SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

Date: 20th February 2022

Session 34

Professor Mehedi A. Ansary

BUET
S-8A SEng PRP
Training Program
PART 6: STRUCTURAL DESIGN
CHAPTER 2 LOADS ON BUILDINGS
AND STRUCTURES
 2.5 Earthquake Loads

2.5.2.2 Characteristics of Earthquake Resistant

Buildings
• Foundations
• The design and construction of the foundation and of its connection to
the superstructure shall ensure that the whole building is subjected to
a uniform
if seismic
i i excitation.
it ti
• For buildings with individual foundation elements (footings or piles),
the use of a foundation slab or tie-beams between these elements in
both main directions is recommended, as described in Chapter 3.
 2.5 Earthquake Loads
 2.5.3.1
2 5 3 1 Sit
Site iinvestigation
ti ti
• Appropriate site investigations should be carried out to identify
the gground conditions influencing g the seismic action.
• The ground conditions at the building site should normally be free
from risks of ground rupture, slope instability and permanent
settlements caused byy liquefaction
q or densification duringg an
earthquake.
• The possibility of such phenomena should be investigated in
accordance with standard p procedures described in Chapter p 3 of
this Part.
• The intent of the site investigation is to classify the Site into one
of types SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S1 and S2 as defined in Sec
2.5.3.2.
 2.5 Earthquake Loads

2.5.3.1 Site investigation

• For sites representing
p g special
p soil type
yp S1 or S2,, site
specific special studies for the ground motion should be
done.
• Soil type S1
S1, having very low shear wave velocity and
low material damping, can produce anomalous seismic
site amplification and soil-structure interaction effects.
• For S2 soils,
soils possibility of soil failure should be studied
studied.
 2.5 Earthquake Loads

2.5.3.1 Site investigation

• For a structure belonging
g g to Seismic Designg Category
g yC
or D (Sec 2.5.5.2), site investigation should also include
determination of soil parameters for the assessment of
the following:
g
 2.5 Earthquake Loads
2.5.3.1 Site investigation
• Liquefaction potential and possible consequences should be
evaluated for design earthquake ground motions consistent
with peak ground accelerations.
• Any Settlement due to densification of loose granular soils
under design earthquake motion should be studied.
• The occurrence and consequences of geologic hazards such
as slope instability or surface faulting should also be
considered.
• The
Th dynamic
d i lateral
l l earth
h pressure on basement
b walls
ll and
d
retaining walls during earthquake ground shaking is to be
considered as an earthquake load for use in design load
combinations
 2.5.3.2 Site classification

 Site will be classified as type SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S1 and
S2 based on the provisions of this Section. Classification
will
ill b
be d
done iin accordance
d with
ith T
Table
bl 66.2.13
2 13 b
based
d on th
the
soil properties of upper 30 meters of the site profile.
Average soil properties will be determined as given in the
following equations:
 Site classification

• The site profile up to a depth of 30 m is divided into n

number of distinct soil or rock layers.
• Where some of the layers are cohesive
cohesive, k is the number
of cohesive layers.
• Hence in other words if
th
there are both
b th cohesionless
h i l and
d cohesive
h i llayers.
• The standard penetration value N as directly measured
in the field without correction will be used.
• The site classification should be done using average
shear wave velocity if this can be estimated, otherwise
the value of mayy be used.
PSLOG or Downhole Data at a Site
Shear-wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0

-25

-50
D e p th (m )

-75

-100

-125
Table 6.2.13: Site Classification Based on Soil Properties
 Historical Earthquakes in Bangladesh
 Bangladesh is susceptible to damaging earthquakes

 No large earthquake has occurred in this region recently

 Several large catastrophic earthquakes struck this area in the past few
hundred years
Event Name M IDh
Dhaka
k Distance
1762 Chittagong 8.5 (?) - 350 km
1869 Cachar 7.5 V 250 km
1885 Bengal 70
7.0 VII 170 km
1897 Great Indian 8.7 VIII+ 230 km
8.1 Ambraseys
Ambraseys,, 2000
1918 Srimangal 76
7.6 VI 150 km
1930 Dhubri 7.1 V+ 250 km
Earthquakes in and around Bangladesh
31°N

0 100 200

kilometers

18°N
84°E 98°E
 Seismic Hazard at a Site (Bedrock)
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 log = ‐0.7034M + 3.6223
log() = ‐0.456log(PGA) ‐ 0.1578
0.4 0.4 Based on Abrahamson and Silva's Attenuation Law (1997)
R² = 0.9916
0.2 0.2
Occurrence Raate (log scale) []
Occurrence Ratte (log scale) []]

0 0
‐0.2
‐0.2
‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.6
‐0.6
‐0.8
‐0.8 ‐1
1
‐1 ‐1.2
‐1.2 ‐1.4
‐1.4 ‐1.6
‐1.6 ‐1.8 T = 75 years
‐1.8 T = 75 years ‐2
‐2 22
‐2.2
‐2.4
‐2.2
‐2.6 T = 475 years
‐2.4
‐2.8
‐2.6 T = 475 years
‐3
‐2.8 0.1 1 10 100 1000
‐3
log PGA (cm/s2)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Magnitude
 2.5.4.2 Seismic Zoning
The intent of the seismic zoning map is to give an indication of the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) motion at different parts of the country. In
probabilistic terms,, the MCE motion may
p y be considered to correspond
p to
having a 2% probability of exceedance within a period of 50 years. The
country has been divided into four seismic zones with different levels of
ground motion.
motion Table 6.2.14
6 2 14 includes a description of the four seismic
zones. Figure 6.2.24 presents a map of Bangladesh showing the
boundaries of the four zones. Each zone has a seismic zone coefficient (Z)
which represents the maximum considered peak ground acceleration
(PGA) on very stiff soil/rock (site class SA) in units of g (acceleration
due to g
gravity).
y) The zone coefficients ((Z)) of the four zones are: Z=0.12
(Zone 1), Z=0.20 (Zone 2), Z=0.28 (Zone 3) and Z=0.36 (Zone 4).
Seismic Zoning Map
Table 6.2.14: Description of Seismic Zones
 Site-Specific Design Spectrum

For site class S1 and S2, site-specific studies are

needed to obtain design response spectrum. For
important projects, site-specific studies may also be
carried out to determine spectrum instead of using Eq.
6 2 34 The objective of such site-
6.2.34. site-specific ground-
ground-
motion analysis is to determine ground motions for
local seismic and site conditions with higher
confidence than is possible using simplified equations
equations.
Typical Shape of Elastic Response Spectrum
Normalized Design Acceleration Response Spectrum
 Time History from Target Response
Spectrum
0.25

Target ARS
Achieved ARS
y yp
0.2 0.075
y p
0.3

0.2
0.05 Synthetic
ude (g)

Matched
0.15
Acceleration (g)

0.1

Acceleration (g)
0.025
Amplitu

0
0
0.1
-0.1
-0.025

-0.2

0.05 -0.05
-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time
-0.075
0
(s) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 Time (s)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)
3.9.5 Dynamic Ground Stability or Liquefaction Potential for
Foundation Soils
S il liliquefaction
Soil f ti iis a phenomenon
h iin which
hi h a saturated
t t d
sandy deposit loses most of its strength and stiffness
due to the generation of excess pore water pressure
during earthquake-induced ground shaking.
It has been a major cause for damage of structures
It
during past earthquakes (e.g., 1964 Niigata & Alaska
Earthquakes).
3.9.5 Dynamic Ground Stability or Liquefaction Potential for
Foundation Soils
 Liquefaction Estimation Methods
B d on T
Based Topography
h
 Simplified Procedure of Seed & Idriss

For a particular soil layer:

Factor of Safety or FL=R/L;
R is the in-
in-situ resistance of soil expressed by CRR
L is the earthquake
q load induced by y a seismic motion or CSR
If the factor of safety ‫ ܮܨ‬is < 1, liquefaction is said to take place. Otherwise,
liquefaction does not occur. The factor of safety obtained in this way is
ggenerallyy used to identifyy the depthp to which liquefaction
q is expected
p to
occur in a future earthquake. This information is necessary if countermeasure
is to be taken in an in situ deposit of sands.
Simplified Procedure of Seed & Idriss

rd = 1.0
1 0 - 0.00765
0 00765 z for z ≤ 9.15
9 15 m (2a)
rd = 1.174 - 0.0267 z for 9.15 m < z ≤ 23 m (2b)
rd = 0.744 - 0.008 z for 23 < z ≤ 30 m (2c)
rd = 0.50
0 50 F z > 30 m
For (2d)
 Simplified Procedure of Seed & Idriss
Site response analysis of a site
may be carried out to
estimate the site
amplification factor. For this
Surface: ????
purpose, dynamic
parameters such as shear
modulus and damping
factors need to be estimated.
The site amplification factor
i required
is i d to estimate
i ܽ݉ܽ‫ݔ‬
for a given site properly
sands.
Base: According to BNBC 2020
Base: According to BNBC 2020
 Site Response Analysis
Shear wave Velocity
Shear-wave Velocity, Vs (m/s)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
PGA (g)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0

20
-25
40

60

Depth (m))
-50
Depth (m)

80

100

-75
120

140

-100
100

-125
 Simplified Procedure of Seed & Idriss
The second step is to determine the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) of the in situ soil.
The cyclic resistance ratio represents the liquefaction resistance of the in situ
soil. The most commonly used method for determining the liquefaction
resistance is to use the data obtained from the standard penetration test. A
cyclic triaxial test may also be used to estimate CRR more accurately
Simplified Procedure of Seed & Idriss
Base Curve for Clean Sand
Correcting SPT for Silty Sands to an
equivalent Clean Sand
 LPI (Iwasaki, 1982, 1984)
The liquefaction
Th li f ti analysis
l i by
b means off theth liquefaction
li f ti potential
t ti l index
i d (LPI)
defined by Iwasaki et al. (1982) is different from the simplified procedure of
Seed and Idriss (1971). The simplified procedure predicts what will
happen
pp to a soil element,, the index LPI p predicts the p
performance of the
whole soil column and the consequence of liquefaction at the ground
surface. Furthermore, the effect of liquefaction at depths greater than 20m
is assumed to be negligible, since no surface effects from liquefaction at
such depths have been reported.
reported Iwasaki et al.al (1982) proposed the
following form for the index LPI:

LPI
 LPI (Iwasaki, 1982, 1984)
h
where th
the d
depth
th weighting
i hti ffactor,
t w(z)( ) = 10 – 0.5z
0 5 where
h
z =depth (m). The weighting factor is 10 at z = 0, and
linearly decreased to 0 at z = 20 m.
The variable F is a key component in the above Eq, and
at a given depth, it is defined as follows: F = 1 – FS, for
FS ≤ 1; and F = 0 for FS > 1.1
Iwasaki et al. (1984) has classified the LPI in three
levels: ((a)) LPI < 5, implies
p ‘Low liquefaction
q p
potential; b))
5 ≤ LPI ≤ 15, implies ‘High’ liquefaction potential and c)
LPI > 15, implies ‘Very High’ liquefaction potential.
 Example of FS and LPI
Factor of Safety (FL)
0 2 4 6
0

6
L (m)

8
Depth from EGL

10

12

14
Simplified
16 Idriss

18

20
Remedial Measures
Remedial Measures
Examples of Ground Improvement: Jet
Grouting
Examples of Ground Improvement:
Dynamic Compaction
CPT & Plate Load Test After Improvement
Questions?
Thank you