Caltrans Guidelines on Foundation

Loading Due to Liquefaction

Induced Lateral Spreading

Tom Shantz, Caltrans

2010 PEER Annual Meeting
 PEER TEAM PEER
Scott Ashford (OSU) Guidelines
Ross Boulanger (UCD)
Scott Brandenberg (UCLA)

CALTRANS TEAM
Tom Shantz
Internal Review Team
Project
Participan
ts and Caltrans

Organizati Guidelines

on
Lessons from history.

Source: ce.washington.edu

Showa Bridge, Niigata (1964)

Nishinomiya-ko
bridge, Kobe
(1995)
 Photo by Yashinsky

Puente Tubul, Chile

(2010)
Better performance

Shukugawa Bridge, Kobe

(1995)
 Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Heisei Bridge, Sabaichi River, Niigata (2007)

 Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Kaiun Bridge, Sabaichi River, Niigata (2007)

 Better performance

Photos by Yashinsky

Rinko Yasaka Bridge, Ugawa River, Niigata (2007)

Caltrans current practice per Memo to Designer 20-15.

Crust
0.67 PULT

Liquefied

Dense

liquefied soil modeled as factored p-y curves (0.10 p-multiplier)

67% of the ultimate passive crust load is applied to the cap
no inertial loads are considered
performance criteria: piles remain elastic
Issues the Guidelines Team sought to address

Fill

Liquefiable Soil

Dense Soil

Crust loaddeformation behavior. How much deformation

to reach ultimate passive pressure? Adjustments for
non-plane strain behavior.
Prediction of crust displacement.
Potential restraining effect of the foundation.
Potential restraining effect of the superstructure.
Contribution of inertial loads to the foundation
displacement demand.
The team must confront challenging issues

Pile pinning effect

Crust pile cap

interaction Residual strength

Static vs. dynamic loading

Estimation of crust
displacement

Kinematic and inertial

load combination
Strategy: Where possible, rely on test results.

NIED Shake Table: Elgamal

(2003)

UC Davis centrifuge: Boulanger, Chang, Brandenberg, Armstrong,

and Kutter (2006)
Field testing

Port of Takachi Tests by Ashford (2002)

Extend test results with numerical modeling

Fill in gaps with judgment

+ +
 Caltrans Guidelines

Limitations

Since every project has unique aspects, these guidelines

should not be used to constrain or replace engineering
judgment.

Software Options

Nonlinear moment-stiffness behavior: xSECTION, XTRACT, LPILE 5, others

Soil-foundation interaction: LPILE 5, wFRAME, SAP2000

Slope stability: most commercial codes no special requirements

 Caltrans Guidelines
Two design cases considered

Fill

Liquefiable Soil

Dense Soil

Foundation restrained
ground displacement
Unrestrained ground displacement
 Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach

Crust loads applied through

imposed soil displacement
mp = profile
0.0031N +
0.00034N2

pgroup =(p single)(N

Fult based on piles )
log-spiral solution
1 (m ) or
pgroup p=(psingle1 )(N )
pgroup =(psoft claypiles
)(Npiles)
(GRF) Adjustment for wedge
Matlock (74) soft clay p-y Matlock
model
effect by with
OvensenSu = Sres and 50 = 0.05
(1964). Kw ~ 1.3

0 0 LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

0 (Zc D)/T 3 0 WT/T 14
 Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach

Pile stiffness Crust loads applied through

Linear case: imposed soil displacement
profile
EIgroup =(EIsingle)(Npiles)
Nonlinear case:
(See plot)

Mmax (a,Ma)

Stiffness (EI)
Moment

a= 12
My= 1.1 M
a max

Moment
Curvature a LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

y
 Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach

Crust loads applied through

imposed soil displacement
profile

xi

K M 144 K ax ni xi2
Kax, ni

Class 100 pile: Kax = 0.75 (400 kips) / 0.25 in = 1200 kips/in

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

 Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach

Crust loads applied through

imposed soil displacement
profile

Inertial Loads

Mo
Vi =
H
H Mi =Mo (LPILE 5: Mi0 )

M V Fcapi=0.65 PGA mcap

o

Abutment Case: assume inertial loads are zero

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis
 Caltrans Guidelines
Unrestrained ground displacement case:
Equivalent Nonlinear Static Analysis Approach

Crust loads applied through

Combination of kinematic and inertial loadingimposed soil displacement
profile

LPILE 5 is limited to a single pile analysis

Caltrans Guidelines

Performance Criteria

Cap Pile Moment Pile

Displacement Shear
Well confined H/20 Ma SDC 3.6
pilings

Well confined 12 inches Ma SDC 3.6

abutment
pilings
Poorly confined 2 inches - -

pilings
*H = column
height
Caltrans Guidelines

Guideline availability and adoption:

The new guidelines will be available on the

Geotechnical Services and Office of Earthquake
Engineering websites

Guidelines official adoption date has not yet been

determined.

Any questions or concerns, or you cant find the

guidelines, contact me at tom.shantz@dot.ca.gov