CFEMbook

Reference CANADIAN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL. 2006. Fourth Edition Canadian Geotechnical Society, 506 p.
Published and sold by: The Canadian Geotechnical Society c/o BiTech Publisher Ltd. 173 - 11860 Hammersmith Way Richmond, British Columbia V7A 5G1
First Printing January 2007.
ISBN 0-920505-28-7
Copyediting and design by Barbara Goulet, Calgary, AB, Canada. Printed and bound in Canada by Friesens Corporation, Altona, MB, Canada.
Preface
Table of Contents
Preface xii 1 2 Introduction 14 Denitions, Symbols and Units 15
2.1 2.2 2.2.1 Denitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Symbols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The International System of Units (SI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Identication and Classication of Soil and Rock 26

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Classication of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Identication Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classication of Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geological Classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Features of Rockmasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineering Properties of Rock Masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 26 26 32 32 33 33 33
Site Investigations 44
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6 4.5.7 4.5.8 4.5.9 4.6 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectives of Site Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extent of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth of Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number and Spacing of Boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accuracy of Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-Situ Testing of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standard Penetration Test (SPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cone Penetration Test (CPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Becker Penetration Test (BPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Field Vane Test (FVT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pressuremeter Tests (PMT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilatometer Test (DMT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Plate-Load and Screw-Plate Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boring and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 49 49 50 57 58 60 61 63 68 68 69
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual
4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 4.7.6 4.7.7 4.8 4.8.1 4.8.2 4.8.3 4.8.4 4.9 4.9.1 4.9.2 4.9.3 4.10 4.11 4.11.1 4.11.2 4.11.3 4.12
Boring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test Pits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backlling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory Testing of Soil Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index Property Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tests for Corrosivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Properties Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compaction Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Test Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigation of Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Core Drilling of Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Core Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-situ Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigation of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigation in Boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Investigation by Piezometers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approach to Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimation of Soil Properties for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conrmation of Material Behaviour by Construction Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Information for Site Investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69 69 70 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 84 84 84 85 86 86 86 87 87 88 88 88 89 90 90
Special Site Conditions 91

5.1 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organic Soils, Peat and Muskeg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normally Consolidated Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sensitive Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swelling and Shrinking Clays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loose, Granular Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metastable Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glacial Till . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volcanic Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soluble Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meander Loops and Cutoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kettle Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mined Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Permafrost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noxious or Explosive Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of Heat or Cold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Distortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 93 93 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 96
CFEM Preface
5.4.9
Sulphate Soils and Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Earthquake - Resistant Design 97

6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.6 6.6.1 6.6.2 6.6.3 6.6.4 6.7 6.7.1 6.7.2 6.7.3 6.7.4 6.8 6.8.1 6.8.2 6.8.3 6.9 6.9.1 6.9.2 6.9.3 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Earthquake Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Earthquake Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Earthquake Magnitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Earthquake Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Earthquake Statistics and Probability of Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Earthquake Ground Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Amplitude Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Frequency Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Building Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Equivalent Static Force Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Dynamic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Factors Inuencing Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Assessment of Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Liquefaction-Like Soil Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Seismic Design of Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Seismic Pressures on Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Effects of Water on Wall Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Seismic Displacement of Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Seismic Design Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Seismic Stability of Slopes and Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Mechanisms of Seismic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Evaluation of Seismic Slope Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Evaluation of Seismic Deformations of Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Seismic Design of Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Seismic Design of Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Foundation Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Foundation Design 136

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7.1 Introduction and Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tolerable Risk and Safety Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uncertainties in Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of Engineering Judgment and Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction Between Structural and Geotechnical Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raft Design and Modulus of Subgrade Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 136 137 137 138 141 141 141
Limit States and Limit States Design 145

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Are Limit States?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limit States Design (LSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LSD Based on Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommended Values for Geotechnical Resistance Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 146 147 149 151 151
8.7 8.7.1 8.8
Terminology and Calculation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Calculation Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Working Stress Design and Global Factors of Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Bearing Pressure on Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundations on Sound Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimates of Bearing Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundations on Weak Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differential Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 158 160 161 162 162
10 Bearing Capacity of Shallow on Foundations on Soil 163

10.2 10.3 10.4 Conventional Bearing Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Bearing Capacity Directly from In-Situ Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Factored Geotechnical Bearing Resistance at Ultimate Limit States . . . . . . . . . . . 170
11 Settlement of Shallow Foundations 171

11.1 11.2 11.2.1 11.2.2 11.3 11.3.1 11.3.2 11.3.3 11.3.4 11.4 11.4.2 11.4.3 11.5 11.6 11.6.1 11.6.2 11.6.3 11.6.4 11.7 11.8 11.8.1 11.8.2 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.11.1 11.11.2 11.11.3 11.12 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Components of Deection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Fine-Grained Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Coarse-Grained Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Elastic Displacement Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approximating Soil Response as an Ideal Elastic Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drained and Undrained Moduli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Elastic Strain Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elastic Displacement Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Dimensional Consolidation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Dimensional Settlement: elog Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modications to One-Dimensional Settlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimating Stress Increments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Point Load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniformly Loaded Strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniformly Loaded Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniformly Loaded Rectangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obtaining Settlement Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Coarse-grained Soils Directly from In-Situ Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standard Penetration Test (SPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cone Penetration Test (CPT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rate of Settlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One-Dimensional Consolidation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numerical Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allowable (Tolerable) Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 171 172 172 172 172 173 173 173 175 178 179 179 179 179 180 181 182 183 185 185 186 188 188 189 189 190 191 191
12 Drainage and Filter Design 194

12.1 12.2 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Filter Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
CFEM Preface
12.3 12.4
Filter Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Drainage Pipes and Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
13 Frost Action 198

13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ice Segregation in Freezing Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prediction of Frost Heave Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frost Penetration Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frost Action and Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frost Action during Construction in Winter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 198 200 203 208 210
14 Machine Foundations 213

14.1 14.2 14.3 14.3.1 14.3.2 14.4 14.5 14.5.1 14.5.2 14.5.3 14.5.4 14.6 14.6.1 14.6.2 14.6.3 14.7 14.7.1 14.7.2 14.7.3 14.8 14.8.1 14.8.2 14.8.3 14.9 14.9.1 14.9.2 14.9.3 14.10 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Dynamic Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Loads Due to Machine Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Transmitted Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation Impedance Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impedance Functions of Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embedment Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impedance Functions of a Layer of Limited Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trial Sizing of Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impedance Functions of Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile-Soil-Pile Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trial Sizing of Piled Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Soil Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Material Damping Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poissons Ratio and Soil Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Harmonic Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response of Rigid Foundations in One Degree of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coupled Response of Rigid Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response of Rigid Foundations in Six Degrees of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Impact Loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response of One Mass Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response of Two Mass Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Ground-Transmitted Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 213 213 213 214 215 215 215 216 218 219 219 219 221 221 222 222 222 222 223 223 224 225 225 225 226 226 226
15 Foundations on Expansive Soils 228

15.1 15.2 15.2.1 15.2.2 15.2.3 15.3 15.3.1 15.3.2 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identication and Characterization of Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identication of Expansive Soils: Clay Fraction, Mineralogy, Atterberg Limits, Cation Exchange Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unsaturated Soil Theory and Heave Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prediction of One-Dimensional Heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example of Heave Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 230 231 235 235 238 240 242
15.3.3 15.4 15.4.1 15.4.2 15.4.3 15.4.4 15.4.5 15.4.6
Closed-Form Heave Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Alternatives, Treatment and Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Types of Foundations on Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shallow Spread Footings for Heated Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crawl Spaces Near or Slightly Below Grade on Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . Pile and Grade-Beam System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stiffened Slabs-on-Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moisture Control and Soil Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
243 244 244 244 245 245 246 247
16 Site and Soil Improvement Techniques 250

16.1 16.2 16.2.1 16.2.2 16.2.3 16.3 16.3.1 16.3.2 16.3.3 16.4 16.4.1 16.4.2 16.4.3 16.5 16.5.1 16.5.2 16.5.3 16.6 16.6.1 16.6.2 16.6.3 16.7 16.7.1 16.7.2 16.7.3 16.8 16.9 16.10 16.11 16.12 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preloading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principle of Preloading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vertical Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical Aspects to Consider in Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-Depth Vibro Compaction Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vibro Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lime Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Action of Lime in Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface Lime Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deep Lime Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Freezing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Freezing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploration and Evaluation of Formations to be Frozen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blast Densication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compaction Grouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Grouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preloading by Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electro-Osmotic and Electro-Kinetic Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 250 250 250 251 252 252 253 255 258 258 258 259 262 262 262 262 264 264 264 264 265 265 265 266 266 267 267 268 269
17 Deep Foundations - Introduction 273

17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile-Type Classication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 273 273 273
18 Geotechnical Design of Deep Foundations 275

18.1 18.2 18.2.1 18.2.2 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Axial Resistance of Piles in Soil at Ultimate Limit States . . . . . . . . Single Piles - Static Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile Groups - Static Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 275 275 281
CFEM Preface
18.2.3 18.2.4 18.2.5 18.2.6 18.2.7 18.3 18.3.1 18.3.2 18.4 18.4.1 18.4.2 18.5 18.5.1 18.5.2 18.6 18.6.1 18.6.2 18.6.3 18.6.4 18.6.5 18.6.6 18.7 18.7.1 18.7.2 18.7.3 18.7.4
Single Piles - Penetrometer Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Single Piles - Dynamic Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negative Friction and Downdrag on Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uplift Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Piles in Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Single Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of a Pile Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Capacity of Piles in Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broms Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pressuremeter Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Pile Deections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The p-y Curves Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elastic Continuum Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotechnical Axial Capacity of Deep Foundations on Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drilled Piers or Caissons - Design Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . End-Bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaft Capacity of Socket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design for Combined Toe and Shaft Resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Failure Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement of Piers Socketed into Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement Estimated from Pressuremeter Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement from Plate Test Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement using Elastic Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
282 285 286 289 290 292 292 297 299 301 301 304 304 305 308 308 308 308 310 311 312 312 312 313 313 313
19 Structural Design and Installation of Piles 316

19.1 19.1.1 19.1.2 19.1.3 19.1.4 19.2 19.2.1 19.2.2 19.2.3 19.2.4 19.2.5 19.3 19.3.1 19.3.2 19.3.3 19.3.4 19.3.5 19.3.6 19.4 19.4.1 19.4.2 19.4.3 19.4.4 19.4.5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resistance of Deep Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wave-Equation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic Pile Driving Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Wood Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation of Wood Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Installation Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Precast and Prestressed Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Precast and Prestressed Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pile Splices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Installation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steel H-Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Steel H-Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Splices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation and Common Installation Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 316 317 318 318 318 318 319 319 319 319 319 319 320 320 320 321 322 322 322 323 323 323 323
19.5 19.5.1 19.5.2 19.5.3 19.5.4 19.5.5 19.6 19.6.1 19.6.2 19.6.3 19.6.4 19.6.5 19.7 19.7.1 19.7.2 19.7.3 19.7.4 19.7.5
Steel Pipe Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Steel Pipe Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Installation Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compacted Expanded-Base Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Compacted Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Installation Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bored Piles (Drilled Shafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Bored Piles (Drilled Shafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Installation Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
324 324 325 325 326 327 327 327 327 327 328 328 328 328 329 329 329 330
20 Load Testing of Piles 331

20.1 20.1.1 20.1.2 20.1.3 20.1.4 20.2 20.2.1 20.2.2 20.2.3 20.3 20.3.1 20.3.2 20.4 20.4.1 20.4.2 20.5 20.5.1 20.5.2 Use of a Load Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Pile Load Test Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load Tests during Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load Test during Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Routine Load Tests for Quality Control (Inspection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static Load Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statnamic Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pseudo-Static Load Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static Load Testing Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods According to the ASTM Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Testing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation of Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static Load Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rapid Load Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation of Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation of Static Load Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation of Rapid Load Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 331 334 334 334 335 335 335 335 336 336 337 338 338 338 338 338 341
21 Inspection of Deep Foundations 344

21.1 21.2 21.3 21.3.1 21.3.2 21.3.3 21.4 21.4.1 21.4.2 21.4.3 21.4.4 21.5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location and Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curvature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspection of Pile Driving Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Driving Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Driving Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspection of Compacted Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 344 345 345 345 346 348 348 348 349 349 350
CFEM Preface
21.5.1 21.5.2 21.5.3 21.6 21.6.1 21.6.2 21.6.3 21.6.4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspection of Bored Deep Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boring/Drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concreting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
350 350 350 351 351 351 351 352
22 Control of Groundwater 353

22.1 22.2 22.3 22.3.1 22.4 Methods for the Control and Removal of Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gravity Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumping From Inside the Excavation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumping From Unsupported Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pumping From Outside the Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 353 353 354 355
23 Geosynthetics 359
23.1 23.2 23.2.1 23.2.2 23.2.3 23.2.4 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.6.1 23.6.2 23.6.3 23.6.4 23.7 23.8 23.9 23.9.1 23.9.1.1 23.9.2 23.10 23.10.1 23.10.2 23.10.3 23.11 23.12 23.13 23.13.1 23.13.2 23.13.3 23.14 23.14.1 23.14.2 23.15 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotextiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydraulic Properties of Geotextiles, Geonets and Drainage Geocomposites . . . . Filtration and Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dynamic, Pulsating and Cyclic Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-Plane Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geogrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strength and Stiffness Properties of Geotextiles and Geogrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geosynthetics in Waste Containment Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geomembranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Geomembrane Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seaming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geosynthetic Clay Liners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slopes and Embankments over Stable Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embankments on Soft Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bearing Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circular Slip Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Embankment Spreading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforced Embankments on Soft Foundations with Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embankments on Fibrous Peats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unpaved Roads over Soft Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement Mechanisms and Geosynthetic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Methods for Unpaved Roads over Cohesive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unpaved Roads over Peat Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paved Roads, Container Yards and Railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geotextiles for Partial Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geosynthetics for Granular Base Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction Survivability for Geosynthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359 361 363 364 365 366 366 366 367 369 371 371 372 372 372 372 372 372 373 374 374 375 377 378 378 378 380 380 380 383 383 383 384 385
10
24 Lateral Earth Pressures & Rigid Retaining Structures 387

24.1 24. 2 24.3 24.3.1 24.3.2 24.3.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.7.1 24.7.2 24.8 24.9 24.10 24.11 24.12 24.12.1 24.12.2 24.12.3 Coefcient of Lateral Earth Pressure, K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earth Pressure at-Rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Active and Passive Earth Pressure Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Active Earth Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passive Earth Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graphical Solutions for Determination of Loads due to Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . Earth Pressure and Effect of Lateral Strain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surcharge Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniform Area Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Point or Line Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compaction-Induced Pressures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earthquake-Induced Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frost-Induced Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical Pressures for Low Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of Rigid Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of Backll Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backll Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 387 387 388 390 393 394 395 396 396 396 397 398 399 401 401 403 403 403 404
25 Unsupported Excavations 407

25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.4.1 25.4.2 25.4.3 25.4.4 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation in Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation in Granular Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation in Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behaviour of Clays in Excavated Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short-Term Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Long-Term Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 407 407 408 408 408 409 409
26 Supported Excavations & Flexible Retaining Structures 410

26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.8.1 26.8.2 26.8.3 26.9 26.9.1 26.9.2 26.10 26.10.1 26.10.2 26.10.3 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earth Pressures and Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earth Pressures and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of Seepage and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surcharge Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frost Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swelling/Expansion Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cantilevered (Unbraced) Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cantilevered Walls Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cantilevered Walls Determination of Penetration Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cantilevered Walls Determination of Structural Design Bending Moments . . . . Single-Anchor and Single-Raker Retaining Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penetration Depth and Structural Bending Moments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple-Anchor, Multiple-Raker and Internally Braced (Strutted) Retaining Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loading Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of Anchor Inclination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braced Retaining Structures Loading Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 412 413 414 414 414 414 416 416 417 417 418 418 418 420 420 421 422
CFEM Preface
11
26.10.4 26.10.5 26.10.6 26.10.7 26.11 26.11.1 26.11.2 26.11.3 26.11.4 26.12 26.12.1 26.12.2 26.12.3 26.12.4 26.13 26.13.1 26.13.2 26.13.3 26.13.4 26.13.5 26.13.6 26.13.7 26.14 26.15 26.15.1 26.15.2 26.15.3 26.15.4 26.15.5 26.15.6 26.16
Coarse-Grained Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft to Firm Clays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stiff to Hard Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layered Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stability of Flexible Retaining Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation Base Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall Stability of Anchored Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall Stability of Anchored Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Design of Vertical Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Supports Anchors, Struts and Rakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Struts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rakers and Raker Footings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buried Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil and Rock Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Design and Installation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation of Sheeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Spacing and Installation of Soldier Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation of Secant or Tangent Pile (Caisson) Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Installation of Concrete Diaphragm (Slurry) Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lagging Design and Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Excavation Sequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Codes and Drawings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative Design Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Movements Associated with Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magnitude and Pattern of Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Granular Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft to Firm Clays. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stiff Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hard Clay and Cohesive Glacial Till . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of Reducing Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support for Adjacent Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
423 423 423 423 424 424 425 428 428 429 429 431 432 433 441 441 441 441 441 442 443 443 443 445 446 450 450 450 451 451 451
27 Reinforced Soil Walls 453

27.1 27.2 27.2.1 27.2.2 27.2.3 27.3 27.3.1 27.3.2 27.3.3 27.3.4 27.3.5 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Backll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Considerations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Specic Design Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Methodology and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External, Internal, Facing and Global Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wall Deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seismic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 454 454 455 456 457 457 457 458 461 461
References 463 Index 498
Earthquake - Resistant Design
6
6
6.1

Introduction
Earthquake shaking is an important source of external load that must be considered in the design of civil engineering structures because of its potential for disastrous consequences. The degree of importance of earthquake loading at any given site is related to a number of factors including: the composition the probable intensity and likelihood of occurrence of an earthquake; the magnitude of the forces transmitted to the structures as a result of the earthquake ground motions (displacement, velocity and acceleration); the amplitude, duration and frequency content of strong ground motion; and and behaviour of the subsoils.
Hazards associated with earthquakes include ground shaking, structural hazards, liquefaction, landslides, retaining structure failures, and lifeline hazards. The practice of earthquake engineering involves the identication and mitigation of these hazards. With the advancement of our knowledge regarding earthquake phenomena and the development of better earthquake-resistant design procedures for different structures, it is possible to mitigate the effects of strong earthquakes and to reduce loss of life, injuries and damage. However, it is extremely difcult, and in many cases impossible, to produce an earthquake-proof structure. Depending on the type of structure and its use, the foundation conditions, and the costs involved, a structure can, generally, only be designed to be more resistant (not immune) to an earthquake. Many important developments in the eld of earthquake engineering have occurred in the last four decades. Advanced structural seismic analysis methods, comprehensive experimental procedures for the assessment and evaluation of the behaviour of different types of soil, and considerable data on the performance of different structures and soil proles during earthquakes are available to help designers in producing earthquake-resistant designs. Geotechnical earthquake engineers have to address a number of issues when designing safe structures in a seismic environment. They have to establish design ground motions, assess the seismic capacity and performance of foundations, consider the interaction effects between structures and the supporting ground, and evaluate the effects of the earthquake excitation on the strength parameters of the soil. Each of these issues represents a category of problems that varies according to the type of structure under consideration. The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the key concepts and procedures used by geotechnical earthquake engineers to design safer structures in a seismic environment. References that give detailed accounts of the procedures will be provided as needed. However, situations that involve a high risk of seismic hazards, and bridges, tall buildings or dams resting on soft foundation soils, generally require detailed dynamic analysis by engineers very knowledgeable in earthquake engineering. Some of the seismological concepts and terminology will be given rst to enable the geotechnical engineer to understand the basis of both earthquake characterization and seismic design concepts.
6.2
Earthquake Size
The size of an earthquake can be described based on its effects (Earthquake Intensity); the amplitude of seismic waves (Earthquake Magnitude); or its total released seismic energy (Earthquake Energy).
6.2.1 Earthquake Intensity
Earthquake intensity is the oldest measure and uses a qualitative description of the earthquake effects based on observed damage and human reactions. Different scales of intensity include the Rossi-Forel scale (RF); the Modied Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI) that represents conditions in California; the Japanese Meteorological Agency scale (JMA) used in Japan; and the Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik scale (MSK) used in Central and Eastern Europe.
6.2.2 Earthquake Magnitude
Most scales of earthquake magnitude are based on some measured quantity of ground shaking and are generally empirical. Most of these magnitude scales are less sensitive in representing stronger earthquakes (referred to as saturation.) Richter Local Magnitude (Richter 1958): Denes a magnitude scale for shallow, local (epicentral distance less than 600 km) earthquakes in southern California. where ML = log A (6.1)
A = the maximum trace amplitude (in microns) recorded on a Wood-Anderson seismometer located 100 km from the epicentre of the earthquake. Surface Wave Magnitude: A worldwide magnitude scale based on the amplitude of Rayleigh waves with a period of about 20 s. It is used to describe the size of shallow (focal depth < 70 km), distant (epicentral distance > 1000 km) or moderate to large earthquakes. It is given by Ms = log A + 1.66 log + 2.0 where A = maximum ground displacement (microns) and = . (6.2)
Body Wave Magnitude: A worldwide magnitude scale based on the amplitude of the rst few cycles of p-waves. It is used for deep focus earthquakes and is given by Mb = log A - log T + 0.01 + 5.9 where A = p-wave amplitude in microns, T = p-wave period (about 1 s), and = . (6.3)
Moment Magnitude Mw: This is the only magnitude scale that is not subject to saturation because it does not depend on ground shaking-levels. It is based on the seismic moment and is given by Mw = in which M0 = the seismic moment in dyne-cm = , (6.4)
where
= the rupture strength of the material along the fault, Ar = the rupture area and slip.
= the average amount of
These quantities can be estimated from geologic records for historical earthquakes or from the long-period components of a seismogram (Bullen and Bolt 1985).
6.2.3 Earthquake Energy
The total seismic energy released during an earthquake is estimated by where

6.3
log E = 11.8 + 1.5 Ms E is expressed in ergs. This relationship is also applicable to moment magnitude.
Earthquake Statistics and Probability of Occurrence
(6.5)
The rate of occurrence of an earthquake with a magnitude equal to or greater than M for a given area and time may be estimated by (Gutenberg and Richter 1944) log10 N(M) = a - bM where (6.6)
N(M) is the number of earthquakes M (commonly per year) and a and b are constants for a given seismic zone and are established by tting the available earthquake data. Fitting Equation 6.6 to incomplete data may indicate, incorrectly, higher occurrence rates for larger earthquakes. It is also worth noting that Equation 6.6 does not always hold.
The probability of occurrence of at least one earthquake with a magnitude M in a given time can be calculated by pe = 1 - e -Nt where N is the rate of occurrence per year and t is the time period in years under consideration. The seismic loads used in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005) are based on a 2 per cent probability of exceedance over 50 years (a 2475-year earthquake). This means that over a 50-year period there is a 2 per cent chance that the ground motions given in the NBCC (2005) will be exceeded.
6.4 Earthquake Ground Motions
(6.7)
The ground motions produced by earthquakes at a particular site are inuenced by many factors and can be quite complicated. They are a function of the distance from the earthquakes causative fault, and the depth, mechanism and duration of the fault rupture causing the earthquake as well as the characteristics of the soil prole at the site. In practice, three translational components, the vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions of ground motion are recorded. The signicant characteristics of the ground motion (known as ground motion parameters) for engineering purposes are: the amplitude; frequency content; and duration of the motion. To evaluate the ground motion parameters, measurements of ground motions in actual earthquakes are required. Instruments used to accomplish these measurements are seismographs that produce seismograms (velocity response) and accelerographs that produce accelerograms (acceleration response).
6.4.1
Amplitude Parameters
The ground motion is commonly described with a time history of the acceleration, velocity or displacement. The amplitude is generally characterized by the peak value of acceleration (measured). Peak values of velocity and displacement can be calculated by integrating the acceleration time history. Alternatively, when using the response spectrum approach, the peak values of velocity and displacement can be computed approximately by (6.8) where u, v and a are the transformed displacement, velocity and acceleration obtained by subjecting the measured acceleration time history to a Fourier transform, and is the predominant circular frequency of the earthquake.
6.4.1.1 Peak Acceleration
The peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) is obtained as the maximum resultant due to the vector sum of two orthogonal components. It is unlikely that the maximum acceleration in two orthogonal components occur simultaneously, however, and the PHA is taken in practice as the maximum measured horizontal acceleration. Horizontal accelerations are used to describe ground motions and their dynamic forces induced in stiff structures. The peak vertical acceleration (PVA) is less important for engineering purposes and can be taken to be approximately as two thirds of PHA. Ground motions with high peak accelerations and long duration are usually destructive.
6.4.1.2 Peak Velocity
The peak horizontal velocity (PHV) better characterizes the ground motions at intermediate periods, 0.4 s > T > 0.2 s. For exible structures, the PHV may provide a more accurate indication of the potential for damage during earthquakes in the intermediate period range.
6.4.1.3 Peak Displacement
Peak displacements are associated with the lower frequency components of the ground motion. They are difcult to determine accurately and, as a result, are less commonly used as a measure of ground motion.
6.4.1.4 Seismic Regions of Canada
Ground motion probability values are given in terms of probability of exceedance, that is the likelihood of a given horizontal acceleration or velocity on rm soil sites, being exceeded during a particular time period. The 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005) presents the seismic hazard for Canada in terms of a probabilistic based uniform hazard spectrum, replacing the probabilistic estimates of peak ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) in the earlier codes. Spectral acceleration at 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 second periods and peak acceleration form the basis of the seismic provisions of NBCC (2005). Eastern and western Canada are treated slightly differently because of the different properties of the crust in these regions. Figure 6.1 shows the earthquakes and the regionalization used and identies in a general way the lowseismicity central part of Canada dened as stable Canada. The different physical properties of the crust in eastern and western Canada and the different nature of the earthquake sources in south-western Canada required the use of four separate strong ground motion relations as detailed by Adams and Halchuk (2004). Seismic hazard to the west of the leftmost dashed line on Figure 1 has been calculated using western strong ground motion relations; eastern relations are used for the remaining regions.
FIGURE 6.1 Map of Canada (showing the earthquake catalogue used for the 4th Generation model together
with dashed lines delimiting the eastern and western seismic regions and the stable Canada central region.) The spectral acceleration parameters are denoted by Sa(T), where T is the period and are dened later in Tables 6.1B and C (Section 6.5.1.1) for different soil conditions. The PGA values are also presented for use in liquefaction analyses. The NBCC (2005) explicitly considers ground motions from the potential Cascadia subduction earthquake located off the west coast of Vancouver Island. While the amplitudes of such an earthquake are expected to be smaller than from local crustal earthquakes, the duration of shaking will be greater which has implications for liquefaction assessment. Seismic hazard values were calculated for a grid extending over Canada and used to create national contour maps such as Figure 6.2. Figure 6.3 shows the Uniform Hazard Spectra (UHS) for a few major cities to illustrate the range and period dependence of seismic hazard across Canada.
FIGURE 6.2 Sa(0.2) for Canada (median values of 5 % damped spectral acceleration
for Site Class C and a probability of 2 %/50 years)
FIGURE 6.3 Uniform Hazard Spectra for median 2 %/50 year ground motions on Site Class C for key cities 6.4.2 Frequency Content
The dynamic response of structures is very sensitive to the frequency content of the loading. Earthquake excitations typically contain a broad range of frequencies. The frequency content describes the distribution of ground motion amplitudes with respect to frequency, which can be represented by a Fourier Amplitude Spectrum (i.e., a plot of Fourier amplitude versus frequency) or a Response Spectrum. The predominant circular frequency, , in Equation 6.8 is dened as the frequency corresponding to the maximum value of the Fourier amplitude spectrum. The value of can be approximated by the number of zero crossings per second in the accelerogram multiplied by 2.
6.4.3 Duration
The duration of shaking signicantly inuences the damage caused by an earthquake. The liquefaction of loose saturated sand depends on the number of stress reversals that take place during an earthquake. Earthquakes of longer duration are most likely to cause more damage. The duration is evaluated from the accelerogram. Different methods are specied to evaluate the duration of strong motion in an accelerogram. The duration can be dened as the time between the rst and last exceedances of a threshold acceleration (usually 0.05 g), or as the time interval between the points at which 5 % and 95 % of the total energy has been recorded.
6.5 Building Design
It is almost impossible to design buildings that remain elastic for all levels of earthquakes. Therefore, the intention of building codes and provisions is not to eliminate earthquake damage completely. Rather, structures should be designed to resist: 1. a moderate level earthquake, which has a high probability of occurring at least once during the expected life of the structure, without structural damage, but possibly with some non-structural damage; and 2. a major level earthquake, which has a low probability of occurrence, without collapse, but possibly with some structural damage.
In general, there are two procedures to the earthquake-resistant design of buildings: a static analysis procedure in which the earthquake loading is characterized by equivalent static forces and dynamic analysis procedures. The dynamic analysis procedures include linear analysis using either the Modal Response Spectrum Method where the earthquake loading is characterized by design response spectra or the linear time-history analysis, and nonlinear time-history analysis.
6.5.1 Equivalent Static Force Procedure
The static approach specied in the NBCC (2005) is used for structures satisfying the conditions of sentence 4.1.8.6 of the code (e.g., regular building with a height less than 60 m and natural lateral period less than 2 s). The procedure involves calculating a design seismic base shear proportional to the weight of the structure. The equivalent lateral seismic force procedure of the NBCC (2005) species that a structure should be designed to resist a minimum seismic base shear, V, given by V = S(Ta)MvIEW/(RdRo) except that V shall not be less than, V = S(2.0)MvIEW/(RdRo) where Ta is fundamental period of the structure, S(T) = the design spectral acceleration, expressed as a ratio to gravitational acceleration, for a period of T, Mv= Factor to account for higher mode effect on base shear, as dened in NBCC Sentence 4.1.8.11.(5), IE= Earthquake importance factor of the structure, as described in NBCC Sentence 4.1.8.5.(1), W= weight of the structure, Rd= Ductility related force modication factor and Ro= Overstrength related force modication factor.
6.5.1.1 Design Spectral Acceleration, S (T)
(6.9)
The design spectral acceleration values of S(T) is determined as follows (linear interpolation is used for intermediate values of T): S(T) = = = = = where FaS a(0.2) for T < 0.2 s FvS a(0.5) or FaSa(0.2) whichever is smaller for T = 0.5 FvS a(1.0) for T = 1.0 s FvS a(2.0) for T = 2.0 s FvS a(2.0)/2 for T > 4.0 s (6.10)
Sa(T) = the 5 % damped spectral response acceleration values for the reference ground conditions (Site Class C in NBCC Table 4.1.8.4.A), and Fa and Fv are acceleration and velocity based site coefcients given in NBCC Tables 4.1.8.4.B and 4.1.8.4.C using linear interpolation for intermediate values of Sa(0.2) and Sa(1.0).
6.5.1.2 Foundation Effect
The soil conditions at a site have been shown to exert a major inuence on the type and amount of structural damage that can result from an earthquake. As the motions propagate from bedrock to the surface, the soil layers may amplify the motions in selected frequency ranges around their natural frequencies. In addition, a structure founded on soil, with natural frequencies close to those of the soil layers, may undergo even more intense shaking due to the development of a state of quasi-resonance between the structure and the foundation soil. The natural circular frequency of a soil layer in horizontal direction, u, is given by
u =
where
V s
2h
(6.11)
Vs is the shear wave velocity of the soil layer and h is its thickness.
Direct calculation of the local site effects is possible using suitable mathematical models such as lumped mass approaches and nite element models with realistic soil properties and assuming vertically propagating shear waves or Rayleigh waves from the bedrock during the earthquake. In these analyses, the source mechanism of the earthquake and the geology of the travel path are incorporated in the bedrock input motion. The seismic provisions of the NBCC (2005) incorporate site effects by categorizing the wide variety of possible soil conditions into seven types classied according to the average properties of the top 30 m of the soil prole. This classication is based on the average shear wave velocity, Vs, standard penetration resistance, N60, or undrained shear strength, su, as shown in Table 6.1A. The factors Fa and Fv given in Tables 6.1B and 6.1C reect the effect of possible soil amplication (or de-amplication) and soil-structure interaction resonance into the estimation of the seismic design forces for buildings having no unusual characteristics. While the site coefcients Fa and Fv provide a simple way of introducing surface layer effects for conventional buildings, a fuller evaluation of amplication should be completed for areas of signicant seismic activity and/or non-conventional buildings. Quasi-resonance conditions are of particular importance when the predominant period of the input rock motion (or rm ground) is close to the fundamental period of the less-rm surface layers since this results in amplications of two to ve. In this case, the rm ground or underlying rock accelerations must be modied for potential amplication by less-rm surface layers. The site coefcients are fairly realistic except for this case.
TABLE 6.1A Site Classication for Seismic Site Response
(Table 4.1.8.4.A. in NBCC 2005)

Average Properties in Top 30 m as per Appendix A NBCC 2005 Site Class Soil Prole Name Soil Shear Wave Average Velocity, (m/s) s
s
Standard Penetration Resistence
N 60
Not applicable Not applicable
60
Soil Undrained Shear Strength, su Not applicable Not applicable su > 100kPa
A B C D E
Hard Rock Rock Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock Stiff Soil Soft Soil
> 1500
s
760 < 360 < 180 <

s
1500 < 760
> 50
60
< 360
15 <
60
< 50
50 < su 100kPa su < 50kPa
<180
< 15
Any prole with more than 3 m of soil with the following characteristics: Plastic index IP > 20 Moisture content w 40%, and Undrained shear strength su < 25 kPa
(1)
Others
Site Specic Evaluation Required
Note (1) Other soils include: a) Liqueable soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly cemented soils, and other soils susceptible to failure or collapse under seismic loading. b) Peat and/or highly organic clays greater than 3 m in thickness. c) Highly plastic clays (IP > 75) with thickness greater than 8 m. d) Soft to medium stiff clays with thickness greater than 30 m.
TABLE 6.1B Values of Fa as a Function of Site Class and Sa(0.2)
(Table 4.1.8.4.B in NBCC 2005)

Values of Fa
Site Class A B C D E F
Sa(0.2) 0.25 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.1

(2)
Sa(0.2) = 0.50 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

(2)
Sa(0.2) = 0.75 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1

(2)
Sa(0.2) =1.00 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9

(2)
Sa(0.2) = 1.25 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9

(2)
TABLE 6.1C Values of Fv as a Function of Site Class and Sa(1.0)
(Table 4.1.8.4.C in NBCC 2005)

Values of Fv
Site Class A B C D E F
Sa(1.0) 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.1

(2)
Sa(1.0) = 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 2.0

(2)
Sa(1.0) = 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.9

(2)
Sa(1.0) =0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.7

(2)
Sa(1.0) 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.7

(2)
Note (2) Fa and Fv for site Class F are determined by performing site specic geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analyses. The seismic design procedures outlined in the NBCC (2005) are based on the assumption that the structures are founded on a rigid base that moves with the ground surface motion. Real foundations possess both exibility and damping capacity that alter the structural response. The exibility of the foundation increases the fundamental period of a structure and the damping dissipates energy by wave radiation away from the structure and by hysteretic damping in the foundation, thus increasing the effective damping of the structure. These effects are referred to as soil-structure interaction and are not considered explicitly in the code. For most buildings considered by the code, neglecting soil-structure interaction results in conservative designs. However, neglecting soil-structure interaction effects may not be conservative for tall structures and/or structures with substantial embedded parts and should be considered explicitly in a dynamic analysis.
6.5.1.3 Importance Factor, IE
Some structures are designed for essential public services. It is desirable that these structures remain operational after an earthquake (dened as post disaster in the code). They include buildings that house electrical generating and distribution systems, re and police stations, hospitals, radio stations and towers, telephone exchanges, water and sewage pumping stations, fuel supplies and schools. Such structures are assigned an IE value of 1.5. The importance factor I = 1.3 is associated with special purpose structures where failure could endanger the lives of a large number of people or affect the environment well beyond the connes of the building. These would include facilities for the
10
manufacture or storage of toxic material, nuclear power stations, etc.

6.5.1.4 Force Reduction Factors, Rd and System Overstrength Factors, Ro
The values of Rd and Ro and the corresponding system restrictions shall conform to NBCC Table 4.1.8.9 (Table 6.2). When a particular value of Rd is required, the associated Ro shall be used. For combinations of different types of SFRS acting in the same direction in the same storey, RdRo shall be taken as the lowest value of RdRo corresponding to these systems.
TABLE 6.2 SFRS Force Modication Factors (Rd), System Overstrength Factors (Ro)
and General Restrictions (1)
(Table 4.1.8.9. in NBCC) Forming Part of Sentence 4.1.8.9 (1)

Restrictions (2) Cases Where IEFaSa(0.2) Type of SFRS Rd Ro <0.2 0.2 to < 0.35 0.35 to 0.75 >0.75 Cases Where IEFvSa(1.0) >0.3
Steel Structures Designed and Detailed According to CSA S16 Ductile moment resisting frames Moderately ductile moment resisting frames Limited ductility moment resisting frames Moderately ductile braced frames Non-chevron braces Chevron braces Tension only braces concentrically 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 NL NL NL NL NL NL 40 40 20 40 40 20 40 40 20 5.0 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.3 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 60 NL NL NP NL NL NP
Limited ductility concentrically braced frames Non-chevron braces Chevron braces Tension only braces Ductile eccentrically braced frames Ductile frame plate shearwalls Moderately ductile plate shearwalls Conventional construction of moment frames, braced frames or shearwalls Other steel SFRS(s) not dened above
2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 1.5 1.0
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0
NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 15
NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 15
60 60 40 NL NL 60 15 NP
60 60 40 NL NL 60 15 NP
60 60 40 NL NL 60 15 NP
Concrete Structures Designed and Detailed According to CSA A23.3 Ductile moment resisting frames Moderately ductile moment resisting frames Ductile coupled walls 4.0 2.5 4.0 1.7 1.4 1.7 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL 60 NL NL 40 NL NL 40 NL
11
Restrictions (2) Cases Where IEFaSa(0.2) Type of SFRS Rd Ro <0.2 Ductile partially coupled walls Ductile shearwalls Moderately ductile shearwalls Conventional construction
Moment resisting frames Shearwalls
Cases Where IEFvSa(1.0) >0.3 NL NL 60 NP 30 NP
0.2 to < 0.35 NL NL NL NL NL 15
0.35 to 0.75 NL NL NL 15 40 NP
>0.75 NL NL 60 NP 30 NP
3.5 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0
1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0
NL NL NL NL NL 15
Other concrete SFRS(s) not listed above
Timber Structures Designed and Detailed According to CSA 086 Shearwalls

Nailed shearwalls-wood based panel Shearwalls - wood based and gypsum
3.0 2.0
1.7 1.7
NL NL
NL NL
30 20
20 20
20 20
panels in combination Braced or moment resisting frame with ductile connections Moderately ductile Limited ductility Other wood or gypsum based SFRS(s) Not listed above Moderately ductile shearwalls Limited ductility shear walls Conventional Construction Shearwalls Moment resisting frames Unreinforced masonry Other masonry SFRS(s) not listed above
2.0 1.5 1.0
1.5 1.5 1.0
NL NL 15
NL NL 15
20 15 NP
20 15 NP
20 15 NP
Masonry Structures Designed and Detailed According to CSA S304.1 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 NL NL NL NL 30 15 NL NL 60 30 15 NP 60 40 30 NP NP NP 40 30 15 NP NP NP 40 30 15 NP NP NP
Notes to Table 6.2: (1) See NBCC Sentence 4.1.8.10. (2) Notes on restrictions: NP in table means not permitted. Numbers in table are maximum height limits in metres. NL in table means system is permitted and not limited in height as an SFRS. Height may be limited elsewhere in other Parts.
6.5.1.5 Higher Mode Factor Mv and Base Overturning Reduction Factor J
The seismic lateral force acting on a building during an earthquake is due to the inertial forces acting on the masses of the structures caused by the seismic motion of the base. The motion of the structure is complex, involving the
12
superposition of a number of modes of vibration about several axes. Table 4.1.8.11 of the NBCC (2005) (Table 6.3) assigns Mv and J values to different types of structural systems, which are established based on design and construction experience, and the performance evaluation of structures in major and moderate earthquakes. These values account for the capacity of the structural system to absorb energy by damping and inelastic action through several cycles of load reversal.
TABLE 6.3 Higher Mode Factor Mv and Base Overturning Reduction Factor J (1,2)
(Table 4.1.8.11. in NBCC) Forming Part of Sentence 4.1.8.11.(5)

Type of Lateral Resisting Systems Moment resisting frames or coupled walls (3) < 8.0 Braced frames Walls, wall-frame systems, other systems (4) Moment resisting frames or coupled walls (3) 8.0 Braced frames Walls, wall-frame systems, other systems(4) Mv For Ta 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mv For Ta 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.5 J For Ta 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 J For Ta 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4
Sa(0.2)/Sa(2.0)
Notes: (1) For values of Mv between periods of 1.0 and 2.0 s, the product S(Ta)MV shall be obtained by linear interpolation. (2) Values of J between periods of 0.5 and 2.0 s shall be obtained by linear interpolation. (3) Coupled wall is a wall system with coupling beams where at least 66 % of the base overturning moment resisted by the wall system is carried by the axial tension and compression forces resulting from shear in the coupling beams. (4) For hybrid systems, use values corresponding to walls or carry out a dynamic analysis.
6.5.1.6 Distribution of Base Shear
The base shear is the sum of the inertial forces acting on the masses of the structures caused by the seismic motion of the base. The motion of the structure is complex, involving the superposition of a number of modes of vibration about several axes. For structures with fundamental periods less than 0.7 s, the addition of the spectral-modal responses results in a lateral inertial force distribution that is approximately triangular in shape, with the apex at the base. For buildings having longer periods, higher forces are induced at the upper portion of the structure due to increasing contributions to top storey amplitudes by all the contributing modes. The redistribution of forces is accounted for by applying part of the base shear as a concentrated force, Ft, to the top of the structure. The total lateral seismic force, V, shall be distributed such that a portion, Ft , shall be assumed to be concentrated at the top of the building, where Ft is equal to 0.07 TaV but need not exceed 0.25 V and may be considered as zero where Ta does not exceed 0.7 s; the remainder, V - Ft shall be distributed along the height of the building, including the top level, in accordance with the formula.
13
(6.12) where Fx is the inertial force induced at any level x which is proportional to the weight Wx at that level.
6.5.1.7 Overturning Moments
The lateral forces that are induced in a structure by earthquakes give rise to moments that are the product of the induced lateral forces times the distance to the storey level under consideration. They have to be resisted by axial forces and moments in the vertical load-carrying members. While the base shear contributions of modes higher than the fundamental mode can be signicant, the corresponding modal overturning moments for the higher modes are small. As the equivalent static lateral base shear in the NBCC (2005) also includes the contributions from higher modes for moderately tall and tall structures, a reduction in the overturning moments computed from these lateral forces appears justied. This is achieved by means of the multiplier J as given in NBCC (2005) Table 4.1.8.11 (Table 6.3). If, however, the response of the structure is dominated by its fundamental mode, the overturning moment should be calculated without any J-factor reductions. Alternatively, a dynamic analysis should be used to calculate the maximum overturning moment.
6.5.1.8 Torsional Moments
The inertial forces induced in the structure by earthquake ground motions act through the centre of gravity of the masses. If the centre of mass and the centre of rigidity do not coincide because of asymmetrical arrangement of structural elements or uneven mass distributions, torsional moments will arise. The design should endeavour to make the structural system as symmetrical as possible and should consider the effect of torsion on the behaviour of the structural elements.
6.5.2 Dynamic Analysis
For critical buildings and buildings with signicant irregularities, the dynamic analysis approach is recommended to improve the accuracy of calculation of the seismic response including the distribution of forces in the building. The dynamic analysis approach includes response spectrum methods and time domain response methods.
6.5.2.1 Response Spectra
The response spectrum describes the maximum response of a Single Degree Of Freedom System (SDOF) to a particular input motion and is a function of the natural frequency and damping ratio of the SDOF system, and the frequency content and amplitude of the input motion. The response may be expressed in terms of acceleration, velocity or displacement. The maximum values of acceleration, velocity and displacement are referred to as the spectral acceleration, Sa, spectral velocity, Sv, and spectral displacement, Sd, respectively. They can be related to each other as follows: (6.13a) (6.13b) (6.13c) where
0 is the natural circular frequency of the SDOF system. These response spectra provide a meaningful
characterization of earthquake ground motion and can be related to structural response quantities, i.e.:
14
(6.14a) (6.14b) where Emax is the maximum earthquake elastic energy stored in the structure, Vmax is the structure elastic base shear and m is the mass of the structure. The base shear, however, would be less than that calculated by Equation 6.14b for structures that experience inelastic material behaviour (e.g., cracking of concrete and yielding of steel) during an earthquake. However, this reduction is only allowed for structures that have the capacity to deform beyond the yield point without major structural failure (ductile structures). Most structures are not SDOF systems and higher modes may contribute to the response. This effect can be accounted for approximately using the higher mode factors given in Table 6.3.
6.5.2.2 Design Spectra
Spectral shapes from real records are usually smoothed to produce smooth spectral shapes suitable for use in design. Most of the design spectra commonly used are based on the Newmark-Hall approach. As an example, Figure 6.4 shows the design spectra (normalized to the maximum ground acceleration) developed by Seed and Idriss (1982) and recommended for use in building codes. The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC 2005) includes similar smooth design spectra (which are not based on Newmark-Hall approach, but obtained directly from probabilistic seismic hazard assessments based on spectral amplitudes, i.e., uniform hazard spectrum). Acceleration levels of probable earthquakes can be used to scale the spectral shapes to provide design spectra of particular projects.
FIGURE 6.4 Example of a design spectra
6.5.2.3
Site Specic Response Spectra
Site-specic response spectra are developed with due consideration of the following aspects: 1. Seismotectonic characterization: includes evaluation of seismic source, wave attenuation from the sources to the site and site evaluation. 2. Assessment of seismic exposure: involves probabilistic analysis of data from possible signicant earthquake
15
sources including nearby, mid-eld and far-eld events to establish the events with the most likely signicant contribution to ground motions at the site. 3. Ground motion characterization: encompasses selection and scaling of rock input motion records from earthquakes with magnitude, epicentral distance, types of faulting and site conditions similar to those of the design events for the specic site. The site specic motions are then determined from the rock input motion using ground response analysis (e.g., Schnabel et al., 1972); and 4. Design ground motion specication: includes the specication of smooth response spectra, and the selection of sets of representative ground motion time histories suitable for use in dynamic analysis of the structural response. For critical structures, spectra are usually developed for two different levels of motions, namely operating level events and major level events. Operating level events are moderate earthquakes with a high probability of occurrence. Structures are designed to survive these events without signicant damage and to continue to operate. Major level events are severe earthquakes with a low probability of occurrence, and signicant damage, but not collapse, is therefore acceptable. Furthermore, the seismic design of critical structures usually involves dynamic time-history analyses using a number of ground motion records representative of operating level and design level events.
6.5.2.4 Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
The NBCC considers buildings sitting on rm ground (360 m/s < s < 760 m/s. However, in most cases, buildings are constructed with exible foundations embedded in soil layers. The soil-structure interaction (SSI) inuences the seismic response of structures and should be investigated for cases involving critical or unconventional structures. The soil-structure interaction modies the dynamic characteristics of the structure: 1. It reduces the natural frequency of the soil-structure system to a value lower than that of the structure under xed-base conditions (structures found on rock are considered to be xed-base). 2. It increases the effective damping ratio to a value greater than that of the structure itself. SSI also has some important effects on the ground input motion and the seismic response of the structure. For example, large foundation slabs can reduce the high frequency motions and hence reduce the input motions to the structure, and uplift of foundation slabs can reduce forces transmitted to the structure. Furthermore, SSI reduces the maximum structural distortion and increases the overall displacement by an amount that is inversely proportional to soil stiffness. Thus it tends to reduce the demands on the structure but because of the increased exibility of the system, the overall displacement increases. These effects can be important for tall, slender structures or for closely spaced structures that may be subject to pounding when relative displacements become large. In a seismic soil-structure interaction analysis, a structure with nite dimensions interacts dynamically through the structure-soil interface with a soil of innite dimensions. A detailed analysis for this problem may be desirable and can be accomplished effectively using the nite element (or nite difference) method. Methods for the analysis of soil-structure interaction can be divided into two main categories: direct methods and multistep methods. Direct Method: The entire soil-foundation-structure system is modelled and analysed in one single step. Freeeld input motions are specied along the base and sides of the model and the resulting response of the interacting system is computed. It is preferable that the base of the mesh is placed at the top of the bedrock. The governing equations of motion for this case are (6.15) in which {u} are the relative motions between nodal points in the soil or structure and the top of the rock and {b(t)}
16
are the specied free-eld accelerations at the boundary nodal points. The ground motion, b , is prescribed for the surface of bedrock or rm ground. When the near surface soils are not rm ground, as is most often the case, the corresponding free-eld motion of the model, b , is applied at the appropriate depth as outcrop motion and the surface motion is predicted accordingly. The surface motion predicted reects the soil conditions at the site. In this process, nonlinearity of soil behaviour should be accounted for in order to avoid unrealistic amplication of the response. Equation 6.15 is solved in the frequency domain using FFT, time domain using the Wilson or modied NewtonRaphson method, or in terms of modal analysis. Several software packages are available now that have the capability to analyse the soil-structure interaction problem in the time domain accounting for nonlinearity within the soil and at the structure-soil interface. This type of analysis is recommended for critical structures or when performance-based design is considered. Multi-step Method: In this method, emphasis is placed on the notations of the kinematic and inertial interaction. This is accomplished by isolating the two primary causes of soil-structure interaction. Because this method relies on superposition, it is limited to the analysis of linear (or equivalent linear) systems. The analysis is described as follows. Kinematic interaction: In the free-eld, an earthquake will cause soil displacements in both the horizontal and vertical directions. If a foundation on the surface of, or embedded in, a soil deposit is so stiff that it cannot follow the free-eld deformation pattern, its motion will be inuenced by kinematic interaction, even if it has no mass. Kinematic interaction will occur whenever the stiffness of the foundation system impedes development of the freeeld motions. Kinematic interaction can also induce different modes of vibration in a structure. For example, if vertically propagating S-waves have a wavelength equal to the depth of the foundation embedment, a net overturning moment can be applied to the foundation, thereby causing the foundation to rock as well as to translate. Horizontally propagating waves can, in a similar manner, induce torsional vibration of the foundation. The multi-step analysis proceeds as follows: 1. A kinematic interaction analysis, in which the foundation-structure system is assumed to have stiffness but no mass, is performed and the foundation input motion is obtained. 2. The foundation input motion is applied to obtain an inertial load on the structure in inertial interaction analysis in which the mass of the foundation and structure is included.
6.6 Liquefaction
Massive failures occurred during the Alaska (1964) and Niigata (1964) earthquakes showed the importance of damage caused by ground failure and the need for an analysis of the suitability of the site selected for the structure before its design and construction. While in certain cases of ground failure it is possible to design safe structures by properly designing their foundations, in other cases some mitigating measures must be taken such as soil improvement. Seismic liquefaction refers to a sudden loss in stiffness and strength of soil due to cyclic loading effects of an earthquake. The loss arises from a tendency for soil to contract under cyclic loading, and if such contraction is prevented or curtailed by the presence of water in the pores that cannot escape, it leads to a rise in pore water pressure and a resulting drop in effective stress. If the effective stress drops to zero (100 % pore water pressure rise), the strength and stiffness also drop to zero and the soil behaves as a heavy liquid. However, unless the soil is very loose it will dilate and regain some stiffness and strength, as it strains. The post-liquefaction strength is called the residual strength and may be 1 to 10 times lower than the static strength.
17
If the residual strength is sufcient, it will prevent a bearing failure for level ground conditions, but may still result in excessive settlement. For sloping ground conditions, if the residual strength is sufcient it will prevent a ow slide, but displacements commonly referred to as lateral spreading, could be excessive. In addition, even for level ground condition where there is no possibility of a ow slide and lateral movements may be tolerable, very signicant settlements may occur due to dissipation of excess pore water pressures during and after the period of strong ground shaking. During an earthquake, signicant damage can result due to instability of the soil in the area affected by the seismic waves. The soil response depends on the mechanical characteristics of the soil layers, the depth of the water table and the intensity and duration of the ground shaking. If the soil consists of deposits of loose granular materials it may be compacted by the ground vibrations induced by the earthquake, resulting in large settlement and differential settlements of the ground surface. This compaction of the soil may result in the development of excess hydrostatic pore water pressures of sufcient magnitude to cause liquefaction of the soil, resulting in settlement, tilting and rupture of structures. Liquefaction does not occur at random, but is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sands and silts in areas with high ground water levels. Generally, the younger and looser the sediment, and the higher the water table, the more susceptible the soil is to liquefaction. Sediments most susceptible to liquefaction include Holocene delta, river channel, ood plain, and aeolian deposits, and poorly compacted lls. Liquefaction has been most abundant in areas where ground water lies within 10 m of the ground surface; few instances of liquefaction have occurred in areas with ground water deeper than 20 m. Dense soils, including wellcompacted lls, have low susceptibility to liquefaction.
6.6.1 Factors Inuencing Liquefaction
The following factors inuence the liquefaction potential of a given site: 1. Soil type: saturated granular soils, especially ne loose sands and reclaimed soils, with poor drainage conditions are susceptible to liquefaction. 2. Relative density: loose sands are more susceptible to liquefaction, e.g., sand with Dr > 80% is not likely to liquefy. 3. Conning pressure: the conning pressure, 0, increases the resistance to liquefaction. 4. Stress due to earthquake: as the intensity of the ground shaking increases, the shear stress ratio, (/0), increases and the liquefaction is more likely to occur. 5. Duration of earthquake: as the duration of the earthquake increases, the number of stress cycles increases leading to an increase in the excess pore water pressure, and consequently liquefaction. 6. Drainage conditions: poor drainage allows pore pressure build-up and consequently liquefaction.
6.6.2 Assessment of Liquefaction
Liquefaction assessment involves addressing the following concerns: evaluation of liquefaction potential, i.e., will liquefaction be triggered in signicant zones of the soil foundation for the design earthquake, and if so, could a bearing failure or ow slide occur and if not, are the displacements tolerable?
These effects can be assessed from simplied or detailed analysis procedures.
18
Simplied analysis of liquefaction triggering involves comparing the Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSR caused by the design earthquake with the Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR that the soil possesses due to its density.
6.6.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction potential can be evaluated if the cyclic shear stress imposed by the earthquake and the liquefaction resistance of the soil are characterized. Methods used to evaluate the liquefaction potential can be categorized into two main groups: methods based on past performance and analytical procedures.
6.6.3.1 Liquefaction Potential Based on Past Performance
Based on the damage survey and eld observations after earthquakes, the liquefaction potential can be identied from the performance of similar deposits. An example for this approach is the method developed based on observations from the Niigata Earthquake (1964). In this method, the standard penetration resistance, N, and the conning pressure are used to characterize the liquefaction resistance of soil. Based on this approach, it may be suggested that sands with N > 20 are not susceptible to liquefaction. The earthquake magnitude, M, and the epicentral distance of liqueed sites are used to characterize the cyclic loading from the earthquake. Based on observations from previous earthquakes, it may be suggested that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 6 and/or epicentral distances greater than 500 km may not induce liquefaction.
6.6.3.2 Analytical Procedure
A number of approaches have been developed over the years to evaluate the liquefaction potential. The most common of these, the cyclic stress approach, is briey presented. Following the procedure proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971), the initial liquefaction is dened as the point at which the increase in pore pressure, uexcess, is equal to the initial effective conning pressure [i.e., when uexcess= ]. The cyclic stress approach involves two steps and their comparison: 1. Calculation of cyclic shear stresses due to earthquake loading at different depths expressed in terms of cyclic stress ratio, CSR. 2. Characterization of liquefaction resistance of the soil deposits expressed in terms of cyclic resistance ratio, CRR. These two steps are described as follows.
6.6.3.2(1) Characterization of Earthquake Loading
The cyclic stress approach is based on the assumption that excess pore pressure generation is fundamentally related to the cyclic shear stresses. The earthquake loading is characterized by a level of uniform cyclic shear stress, derived from ground response analysis or from a simplied procedure, applied at an equivalent number of cycles. Ground response analyses should be used to predict time histories of shear stress at different depths within a soil deposit. An equivalent uniform shear stress is then calculated as 0.65 of the peak shear stress obtained. Seeds Simplied Equation: For small projects, the simplied procedure proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) can be used to estimate the cyclic shear stress due to the earthquake for level sites, in terms of the cyclic stress ratio, CSR, i.e.: (6.16)
19
where amax = the peak ground surface acceleration for the design earthquake, g = gravity acceleration, v = total vertical overburden pressure, = the initial effective overburden pressure and rd = stress reduction value at the depth of interest that accounts approximately for the exibility of the soil prole. The stress reduction coefcient, rd, can be approximated by rd = 1.0 - 0.00765z for z 9.15m rd = 1.174 - 0.0267z for 9.15m < z 23m where z is the depth below the ground surface in metres. Ground response analysis using equivalent-linear total stress programs: Liquefaction Triggering is traditionally assessed by conducting an equivalent-linear-total-stress ground response analysis using the 1D program SHAKE. The analyses can also be conducted in 2D using the program FLUSH and others. The induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) (0.65 of the peak value of cyc /vo) from the ground response analysis is equated to the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to obtain a factor of safety against liquefaction triggering as indicated in equation 6.18. Input for the ground response analysis would be the rm ground time histories. As indicated in equation 6.18 below, corrections are typically made for magnitude (Km), conning stress (K) and sometimes static bias (K): Factor of Safety against liquefaction = (CRR x K x Km x K )/CSR (6.18) (6.17a) (6.17b)
Ground response analysis using non-linear total-stress program with hysteretic damping: In the equivalent linear analyses, the same damping is used for both small strain and large strain cycles throughout the duration of shaking. In reality, small strain cycles will have signicantly lower damping than high strain cycles. This shortfall can be addressed by using a constitutive model with hysteretic damping. Such models have been developed to run within FLAC and other programs and can be used to assess liquefaction triggering in both 1D and 2D approximations. The CSR would typically be set equal to 0.65 of the peak value and factor of safety against liquefaction would be calculated using equation 6.18. The method should be calibrated using measured responses from actual earthquakes prior to use. Other advantages of the method are that it can be readily used in 2D analyses and therefore used with sloping ground surface. Structural elements can be included and soil-structure effects modeled if desired. 2D total stress models which track the dynamic shear stress history within each element and trigger liquefaction if a specied threshold is reached are also available. Ground response analysis using non-linear effective stress programs: These procedures can be used to assess both liquefaction triggering and the consequences of liquefaction.
6.6.3.2(2) Seismic Hazard, Choice of Magnitude and Records
This section deals with the earthquake hazard, the magnitude of the earthquake to be used in liquefaction assessment, and suggestions on earthquake records to be used.
Hazard
Use the spectra given in the NBCC (2005) for rm ground conditions for the 1:2475 hazard (for Vancouver, use the Cascadia subduction hazard). If the 1:475 hazard is needed this can be scaled from the 1:2475 spectrum or found in Geological Survey of Canada web site.
Magnitude for use in Liquefaction Assessment
Deaggregation of the hazard for Vancouver for the 1:2475 probability gives magnitudes of M6.5 to M6.9 depending
20
on whether the mean or median values, and the Sa(.2) or Sa(1) deaggregation is considered. Using the 80th percentile on the deaggregation results gives a range of M7.0 to M7.3. The results for the 1:2475 Sa(0.2) and Sa(1.0) deaggregation is shown in the Table 6.4 below. The maximum recorded crustal earthquake in the Vancouver region has been M7.3, but the hazard calculations assume an upper bound of M7.7 as being possible. It is suggested to use the Sa(1) deaggregation because it gives larger values and the period of 1 second is closer to the rst period of many soft sites than is the period of 0.2 seconds. The 80th percentile deaggregation value should be used because the seismic hazard is substantially inuenced by the upper tail of the seismic hazard, as the larger ground motions have a much higher probability of causing damage. Therefore, for Vancouver, a magnitude of M7.25 should be used in assessing liquefaction for the 1:2475 hazard, and M8.2 should be used for the Cascadia subduction earthquake. If the 1:475 hazard is considered, use M6.5.
TABLE 6.4 Earthquake Magnitude for Vancouver Evaluated from Deaggregation Measure Mode Mean Median 80%ile Sa(0.2) 7.13 6.52 6.51 6.93 Sa(1.0) 6.88 6.90 6.82 7.30
Selection of earthquake records
The Geological Survey of Canada is assembling a suite of records for both the 1:2475 and 1:475 probabilistic hazard and for the Cascadia subduction earthquake. However, it is not easy to nd a suite of records that give a good t to the spectrum and have the appropriate duration and/or number of cycles. Some useful guidelines for choosing records are: The records should have a spectrum close to the UHRS, and should have duration consistent with the magnitude. The record should be scaled so that the spectrum matches the design spectrum in the period range of interest (related to the fundamental period of the site), or the records should be spectrum matched to the design spectrum. The record should have a number of large cycles, for example the NCEER assessment criteria assume that a M7 earthquake record has 10 signicant full cycles greater than 0.65 PGA.
6.6.3.2(3) Characterization of Liquefaction Resistance
The Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR, is a measure of the soils ability to resist liquefaction and the development of large strains, and depends mainly on the soil type and density or state. There are two approaches to the characterization of liquefaction resistance, namely methods based on the results of laboratory tests, and methods based on in-situ tests. Laboratory tests: Different laboratory tests are performed mostly on isotropically consolidated triaxial specimens or on K0- consolidated simple shear specimens. In these tests, liquefaction failure is dened as the point at which initial liquefaction was reached or at which some limiting cyclic strain amplitude (commonly 5-20 %) was reached. The measured cyclic stress at the onset of liquefaction failure is the liquefaction resistance and is frequently given in terms of the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR = cyc/v0. Comments on testing methods: Undisturbed samples retrieved using specialized sampling techniques (such as ground freezing) should be used in the tests. The simple shear test is the most common test although it is difcult to eliminate its problems. The torsional shear test is sometimes used to ensure uniform distribution of the shear stress but it is very costly and difcult to obtain a hollow sample. Shaking table tests suffer from the lack of suitable
21
conning pressure. Cyclic triaxial tests are also used, however, they impose different loading conditions than the soil experiences during an earthquake and their cyclic stresses need to be corrected. Cyclic simple shear tests are considered most representative of eld conditions during earthquake loading, The results of such a test for loose Fraser River sand are shown in Figure 6.5. The effective stress path shows the normal effective stress reducing with each cycle of shear stress from an initial value of 100 kPa to essentially zero after 6 cycles. Figure 6.5 also shows the shear stress Vs shear strain response, where it may be seen that strains are very small, less than 0.1 %, for the rst 5 cycles and become very large, 10 %, on the 6th cycle, when liquefaction is triggered. The applied stress ratio for this sample was 0.1 and caused liquefaction in 6 cycles. The CRR is generally specied as the stress ratio to cause liquefaction in 15 cycles, and from additional tests carried out on this material (CRR)15 = 0.085.
FIGURE 6.5 Stress path and shear stress-strain response of loose Fraser River
sand, cyclic simple shear tests (Wijewickreme et al. 2005) The liquefaction response shown in Figure 6.5 is typical for loose sands where the application of an additional cycle of load triggers an abrupt change in behaviour from stiff to soft. The soft post-liquefaction response is controlled by dilation. The drop in shear stiffness upon liquefaction can be in the range of 100 to 1000 times. The strength or strength ratio available after liquefaction, called the residual strength can be signicant, and from Figure 6.5, the strength ratio is at least 0.1 for loose Fraser river sand. However, eld experience indicates that the strength ratio can be signicantly lower than values obtained from undrained tests. The reason for this may be due to upward ow of water associated with generated excess pore water pressures. This may cause some elements to expand and lose their dilation effect, particularly those beneath layers of lower permeability. For silt and clay material the response to cyclic loading and liquefaction can be quite different than for sand as shown in Figure 6.6. This gure shows effective stress path and shear stress-strain response for loose normally consolidated Fraser River silt under cyclic simple shear loading. The effective stress path shows the normal effective stress reducing with each cycle from its initial value 100 kPa, but not dropping below 10 kPa. After the initial few cycles, loading is associated with an increase in effective stress resulting from dilation. Only the unloading shows strong contraction effects. The shear stress-strain response shows a gradual increase in strain with number of cycles, and there is no abrupt change in shear stiffness from stiff to soft. There is also no indication of a strength reduction below the applied stress ratio of 0.2, thus the post-liquefaction or residual strength ratio is at least 0.2 for the tested silt. The stiffness reduces with each cycle, and after 11 cycles is 10 to 20 times softer than the rst cycle.
22
FIGURE 6.6 Stress path and shear stress-strain response of Fraser River silt,
cyclic simple shear tests (Sanin and Wijewickreme, 2006) These test results indicate that ne-grained normally consolidated silts and clays of low plasticity can be far more resistant to liquefaction than loose sands. Test results together with eld experience suggest that the liquefaction response of coarse-grained soils, gravels, sands and non-plastic silts should be handled differently than ne-grained silts and clays. While it might seem desirable to recover undisturbed samples (it is possible to do so in ne-grained soils) and obtain a direct measure of liquefaction resistance from cyclic testing, it is very difcult and expensive to obtain undisturbed samples in coarsegrained soils. It is therefore recommended that CRR for coarse-grained soils be based on penetration resistance in accordance with NCEER (2001). For ne-grained soils, it is recommended that CRR be based on Atterberg limits and/or direct testing. In-situ tests: The soil parameters determined from in-situ tests are used as liquefaction resistance parameters. Standard penetration resistance: The corrected SPT resistance is plotted vs. cyclic resistance ratio for clean sand (Figure 6.7) sites where liquefaction was or was not observed in earthquakes of M = 7.5 to determine the minimum cyclic stress ratio at which liquefaction could be expected. CRR for other magnitudes may be obtained by multiplying the CRR for M = 7.5 earthquakes by a correction factor, KM, as recommended by NCEER (2001), i.e.: (6.19) The data used in Figure 6.7 are for cyclic resistance ratios associated with overburden pressure, = 100 kPa. For higher overburden pressure values, the cyclic resistance ratio must be corrected using a correction factor K given by (6.20)
Values for K may be taken from the average curve of Seed and Harder (1990) (Figure 6.8).
23
FIGURE 6.7 CRR1 vs (N1)60 (Youd et al. 2001)
Cone penetration test: The tip resistance from the cone penetration test (CPT) is used as a measure of liquefaction resistance. CPT-based liquefaction curves have been developed based on correlation with laboratory test and theoretically derived values of CPT resistance (Figure 6.9). In CPT-based liquefaction evaluations, the tip resistance is normalized to a standard effective overburden pressure of 96 kPa by or (6.21)
FIGURE 6.8 Recommended curves for estimating K for engineering practice (Youd et al. 2001)
24
FIGURE 6.9 Curve recommended for calculation of CRR from CPT data along with empirical liquefaction
data from compiled case histories (reproduced from Robertson and Wride 1998) (Youd et al. 2001) Shear wave velocity: The measured shear wave velocities can be used to assess the liquefaction resistance, (usually in addition to assessment using SPT or CPT). Measured shear wave velocities are normalized to a standard effective overburden pressure of 96 kPa by Vs1 = Vs (v0 / 96) -1/n where n = 3 to 4. The normalized shear wave velocity is plotted vs. CRR in Figure 6.10, which can be used to evaluate the liquefaction potential directly, or is used to evaluate the CRR, which is used in turn to evaluate the liquefaction potential. (6.22)
FIGURE 6.10 Liquefaction relationship recommended for clean, uncemented soils with liquefaction data
from compiled case histories (Reproduced from Andrus and Stokoe 2000) (Youd et al. 2001)
25
The base CRR obtained from these gures will be given the symbol CRR1. The CRR for a general condition is given by: CRR = CRR1 * Km * K * K where Km is a correction factor for earthquake magnitudes other than M7.5, K is a correction factor to account for effective overburden stresses other than 100 kPa, and K is a correction factor for ground slope. The recommended Km (MSF) curve is shown in Figure 6.11, and for an M7 earthquake Km = 1.25. The recommended K curves depend on relative density as was shown in Figure 6.8. NCEER does not make a recommendation regarding K. The default value is unity, K=1. (6.23)
FIGURE 6.11 Magnitude Scaling Factors derived by various investigators
(Reproduced from Youd and Noble 1997) (Youd et al. 2001)

6.6.3.2(4) Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction
The evaluation is easily performed graphically. First, the variation of cyclic stress ratio, CSR, with depth is plotted. The variation of the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, with depth is then plotted on the same graph. Liquefaction can be expected at depths where the loading exceeds the resistance or when the factor of safety against liquefaction, FSL, is less than 1, where: (6.24)
6.6.3.2(5) Residual Strength for Gravel, Sands, and Non Plastic Silts
Field experience during past earthquakes indicates that residual strengths can be much lower than values obtained from undrained tests on undisturbed samples. This may be due to upward ow of water associated with generated excess pore water pressures. This may cause some elements to expand to a higher void ratio, and hence a lower critical state strength. Based on back analysis of eld case histories, Seed and Harder (1990) proposed upper and lower bounds on residual strength as shown in Figure 6.12. It may be noted that there are no data points associated with large movements or ow slides for SPT blowcounts greater than 16.
26
Olson and Stark (2002) present residual strength in terms of strength ratio, Figure 6.13. Their values range between about 0.05 and 0.1 for SPT blowcounts in the range 2 to 12. They also developed residual strength ratios in terms of CPT tip resistance. Their relationship is shown in Figure 6.14.
FIGURE 6.12 Recommended relationship between su,r and N1,60,CS (Seed and Harder 1990)
FIGURE 6.13 A comparison of liqueed strength ratio relationships based on normalized SPT blowcount
(Olson and Stark 2002)
27
FIGURE 6.14 A comparison of liqueed strength ratio relationships based on normalized CPT tip resistance
(Olson and Stark 2002) It is recommended that for zones predicted to liquefy, the residual strength be estimated as follows: 1. For normalized SPT blowcounts less than or equal to 15, use mean values from Seed and Harder (1990) and/or Stark and Olson (2002). 2. For normalized SPT blowcounts greater than or equal to 25, use drained strength values. 3. For normalized SPT blowcount values between 15 and 25, use a linear variation of residual strength. Although liquefaction can be triggered in dense sands having normalized SPT blowcount values greater than 25, the drained strength values can be used, as dilation upon straining will cause the pore pressures to drop to their preearthquake values or lower.
6.6.3.2(6) CRR for Silts and Clays
It has been noted that some ne-grained soils that classify as non-liqueable according to commonly used empirical Chinese Criteria (Wang 1979; Koester 1992; Finn et al. 1994) have in fact experienced liquefaction during earthquakes (Boulanger et al. 1998, Bray et al. 2004). Some data from laboratory cyclic shear testing of silts also conrmed the limitation of Chinese Criteria as a tool to identify potentially liqueable soils (Sanin and Wijewickreme 2004; Boulanger and Idriss 2004). As an alternative, Boulanger and Idriss (2004) recommend that ne-grained soils be classied as sand-like (susceptible to liquefaction) if IP < 7, and clay-like if IP 7. However, some limitations in this approach have been noted from cyclic direct simple shear tests conducted on specimens from a channel ll silt from the Fraser River Delta (Sanin and Wijewickreme 2005).
28
Based on the eld performance of ne-grained soil sites in Adapazari following the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake, combined with data from laboratory cyclic shear testing, Bray et al. (2004) have proposed alternate empirical criteria to delineate liquefaction susceptibility of ne-grained soils. It is recommended that the use of Chinese Criteria be discontinued, and Bray et al. (2004) criteria (Figure 6.15) be used to determine liquefaction susceptibility of ne-grained soils: a) w/wL 0.85 and IP 12: Susceptible to liquefaction or cyclic mobility*; b) w/wL 0.8 and 12 < IP < 20: Moderately susceptible to liquefaction or cyclic mobility*; c) w/wL < 0.8 and IP 20: No liquefaction or cyclic mobility, but may undergo signicant deformations if cyclic shear stresses > Static undrained shear strength (su). *This classication may be revised on a site-specic basis using data from laboratory cyclic shear testing of good quality eld samples [e.g., samples obtained using thin-walled tube samples with sharpened (i.e., <5) cutting edge and no inside clearance].
FIGURE 6.15 Bray et al. (2004) criteria for liquefaction assessment of ne-grained soils
6.6.3.2(7)
Residual Strength for Silts and Clays
It is recommended that the residual strength (Sr) for silt and clay zones be determined as per guidelines given below: a) w/wL 0.85 and IP 12: Sr = remolded shear strength (Sremolded), unless appropriate testing of undisturbed samples can show greater strength; b) w/wL 0.8 and 12 < IP < 20: Sr = 0.85su, where su = static undrained shear strength; c) w/wL < 0.8 and IP 20: Sr = su. This approach essentially employs the liquefaction potential determined using the recommended Bray et al. (2004) criteria as the basis for the determination of Sr. This assumes that the full static undrained strength (su), or most part of it, is available as the residual strength after cyclic loading, unless the soil is susceptible to liquefaction.
6.6.4 Liquefaction-Like Soil Behaviour
The liquefaction potential of loose, saturated sands is well recognized as described above. Similar abrupt structural changes, however, could be caused by earthquakes also in some highly sensitive clays such as the Canadian Leda clay or the Norwegian quick clay.
29
6.6.5
Induced Ground Movements
There are several empirical and approximate procedures for estimating ground movement for situations where liquefaction may be triggered. The lateral spreading equation of Youd gives ground displacement as a function of simple site properties, soil prole properties, and earthquake magnitude and distance. Post-liquefaction settlement is discussed in the following subsection.
6.6.5.1 Post-Liquefaction Settlements for Coarse-Grained Soil
Post-liquefaction settlements occur during and after earthquake shaking. For level ground conditions, the amount can be computed from the volumetric reconsolidation strains induced as the excess pore pressures dissipate. Based on eld experience during past earthquakes, the amount of strain depends on SPT blowcount and the CSR applied by the design earthquake. The curves proposed by Cetin et al. (2004) are shown in Figure 6.16 and indicate that volumetric reconsolidation strains can range between about 10 % for very loose sand to 1 % for very dense sands. These curves are recommended. The settlement calculated from this chart is induced by consolidation of the liqueed soil only. Footings and other structures founded over or within liqueed soil will also deform due to shear strain within the liqueed soil. This shear strain typically occurs during the period of strong shaking whereas the consolidation settlements often occur following the period of strong shaking. The shear strain deformations are additional to the consolidation settlements and can be of similar or greater magnitude.
FIGURE 6.16 Recommended relationships for volumetric reconsolidation strains as a function
of equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio and N1,60,CS for Mw = 7.5 (Wu 2002)
6.7 Seismic Design of Retaining Walls
The dynamic response of retaining walls is quite complex. Walls can translate and/or rotate, and the relative amounts of translation and rotation depend on the wall design. The magnitude and distribution of dynamic wall pressures during an earthquake are inuenced by the mode of wall movement. The maximum soil thrust acting on a wall generally occurs when the wall has moved toward the backll. The minimum soil thrust occurs when the wall has moved away from the backll. The shape of the earth pressure distribution on the back of the wall changes as the wall moves. The position of the resultant of the dynamic pressure is highest when the wall has moved toward the soil. Dynamic wall pressures are inuenced by the dynamic response of the wall and backll, and can increase signicantly near the natural frequency of the wall-backll system. Permanent soil displacements also increase
30
at frequencies near the natural frequency of the wall-backll system. Because of the complexity of the problem, simplied models that make various simplifying assumptions are used for the seismic design of retaining walls.
6.7.1 Seismic Pressures on Retaining Walls
Seismic pressures on retaining walls are usually estimated using simplied methods. Some of these methods are given here.
6.7.1.1 Active Earth Pressure Conditions M-O Method
This method is based on a pseudostatic analysis of seismic earth pressure on retaining structures and has become known as the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method. The M-O method is a direct extension of the static Coulomb theory to pseudo-static conditions. For dry cohesionless backll, the total active thrust can be expressed in a form similar to that developed for static conditions, i.e.: (6.25) where the dynamic active earth pressure coefcient, KAE, is (6.26) where
= soil angle of internal friction, = slope of backll with horizontal, = slope of the back face of the retaining wall with vertical, = angle of friction of wall-backll interface, , and kh and kv are seismic coefcients in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively, for -. The seismic coefcient in the horizontal direction, kh, is dened as a ratio of the peak ground acceleration in the horizontal direction to the gravity acceleration, g, i.e.: (6.27)
The seismic coefcient in the vertical direction, kv, is dened similarly. The total active thrust, PAE, can be divided into a static component, PA and a dynamic component, PAE: (6.28) where (6.29) in which, KA = the coefcient of static active earth pressure (from Coulomb theory), i.e.:
31
(6.30) The total active thrust may then be considered to act at a height, h, from the base of the wall, (6.31)
6.7.1.2 Passive Earth Pressure Conditions M-O Method
The total passive thrust on a wall retaining a dry cohesionless backll is given by (6.32) where the dynamic passive earth pressure coefcient, KPE, is (6.33) The total passive thrust can also be divided into static and dynamic components: (6.34) where PP is the static passive thrust, given by (6.35) where (6.36)
Note that the dynamic component, PPE, acts in the opposite direction of the static component, PP, thus reducing the available passive resistance. Discussion: The M-O analysis provides a useful means of estimating earthquake-induced loads on retaining walls. A positive horizontal seismic coefcient causes the total active thrust to exceed the static active thrust and the total passive resistance to be less than the static passive resistance. Since the stability of a particular wall is generally reduced by an increase in active thrust and/or a decrease in passive resistance, the M-O method produces seismic loads that are more critical than the static loads. The M-O analysis has some limitations. The determination of the seismic coefcient is difcult; the analysis is not appropriate for soils that experience signicant loss of strength during earthquakes, and it over predicts the actual total passive thrust, particularly for > /2.
32
6.7.2
Effects of Water on Wall Pressures
The water exerts loads on waterfront retaining walls both during and after earthquakes. The water outboard of a retaining wall and within the backll can exert dynamic pressures on the wall. The total water pressures that act on retaining walls in the absence of seepage within the backll can be divided into two components: hydrostatic pressure that increases linearly with depth and acts on the wall before, during and after earthquake shaking, and hydrodynamic pressure that results from the dynamic response of the water itself.
6.7.2.1 Water Outboard of Wall
The hydrodynamic pressures on a retaining wall are usually estimated from Westergaards solution for the case of a vertical rigid dam retaining a semi-innite reservoir of water that is excited by harmonic, horizontal motion of its rigid base. Westergaard computed the amplitude of the hydrodynamic pressure at a depth zw below water surface as (6.37) where H = depth of the water. The resultant hydrodynamic thrust is given by (6.38) The total actual thrust due to the water is equal to the sum of the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic thrusts.
6.7.2.2 Water in Backll
The presence of water in the backll behind a retaining wall can inuence the seismic loads on the wall in a number of ways. It alters the inertial forces within the backll and develops hydrodynamic pressures within the backll. For low permeability soils, the inertial forces due to earthquake shaking will be proportional to the total unit weight of the soil. In this case, the M-O method can be modied to account for the presence of porewater within the backll using (6.39a) and (6.39b) where b = unit weight of backll and . An equivalent hydrostatic thrust based on a uid of unit weight eq = w + ru b must be added to the soil thrust. Soil thrusts from partially submerged backlls may be computed using an average unit weight based on the relative volumes of soil within the active wedge that are above and below the phreatic surface. For high permeability soils, the inertial forces will be proportional to the submerged unit weight of the soil. In this case, the porewater pressure acting on the wall is given by the Westgaard solution, i.e., Equations 6.37 and 6.38.
6.7.3 Seismic Displacement of Retaining Walls
The serviceability of retaining walls is related to permanent deformations that occur during earthquakes. Therefore, analyses that predict permanent wall deformations provide a more useful indication of retaining wall performance.
33
6.7.3.1
Deterministic Approach
This method is developed for the seismic design of gravity walls based on allowable wall displacements. In this method, the yield acceleration, dened as the acceleration that is just large enough to cause the wall to slide on its base, is calculated by (Richard and Elms, 1979) (6.40) in which PAE is calculated using the M-O method with , and W is the weight of the retaining wall.
The permanent displacement can then be calculated from (6.41) where vmax = the peak ground velocity and amax = the peak ground acceleration.
6.7.3.2 Statistical Approach
Whitman and Liao (1985) used a statistical approach to evaluate the permanent displacement of retaining walls due to earthquake excitation. They studied the results of sliding block analyses of 14 ground motions and found that the permanent displacements were lognormally distributed with mean values (6.42)
6.7.3.3 Finite Element Analysis
The nite element analysis can be used to compute the earthquake-induced deformations of retaining walls. A rigorous analysis should be capable of accounting for nonlinear, inelastic behaviour of the soil and of the interfaces between the soil and the elements of the wall. Some considerations have to be included in the analysis with respect to the boundaries and elements size.
6.7.4 Seismic Design Consideration
The design of retaining walls for seismic conditions is similar to the design for static conditions. Seismic design procedures make use of simplifying assumptions to allow the use of available procedures for static conditions.
6.7.4.1 Gravity Walls
Gravity walls are customarily designed using one of two approaches: a seismic pressure-based approach or a permanent displacement-based approach. Design Based on Seismic Pressures: The M-O method is commonly used along with an inertial force with the same pseudo-static acceleration applied to the active wedge as is applied to the wall itself. Pseudo-static accelerations are generally considerably smaller than anticipated peak accelerations (values between 0.05g and 0.15g are used). The wall must be designed to avoid sliding, overturning and bearing capacity failure. The pseudo-static forces along with static analysis procedures are used in this approach. Design Based on Allowable Displacements: This approach allows the designer to consider the consequences of permanent displacement for an individual wall when selecting an allowable displacement for design. Design procedures based on Richard-Elms (1979) and Whitman-Liao (1985) methods for estimation of permanent displacement as discussed in Sections 6.7.3.1 and 6.7.3.2.
34
The Richard-Elms procedure is summarized as follows: 1. Select an allowable permanent displacement, dall. 2. Calculate the yield acceleration required to produce the allowable permanent displacement as (6.43) 3. Calculate PAE using the M-O method with the yield acceleration from step 2 as the pseudostatic acceleration. 4. Calculate the wall weight required to limit the permanent displacement to the allowable permanent displacement as (6.44) 5. Apply a factor of safety to the weight of the wall. A factor of safety, FS = 1.1 to 1.2 is suitable. Gravity walls can be designed using the Whitman-Liao approach on the basis of allowable displacements that have dened probabilities of exceedence. The yield acceleration in this case is calculated as (6.45) where = model error =3.5. Then, the same procedure as Richard-Elms is followed.
6.7.4.2 Reinforced Soil Walls
During an earthquake, a reinforced soil wall is subjected to a dynamic soil thrust at the back of the reinforced zone and to inertial forces within the reinforced zone in addition to static forces. The wall must be designed to avoid external instability (sliding, overturning and bearing capacity failure) and internal instability (pullout failure of the reinforcement). External Stability: A reinforced earth wall can be treated like a gravity wall. The external stability of an earth reinforced wall can be evaluated as follows: 1. Determine the peak horizontal ground surface acceleration, amax. 2. Calculate the peak acceleration at the centroid of the reinforced zone from the equation (6.46) 3. Calculate the dynamic soil thrust from (6.47) where b = unit weight of backll. 4. Calculate the inertial force acting on the reinforced zone (6.48) where r is the unit weight of reinforced zone.
35
5. Add PAE and 50 % of PIR and check the external stability. FS (Seismic) 75 % FS (Static). Internal Stability: Internal stability is evaluated as follows: 1. Determine the pseudo-static inertial force acting on the potential failure zone, (6.49) where WA is the weight of the failure mass (Figure 6.17). 2. Determine the share of each reinforcement layer from PIA, according to its resistance area (this is the earthquake-induced tensile force for each reinforcement layer). 3. Determine the total tensile force for each layer as the sum of the dynamic and static components. 4. Check that the reinforcement allowable tensile strength > 75 % of the total tensile force for each layer. 5. Check the length of the reinforcement so that the FS against pullout failure > 75 % FS (static conditions).
FIGURE 6.17 Critical potential failure surfaces for evaluation of internal seismic stability
of reinforced earth walls: a) inextensible reinforcement; b) extensible reinforcement

6.8 Seismic Stability of Slopes and Dams
Slopes, embankments and dams may be damaged or may even fail due to earthquake induced shaking of the ground. Landslides often occur in earthquakes and dam failures have also been reported. There is no doubt that earthquakes can pose a serious threat to the stability of slopes and can induce signicant damage. The damage manifests itself in the form of slides, slumping, cracks and permanent deformations.
6.8.1 Mechanisms of Seismic Effects
The mechanism leading to slope failures can be attributed to two factors: the earthquake induced forces and stresses; and the radical structural change of the soil that may be brought about by these seismic stresses. The rst effect is present even in soils that do not experience any basic change as a result of the shaking such as stiff clay, gravel or dense, coarse sand. In this case, some movement, could be substantial, of the slope occurs when the total stress exceeds the strength available. On the other hand, ne, loose, saturated sands may undergo a complete change of character when they liquefy. Liquefaction may occur in a sizeable bulk of soil or only in narrow seams and lenses of liqueable material enclosed in relatively impermeable deposits. The liquefaction potential of loose, saturated sands is well recognized but similar abrupt structural changes could also be caused by earthquakes in some
36
highly sensitive clays such as the Canadian Leda clay.

6.8.2 Evaluation of Seismic Slope Stability
The stability of slopes is inuenced by many factors, and a complete slope stability evaluation must consider the effects of each factor. Geological, hydrological, geometrical and material characteristics are needed to reliably perform both static and seismic slope stability analyses. The seismic stability of a slope is strongly inuenced by its static stability because slopes with low factors of safety against failure under static conditions need low additional dynamic stresses to reach yield. Therefore, the factor of safety of any slope under static conditions must be signicantly greater than 1.0 to accommodate seismic demands. The acceptable value of the factor of safety depends on the uncertainty in the model used for the analysis, the soil parameters and the magnitude and duration of seismic excitation, in addition to the potential consequences of slope failure. An analysis of seismic stability of slopes has to consider the effects of dynamic stresses induced by earthquake shaking; and the change in the strength and stress-strain behaviour of the slope materials due to the seismic loading. These effects may lead to yield and plastic deformations due to inertial or weakening effects. The inertial effects occur when the earthquake-induced dynamic stresses reach the shear strength of the soil (that may remain constant), producing slope deformations. The weakening effects occur when the soil is weakened due to the earthquake loading (liquefaction or softening) and cannot remain stable under earthquake-induced stresses. When the available shear strength becomes smaller than the static shear stress required to maintain equilibrium, ow failures occur. Deformation failures occur when the shear strength of a soil is reduced below the earthquake-induced (dynamic) shear stresses. The potential of a ow slide is commonly evaluated by conventional static slope stability analyses using soil strengths based on end-of-earthquake conditions. In a typical analysis, the following procedure is used: 1. the liquefaction potential is calculated at all points on a potential failure surface; 2. Residual strengths are assigned to the failure surface portions with factor of safety against liquefaction < 1; 3. If FS against liquefaction > 1, strength values are based on the effective stresses at the end of the earthquake; and 4. Using these strength values, conventional limit equilibrium slope stability analyses are performed to calculate an overall FS against ow sliding. If the overall FS is less than 1, ow sliding is expected. A number of techniques have been developed for the analysis of seismic inertial effects on slopes. These techniques differ in the way the earthquake motion and the dynamic response of the slope are modelled. The knowledge of seismic forces makes it possible to examine the stability of the embankment approximately using the so-called pseudo-static approach and to establish the deformations that seismic forces produce. However, experience has shown that pseudo-static analyses can be unreliable for soils that build up large pore pressures or show more than 15 % degradation of strength due to earthquake shaking. Pseudo-static analyses produced factors of safety well above 1 for a number of dams that later failed during earthquakes. These cases illustrate the inability of the pseudo-static methods to evaluate the seismic stability of slopes. Because of the difculty in the assignment of appropriate pseudo-static coefcient, the use of this approach has decreased. Methods based on evaluation of permanent slope deformation are being used increasingly for seismic slope stability analysis.
37
6.8.3
Evaluation of Seismic Deformations of Slopes
In practice, the dynamic response of earth dams and embankments is usually computed using equivalent linear analyses. These analyses are conducted in terms of total stresses and thus the effects of the seismic porewater pressures are not accounted for. Also, these analyses fail to predict the permanent deformation as they assume elastic behaviour. Therefore, these analyses can only predict the distribution of accelerations and shear stresses in the embankment and semi-empirical methods are usually used to estimate the permanent deformations and porewater pressures using the acceleration and stress data (Seed et al. 1975). A detailed review of these methods is given in Finn (1993).
6.8.3.1 Newmark Sliding Block Analysis
The serviceability of a slope after an earthquake is controlled by deformations. Therefore, analyses that predict slope displacements provide a more useful indication of seismic slope stability. The Newmark method (Newmark 1965) is the most common approach used to predict seismic slope displacement. In this method, the behaviour of a slope under earthquake-induced accelerations is given by the displacement of a block resting on an inclined plane (Figure 6.18a). At a particular instant of time, the horizontal acceleration of the block will induce a horizontal inertial force, khW (Figure 6.18b). As kh increases, the dynamic factor of safety decreases, and there will be some positive value of kh that will produce a factor of safety of 1.0. This coefcient, termed the yield coefcient, ky, corresponds to the yield acceleration, ay = ky g. The yield coefcient is given by (6.50) where is the angle of friction of the slope material (assuming purely frictional soil) and is the slope angle . When a slope is subjected to a pulse of acceleration that exceeds its yield acceleration, it will undergo some permanent deformations.
Using the Newmark approach, the total relative displacement, drel, of the slope can be given by (6.51) where A is the amplitude of a rectangular pulse acceleration greater than the yield acceleration and t is its duration. Equation 6.51 shows clearly that the total relative displacement depends strongly on both the amount by which and the duration of the acceleration that exceeded the yield acceleration.
Using the rectangular pulse solution, Newmark related single-pulse slope displacement to peak base velocity, vmax, by (6.52) Newmark found that a reasonable upper bound to the permanent displacements produced by several earthquake motion normalized to peak accelerations of 0.5g and peak velocities of 0.76 m/s was given by (6.53)
38
FIGURE 6.18 a) Analogy between potential landslide and a block resting on inclined plane;
b) Forces acting on a block resting on an inclined plane

6.8.3.2 Nonlinear Analysis
Nonlinear methods of analysis were also developed to calculate the seismic response of slopes accounting for the effects of the intrinsic nonlinear behaviour of the soil. Although some of these procedures include elaborate representation of the basic behaviour of the soil, their reliability and suitability are limited due to the complexity and the need for some soil parameters that are not usually measured in eld or laboratory testing. Finn (2000) reviewed the main nonlinear procedures used in current practice and outlined their advantages and limitations.
6.9 Seismic Design of Foundation
The soil-structure interaction effects that take place during the seismic excitation govern the seismic response of foundations. Except for cases where liquefaction occurred, or sensitive clays lost their strength under cyclic loading, foundations failures during earthquakes are rare. The strength and stiffness of the foundation elements in regard to transient dynamic loading are a function of the rate of loading. In general, the stiffness, and for most soils, the strength, increase with the rate of loading.
6.9.1 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations
The effect of the inertia forces within the soil mass is to generate shear stresses that would reduce the capacity. Several studies have shown that the reduction in the bearing capacity due to soil inertia is not more than 15 % to 20 % for kh 0.3 (Shi and Richards, 1995). Therefore, the main seismic consideration in the design of foundations would be the effects of eccentric and/or inclined loading conditions due to the induced horizontal inertial seismic loads from the superstructure.
39
To account for the effects of horizontal seismic forces on the bearing capacity of a footing, the resultant inclined eccentric load is considered in the calculation of the bearing capacity of the footing. In this case, a reduced effective footing width and load inclination factors are used in the analysis as described in Chapter 10 of this manual. Because of the short duration of the seismic loads, a smaller factor of safety can be adopted for the seismic design of foundations.
6.9.2 Seismic Design of Deep Foundations
The response of deep foundation to earthquake loading is quite complex. The main factors that govern the seismic behaviour of deep foundations are the interactive soil-pile forces and the loss of the soil support to the piles. For piles in a group, the pile-soil-pile interaction effects add to the complexity of the problem. The proper evaluation of the seismic response characteristics of pile groups requires dynamic analyses that require the use of computer programs. The main features that should be considered in these analyses are the nonlinear behaviour of the soil adjacent to the piles, the slippage and separation that occur at the soil-pile interface and the energy dissipation through different damping mechanisms. These analyses can be used to calculate the response of the foundation system to the seismic loading, and the capacity of the foundation can be evaluated based on some ultimate displacement considerations.
6.9.3 Foundation Provisions
The National Building Code of Canada, NBCC (2005) includes the following provisions to ensure matching the foundation seismic capacity with the capacity of the seismic force resisting system (SFRS). 1. Foundations shall be designed to resist the lateral load capacity of the SFRS, except that when the foundations are allowed to rock, the design forces need not exceed 0.5 RdRo times those determined in Sentence 4.1.8.7.(1). 2. The design of the foundations shall be such that they are capable of transferring the earthquake loads and effects between the building and the ground without yielding and without exceeding the capacities of the soil and rock. 3. For cases where IEFaSa (0.2) is equal to or greater than 0.2, the following requirements shall be satised: a. Piles or pile caps, drilled piers, and caissons shall be interconnected by continuous ties in not less than two directions. b. Piles, drilled piers, and caissons shall be embedded a minimum of 100 mm into the pile cap or structure. c. Piles, drilled piers, and caissons other than wooden piles shall be connected to the pile cap or structure for a minimum tension force equal to 0.15 times the factored compression capacity of the pile. 4. At sites where IEFaSa (0.2) is equal to or greater than 0.35, basement walls shall be designed to resist earthquake lateral pressures from backll or natural ground. 5. At sites where IEFaSa (0.2) is greater than 0.75, the following requirements shall be satised: 1. A pile, drilled pier, or caisson shall be designed and detailed to accommodate cyclic inelastic behaviour when the design moment in the element due to earthquake effects is greater than 75 % of its moment capacity. 2. Spread footings founded on soil dened as Site Class E or F shall be interconnected by continuous ties in not less than two directions. 6. Each segment of a tie between elements shall be designed to carry by tension or compression a horizontal force at least equal to the greatest factored pile cap or column vertical load in the elements it connects multiplied by a factor of 0.15 IEFaSa(0.2), unless it can be demonstrated that equivalent restraints can be provided by other means. 7. The potential for liquefaction and the consequences, such as signicant ground displacements and loss of soil strength and stiffness, shall be evaluated based on Ground Motion Parameters and shall be taken into account in the design of the structure and its foundations.
Index
498
Index
A
Active Earth Pressure 126, 388, 390, 392, 399, 423, 461 Active zone 244, 245, 396 Adfreezing 15, 209 Allowable anchor load 436, 437 Allowable bearing pressure 15, 170 for soils treated by dynamic Consolidation 261 Anchored walls 413, 418, 445 Anchors 152, 211, 406, 407, 411, 413, 418, 420, 421, 425, 428, 429, 432, 433, 434, 437, 439, 445, 446, 451, 457 Apparent opening size, AOS 363, 364, 365, 386 Atterberg limits 30, 72, 78, 89, 118, 231, 240
C
Caisson 17, 135 Cantilevered Walls 416, 417 Classication of soils 26 Coefcient of active earth pressure 400 of consolidation 59, 147, 189, 190, 191, 251, 254, 256, 271 of friction 23 of lateral earth pressure 179, 276, 387 of passive earth pressure 395 Compacted expanded-base concrete piles 327 Compaction 24, 75, 77, 81, 82, 92, 113, 160, 194, 196, 233, 250, 258, 262, 264, 266, 267, 328, 350, 372, 380, 385, 387, 398, 399, 401, 403, 433, 455 by vibration 92, 263, 290 Compactness condition 27, 262 Compression 22, 31, 79, 80, 82, 108, 135, 152, 157, 162, 172, 177, 188, 189, 250, 273, 275, 289, 293, 308, 317, 320, 321, 322, 331, 335, 443, 446 curve 236 index 22, 177, 189, 251 modulus 21, 22, 23, 40, 41, 49, 51, 59, 65, 66, 68, 69, 77, 85, 86, 141, 142, 143, 162, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 184, 185, 186, 187, 215, 220, 222, 226, 227, 240, 251, 264, 277, 293, 294, 295, 296, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 313, 315, 316, 325, 333, 338, 340, 342, 382, 418, 429, 430, 439, 454, 461 Concrete piles 209, 210, 284, 290, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 327, 328, 340, 346, 347, 349, 350 Cone penetration test 50, 57, 58, 59, 119, 169, 184, 186, 282, 291 Cone point-resistance 59 Consolidation degree of 172, 189, 190, 254 Construction in winter 210 of subsurface drains 196 Creep plastic 21, 78, 104, 121, 232 reduction factor 367 Criteria 15, 141, 146, 153, 160, 171, 192, 195, 201, 214, 263, 267, 304, 317, 338, 364, 365, 366, 380, 405, 425, 461
B
Backll 75, 87, 96, 125, 128, 135, 196, 197, 209, 219, 387, 388, 390, 392, 393, 396, 397, 398, 401, 403, 404, 414, 421, 433, 442, 453, 455 boreholes and test pits 75 construction problems 91 frost susceptibility 201, 202, 203 soil types 404 Bandshaped drains 253 Basal heave 15 Basal instability 355, 424 Bearing capacity 15, 23, 51, 68, 134, 135, 138, 139, 149, 154, 155, 156, 159, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 179, 258, 263, 264, 266, 268, 275, 276, 278, 289, 327, 336, 337, 348, 374, 375, 380, 404, 453, 456, 457, 460 coefcient 279 ultimate limit states design 17 Bearing pressure 15, 46, 153, 157, 158, 160, 162, 169, 170, 185, 186, 261, 309 on rock 156 presumed 93, 160, 261 Bearpaw Formation 93 Bentonite slurry 329, 330, 351 Blast densication 250, 266 Bored piles 17, 273, 276, 277, 278, 283, 284, 285, 291, 329, 330, 344, 428 Boring 17, 50, 53, 69, 70, 84, 86, 93, 351 Boulder 47, 49, 60, 70, 85, 265
499
clogging 365 permeability 364
D
Density Index 21, 31, 59, 72 Diaphragm wall 444 Dilatometer test 51, 68, 86, 169, 184 Downdrag 15, 17, 47, 286, 287 Dragload 15 Drainage, shallow foundations construction of subsurface drains 196 lter design 194, 195, 363 Drilled piers or caissons 308 Driven piles 91, 96, 276, 284, 289, 293, 320, 428, 441 Dynamic consolidation 250, 258 Dynamic methods 285
Flow slides 92, 121 Freezing index 204, 208 Frost susceptible soils 208, 209, 401
G
Geocells 360, 374, 385 Geocomposites 360, 362, 363, 366 Geogrids 359, 360, 366, 380, 384, 385 Geomembranes 359, 360, 369, 371, 372 Geonets 360, 363, 366 Geosynthetics 14, 268, 359, 360, 361, 363, 366, 367, 368, 372, 374, 380, 383, 384, 385, 453, 454, 458 Geotechnical report 87 Geotextiles 359, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 384, 385, 384, 460 transmissivity 362, 363, 366 Glacial outwash 94 Glacial till 64, 67, 93, 451 Gravity drainage 353 Groundwater 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 44, 45, 46, 52, 70, 71, 75, 84, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 96, 137, 143, 160, 164, 168, 185, 198, 203, 209, 250, 257, 264, 265, 267, 304, 319, 329, 330, 351, 353, 354, 355, 358, 367, 396, 407, 408, 411, 414, 423, 433, 441, 442, 450 artesian 17, 86, 354, 355 boreholes 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 69, 75, 83, 84, 86, 88, 265, 266 control 267, 407 important factors 60, 94, 265 investigation 14, 18, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 67, 69, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 96, 137, 138, 140, 151, 184, 232, 251, 254, 256, 257, 271, 288, 334, 344, 409 perched 17, 86 table 17
E
Earth pressures 245, 360, 387, 393, 394, 396, 398, 401, 403, 404, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 418, 420, 422, 423, 453, 454, 461 active 396, 403, 422, 423 passive 395, 401, 414, 417, 418, 420 Earth pressures on walls, supported excavations anchored walls 413, 445 cantilevered walls 416, 417 earth pressures and deformation 412 strutted walls 413 Excavation 15, 16, 47, 69, 71, 75, 85, 92, 94, 142, 170, 209, 211, 228, 239, 241, 245, 248, 265, 308, 312, 330, 351, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 387, 403, 407, 408, 410, 411, 413, 414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 428, 429, 431, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 449, 450, 451, 455 basal instability 355 control and removal of groundwater 353 frost action 14, 208, 209, 210, 211, 401, 409, 410, 455 in clay 354, 408 in granular soil 408, 450 in rock 83 movements associated 228, 445 support for adjacent structures 451 Expanded-base pile 339
H
Heave 15, 16, 91, 146, 154, 198, 200, 201, 204, 209, 210, 230, 231, 233, 235, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 247, 267, 292, 328, 350, 351, 354, 355, 408, 424, 450 basement oors 210, 245 calculation 88, 109, 120, 135, 137, 143, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 187, 208, 213, 219, 243, 304, 366, 377, 396, 398, 403, 414, 420, 428 due to artesian pressure 354 due to pile driving 292, 327 Hydrostatic pore pressure 17
F
Factored load 16 Factored resistance 16, 148 Factor of safety 18, 20, 154, 155, 159 bearing capacity 453, 456, 457, 459, 460 global 137, 139, 147, 153, 154, 170, 179 Field vane test 50, 61 Fill 16, 47, 66, 93, 94, 161, 202, 209, 239, 241, 244, 248, 262, 263, 267, 268, 323, 328, 360, 372, 374, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 383, 390, 395, 409, 433, 434, 441, 455, 456 Filtration opening size 363 Filtration opening size, FOS 363, 364, 365, 384
I
Ice lenses 198, 200, 201, 208 Ice segregation 198, 199, 200 Illite 231, 232, 234 Importance factor I 105 Inclination factor bearing capacity calculations 162, 167 Index compression 22, 177, 189
Index 500
density 31, 59, 72 freezing 204, 208 plasticity 62, 223, 248, 455 point load 22, 35, 179 SPT N-index 27 swelling 22, 69, 84, 89, 92, 93, 161, 229, 231, 232, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 359, 410, 414 In situ tests 21, 50, 60, 62, 86, 89, 138 Inspection, deep foundations bored deep foundations 351 compacted concrete piles 327, 328, 350 documents 136, 137, 344, 345 driving equipment 320, 348 driving procedures 349 pile driving operations 348 International system of Units, SI 19 Ion exchange 264
O
Organic soil 17 Overconsolidation, ratio, OCR 17, 51, 62, 68, 89, 177, 184, 223, 387, 408
P
Passive earth pressure 23, 387, 388, 390, 394, 395, 396, 400, 414, 420, 428 Peat 17, 77, 82, 91, 94, 161, 204, 250, 258, 374, 378, 379, 383 Penetrometer methods 282 Permafrost 84, 95, 198 Permeability 21, 22, 51, 72, 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 171, 190, 194, 195, 197, 200, 239, 247, 248, 252, 264, 265, 270, 271, 353, 357, 358, 363, 364, 366, 369, 372, 386, 408, 424 Piers 135, 222, 245, 273, 283, 284, 308, 312 Piezometers 87, 409 Pile driving 60, 92, 267, 317, 318, 327, 344, 346, 348, 441 equipment 40, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 86, 87, 92, 213, 214, 219, 222, 245, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264, 266, 268, 273, 320, 327, 328, 334, 344, 348, 350, 351, 352, 355, 372, 385, 398, 399, 409, 410, 438, 439, 445, 446, 456 formulae 318 inspection 18, 44, 55, 57, 58, 71, 94, 95, 111, 112, 126, 135, 138, 196, 197, 239, 245, 248, 249, 266, 273, 289, 292, 299, 312, 316, 320, 321, 323, 325, 326, 328, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 351, 352, 364, 367, 384, 387, 408, 456 Pile groups 135, 213, 221, 275, 281, 292, 306 Pile head 17, 220, 319, 322, 324, 336, 337, 338 Pile splices 320, 323 Pile toe 17, 18, 275, 319, 322, 323, 326, 335, 340, 345, 350 Plasticity chart 28, 29 index 62, 161, 223, 232, 248, 383, 455 notation 400 Plastic limit 21, 78, 232 Plate-load test 68 Point load 22, 35, 179, 180 index 35 Pore-pressure 24, 59, 87, 254, 255 Pozzolanic reaction 264 Precast and prestressed concrete piles 319, 320 Preconsolidation pressure 17, 69, 177, 178, 271 Preloading for soil and site improvement 327 Pressuremeter Menard 51, 258, 301 Pull out tests 281, 337 anchors 152, 211, 279, 281, 406, 407, 411, 413, 418, 420, 421, 425, 427, 428, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 445, 446, 451, 457 geosynthetics 14, 268, 359, 360, 361, 363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 374, 380, 383, 384, 385, 453, 454, 458
K
Kettle holes 94
L
Leda clay. See Champlain Sea Clay Limit states design 14, 17, 137, 139, 141, 145, 147, 149, 153, 155, 163, 337 for shallow foundations 163, 184, 192, 431 Line load 397, 398, 401 Liquefaction 54, 60, 77, 92, 97, 102, 112, 113, 114, 124, 125, 131, 132, 134, 135, 258, 266, 267 Liquid limit 21, 78, 202, 240, 264 Load factor 16, 17, 149, 151 Loads dead 147, 151, 170, 380, 457 live 457 temporary surcharge 250 Loess 92
M
Machine foundations 14, 213, 215, 222 Metastable soil 92 Modulus pile material 294 pressuremeter 21, 313 tangent 23 Modulus number 22, 23 Movements associated with supported excavations 445
N
National Building Code of Canada 99, 135, 136, 145, 319, 320, 323, 325, 327, 329, 344, 345, 443 base shear 103, 108, 109, 110 Negative shaft resistance 17, 18 Negative skin friction 15, 17, 18, 286 Notations 14, 25, 217
501
R
Raft design 141 Raker and raker footings 431 Reinforced soil 14, 359, 367, 372, 373, 374, 378, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 461 embankments 377, 378 slopes 367 walls 14, 359, 367, 372, 453, 454, 455, 457, 458, 461 Relative density 21, 77, 113, 305. See Compactness condition; See Density index Relaxation 291, 316, 317 Resistance factor 14, 16, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 162, 170, 275, 317, 318 Rock bearing pressure 156, 158 classication 14, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 45, 50, 52, 58, 59, 85, 89, 104, 124, 147, 201, 273, 310 core drilling 70 discontinuities 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 69, 84, 85, 158, 159, 160, 161, 309, 312, 313, 407 foundation 14, 156, 162, 308, 312 strength 14, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 49, 50, 51, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 85, 88, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 104, 112, 113, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 142, 148, 151, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169, 171, 179, 184, 194, 198, 201, 209, 210, 213, 250, 251, 255, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 271, 275, 278, 279, 280, 282, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 296, 299, 304, 309, 310, 313, 316, 319, 320, 321, 323, 325, 327, 328, 330, 349, 350, 351, 354, 359, 361, 362, 366, 367, 373, 374, 375, 378, 379, 380, 382, 384, 385, 386, 388, 390, 392, 393, 403, 404, 406, 407, 408, 409, 413, 417, 423, 424, 434, 437, 438, 439, 450, 454, 457, 460 Rock mass 68, 84, 85, 158, 308, 312, 313, 407, 433 Rock material 33, 84, 158, 160, 161
S
Sand drains 253, 268 Screw-plate test 69 Seepage and drainage 414 Self-boring pressuremeter 63, 67 Sensitive clays 92, 94, 96, 124, 132, 134, 269, 408 Serviceability limit states, SLS 15, 44, 139, 141, 146, 157, 160, 171, 185, 192, 213, 228, 275 Settlement, deep foundations pile group 297, 299 single pile 292 Settlement, shallow foundations allowable 171, 192, 314 differential 95, 113, 146, 162, 192, 258, 264, 374, 456 in cohesive soil 389, 392 retaining wall design 401 Shaft resistance 15, 17, 18, 47, 60, 273, 275, 286, 289, 292, 308, 311, 329, 421
conventional piers 310 grooved piers 311 piles 15, 135, 152, 219, 220, 222, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 282, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 297, 298, 299, 308, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 331, 347, 349, 350, 441, 442 Shallow spread footings 244 SI-units 19 Slaking 18, 84 Slopes 24, 70, 93, 94, 131, 133, 161, 165, 178, 194, 245, 269, 359, 360, 366, 367, 372, 374, 408, 409 Soldier pile 211, 421, 428, 441 Spread footings 135, 209, 244, 265 Stability anchor systems 425, 427 embankment 378 retaining walls 96, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 141, 245, 257, 387, 397, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 410, 454, 455, 458, 461 Standard penetration test, SPT 21, 28, 31, 50, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 72, 73, 89, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 138, 152, 168, 169, 184, 185, 186, 266, 268 estimating settlement 188 factor of safety 16, 132, 135, 137, 139, 147, 153, 154, 159, 162, 170, 179, 320, 339, 401, 408, 417, 419, 420, 424, 428, 433, 450, 456 index 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 46, 59, 62, 75, 76, 77, 89, 104, 147, 151, 155, 177, 189, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 223, 232, 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 248, 251, 262, 285, 309, 326, 366, 455 Static cone-penetration test 282 Static test loading 290 Steel H-piles 322, 323, 324 steel pipe piles 324, 326, 346 Strutted walls 413 Subsurface Drains 196, 385 Swedish fall-cone test 30, 31 Swelling and shrinking clays 92 Swelling index 22, 240, 242, 243 Swelling pressure 240, 242, 243, 248
T
Tangent modulus 23 Tensile test 370 constant load 367 wide-width strip 361, 366 Terzaghi-Peck settlement calculation for pile groups 275 plate test 51, 69, 313 Test loading piles 331, 463, 464, 466, 467, 468 Toe resistance 273, 292, 308, 317, 334, 337 Torsional Moments 109
U
Ultimate limit states, ULS 17, 141, 146, 149, 156, 159, 162,
Index 502
163, 275, 280, 284, 285, 309, 310, 317, 318, 331, 406 calculation 36, 66, 88, 104, 109, 120, 135, 137, 138, 143, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 187, 208, 213, 219, 243, 251, 257, 264, 282, 288, 297, 298, 304, 366, 377, 396, 398, 403, 414, 420, 425, 428, 437, 460, 461, 487 performance factors 150 Unied Soil Classication System, USCS 32, 404
V
Vane-shear test 61 Vertical drains 250, 252, 254, 257, 264, 268, 271, 359, 366, 378, 482
W
Wall friction 23, 25, 388, 390, 393, 395, 400, 447 Walls anchored 413, 418, 445 basement 135, 245, 403 cantilevered 416, 417 reinforced soil 14, 359, 372, 453, 454, 455, 457, 458, 461 strutted walls 413 Washboring 69 Wave-Equation Analysis 317, 318 Weeping tiles. See Drainage pipe or tile Wood piles 318, 319, 349

CFEMbook

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CFEMbook

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Reference CANADIAN FOUNDATION ENGINEERING MANUAL. 2006. Fourth Edition Canadian Geotechnical Society, 506 p.

First Printing January 2007.

Identication and Classication of Soil and Rock 26

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

Special Site Conditions 91

Sulphate Soils and Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Earthquake - Resistant Design 97

Foundation Design 136

Limit States and Limit States Design 145

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

8.7 8.7.1 8.8

Bearing Pressure on Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

10 Bearing Capacity of Shallow on Foundations on Soil 163

11 Settlement of Shallow Foundations 171

12 Drainage and Filter Design 194

Filter Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Drainage Pipes and Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

13 Frost Action 198

14 Machine Foundations 213

15 Foundations on Expansive Soils 228

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

15.3.3 15.4 15.4.1 15.4.2 15.4.3 15.4.4 15.4.5 15.4.6

243 244 244 244 245 245 246 247

16 Site and Soil Improvement Techniques 250

17 Deep Foundations - Introduction 273

18 Geotechnical Design of Deep Foundations 275

19 Structural Design and Installation of Piles 316

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

20 Load Testing of Piles 331

21 Inspection of Deep Foundations 344

21.5.1 21.5.2 21.5.3 21.6 21.6.1 21.6.2 21.6.3 21.6.4

350 350 350 351 351 351 351 352

22 Control of Groundwater 353

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

24 Lateral Earth Pressures & Rigid Retaining Structures 387

25 Unsupported Excavations 407

26 Supported Excavations & Flexible Retaining Structures 410

27 Reinforced Soil Walls 453

References 463 Index 498

Earthquake - Resistant Design

Earthquake - Resistant Design

Earthquake - Resistant Design

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

Earthquake - Resistant Design

= the average amount of

The total seismic energy released during an earthquake is estimated by where

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

Earthquake - Resistant Design

for Site Class C and a probability of 2 %/50 years)

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

Earthquake - Resistant Design

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

(Table 4.1.8.4.A. in NBCC 2005)

Standard Penetration Resistence

760 < 360 < 180 <

1500 < 760

50 < su 100kPa su < 50kPa

Site Specic Evaluation Required

Earthquake - Resistant Design

TABLE 6.1B Values of Fa as a Function of Site Class and Sa(0.2)

(Table 4.1.8.4.B in NBCC 2005)

Sa(0.2) 0.25 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.1

Sa(0.2) = 0.50 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Sa(0.2) = 0.75 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1

Sa(0.2) =1.00 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9