case where the building is founded recognized that, in comparison to the structure,
on rock. However, if the building is founded on the soil is essentially a semi-infinite medium or
soft soils, the earthquake motion at the base of unbounded domain. The soil-structure
the building is not likely to be identical to the interaction model subjected to dynamic loading
free field ground motion. The presence of the cannot be treated in the same way one would
structure will modify the free field motions consider static loading. When analyzing a soil-
because the soil and structure will interact to structure system under static loading, it is
create a dynamic system quite different from sufficient to model the structure on the soil
just a free field condition. This "soil-structure system which will have fixed or semi-fixed
interaction" will result in a structural response boundaries at a sufficient distance from the
that may be quite different from the structural structure where these boundary conditions do
response computed from a fixed base building not affect the static response of the structure.
subjected to a free field ground motion. Under dynamic loading, the fictitious
Certainly it is a more simple problem when boundaries could not be sufficiently far enough
one can separate the determination of the design away from the structure to not affect the
ground motion from the dynamic analysis of the structural response; i.e., the boundaries would
building which is the case when one performs a reflect the traveling waves within the soil mass
conventional dynamic analysis. This and not allow the energy to pass through to
uncoupling of the soil system from the building infinity. In an attempt to model boundaries
system may, in general, give a predicted properly, special techniques such as the
response that could be conservative. For boundary-element method have been
convenience sake, this may be a rationale to use developed.
a fixed base model over a soil-structure
interaction model. Another reason for this may 3.8.2 Elements of Soil-Structure
be that soil-structure interaction involves two Interaction Analysis
distinct disciplines (as practiced in the United
States), namely geotechnical and structural Consider two identical structures with a
engineering. The use of a fixed base model may rigid foundation, one founded on stiff rock and
not be able to take into account all of the the other founded on soft soil, as shown in
possible modes of response such as deformation Figure 3-35. The soil layer overlies the rock and
of the base of the structure or rocking of the the distance between the two structures is small
structure. Additionally, the periods of vibration so that it may be reasonably assumed that the
of the structure may be longer because of the incident earthquake waves arriving from the
interaction. In critical structures, such as earthquake source are identical for the two
nuclear reactors, some of these other modes of structures. For illustration purposes, we will
response may be just as important as the consider only a vertically propagating shear
primary translation modes of vibration. The wave which produces only horizontal motions.
change in period may also affect the response A control motion may be defined on the free
of the overall structure or its substructures or ground surface of the rock, say at Point A. As
components. the rock is stiff, it may be reasonably assumed
It turns out that in soil-structure interaction that the motion at any point in the rock, say at
analysis, the whole is greater than the sum of Point B, is the same as the control motion at
the two parts. There needs to be an Point A.
understanding of both soil dynamics and For the structure founded on the rock, a
structural analysis and the ability to combine fixed base condition would exist and the
these two different worlds. Because of the horizontal ground motion applied to the base of
interaction of both the soil and the structure, the structure by the earthquake would be equal
both need to modeled. However, it should be
to the control motion. Rocking of the structure modification of the motion at the base of the
would not develop in a fixed base condition. structure.
3.8.3 Limitations of Soil-Structure

Interaction Analyses
Implicit in the formulation of present soil-

structure interaction analyses is the assumption
that the principle of superposition is valid. A
result of this assumption is that the response
that is computed is for a system that is linear in
nature. However, soils are notoriously nonlinear
when subjected to strong ground motions at the
levels of engineering interest.(3-42) Although it
may be possible to use material properties that
are compatible with the strain levels produced
during an earthquake, this is still far from a true
nonlinear analysis.
Figure 3-35. Seismic response of structure founded on Because a significant mass of soil must be
rock and on soil. (a) sites; (b) outcropping rock; (c) free modeled around the structure, there will be a
field; (d) kinematic interaction; (e) inertial interaction
large number of degrees of freedom which
usually impact in computational storage and run
For the structure founded on the soft soil,
time. This may be alleviated by substructuring
the earthquake motion at the base of the
the problem into two parts. The first part of the
structure will not be the same as for the
analysis is to compute the free field response of
structure founded on rock and neither will the
the site (without the structure present). The
base be fixed. The motion at Point C at the top
motions are determined at the nodes where the
of the rock will not be as great as the motion at
structure is attached. The force-displacement
Point A because of the presence of the
relationships of these nodes are also
overlying soil layer. As the wave propagates
determined. The second part of the analysis is
upward in the soil layer, the motion may be
the study of the superstructure mounted on
amplified or, in some cases, deamplified; in
spring-dashpot systems subjected to the free
most cases, however, amplification of the
field motions determined from the first part of
motion will occur. The frequency content of the
the analysis (Fig. 3-36).
motion will also change. The rigid base of the
Great care must be exercised in soil-
structure will also modify the motion. The
structure interaction analyses. The basic
motions will undergo a kinematic interaction
assumptions show that, although this type of
which result in the base being subject to some
analysis is more sophisticated than a
average horizontal displacement and also some
conventional rigid base analysis, the current
rocking. These rigid body motions in the base
state-of-the art still falls far short of modeling
will apply inertial loading on the superstructure
reality. Such analyses should be tempered with
which will excite the structure. The excited
much engineering judgment. For more detailed
structure will then cause a demand on the
information on the theory of soil-structure
supporting soils to resist transverse shear and
interaction, the reader is referred to the work by
overturning moment. These demands on the
Wolf (3-43).
soils cause what is referred to as inertial
interaction and results in deformations of the
soils which ultimately also cause further
176 Chapter 3
observed in the June 28, 1992 Landers,

California earthquake (moment magnitude 7.3)
which had maximum horizontal displacements
of up to 6 meters across the fault. If ground
surface rupture due to earthquake faulting were
to occur beneath a structure, there would be
substantial damage. Figure 3-38 shows the
disruption of a large concrete dam in Taiwan
where there was approximately 9 meters of
vertical fault offset on the Chelungpu fault in
the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan. Figure
3-39 shows damage to a building caused by
Figure 3-36. Seismic soil-structure interaction with faulting, also in Taiwan. The structure would in
substructure method. all likelihood be a substantial, if not a total loss
due to the differential ground displacement
between the two sides of the fault. This
3.9 FAULT RUPTURE displacement would be mostly lateral if the
fault is a strike-slip fault or the displacement
Fault rupture and the associated ground would be mostly vertical if the fault is thrust-
deformation can have extremely severe type fault; some faults will exhibit a
consequences to structures and systems that combination of these two types of fault
cross the fault plane. The fault displacements movement.
can range from a few millimeters to several
meters. Figure 3-37 shows fault rupture
Figure 3-37. Surface fault rupture (up to 6 meters horizontal movement) in the 1992 Landers earthquake.
Figure 3-38. Surface fault rupture beneath reinforced concrete dam in the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake.
Figure 3-39. Building damaged by faulting during the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake.
178 Chapter 3
The State of California enacted legislation organic matter is found in the units. The most
known as the "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault direct method of evaluating the recency of
Zoning Act" in 1972 shortly after the 1971 San faulting is to observe, in an open trench or
Fernando earthquake in which extensive surface roadway cut, the youngest geologic unit faulted
faulting damaged numerous homes, businesses and the oldest geologic unit that is not faulted.
and other structures. This act provides the Recent active faults may also be identified by
process to mitigate the hazard of surface direct observation of young, fault-related
faulting to structures in California.(3-44) One of geomorphic or topographic features in the field,
the specific criteria given in this legislative act on aerial photographs, or on satellite images.
provides that "No structure for human Fault gouge materials may effectively create
occupancy shall be permitted to be placed impermeable barriers that may cause the water
across the trace of an active fault." A structure level on one side of the fault to be different on
for human occupancy is any structure that has the other side. Sometimes evidence of a water
an occupancy rate of 2,000 person-hours per barrier (fault) may be seen at the ground
year. For the purposes of the law, an active fault surface. Sometimes, the drilling of borings may
is one that has moved in Holocene time, about be needed to determine the differential water
the last 11,000 years. The law requires that levels.
local jurisdictions must regulate new Geophysical methods are indirect methods
development projects within these zones that require a special knowledge of the geologic
determined by the State of California. The local conditions for a reliable interpretation. Methods
jurisdictions must require a geologic such as seismic refraction, seismic reflection,
investigation to demonstrate that proposed ground penetrating radar, electrical resistivity,
buildings will not be constructed across active gravity, magnetic intensity can provide useful
faults. If an active fault is found, a structure for information, however, they cannot prove the
human occupancy cannot be placed over the absence of a fault and also cannot determine the
trace of the fault and must be set back from the recency of activity. These methods should be
fault, usually a distance of at least 50 feet. used very carefully.
The investigation of sites for surface fault
rupture hazard may not be simple task. Many 3.10 LATERAL SEISMIC
active faults are complex and consist of EARTH PRESSURES
multiple branches that may result in a zone of
surface fault rupture. The evidence for
identifying active fault traces may be very 3.10.1 Active Seismic Earth Pressures
subtle or obscured. The distinction between
recent fault activity and activity that has ceased Lateral earth pressures are imposed on
may be difficult to ascertain. The complexity of retaining structures. Under static conditions,
evaluation of surface and near-surface faults flexible or yielding retaining structures would
and the infinite variety of site conditions makes be subjected to active lateral earth pressures.
it impossible to use a single investigative These active lateral earth pressures are
method at all sites. Investigation in heavily normally computed utilizing the classical
developed urbanized areas may be extremely theories developed by Coulomb and Rankine.
difficult. The methodologies to determine the active
Fault investigations should first be planned lateral earth pressures on retaining walls for
to address the problem of locating existing static conditions may be found in most
faults and then attempting to evaluate the geotechnical references, such as the United
recency of the latest fault activity. Data can be States Navy Design Manual DM-7-02.(3-45)
obtained from the site and from outside of the When there is an earthquake, one can
site area. Dating of materials may be possible if visualize inertial forces from the ground
shaking that would impose additional load on a ℑ

retaining wall. The most commonly used K AE =
sin (φ + δ )sin (φ − θ − i ) 
2
formulation to calculate the seismic lateral earth 
ℜ1 + 
pressure on a flexible or yielding retaining wall  cos(δ + β + θ )cos(i − β ) 
structure is the Mononobe-Okabe formulation
which has been described in detail by Seed and where
Whitman.(3-46) This method is an extension of ℑ = cos 2 (φ − θ − β ) and
Coulomb earth pressure theory with the
addition of horizontal and vertical forces to ℜ = cosθ cos 2 β cos(δ + β + θ )
-1
account for the earthquake loads. This method θ = tan [ kh / ( 1 - kv ) ]
assumes that there is sufficient wall movement γ = moist unit weight of the soil
to produce the minimum wall pressures and that H = height of wall
the backfill material consists of dry φ = angle of internal friction of the soil
cohesionless materials. The soil wedge behind δ = angle of wall friction
the wall is assumed to be at the point of i = angle of ground surface slope behind
incipient failure and the maximum shear the wall
strength is mobilized along the potential sliding β = angle of slope of back of wall to
surface (see Figure 3-40). The soil mass behind vertical
the wall is assumed to behave as a rigid body; kh = pseudostatic horizontal ground
therefore, the accelerations are uniform acceleration/g
throughout the mass. The effect of the kv = pseudostatic vertical ground
earthquake motions are then represented by acceleration/g
inertia forces khW and kvW, where khg and kvg The horizontal component of the force PAE
are the horizontal and vertical components of may be expressed as PAEh, where
the pseudostatic earthquake accelerations at the PAEh = PAE cos ( δ + β )
2
base of the wall. = (1/2) γ H (1 - kv ) KAE cos ( δ + β )
For a wall with a vertical inside face (
β = 0 ):
2
PAEh = (1/2) γ H (1 - kv ) KAE cos δ
It should be remembered that the computed
lateral force includes the static lateral active
earth pressure and the dynamic increment of
earth pressure which can be expressed as:
PAE = PA + ∆PAE
The static component, PA, acts at a height of
H/3 above the base of the wall. For cantilevered
retaining structures, most investigators have
agreed that the point of application of the
Figure 3-40. Forces acting on an active wedge in resultant of the dynamic earth pressure should
Mononobe-Okabe analysis (Ref. 3-46)
be at a height of 0.5H to 0.67H above the base
of the wall (3-46). Prakash has recommended that
The total active thrust is given by an the point of application of the resultant be taken
equation that is similar to that developed for at 0.55H above the base of a flexible wall and at
static conditions: 0.45H above the base of a rigid wall.(3-47) Seed
PAE = (1/2) γ H2 (1 - kv ) KAE and Whitman recommended that the dynamic
where KAE is the dynamic active earth component be assumed to act at about 0.6H
pressure coefficient which is defined by the above the base of the wall.
180 Chapter 3
The selection of the pseudostatic The total passive thrust can also be
accelerations is a critical matter. If one uses separated into its static and dynamic
anticipated peak ground accelerations, the components as follows:
computed lateral thrust may be very PPE = PP + ∆PPE
unrealistically high. As this method uses It should be noted that PPE will be less than
pseudostatic accelerations very much like slope PP as the dynamic component, ∆PPE, acts in an
stability analyses, values of the horizontal opposite direction from the static component. In
acceleration, kh, between 0.05g and 0.15g, are other words, the Mononobe-Okabe equation
commonly used, according to Whitman (3-48); predicts that the available passive resistance
these values may correspond to one-third to will be reduced during earthquake ground
one-half of the peak ground accelerations. Elms shaking.
and Martin (3-49) have suggested that the
horizontal acceleration, kh, be taken as one-half 3.11 CONCLUSIONS
of the peak ground acceleration (0.5A),
provided that there be an allowance for an It has been shown that the earthquake
outward displacement of 10 A inches or 250 A ground motions that affect structures are greatly
millimeters. The vertical acceleration, kv, may influenced by the local site and geologic
be taken as one-half to two-thirds of kh. conditions. It has also been demonstrated that
There are other methods of analyses for the ground motion response may also be
seismic active earth pressures on walls. Some influenced more greatly at different structural
of these methodologies are discussed in periods of vibration. These effects have been
Kramer.(3-50) recognized and have been incorporated into the
latest United States building codes as discussed
3.10.2 Passive Seismic Earth Pressures in this chapter. Recognition of near-source
effects has also been incorporated into the
As seismic activity can cause the active building codes.
earth pressures to increase dramatically due to Soil liquefaction is a major concern in
ground shaking, the same earthquake influences seismically active areas that have young
can cause the passive resistance of the soil to geologic materials with a shallow groundwater
decrease. Mononobe and Okabe also condition. Various methods of analysis have
formulated a theory for the seismic passive been presented that use different in-situ soil
resistance of soils against a wall. characterization technologies. The
The equation for the total passive thrust on a consequences of liquefaction also need to be
wall retaining a dry, cohesionless backfill is evaluated to determine the effects on structures
given in the following equation: founded in such conditions. Methods of
2
PPE = (1/2) γ H (1 - kv ) KPE analysis to evaluate liquefaction-induced
where the dynamic passive earth pressure settlement and lateral spreading have been
coefficient, KPE, is given by the following: presented. Also presented is a discussion of the
ℑ most commonly used techniques to mitigate the
K PE = 2
  sin (φ − δ )sin (φ + i − θ ) 1 2  effects of liquefaction to allow for engineered
ℜ 1 −    construction to proceed.
  cos(i − β )cos(δ − β + θ )  A discussion of other geologic-seismic
hazards has also been presented. These hazards
where include seismic settlement, fault rupture,
ℑ = cos 2 (φ − θ − β ) and landsliding, tsunamis, and lateral seismic
pressures on buried structures. The practice of
ℜ = cosθ cos 2 β cos(δ − β + θ ) geotechnical earthquake engineering is still
evolving and further advances are expected to
appear on the horizon in short order. It is Data,” Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE,
expected that many of the existing technologies Vol. 109, No. 3, March 1983.
3-14. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., "Ground Motions and
will be unproved or replaced with more
Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake
advanced methods in the future. Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,
California, 1982.
3-15. Ishihara, K. And Yoshimine, M., Evaluation of
REFERENCES Settlements in Sand Deposits Following
Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and
Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics
3-1. International Conference of Building Officials,
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 1, March
Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition, Whittier,
1992.
California.
3-16. Youd, L.T., "Major Cause of Earthquake Damage is
Ground Failure," Civil Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 4,
pp. 47-51, April, 1978.
California.
3-17. Youd, L.T., "Ground Failure Displacement and
Earthquake Damage to Buildings," Proceedings, 2nd
ASCE Conference on Civil Engineering and Nuclear
California.
Power, Knoxville, Tennessee, September, 1980.
3-18. Ishihara, K., “Stability of Natural Deposites During
Earthquakes,” Proceedings of the 11th International
California.
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, San Francisco, 1985.
3-19. Youd, L.T., and Garris, C.T., “Liquefaction-Induced
California.
Ground Surface Disruption,” Fifth United States-
3-6. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers
Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of
Association of California, Recommended Lateral
Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against
Force Requirements and Commentary, Sixth
Liquefaction, National Center for Earthquake
Edition, Sacramento, California, 1996.
Engineering Research Technical Report, Tokyo,
3-7. Federal Emergency management agency, NEHRP
Japan, 1994
Recommended provisions for Seismic Regulations
3-20. Prevost, J.H., "DYNA-FLOW: A Nonlinear
for New Buildings and Other Structures, 1997
Transient Finite Element Analysis Program," Report
Edition, FEMA302, Washington, D.C.
No. 81-SM-1, Department of Civil Engineering,
Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 1981.
Maps of Known Active Fault Nearing Source Zones
3-21. Finn, W.E.L. and Yogendrakumar, M., "TARA-
in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,
3FL: Program for Analysis of Liquefacion Induced
Whittier, California, 1988.
Flow Deformations," Department of Civil
3-9. Lew, Marshall and Bonneville, David, New Building
Engineering, University of British Columbia,
Code Requirements for the Seismic Design of Tall
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1989.
Buildings Near Active Faults, Proceedings, Fourth
3-22. Newmark, N.M., "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams
Conference on Tall Buildings in Seismic Regions,
and Embankments," Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 2,
Los Angeles, California, 1997.
1965.
3-10. International Code Council, International Building
3-23. Byrne, P.M., Jitno, H., and Salgado, F., "Earthquake
Code,2000 Edition.
Induced Displacement of Soil-Structures Systems,"
3-11. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung,
Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake
R.M., The Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil
Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992.
Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, University of
3-24. Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., "Empirical Analysis of
California Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-84-15,
Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by
October 1984.
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread," National
3-12. Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., Proceedings of the
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction
Technical Report NCEER-92-0021, 1992.
Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake
3-25. National Research Council, "Liquefaction of Soils
Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-
During Earthquakes," National Academy Press,
97-0022, 1997.
Washington, D.C., 1985.
3-13. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., “Evaluation
3-26. Hayden, R.F., "Utilization of Liquefaction
of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Countermeasures in North America," Fifth U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
182 Chapter 3
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 3-40. Legget, R.F., and Karrow, P.F., "Handbook of
Chicago, July 1994. Geology in Civil Engineering," McGraw-Hill Book
3-27. Hayden, R.F. and Baez, J.I., "State of Practice for Company, New York, 1983.
Liquefaction Mitigation in North America," Fifth 3-41. Wiegel, R.E. (editor), "Earthquake Engineering,"
United States-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1970.
Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and 3-42. Seed, H. B., "Earthquake Effects on Soil-Foundation
Countermeasures Against Liquefaction, National Systems," in Foundation Engineering Handbook,
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research H.F. Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang (editors), Van
Technical Report, Tokyo, Japan, 1994 Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975.
3-28. Brown, R.E., "Vibroflotation Compaction of 3-43. Wolf, J.P., "Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction,"
Cohesionless Soils," Journal of Geotechnical Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1985.
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT12, pp. 1437- 3-44. Hart, E.W., “Fault-rupture hazard zones in
1451, December, 1977. California,” California Department of Conservation,
3-29. Ishihara, K., Iwasake, Y., and Nakajima, M., Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication
"Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand Deposits at an 42, Revised 1994.
Oil Tank Site During the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki 3-45. Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Earthquake," Soil and Foundations, Vol. 20, No. 2, Foundations & Earth Structures, Design Manual
pp. 97-111, June, 1980. 7.02, Alexandria, Virginia, 1986.
3-30. Slocombe, B.C., "Dynamic Compaction," Chapter 2 3-46. Seed, H.B., and Whitman, R.V., "Design of Earth
in Ground Improvement, M.P. Moseley (ed.), Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads,"
Blackie Academic & Professional, Bishopbriggs, Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on
Glasgow, 1993. Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth
3-31. Taki, O. and Yang, D.S., “Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Retaining Structures, Ithaca, New York, pp 103-147,
Technique,” ASCE, Geotechnical Engineering 1970.
Congress, Boulder, Colorado, 1991. 3-47. Prakash, S., "Soil Dynamics," McGraw-Hill Book
3-32. Pujol-Rius, A., Griffin, P., Neal, J., and Taki, O., Company, New York, 1981.
“Foundation Stabilization of Jackson Lake Dam,” 3-48. Whitman, R.V., “Seismic design behavior of gravity
12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics retaining walls,” Proceedings, ASCE Specialty
and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, 1989. Conference on Design and Performance of Earth
3-33. Babasaki, R., Suzuki, K., Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y., and Retaining Structures, Geotechnical Specialty
Tokitoh, K., “Construction and Testing of Deep Publication 25, ASCE, New York, 1990.
Foundation Improvement Using the Deep Cement 3-49. Elms, D.G, and Martin, G.R., Factors Involved in
Mixing Method,” in Deep Foundation Improvments: the Seismic Design of Bridge Abutments, Applied
Design, Construction, and Testing, ASTM STP Technology Council Workshop on Earthquake
1089, Philadelphia, 1991. Resistance of Highway Bridges, ATC-6-1, 1979.
3-34. Hunt, R.E., "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 3-50. Kramer, Steven L., Geotechnical Earthquake
Manual," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1996.
1984.
3-35. Whitman, R.V., and DePablo, P.O., "Densification
of Sand by Vertical Vibrations," Proceedings, 4th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Santiago, Chile, 1980.
3-36. Lambe, W.T., and Whitman, R.V., "Soil Dynamics,"
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969.
3-37. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., "Evaluation of
Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
113, No. 8, August 1987.
3-38. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., “Simplified Procedure
for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential,” Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, 1971.
3-39. Seed, H.B., and Wilson, S.D., "The Turnagain
Heights Landslide, Anchorage, Alaska," Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM4, pp. 325-353,
July, 1967.

Geotechnical Design Considerations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Design Considerations PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Geotechnical Design Considerations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Geotechnical Design Considerations

Marshall Lew, Ph.D., G.E.

In a seismic environment, there may exist a

3.3 SITE EFFECTS to a maximum of 1.5. This concept of the soil

3.3.2 Uniform Building Code Z = Seismic Zone Factor

Table 3-2. — Site Coefficients, S

Table 3-3. — Soil Profile Types, 1997 UBC

Table 3-5. Near-Source Factor for Short Periods, Na

Table 3-6. — Near-Source Factor for Long Periods, Nv

Table 3-4. — Seismic Source Type

capable of larger earthquakes and having a

Figure 3-1. Treatment of Dipping Faults

Table 3-7. — Seismic Coefficient, Ca

Table 3-8. — Seismic Coefficient, Cv

Figure 3-4 shows a comparison of the elastic

Figure 3-2. 1997 UBC Design Response Spectra. From

Figure 3-4. Response Spectra, Uniform Building Code

Figure 3-5 compares the elastic response

Site Categorization Procedure

Determination of the Average Shear Wave

di = thickness of Layer i in feet (or meters)

where: Solution: Per Table 3-2 (Table 16-J, 1994

Determine the appropriate S Factor in

Determine the appropriate S Factor in

Determine the appropriate soil type. Solution:

Solution: Per Table 7, Ca = 0.44 Na = 0.44 (1.5) = 0.66

For Z = 0.4 and SC site,

Fau Distance Max.

Determine the appropriate Near-Source

Use the maximum values; therefore, Na =

3.3.7 NEHRP 1997 Recommended provided by the inherent conservatisms built

attenuation relationship. These deterministically SMS = Fa SS

2000 IBC Adjustments to Spectral Response

2000 IBC General Design Response

Figure 3-10. Probabilistic Ceiling on Maximum

The 2000 International Building Code has

Table 3-12. Corrections to SPT (Ref. 3-12)

Seed have developed equations to correct the

Solution: Borehole diameter:

Step 9: Compute the factor of safety against

The factor of safety against liquefaction is

3.4.3 Evaluating the Liquefaction

Q = [(qc - σvo) / σ’vo]

soil deposits which will be seen at the ground

3.4.8 Liquefaction Induced Ground

If a soil becomes liquefied and loses its

Lateral spreading is the movement of

S = Ground slope, in percent. content of 35%, and a corrected (N1)60 value of

The design earthquake is a Moment = -16.3658 + 8.8365 - 1.0908 - 0.1995

DH = about 3 to 12 m D5015 = [ (0.25 mm) x (1 m) + (0.11

The effect of this compaction in granular

the horizontal motions can cause densification

in a horizontal sense. Such a phenomena was

γeff = τav / Geff = [ τav / Gmax ] / [ Geff / Gmax ]

where Gmax is the shear modulus at low

3.6.2 Lurching seafloor topography caused by tectonic

occurred in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

3.8.3 Limitations of Soil-Structure