Liquefaction Assessment using Site-Specific · PDF fileAustralian Earthquake Engineering...

Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2014 Conference, November 21 - 23,

Lorne Victoria, Australia

1

Liquefaction Assessment using Site-Specific CSR

M. M. L.SO1

, T. I. MOTE

1, & J. W. PAPPIN

2

1. Arup, Sydney

2. Arup Fellow, Adelaide

E-Mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT:

Liquefaction evaluation is often conducted using a simplified empirical procedure (e.g.

Seed et al., 2003) which involves estimating the earthquake-induced cyclic shear

stress to vertical effective stress ratio (i.e. Cyclic Stress Ratio CSR) that occurs within

the soil profile. This simplified procedure uses the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)

at the ground surface together with a nonlinear shear stress reduction factor, rd, to

estimate the peak earthquake-induced CSR within the soil profile and a duration

weighting factor (DWF) which is observed to be a function of the earthquake

magnitude.

This study presents the application of a site-specific soil response vs code soil

response to determine the CSR for the liquefaction triggering calculation.

A case study is presented using seven time histories, which were spectrally matched

with the response spectra of 2500 year return period presented in Leonard et al.

(2013), to represent the input underlying bedrock ground motion. Two ground

profiles, which are both classified as Class C in accordance with AS1170.4, show

significant difference to the CSR profile. This difference of CSR is not resolved in

the simplified method as only a generic rd relationship is used, consequently the

difference in potential liquefaction hazard could be overlooked.

The paper presents the advantages to seismic design by conducting site response

analysis in Australia.

Keywords: Site Response Analysis, Liquefaction Analysis



2

1. INTRODUCTION:

Australia is located in a low to moderate seismicity region. The current code of

practice is AS1170.4 ‘Earthquake Actions in Australia’ provides ground motions

according to an annual probability of exceedance and which can be scaled for

Importance Level. There is no explicit method to analysis the liquefaction hazard in

Australia.

The well recognised methods for evaluating liquefaction triggering potential are Seed

et al. (2003) (which is the same as Cetin et al., 2004) and Boulanger & Idriss (2014).

These simplified procedures, without site response studies, estimate cyclic shear stress

ratio (CSR) by using the shear stress reduction factor (rd), selected earthquake

magnitude, ground surface PGA and the uppermost soil condition (e.g. VS of 12m for

Seed et al., 2003). Detailed variation in the underlying soil condition, which affects

how the seismic waves transmit from the bedrock to the ground surface, are not

considered in these simplified methods.

In light of this, a site response analysis has been carried out for 5 profiles in Sydney

Harbour with a range of depths and subsurface conditions.

2. GROUND PROFILE:

To study how the ground motion in shallow depth of soil is affected by the underlying

soil, 5 profiles have been selected to capture the variable ground response. Profiles 1

to 3 are underlain by marine sand while Profiles 4 to 5 are underlain by marine clay.

Using the site classification procedures in AS1170.4 the profiles are Site Class C

except for Profile 4 which is Site Class D. Table 1 summarises the soil materials and

the depth to bedrock of the 5 soil profiles.



3

Table 1 Summary of the 5 soil profiles

Profile

Underlying soil

deposit

Depth to Bedrock

(m)

Site

Class

1 Marine Sand 14.3 C



4 Marine Clay 28.9 D

5 Marine Clay 18.0 C

3. SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS:

3.1 METHODOLOGY:

Oasys SIREN is a finite difference program that analyses the response of a

1-dimensional soil column subjected to an earthquake bedrock motion at its base.

The earthquake motion is modelled as vertically propagating shear-waves. The soil

column is specified as a series of horizontal layers, each layer being modelled as a

non-linear material with hysteretic damping. The soil damping is derived as a

function of the shear modulus degradation curve. Detailed calibration analyses

undertaken using Oasys SIREN are described by Henderson et al. (1990) and

Heidebrecht et al. (1990).

3.2 INPUT GROUND MOTION:

Following AS1170.0 (Table 3.2 - Importance Levels for Building Types) an

Importance Level 4 is a structure is to have post-disaster function and designated as

an essential facility. AS1170.0 (Table 3.3 Annual Probability of Exceedance) states

the annual probability of exceedance for ultimate limit states for Earthquake and

Importance Level 4 Structure is 1/2500. To derive input ground motions, a 1/2500

bedrock spectra from the Geoscience Australia (GA) Seismic Hazard Map of

Australia (Record 2013/14 | GeoCat 77399) has been used as it will be in the next

revision of the earthquake loading code AS1170.4.

In the absence of measured ground motions (time histories) for Sydney, a range of

existing time histories from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

strong motion database has been selected. Seven time histories for a range of

earthquakes of different magnitudes (amplitudes and duration) and distances from the



4

site were selected and modified to be compatible with the bedrock spectra using

RSPMatch.

3.3 SOIL PARAMETERS:

3.3.1 SHEAR MODULUS (G0)

To obtain the small strain shear modulus (G0), different material parameters have

been assessed from available and relevant in- situ ground investigation data (notably

SPT’s, CPTs, Pocket Penetrometers). A number of published empirical relationships

have been used to derive shear wave velocity (VS) and G0 from the existing data.

Rix & Stokoe (1991), Mayne & Rix (1993) and Boulanger & Cabal (2000) have been

used for CPT, Imai & Tonouchi (1982) for SPT and Weiler (1988) for the undrained

shear strength. The derived VS for the soil strata are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 VS used for the site response analysis.

Soil Type VS (m/s)

Fill 140-200

Marine Sand 140-300

Marine Clay 150-250

Bedrock 800

3.3.2 SHEAR MODULUS DEGRADATION CURVES:

Published shear modulus degradation curves were applied for site response analysis

and they are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Shear modulus degradation curves used for site response analysis

Soil Type Degradation Curves Adopted

Sand Fill and Marine Sand Seed & Idriss (1970) - Upper Bound

Marine Clay Vucetic & Dobry (1991)

4. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL:

To determine liquefaction potential of a soil deposit, the CSR is determined at various

depths. In this study, the maximum shear stresses at various depths are obtained by



5

using in-house site response program Oasys SIREN to derive the CSR. CSR

following the approach of Seed et al. (2003) were also derived for comparison

purposes. The input PGA is 0.215g for Class C (Profiles 1, 2, 3 and 5) and 0.165g

for Class D (Profile 4). The PGA is derived from the rock PGA from the GA report

(Record 2013/14 | GeoCat 77399), multiplied by the soil factor in AS1170.4.

As design magnitudes used for liquefaction analysis are not explicitly provided by the

code, a range of earthquake magnitude of 6.5 and 7.3 have been used. The

maximum considered magnitude of 7.3 is based on Clark et al. (2010).

5. RESULTS:

5.1 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA:

The response spectra of Class C (Profiles 1, 2, 3 and 5) and Class D (Profile 4) at the

ground surface are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. The responses

from all the profiles of Site Class C are very similar and they can be generally

bounded by Site Class C spectrum defined by AS1170.4. Similarly, the response of

Profile 4 is also bounded by Site Class D spectrum defined by AS1170.4. In both

cases, it is also observed that the code defined spectra give higher spectral values for

very short periods (< 0.1s) and for long periods (> 2s). The former is important to

simplified liquefaction assessment in that the PGA is significantly overestimated.



6

Figure 1 Response spectra of Site Class C and compared with AS1170.4 code spectra.

Figure 2 Response spectra of Site Class D and compared with AS1170.4 code spectra.



7

5.2 CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS RATIO (CSR):

The CSR calculated using site response analysis for Site Class C and D are shown in

Figure 33 and Figure 44 respectively. The results of Site Class C suggest that CSR of

the fill varies with soil thickness and soil type underneath. The CSR of Profile 1,

which has the thinnest layer of underlying marine sand, is lower than that of Profile 3,

the thickest marine sand. On the other hand, the CSR is also affected by the

underlying soil material when comparing the results of Profile 2 and 5 which both

share similar underlying soil thickness. However, no difference can be shown using

Seed et al. (2003) where the CSR is identical, given the same site class, earthquake

magnitude and VS for top 12m of soil.

When the underlying soil material is the same, the CSR of Class D (Profile 4 in Figure

4) is lower than Site Class C (Profile 5 red dotted line in Figure 3). This can also be

estimated from Seed et al. (2003) as the surface PGA of Site Class D is lower than

Site Class C based on the soil factors in AS1170.4.

It is worthwhile to note that the CSR using site response analysis and Seed et al.

(2003) are both very sensitive to the input earthquake magnitude. When using

earthquake magnitude 6.5 (Figure 5 and Figure 6), it gives much smaller CSR then

using earthquake magnitude 7.3, which is presumed to be a MCE earthquake event.



8

Figure 3 CSR profiles of Site Class C compared with CSR calculated from Seed et al. (2003)

using M=7.3

Figure 4 CSR profiles of Site Class D compared with CSR calculated from Seed et al. (2003)

using M=7.3



9

Figure 5 CSR profiles of Site Class C compared with CSR calculated from Seed et al. (2003)

using M=6.5

Figure 6 CSR profiles of Site Class D compared with CSR calculated from Seed et al. (2003)

using M=6.5



10

6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION:

The national code (e.g. AS1170.4) can be used to define the soil response and

combined with conventional empirical liquefaction potential methods such as Seed et

al. (2003) and Boulanger & Idriss (2014) to estimate the liquefaction potential. This

study shows however that the results can be excessively conservative in the above

cases.

The surface response spectra from site response analysis are shown to be bounded by

the surface response spectra defined by AS1170.4. However, the code defined

spectra gives much higher spectral values for both short and long structural periods.

Structures with long structural period such as high rise buildings and large bridges

will be particularly affected by this potential conservatism.

For liquefaction potential estimation the use of site specific site response analysis

shows a much reduced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) than that found from the simplified

methods. This is largely a result of the high spectral values at short period implied

by the code. Also the simplified methods may not be sensitive to variable

underlying soil thickness and conditions.

To conclude, site response analysis will provide more realistic estimates of ground

motion and liquefaction potential. In some situations, site response eliminates the

excessive conservatism that will result from applying simplified liquefaction

assessment methods to generic code spectra. It is noted that the above study is only

based on five cases in Sydney and more studies should be analysed in the future.

7. REFERENCES:

AS1170.4. 2007. Structural design actions - Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia. Standards Australia.

Robertson, P. K., & Cabal, K. L. (2010). Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. Gregg drilling,.

Boulanger, R.W. & Idriss, I.M. (2014) CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Dept. Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, USA.

Clark, D., McPherson, A. & Collins, C. (2010) Mmax estimates for the Australian stable continental region (SCR) derived from palaeoseismicity data. AEES 2010 Conference Proceedings.



11

Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder Jr, L. F., Kayen, R. E. & Moss, R. E. (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 12, pp 1314-1340.

Heidebrecht, A.C., Henderson, P., Naumoski, N. & Pappin, J.W. (1990) Seismic response and design for structures located on soft clay sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 330-341.

Henderson, P., Heidebrecht, A.C., Naumoski, N. & Pappin, J.W. (1990) Site response effects for structures located on sand sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp 342-354.

Imai, T. & Tonouchi, K. (1982) Correlation of N value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus. Proceedings of the 2nd European Symposium on Penetration Testing, pp 24-27.

Leonard, M., Burbidge, D. & Edwards, M. (2013) Atlas of Seismic Hazard Maps of Australia. Geoscience Australia Record 2013/2014 GeoCat 77399.

Mayne, P.W. & Rix, G.J. (1993) Gmax-qc relationships for clays, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp 54-60.

Rix, G.J. & Stokoe, K.H. (1991) Correlation of initial tangent modulus and cone penetration resistance, International Symposium on Calibration Chamber Testing, Huang et al. (eds), Elsevier Publishing, New York, pp 351-362.

Robertson, P.K. & Cabal, K.L. (2010) Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. Gregg drilling.

Seed, H.B. & Idriss, I.M. (1970) Soil Moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis, EERC Report No. 70-10 Berkeley, California, USA.

Seed, R.B., Cetin, K, O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, J.D, Kayen, R.E. & Faris, A. (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework. Keynote Address, 26

th

Annual Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Los Angeles Section of the GeoInstitute, ASCE, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, California, USA.

Weiler, W.A. (1988) Small strain shear modulus of clay. Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II - Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp 331-345.

Vucetic, M. & Dobry, R. (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 1, pp 89-107.

Liquefaction Assessment using Site-Specific · PDF fileAustralian Earthquake Engineering...

Documents

Transcript of Liquefaction Assessment using Site-Specific · PDF fileAustralian Earthquake Engineering...