Introduction to Soil Structure Interaction

Analysis

Dr. Chandrakaran
Civil Engineering
Department, NIT Calicut
Rational Design of Shallow Foundations

1. Every engineering structure, whether it is a building, bridge, highway

pavement or railway track, consists of a superstructure (above ground)
and a foundation

2. The function of the foundation is to transmit the load from the

superstructure to the soil or rock below the foundation.
 Rational Design of Shallow Foundations

 A proper foundation design has to ensure that no component

of either the superstructure or the foundation experiences
distress of any kind in the above process of load transmission
 The conventional method of design of a footing is to assume
the footing as rigid and the distribution of contact pressure at
the surface of contact between the base of a foundation and
the supporting soil as planar, that is, uniform or uniformly
varying depending upon whether the foundation supports
symmetric or eccentric loading.
 This assumption of planar contact pressure distribution is far
from reality and therefore, to be realistic in design, the
flexibility of the footing and the soil type (which together
give rise to variable contact pressure distribution) should be
considered (Kurian, 1992).
Rational Design of Shallow Foundations

 The design of foundation system consists of two phases.

These are referred to as:
1. Geotechnical (GT) design and
2. Structural design.
 The aim of GT design essentially is to arrive at the plan
dimensions of the foundation, satisfying the soil design
parameters, viz bearing capacity and settlement.
 The structural design is taken up only after its GT design is
completed, which determines the footing thickness and also
the quantum and location of reinforcement.
However the design has to be carried out as per local codes of
practice.
 Shallow Foundations
 Foundation structures are customarily divided into shallow or deep
on the basis of their depth in relation to their width, the typical
divide being the unit value for the ratio (Df/B), that is, Df/B<1 for
shallow foundations and Df/B > 1 for deep foundations.
 The real difference between shallow and deep foundations is based
on the structural response as well as the depth to which the
foundation is taken.
 Bending (flexure) is the predominant structural action in the case of
shallow foundations.
 The behaviour of deep foundations could result in axial and lateral
loads besides bending moments and torsional moments.
 The deep foundation–soil interaction needs a detailed analysis.
Types of Shallow Foundations
Types of Shallow Foundations
Types of Shallow Foundations
 Is the Assumption Realistic ?

 In the conventional design of footings, the soil pressure is

assumed to be uniform or linearly varying depending upon
whether the foundation supports symmetric or eccentric
loading.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 In general, foundations are not perfectly flexible and are

embedded at a certain depth below the ground surface.
 If the foundation is subjected to a uniformly distributed load,
the contact pressure will be uniform and the foundation will
experience a sagging profile.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 If we consider a perfectly rigid foundation resting on the

ground surface subjected to a uniformly distributed load, the
contact pressure and foundation settlement profile will be as
shown in Figure: the foundation will undergo a uniform
settlement and the contact pressure will be redistributed.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 Additionally, there is a lack of lateral confinement on the edge

of the foundation at the ground surface.
 The sand at the edge of a flexible foundation is pushed
outward, and the deflection curve of the foundation takes a
concave downward shape. The edges of the foundation will
undergo a larger settlement than the center.
 Actual Contact Pressure Distribution

 A rigid foundation resting on a sand layer will settle uniformly.

 The contact pressure on the foundation will increase from
zero at the edge to a maximum at the center, as shown in
Figure.
Max BM will be underestimated and Unsafe

 Hence the assumption of uniform pressure distribution results

in a slightly unsafe design for rigid footings on clays as the
maximum bending moment at the center is underestimated.
Max BM overestimated & conservative design

 It will give a conservative design for rigid footings on

sandy soils as the maximum bending moment is
overestimated.
Realistic distribution of contact pressure
needs to be considered
 Hence the necessity for developing effective and safe
design for foundations based on realistic distribution
of soil pressure, obtained by a rational interaction
analysis, known as flexible or elastic designs, arises
from the above drawbacks.
 While the footing can be modeled as a beam (one-
dimensional) or a plate or a shell (twodimensional)
and classical bending theories can be used for
representing their response, the soil reaction has to
be incorporated in the integrated analysis of soil–
structure interaction equation by modeling the soil
appropriately using different models
 Soil Structure Interaction Analysis

 The problem of foundation–structure interaction is generally

solved by incorporating the reaction from the foundation, into
the response mechanism of the structure, by idealizing the
foundation by a suitable mathematical model.
 Even if the foundation medium happens to be complex in
some problems, in a majority of cases, the response of the
structure at the contact surface is of prime interest and
hence, it would be of immense help in the analysis, if the
foundation can be represented by a simple mathematical
model, without foregoing the desired accuracy.
 To accomplish this objective, many foundation models have
been proposed and a comprehensive review pertaining to
these has been given by many authors.
 Modeling Soil Structure Interaction
 It is generally observed that the modeling of the superstructure and
foundation are rather simpler and straightforward than that of the soil
medium underneath.
 However, soil is having very complex characteristics, since it is
heterogeneous, anisotropic and nonlinear in force–displacement
characteristics.
 The presence of fluctuation of water table further adds to its complexity.
 Modeling Soil Structure Interaction
 It is generally observed that the modeling of the superstructure and
foundation are rather simpler and straightforward than that of the soil
medium underneath.
 However, soil is having very complex characteristics, since it is
heterogeneous, anisotropic and nonlinear in force–displacement
characteristics.
 The presence of fluctuation of water table further adds to its complexity.
 Modeling Soil Media

 The search for a physically close and mathematically simple

model to represent the soil-media in the soil–structure
interaction problem shows two basic classical approaches, viz.,
Winklerian approach and Continuum approach.
 At the foundation-supporting soil interface, contact pressure
distribution is the important parameter.
 The variation of pressure distribution depends on the foundation
behaviour (viz., rigid or flexible: two extreme situations) and
nature of soil deposit (clay or sand etc.).

 Since the philosophy of foundation design is to spread the load

of the structure on to the soil, ideal foundation modeling is that
wherein the distribution of contact pressure is simulated in a
more realistic manner.
 Modeling Soil Media

 From this viewpoint, both the fundamental approaches have

some characteristic limitations. However, the mechanical
behaviour of subsoil appears to be utterly erratic and complex
and it seems to be impossible to establish any mathematical law
that would conform to actual observation.
 In this context, simplicity of models, many a time, becomes a
prime consideration and they often yield reasonable results.
 Attempts have been made to improve upon these models by
some suitable modifications to simulate the behaviour of soil
more closely from physical standpoint.
 In the recent years, a number of studies have been conducted
in the area of soil–structure interaction modeling.
 Modeling Soil Media

 From this viewpoint, both the fundamental approaches have

some characteristic limitations. However, the mechanical
behaviour of subsoil appears to be utterly erratic and complex
and it seems to be impossible to establish any mathematical law
that would conform to actual observation.
 In this context, simplicity of models, many a time, becomes a
prime consideration and they often yield reasonable results.
 Attempts have been made to improve upon these models by
some suitable modifications to simulate the behaviour of soil
more closely from physical standpoint.
 In the recent years, a number of studies have been conducted
in the area of soil–structure interaction modeling.
 Winkler (1867)
The earliest use of these "springs" to represent the
interaction between soil and foundation was done by
Winkler in 1867; the model is thus referred to as the
Winkler method
The one-dimensional representation of this is a
"beam on elastic foundation," thus sometimes it is
called the "beam on elastic foundation" method
Mat foundations represent a two-dimensional
application of the Winkler method
Winkler Model
 Winkler Model

 Winkler’s idealization represents the soil medium as a system of

identical but mutually independent, closely spaced, discrete,
linearly elastic springs.
 According to this idealization, deformation of foundation due to
applied load is confined to loaded regions only.
 Figure shows the physical representation of the Winkler
foundation.
 The pressure–deflection relation at any point is given by p = kw,
where k = modulus of subgrade reaction.
 Winkler Model

 Winkler, assumed the foundation model to

consist of closely spaced independent linear
springs.
 If such a foundation is subjected to a partially
distributed surface loading, q, the springs will
not be affected beyond the loaded region.
Winkler Model
 For such a situation, an
actual foundation is observed
to have the surface
deformation as shown in
Figure.
 Hence by comparing the
behaviour of theoretical
model and actual foundation,
it can be seen that this model
essentially suffers from a
complete lack of continuity in
the supporting medium.
 The load deflection equation
for this case can be written
as p = kw
Winkler Models
Limitations of Winkler Model

 According to this idealization,

deformation of foundation due
to applied load is confined to
loaded regions only.
 A number of studies in the area
of soil–structure interaction
have been conducted on the
basis of Winkler hypothesis for
its simplicity.
 The fundamental problem with
the use of this model is to
determine the stiffness of
elastic springs used to replace
the soil below foundation.
Limitations of Winkler Model

 According to this idealization,

deformation of foundation due
to applied load is confined to
loaded regions only.
 A number of studies in the area
of soil–structure interaction
have been conducted on the
basis of Winkler hypothesis for
its simplicity.
 The fundamental problem with
the use of this model is to
determine the stiffness of
elastic springs used to replace
the soil below foundation.
 Limitations of Winkler Model
 A number of studies in the area of soil–structure
interaction have been conducted on the basis of
Winkler hypothesis for its simplicity. The
fundamental problem with the use of this model
is to determine the stiffness of elastic springs used
to replace the soil below foundation.
 The problem becomes two-fold since the
numerical value of the coefficient of subgrade
reaction not only depends on the nature of the
subgrade, but also on the dimensions of the
loaded area as well.
 Limitations of Winkler Model
Since the subgrade stiffness is the only
parameter in the Winkler model to idealize
the physical behaviour of the subgrade, care
must be taken to determine it numerically
to use in a practical problem.
Modulus of subgrade reaction or the
coefficient of subgrade reaction k is the
ratio between the pressure p at any given
point of the surface of contact and the
settlement y produced by the load at that
point:
 Limitations of Winkler Model
 The value of subgrade modulus may be obtained in the following
alternative approaches:
• However, the basic limitations of Winkler hypothesis lies in the
fact that this model cannot account for the dispersion of the
load over a gradually increasing influence area with increase in
depth.
• Moreover, it considers linear stress–strain behaviour of soil.
• The most serious demerit of Winkler model is the one
pertaining to the independence of the springs. So the effect of
the externally applied load gets localized to the subgrade only
to the point of its application.
• This implies no cohesive bond exists among the particles
comprising soil medium.
• Hence, several attempts have been made to develop modified
models to overcome these bottlenecks.
 Two Parameter Elastic Models
• The deficiency of the Winkler's Model in
describing the continuous behavior of real soil
masses and the mathematical complexities of
the elastic continuum has lead to the
development of many other simple soil
behaviour models.
• These models posses some of the
characteristics features of continuous elastic
solids. The term "Two Parameter“ signifies that
the model is defined by two independent
elastic constant.
 Two Parameter Elastic Models
• The development of these models has been approached along
following different lines.
1. The First type stems from the discontinuous Winkler's
model and eliminates its discontinuous behavior by
providing mechanical interaction between the individual
spring elements by either elastic membranes, elastic beams
or elastic layers capable of purely shearing deformations
(i.e. Filonenko-Borodich, Hetenyi, Pasternak and kerr).
2. The Second approach proceeds from the elastic continuum
model and introduces constraints or simplifying
assumptions with respect to the distribution of
displacements and stresses (Reissner, Vlazov and Leontiev).
Two Parameter Elastic Models
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual spring elements in the Winkler's
model by connecting them to a thin elastic membranes under a constant tension T.
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual spring
elements in the Winkler's model by connecting them to a thin
elastic membranes under a constant tension T.

Concentrated Load
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual spring
elements in the Winkler's model by connecting them to a thin
elastic membranes under a constant tension T.

Rigid Load
 Filanenko Borodich Model
This model requires continuity between the individual spring
elements in the Winkler's model by connecting them to a thin
elastic membranes under a constant tension T.

Uniform Flexible Load

 Filanenko Borodich Model
The response of the model can be expressed mathematically as
follows:

Hence, the interaction of the spring elements is

characterized by the intensity of the tension T in the
membrane.
 Hetenyi’s Model
This model suggested in the literature can be regarded as a fair
compromise between two extreme approaches (viz., Winkler
foundation and isotropic continuum). In this model, the
interaction among the discrete springs is accomplished by
incorporating an elastic beam or an elastic plate, which undergoes
flexural deformation only
Hetenyi’s Model
 Pasternak Model
• In this model, existence of shear interaction among the spring
elements is assumed which is accomplished by connecting the
ends of the springs to a beam or plate that only undergoes
transverse shear deformation.
• The load–deflection relationship is obtained by considering the
vertical equilibrium of a shear layer.
 Pasternak Model

The pressure–deflection relationship is given by

 Pasternak Model
The continuity in this model is
characterized by the consideration of the
shear layer.
A comparison of this model with that of
Filonenko–Borodich implies their physical
equivalency (‘‘T’’ has been replaced by
‘‘G’’).
 Kerr Model
A shear layer is introduced in the Winkler foundation and the
spring constants above and below this layer is assumed to be
different as per this formulation.
The following figure shows the physical representation of this
mechanical model. The governing differential Fig. 4. Hetenyi
foundation [30]. equation for this model may be expressed as
follows.
 Kerr Model
The governing differential equation for this model may be
expressed as follows.
LIQUEFACTION OF SOILS
 Contents of presentation
 Introduction
 Mechanism of Liquefaction
 Liquefaction-Related phenomena
 Initiation of Liquefaction and Analysis
 Field and Laboratory Studies to Simulate Field
Conditions for Soil Liquefaction
 Corrections for laboratory cyclic resistance
 Uniform stress cycles concept
 Cyclic triaxial testing – typical response
 Effect of fines content on Liquefaction
 Factors Affecting Soil Liquefaction
 Anti-liquefaction Measures
 Introduction
 Now-a-days earthquakes are occurring frequently in India,
especially in North region
 Liquefaction is a common earthquake hazard
 During ground shaking, the soil liquefaction causes
tremendous damages to foundation support and infrastructure
facilities in terms of sand boils, large deformations, sliding of
slopes, tilting etc.
 Liquefaction failures are plenty, e.g. 1964 Alaska and Niigata
earthquakes, recent 2001 Bhuj and 2005 Sumatra earthquakes
 It is essential to understand the liquefaction phenomenon of
soils for preventing such disasters
 Typical damages due to liquefaction

Tilting of apartment
Deep sand boil
buildings, Niigata (1964) Tilting of lighthouse structure

The Showa Bridge's pile Deep crack due to lateral Liquefaction of bridge
foundations moved due to lateral spreading foundation
spreading Niigata (1964)
 Mechanism of Soil Liquefaction
(Particle to Particle contacts in soils before and during liquefaction)

Before Liquefaction
Main mechanism associated with soil
Each particle is in contact with a
liquefaction is the generation of excess pore
neighboring particles
pressure in saturated soil mass when
During Liquefaction
subjected to cyclic loading or ground
Contact between the different soil
shaking
particles is broken by the excess pore
Excess pore water develops rapidly within the
water pressure
soil mass and there is no enough time to
Soil deposit becomes weak and has
dissipate
virtually no strength
When the pore pressure reaches the level of
Soil particles are floating in water
consolidation pressure, the soil looses the
shear strength and behaves like a liquid
 LIQUEFACTION OF SILTS AND SILTY CLAYS

• Most earlier studies on liquefaction

phenomenon were on sands.
• Fine grained soils such as silts, clayey silts and
even sands with fines were considered non-
liquefiable.
 Kishida (1969)
• “Liquefaction of soils with upto 70 % fines and clay
fraction of 10% occurred during Mino-Owar, Tohankai
and Fukui earthquakes”

Tohno and Yasuda (1981)

• Soils with fines up to 90% and clay content of 18 %
exhibited liquefaction during Tokachi –Oki earthquake of
1968.
 Ishihara, 1984
• Gold mine tailings liquefied during the
Oshima- Kinkai earthquake in Japan.
• Seed et al (1983) found that some soils with
fines may be susceptible to liquefaction. Such
soils (based on Chinese criteria) appear to
have the following characteristics:
– Percent finer than 0.005 mm (5 microns) ‹15%
– Liquid limit ‹ 35 %
– Water content › 90 % of liquid limit.
 Ishihara and Koseki (1989)
• The cyclic strength does not change much for
low plasticity range (PI ‹10) but increases
thereafter.
• The behavior of silts and silt clay mixtures in
the low plasticity range is of particular interest
and should be ascertained to see if these soils
are vulnerable to liquefaction.
 Confusion
Zhou (1981)
• An increase in the fines content in sand decreases the CPT
resistance but increases the cyclic resistance of the soil.
Zhou (1987)
*
Ifthe clay content Pin a soil is more than the critical
*
percentage P Pc* are related to the
, cthe soil will not liquefy. The values
intensity of earthquake ‘I’ as follows:

Intensity I 7 8 9
*
P c
(%) 10 13 16
• The Chinese practice of determining the liquid and
plastic limits, water content and clay fraction differs
somewhat from the ASTM procedures
• Adjustments of the index properties as determined using
the US standards, prior to applying the Chinese criteria:
– decrease the fines content by 5%
– increase the liquid limit by 1% and
– increase the water content by 2
 60

NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOIL:
50  w < 0.87LL or LL > 33.5
 or Clay fraction > 20%
40  or Plasticity Index > 13
LL = 33.5
Liquid Limit, LL

30

20 POTENTIALLY LIQUEFIABLE SOIL IF:

w = 0.87LL
 Clay fraction (0.005 mm) is less than 20%
 Plasticity Index is less than or equal to 13.
10

0
0 20 40 60 80

Saturated moisture content, w (%)

Figure 2. Chinese Criteria Adapted to ASTM Definitions of Soil

Properties (Perlea, Koester and Prakash, 1999)
 CONTRACTIONS IN LITERATURE

Figure 1 Relationship between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction and (N1)60

values for Silty Sand for M = 7.5 (after Seed et al. 1985)
Figure 3 Variation of Cyclic Strength with Fine Content at
Constant Void Ratio (after Troncoso, 1990)
Figure 4 Cyclic Stress Ratio for Well-Graded Sand Mixtures, with
Index Properties and Test Conditions Shown (after Chang 1990)
• Troncoso (1990) and Koester (1993) indicated that the
cyclic strength of sand decreased with increasing silt
content up to 20-30% by weight. If the fines content goes
beyond 20%, cyclic stress ratio of sand increases with
fines. There should be a lowest value of cyclic stress ratio
between fines content of 20-30% of the soil’s weight.
• There is more scatter in Koester’s (1993) data than in that
of Troncoso (1990). Therefore, no quantitative
conclusions can be drawn relating the decrease in CSR
with fines content.
• Further systematic investigations are needed to study
these effects.
 Table 1: Properties of Different Low-Plasticity Soil Samples
(after Ishihara and Koeski 1989)

Sl. No. Soil Composition PI ec CSR

1 Kaolin (20/48) Kaolin-tailings-sand 4 0.60 0.240
2 Kaolin (18/66) Kaolin-tailings-sand 2 0.78 0.220

3 Loam (10/47) Kanto loam-tailings-sand 2 0.73 0.200

4 Tail (9/44) Tailings-sand 0 0.56 0.190

Note: ec = void ratio after consolidation; CSR = cyclic stress ratio causing 5% strain in 20 cycles.
 Liquefaction Related Phenomenon
• The term liquefaction, originally coined by Mogami and Kubo (1953)
• Seed (1976) recognized three definitions of liquefaction based on pore pressure buildup
and deformation: (i) Initial liquefaction; (ii) Initial liquefaction with limited strain or cyclic
mobility and (iii) Complete Liquefaction
• According to Kramer (1996), Liquefaction Phenomena can be divided into two main
groups: (i) Flow Liquefaction and (ii) Cyclic mobility
• Flow Liquefaction:
 Occurs when the static shear stress is greater than the shear strength of the soil in its
liquefied state
 For loose sands, the state of initial liquefaction produce large deformations because
of contraction
 Failure is characterized by its sudden nature and liquefied material moves over large
distance
 Flow slide failures of dams are the examples
Flow Liquefaction
Cyclic mobility:
 Occurs when the static shear stress is less than the shear strength of the liquefied soil
 For dense sands, the state of initial liquefaction does not produce large deformations
because of dilation tendency
 Level ground liquefaction is a special case and failure may occur even after ground
shaking
 Sand boils, excessive settlement, flooding of low-lying land and lateral spreading are
the examples of level ground liquefaction failure

B
d B
2
uexcess
C

A A

a a
Zone of susceptibility to cyclic mobility
 Liquefaction of Silty Sands
• It is well documented in the previous studies that saturated coarse sand deposits
are susceptible to severe liquefaction during earthquakes
• However, the liquefaction behaviour of non-plastic and low plastic sandy silt and
silty clay deposits is not conclusively established in the published literature
• Many of published data are contradictory to each other and there seems to be
no unanimity on the liquefaction behaviour of silty soils
• The recent seismic events like 2001 Bhuj, 1999 Chi-Chi and Kocaeli etc. have
shown that liquefaction has occurred in such soils evidenced by sand boils,
ground subsidence and lateral flows
• The soil deposits consisting of significant amounts of non-plastic fines are spread
widely in the seismic regions of India. These soil deposits have greater chance to
undergo liquefaction during earthquakes. But very limited studies were carried
out on the liquefaction resistance of fine sands of these regions
• Therefore more research is focuses on these silty sand deposits to attain unique
conclusions on the liquefaction behaviour
 Liquefaction Analysis
If the soil is below the ground water table and susceptible to liquefy
Prior to liquefaction analysis, it is necessary to determine the factor of safety which
depends on (i) the seismic demand on a soil layer, expressed in terms of CSR
induced by the earthquake and (ii) the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction,
expressed in terms of CRR (CSR required to cause liquefaction)
If the liquefaction or Cyclic Resistance Ratio is lesser than the earthquake induced cyclic
stress ratio (FSL<1.0), the site is susceptible to liquefaction
Factor of safety against liquefaction must be determined corresponding to earthquake
magnitude of that seismic region

FSL = Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)/Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR E)

 Evaluation of Liquefaction
A number of approaches have developed to evaluation the initiation of
liquefaction, such as Cyclic Stress Approach; Cyclic Strain Approach; Energy
Dissipation Approach; Effective Stress Based response Analysis Approach;
Probabilistic Approach and Arias intensity method etc.
Cyclic Stress Approach
Characterizes earthquake loading by the amplitude of an equivalent uniform cyclic
stress and liquefaction resistance by the amplitude of the uniform cyclic stress
required to produce liquefaction in the same number of cycles
The liquefaction resistance is commonly evaluated in terms of cyclic stress ratio
that causes the initial liquefaction or limiting cyclic strain amplitude
Cyclic Strain Approach
Expresses earthquake loading in terms of the amplitude of the uniform cyclic
strains and liquefaction resistance in terms of the uniform cyclic strain amplitude
required to initiate liquefaction in the same number of cycles
(i) Evaluation of CSR induced by the Earthquake [Seed &
Idriss (1971) simplified procedure]

Assumed that the ground surface is horizontal and soil column is a rigid body
As the seismic loading is excited at the base of the soil column, the shear wave
propagates to the ground surface
Shear stress generated at the bottom of rigid soil column can be calculated by

amax
 max r   vo (1)
g
 (i) Evaluation of CSR induced by the Earthquake (Continue ..)
[Seed & Idriss (1971) simplified procedure]

In reality, soil column does not act as a rigid body during the earthquake, but the soil behaves
as a deformable body
A depth reduction factor rd is introduced to give the shear stress of deformable soil column,
(max)d  max d
rd  (2)
Depth or Stress Reduction Factor is defined as,  max  r

amax
 max   max d  rd vo (3)
Maximum shear stress of deformable soil column g

rd  1.0  0.015 z Kayen et al. (1992)

rd 
1.000  0.4113z 0.5
 0.04052 z  0.001753 z1.5 
Blake (1996)
1.000  0.4177 z 0.5  0.05729 z  0.006205 z1.5  0.001210 z 2 
1.0  0.00765 z for z  9.15 m
1.174  0.0267 z

rd  
for 9.15 m  z  23 m Youd et al. (2001)
0.744  0.008 z for 23 m  z  30 m (NCEER Workshop)
0.5 for z  30 m
Seed & Idriss (1982)
(NCEER 1997 Workshop) z = depth in meters below the ground surface where the liquefaction analysis is being performed
 (i) Evaluation of CSR induced by the Earthquake (Continue ..)
[Seed & Idriss (1971) simplified procedure]

Dividing both sides of the Equation (3) by the vertical effective stress v; gives seismic stress
ratio of  max   vo   amax 
 rd   (4)
' v '  g 
vo  

The actual time history of shear stress at any point in a soil deposit during an earthquake will
be irregular
For practical purpose, typical irregular earthquake record is converted into an equivalent
series of uniform stress cycles by assuming  cyc  0.65 max

Then estimate
the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio as cyc
τ cyc  a  σ 
CSR E   0.65  max   'vo  rd (5)
σ 'vo  g   σ vo 

Typical irregular time history of shear stress

during earthquake
 (ii) Evaluation of liquefaction resistance (CRR)
 The Field Cyclic Resistance Ratio represents the liquefaction resistance of the in situ soil
 In situ tests
 Standard penetration test (SPT)
 Cone penetration test (CPT)
 Shear-wave velocity measurements (Vs)
 Beaker penetration test (BPT)
 Laboratory Tests
 Cyclic simple shear test; Cyclic triaxial test
 Cyclic torsional shear test; Shaking table; Centrifuge test
 Corrections were made for laboratory cyclic resistance to simulate the field
conditions and determination of field cyclic resistance ratio
Zone of Liquefaction in the Field
The final step in the liquefaction analysis is to calculate the factor of safety against
liquefaction
FSL = Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)/Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR E)
The number of equivalent cycles, Neq, corresponding to the earthquake magnitude
must be determined to evaluate the liquefaction resistance (CRR)
The evaluation is also easily performed graphically
Liquefaction can be expected at depths where the loading exceeds the resistance
shown in Figure or when the factor of safety against liquefaction is less than 1

Process by which zone of liquefaction is identified

 Field Tests - SPT liquefaction assessment chart
 Correction for effective overburden stress (C ) N
Table 1. Magnitude Scaling Factors
 Correction for hammer energy ratio (C ) E
Mw 8.5 7.5 6.75 6 5.25
 Correction for bore hole diameter (C ) B
MSF 0.89 1.00 1.13 1.32 1.50
 Correction for samplers (C ) S

 Correction for rod length (C ) R

(N ) = N C C C C C
1 60 m N E B R S

 Chart was developed for an anticipated earthquake that

has a magnitude of 7.5.
 For other different magnitudes, the CRR values from
SPT – based liquefaction assessment chart (Seed et al.1985) chart is multiplied by the MSF
 Field Tests - CPT liquefaction assessment chart
 The CPT is more consistent and repeatable
 Continuous penetration records are available
 Liquefaction assessment chart is based on normalized tip resistance

1.8qc
qc1  CN qc 
q 
0.8  vo
100

CPT- based liquefaction assessment chart (Robertson PK and wride CE in 1998)

 Field Tests - Becker penetration test (BPT)
• Useful in gravels
• Number of blows required to drive the casing 300 mm in the gravel
• Very little data linking BPT directly to filed liquefaction events
• Becker blow counts are to equivalent SPT blow counts
• Use SPT chart to find CRR

Correlation between SPT and BPT blow counts in sand (Harder and Seed in 1986)
 Field Tests - Shear wave velocity liquefaction assessment chart
 Shear wave velocity is corrected for overburden pressure
 Vs measurements are possible in soils that are difficult to penetrate with CPT
and SPT or to extract undisturbed samples, such as gravelly soils, and at sites
where borings or soundings may not be permitted
 Vs is a basic mechanical property of soil materials, directly related to small-
strain shear modulus

The shear wave velocity can be

measured in situ by using seismic up-
hole, down- hole or cross – hole tests
0.25
 100 
Vs1  Vs Cv  Vs   Sykora (1987)
 
 vo 

Shear wave velocity based liquefaction assessment chart (Andrus and Stokoe in 2000)
 Laboratory Tests
• Idealized field loading conditions to be simulated for soil liquefaction
• Limitations: Selection of representative samples; Stress concentrations &
maintenance of uniform stresses and strains and Sampling disturbances etc
• Corrections were made for laboratory cyclic resistance to simulate the field
conditions and determination of field cyclic resistance ratio
• Cyclic simple shear testing more properly represents the loading conditions
for most seismic problems
• Cyclic triaxial tests were widely used to model the loads applied to a soil mass
by an earthquake due to large control over stresses and strains in triaxial
apparatus
• The measured cyclic triaxial resistance can be then corrected to obtain the
equivalent simple shear or in-situ response

Applied stresses and stress path for a soil element in the field (Polito 1999)
 Corrections for laboratory cyclic resistance
• The stresses applied to an element of soil in the field are quite different from the
manner in which the stresses are applied in a laboratory test
• The stresses on a deviatory plane of triaxial specimen are similar to the stresses acting
on a horizontal plane in the field
• Major difference between the field and laboratory loadings to be seen in the stress
paths: (i) In case of field loading, it simply a vertical line which never crosses the zero
shear stress (i.e. q =0) axis (ii) The stress path for the cyclic triaxial test crosses the zero
shear stress boundary twice during the cycle of loading

av

cyc=±dc/2
45
Idealized stresses induced by
seismic shaking on soil element
Applied stresses and stress path for a soil element in a
cyclic triaxial test (Polito et al. 2000)
 Corrections for laboratory cyclic resistance (Continue ..)
• The CSR must be defined differently for different types of tests

(CSR) ss   cyc 
'
Cyclic Simple Shear Test
vo

 dc
CSR tx  Cyclic Triaxial Test
2 c
• The measured cyclic triaxial resistance can be corrected to obtain the equivalent
simple shear by the relation
2 1  2ko 
(CSR ) ss  (CSR )tx
3 3
• In reality, earthquakes produce shear stresses in different or multi directions
• Multidirectional shaking has been shown (Pyke et al. 1975) to cause pore pressures to
increase more rapidly than does unidirectional shaking
• CSR required to produce initial liquefaction in the field was about 10 % less than that
required in unidirectional cyclic simple shear tests [Seed et al. (1978)]
• Finally, Liquefaction resistance of an element of soil in the field is given by
 cyc 2 1  2 K o 
CSR  field  '  0.9 (CSR )tx
 vo 3 3
 Uniform Stress Cycles Concept
• The actual time history of shear stress at
any point in a soil deposit during an
earthquake will be irregular
• Laboratory test data from which
liquefaction resistance can be estimated
applying uniform amplitude of cyclic shear
stresses
• Comparison of earthquake-induced
loading with laboratory-determined
resistance requires conversion of an
irregular time history of shear stress to an
equivalent series of uniform stress cycles
• The number of equivalent cycles, Neq,
corresponding to the earthquake
magnitude is to be taken from figure
• Uniform cyclic shear stress is assumed to
be applied for the equivalent number of
cycles

Number of equivalent uniform stress cycles, Neq, for earthquakes of different magnitude
(After Seed et al. 1975)
 Factors affecting Soil liquefaction
• Based on the results of laboratory tests as well as field studies, the
most important factors that govern liquefaction are:
• Earthquake intensity and duration
• Ground water table
• Soil type
• Soil relative density
• Particle size gradation
• Placement conditions of depositional environment
• Drainage conditions
• Confining pressures
• Particle shape
• Aging and cementation
• Historical environment
• Building load
 Anti-liquefaction measures
• Compaction of loose sands
• Rolling with rubber tyre rollers
• Compaction with vibratory plates and vibratory rollers
• Driving of piles
• Vibroflotation
• Blasting
• Grouting and chemical stabilization
• Application of surcharge
• Drainage using coarse material blanket and drains
• Soil reiforcement