Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25

Liquefaction Mitigation by Ground Improvement

Babak Hamidi, GFWA

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011


Contents

The phenomenon of liquefaction

Possible solutions

Liquefaction mitigation by ground improvement

Ground improvement zone

Conclusions

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 2


The definition and process of liquefaction in granular soils

liquefaction (n.)
1 Th
1. The process off liquefying.
li f i
2. The state of being liquefied.
= (-u)
( ) ttan
= shear strength
= total vertical stress
u= pore water pressure
= effective soil internal friction angle

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 3


Kocaeili (Izmit) Earthquake 17 Aug 1999, M=7.4

Izmit Bay Adapazari

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 4


Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake 17 Jan 1995, M=7.0

Rokko Island Docks

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 5


Parameters that affect liquefaction

Soil density liquefaction potential


Fines
Fi t t
content li
liquefaction t ti l
f ti potential
Confining pressure liquefaction potential
Vibration characteristics
Shock loading: liquefies whole stratum at the same time
Steady state vibration
Liquefaction may start from top and proceed downwards
Maximum pore pressure develops only after a certain number of cycles
Horizontal vibration lead to larger settlements than vertical vibrations

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 6


Calculation Method

Originally based on Seed and Idriss (1971)


SEED, H. B. & IDRISS, I. M. (1971) Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97, SM 9, 1249-1273.

Presently most popular method is 1996 NCEER & 1998 NCEER/NSF


Workshops
YOUD, T. L., IDRISS, I. M., ANDRUS, R. D., ARANGO, I., CASTRO, G., CHRISTIAN, J. T., DOBRY, R., FINN, W. D. L.,
HARDER, L. F., HYNES, M. E., ISHIHARA, K., KOESTER, J. P., LIAO, S. S. C., MARCUSON III, W. F., MARTIN, G. R.,
MITCHELL, J. A., MORIWAKI, Y., POWER, M. S., ROBERTSON, P. K., SEED, R. B. & STOKOE, K. H. (2001) Liquefaction
Resistance of Soils: Summaryy Report
p from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops p on Evaluation of Liquefaction
q
Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127, 10 (October), 817-833.

Cyclic Stress Ratio:

Liquefaction resistance:
SPT

CPT

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 7


How can we mitigate liquefaction?

Sometimes piling can be a solution.


At other times the ground will still liquefy & piles can be at risk themselves

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 8


How can we mitigate liquefaction: Ground Improvement

Kocaeili (Izmit) Earthquake 17 Aug 1999, M=7.4

Bursa Carrefour Super Market: Dynamic Compaction & Dynamic Replacement


EMREM, C., SPAULDING, C., DURGUNOGLU, H. T. & VARAKSIN, S. (2001) A Case Study of Soil Improvement Against
Liquefaction-Carrefoursa Shopping Center Izmir, Turkey. 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
E i
Engineering,
i I t b l 1737-1742.
Istanbul, 1737 1742

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 9


How can we mitigate liquefaction: Ground Improvement
Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake 17 Jan 1995, M=7.0

Kansai Airport: Dynamic Compaction


Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 10
How can we mitigate liquefaction: Ground Improvement
Earthquake Year No. Sites Magnitude
Nisqually, Washington 2001 >8 6.8 MW
921 Chi
Chi-Chi,
Chi Taiwan 1999 >1 7.6
7 6 MW
Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 6 7.4 MW
Kagoshimaken Hoku, Japan 1997 1 6.3 JMA
Hyogoken Nanbu, Japan 1995 50 6.9 MW
Sanriku Haruka Oki, Japan 1994 1 7.5 JMA
Hokkaido Toho Oki, Japan 1994 4 8.1 JMA
Northridge, California 1994 5 6.7 MW
Hokkaido Nansei Oki, Japan 1993 4 7.8 JMA
Kushiro Oki, Japan 1993 3 7.8 JMA
Loma Prieta, California 1989 12 6.9 MW
Nihonkai Chubu
Chubu, Japan 1983 2 7.7
7 7 JMA
Miyagiken Oki, Japan 1978 1 7.4 JMA
Tokachi Oki, Japan 1968 2 6.8 GR
ga a, Japa
Niigata, Japan 1964
96 4 7.3
3 G
GR
Case histories indicate that sites with ground improvement experience less ground
deformation than adjacent unimproved areas
HAUSLER, E. A. & SITAR, N. (2001) Performance of Soil Improvement Techniques in Earthquakes. 4th International Conference
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, March 26 - 31, Paper 10.15.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 11


Ground improvement methods: All are acceptable

Dynamic Compaction
D
Dynamic
i Replacement
R l t
Vibro Compaction
Vibro Replacement (stone columns)
Jet Grouting
Compaction Grouting
Chemical stabilisation
etc.
etc

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 12


What should the ground improvement geometry be?

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 13


Depth of Improvement

Zc/B = compaction depth normalized by footing diameter. B


Sf= final settlement of footing
S,, = final settlement of ground
g surface awayy from footing
g

LIU, L.
LIU L & DORBY,
DORBY R.R (1997) Seismic Response of Shallow Foundation on Liquefiable Sand.
Sand Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 123, 6, 557-567.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 14


Depth of Improvement

Normalized Foundation Settlement vs. Normalized PWRI, 0.37g


Improved Depth Liu & Dobry,0.2g
PWRI, 0.16g
UCD, 0.16g
7
Total Thickness ((%)

5
Foundation Settlement/T

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Improved Thickness/Total Liquefiable Thickness

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011


Depth of Improvement

In order to induce extensive damage at


level ground surface from liquefaction,
liquefaction
the liquefied soil layer must be thick
enough so that the resulting uplift
pressure and amount of water expelled
from the liquefied layer can result in
ground rupture such as sand boiling
andd fissuring.
fi i

If the liquefied
q sand layer
y is thin and
buried within a soil profile, the
presence of a non-liquefiable surface
layer may prevent the effects of the at
depth liquefaction from reaching the
surface.
ISHIHARA, K. (1985) Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes. 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 1, San Francisco, 321-376.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 16


Depth of Improvement

Ishihara (1985)
Based on 3 case studies,
studies not for sensitive structures,
structures and for guidance
only.
It may not be sufficiently conservative for cases of significant lateral
spreading and ground oscillation (Youd and Garris, 1995).
Best & most rational option: Treatment to bottom of liquefiable zone
Existing techniques can meet requirements in most projects
If full treatment is not possible then at least the consequences should
be understood
Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992)
ISHIHARA, K. & YOSHIMINE, M. (1992) Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During
Earthquakes. Soils and Foundations,
Earthquakes Foundations Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Engineering 32,
32 1 (March),
(March)
173-178.

Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)


TOKIMATSU, K. & SEED, H. B. (1987) Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113, 8, 861-878.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 17


Width of Improvement

Of the 20 field case histories with lateral improvement to depth of


improvement ratios less than 1, 1 18 experienced some degree of
settlement or tilt of the structure. However, at all 18 sites, more severe
evidence of the consequences of liquefaction was documented in
adjacent unimproved areas.
adjacent, areas

HAUSLER,, E. A. (2002)
( ) Influence of Ground Improvement
p on Settlement and Liquefaction:
q A Studyy Based on Field Case
History Evidence and Dynamic Geotechnical Centrifuge Tests. University of California, Berkley, 364.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 18


Width of Improvement

Lateral extent equal to 2/3 liquefiable thickness, but at least 5m and no


greater than 10m ((Japanese
g p Fire Defense Agency)
g y)
Hausler from PORT AND HARBOUR RESEARCH INSTITUTE (1997) Handbook of Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed Land,
Rotterdam, A A Balkema

For lightweight or small scale structures on shallow foundations: lateral


extent of ground improvement should be equal to of improved depth
Hausler from JAPANESE GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY (1998) Remedial Measures Against Soil Liquefaction, From Investigation
and Design to Implementation, Rotterdam, A A Balkema

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 19


Width of Improvement

The width to depth ratio of compacted area needs to be larger than 1.5
in order to restrict the maximum excess pore water pressure ratio under
0.5.

er pressure ratio
s pore wate
Excess

Compacted ground width to depth ratio


Data for depth to ground thickness ratio = 1

AKIYOSHI,, T.,, FUCHIDA,, K.,, MATSUMOTO,, H.,, HYODO,, T. & FANG,, T. L. ((1993)) Liquefaction
q Analysis
y of Sandyy Ground
Improved by Sand Compaction Piles. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 12, 299-307.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 20


Width of Improvement

Lateral extent of ground improvement should be equal to the


p
improvement depth
p
MITCHELL, J. K., BAXTER, C. & MUNSON, T. (1995) Performance of Improved Ground During Earthquake. Soil Improvement
for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation: ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 49, 1-36.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 21


Recent examples of Liquefaction mitigation with ground
Improvement

Marine Stone Columns


Columns, Port of San Diego
Diego, CA
CA. USA Dynamic Replacement,
Replacement Old Town Residential
Residential, Dubia UAE

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 22


Conclusions

Determination of liquefaction potential


Piling
Pili and
d ground
d improvement
i t are possible
ibl solutions
l ti
Ground improvement is an effective method for liquefaction mitigation
Depth & extent of ground improvement has direct impacts on ground
deformations

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 23


References
AKIYOSHI, T., FUCHIDA, K., MATSUMOTO, H., HYODO, T. & FANG, T. L. (1993) Liquefaction Analysis of Sandy Ground Improved by Sand Compaction Piles.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 12, 299-307.
EMREM, C., SPAULDING, C., DURGUNOGLU, H. T. & VARAKSIN, S. (2001) A Case Study of Soil Improvement Against Liquefaction-Carrefoursa Shopping
Center Izmir,
Izmir Turkey.
Turkey 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Engineering Istanbul,
Istanbul 1737-1742.
1737-1742
HAUSLER, E. A. & SITAR, N. (2001) Performance of Soil Improvement Techniques in Earthquakes. 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, March 26 - 31, Paper 10.15.
HAUSLER, E. A. (2002) Influence of Ground Improvement on Settlement and Liquefaction: A Study Based on Field Case History Evidence and Dynamic
Geotechnical Centrifuge Tests. University of California, Berkley, 364.
HAUSLER from JAPANESE GEOTECHNICAL SOCIETY (1998) Remedial Measures Against Soil Liquefaction,
Liquefaction From Investigation and Design to Implementation,
Implementation
Rotterdam, A A Balkema
HAUSLER from PORT AND HARBOUR RESEARCH INSTITUTE (1997) Handbook of Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed Land, Rotterdam, A A Balkema
ISHIHARA, K. (1985) Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes. 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, San
Francisco, 321-376.
ISHIHARA
ISHIHARA, K.K & YOSHIMINE,
YOSHIMINE M. M (1992) Evaluation
E l ti off Settlements
S ttl t in
i Sand
S d Deposits
D it Following
F ll i Liquefaction
Li f ti During
D i Earthquakes.
E th k S il and
Soils d Foundations,
F d ti J
Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 32, 1 (March), 173-178.
LIU, L. & DORBY, R. (1997) Seismic Response of Shallow Foundation on Liquefiable Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
123, 6, 557-567.
MITCHELL, J. K., BAXTER, C. & MUNSON, T. (1995) Performance of Improved Ground During Earthquake. Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation:
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.
No 49,
49 1-36.
1-36
SEED, H. B. & IDRISS, I. M. (1971) Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97,
SM 9, 1249-1273.
TOKIMATSU, K. & SEED, H. B. (1987) Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113, 8, 861-
878.
YOUD
YOUD, T.T L.,
L IDRISS,
IDRISS I.I M.,
M ANDRUS,
ANDRUS R. R D.,
D ARANGO,
ARANGO I., I CASTRO,
CASTRO G.,G CHRISTIAN,
CHRISTIAN J. J T.,
T DOBRY,
DOBRY R.,R FINN,
FINN W.
W D. D L.,
L HARDER,
HARDER L.
L F.,
F HYNES,
HYNES M.
M E.,
E
ISHIHARA, K., KOESTER, J. P., LIAO, S. S. C., MARCUSON III, W. F., MARTIN, G. R., MITCHELL, J. A., MORIWAKI, Y., POWER, M. S., ROBERTSON, P. K.,
SEED, R. B. & STOKOE, K. H. (2001) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation
of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127, 10 (October), 817-833.
YOUD, T L & GARRIS, C T (1995), Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 121, 11 ,
805-809.

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 24


Th k Y
Thank You

Geotechnical Failures & Near Misses Seminar, Perth 16 September 2011 25