Liquefaction-Induced Building Movements

Bull Earthquake Eng (2014) 12:1129–1156
DOI 10.1007/s10518-014-9619-8
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER
Liquefaction-induced building movements
Jonathan D. Bray · Shideh Dashti
Received: 19 March 2013 / Accepted: 4 April 2014 / Published online: 26 April 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Liquefaction or cyclic softening from earthquake shaking have caused signifi-
cant damage of buildings with shallow foundations. In recent earthquakes, buildings have
punched into, tilted excessively, and slid laterally on liquefied/softened ground. The state-
of-the-practice still largely involves estimating building settlement using empirical proce-
dures developed to calculate post-liquefaction, one-dimensional, consolidation settlement
in the “free-field” away from buildings. Performance-based earthquake engineering requires
improved procedures, because these free-field analyses cannot possibly capture shear-induced
and localized volumetric-induced deformations in the soil underneath shallow foundations.
Recent physical and numerical modeling has provided useful insights into this problem. Cen-
trifuge tests revealed that much of the building movement occurs during earthquake strong
shaking, and its rate is dependent on the shaking intensity rate. Additionally, shear strains
due to shaking-induced ratcheting of the buildings into the softened soil and volumetric
strains due to localized drainage in response to high transient hydraulic gradients are impor-
tant effects that are not captured in current procedures. Nonlinear effective stress analyses
can capture the soil and building responses reasonably well and provide valuable insights.
Based on these studies, recommendations for estimating liquefaction-induced movements of
buildings with shallow foundations are made.
Keywords Earthquake · Foundations · Liquefaction · Settlement ·

Soil–structure-interaction
J. D. Bray (B)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, USA
e-mail: bray@ce.berkeley.edu
S. Dashti
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
123
1130 Bull Earthquake Eng (2014) 12:1129–1156
1 Introduction
The state-of-the-practice for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement is largely

based on empirical procedures that were developed to estimate post-liquefaction, one-
dimensional (1-D) consolidation settlement in the “free-field,” without the effects of structures
(e.g., Tokimatsu and Seed 1987; Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992). Estimating building settle-
ment based on free-field, post-liquefaction, reconsolidation, 1-D volumetric strains neglects
the importance of other mechanisms that contribute to building settlement that could damage
the structure and its surrounding utilities. Effective evaluation and mitigation of the soil liq-
uefaction hazard require a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanisms involved in
the phenomenon, the potential consequences of liquefaction, and the building performance
objectives. The softening of and response of soil during the liquefaction process and their
consequences on building performance need to be better understood to advance performance-
based earthquake engineering. Hence, rational evaluation procedures are required that sup-
port the analysis of buildings founded on soils that may liquefy or cyclically soften during
earthquake strong shaking.
Soil liquefaction occurs when excess pore water pressure is generated that builds up to an
amount about equal to the initial overburden effective stress (i.e., liquefaction occurs when
ue ∼= σvo , where u is the excess pore water pressure and σ is the initial overburden effective
e vo
stress). There has been much focus on understanding the phenomenon of soil liquefaction over
the past few decades with many advancements (e.g., Seed et al. 2003; Ishihara 1996; Youd TL
et al. 2001; Bray and Sancio 2006; Idriss and Boulanger 2008). There has also been contro-
versy recently regarding the evaluation of liquefaction triggering and soil’s post-liquefaction
undrained residual shear strength (Sur ). Whether termed liquefaction, cyclic mobility with
limited strain potential, cyclic softening, or cyclic failure, focusing on the effects of the phe-
nomenon can avoid much of the controversy. In this paper, the focus is on the impact of the
phenomenon on building movements, which is herein termed liquefaction-induced building
movements.
The authors have recently performed geotechnical centrifuge experiments and numeri-
cal analyses to provide insights into this problem. Additionally, they have documented the
performance of buildings at ground failure sites during recent earthquakes in Chile, New
Zealand, and Japan. These efforts are aimed at improving understanding of the key phe-
nomena involved in the problem and in developing engineering procedures for evaluating
them. This paper is a state-of-the-art presentation of the authors’ current understanding of
liquefaction-induced building movements. Pertinent previous work is reviewed, and the pri-
mary liquefaction-induced building displacement mechanisms are identified. Some recent
key field observations are summarized, which is followed by a summary of a recent series
of geotechnical centrifuge experiments. The paper focuses on insights developed through
nonlinear, effective stress numerical simulations. Finally, some recommendations are made,
which are followed by conclusions.
2 Previous work
Earthquake-induced vertical displacements of shallow foundations on granular soils have

been found to be related to the width and contact pressure of the foundation and the thickness
of the liquefied soil layer, among other factors (e.g., Yoshimi and Tokimatsu 1977; Liu
1995; Liu and Dobry 1997; Shahien 1998). Foundation settlement and foundation width
are often normalized by the thickness of the liquefied soil layer as shown in Fig. 1, which
is based on observations of building settlement after earthquakes (Liu and Dobry 1997).
123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2014) 12:1129–1156 1131
Average Foundation Settlement / Thickness of

1964 Niigata Earthquake
(Yoshimi and Tokimatsu 1977)
1990 Luzon Philippine Earthquake
Dogupan City (Adachi et al. 1992)
Liquefied Soil
Building Width / Thickness of Liquefied Soil

Fig. 1 Normalized foundation settlement versus normalized foundation width based on observations from
case histories (Liu and Dobry 1997)
This normalization indicates that building settlement should be proportional to the thickness
of the liquefied soil layer. Thus, if the thickness of the liquefiable soil layer doubles, the
building settlement should double. Based on this concept, engineers commonly assume that
the volumetric response of liquefied soil governs building settlement. Figure 1 also indicates
that liquefaction-induced foundation settlement is typically greater than the settlement of the
ground surface in the free-field. Foundation settlement is roughly inversely proportional to
foundation width. However, Ishii and Tokimatsu (1988) proposed that if the width of the
foundation is two or three times larger than the thickness of the liquefiable soil layer, the
settlement of the structure is about equal to that of the soil surface in the free-field.
Researchers have also used shaking table and centrifuge tests to investigate the seismic
performance of rigid, shallow model foundations situated atop deep, uniform deposits of
saturated, loose-to-medium dense, clean sand (e.g., Yoshimi and Tokimatsu 1977; Liu and
Dobry 1997; Hausler 2002). A majority of the measured foundation settlement occurred
during strong shaking in these experiments. Foundations settled in an approximately linear
manner with time during strong shaking and commonly settled more than the free-field soil.
As a result, the structure’s inertial forces were identified as an important factor (Liu and
Dobry 1997).
Soil characteristics are also important factors to consider. The rate of excess pore water
pressure generation and the seismically induced building settlements decreased as the soil’s
relative density (Dr ) or its over-consolidation ratio (OCR) increased (e.g., Adalier and Elga-
mal 2005). The amount of excess pore water pressure generation and soil softening depended
significantly on the soil’s initial confining pressure and foundation-induced static and dynamic
shear stresses. Partial drainage of the liquefied soil occurred during excess pore water pres-
sure generation, as pore water pressure redistributed rapidly in response to high transient
hydraulic gradients (e.g., Liu and Dobry 1997). However, the influence of drainage on build-
ing settlements during earthquake strong shaking has not been defined clearly.
123
The mechanism of void redistribution within a submerged layer of liquefied sand beneath
a less pervious layer and the formation of water inter-layers (an extreme case of void redis-
tribution) under level ground conditions have been investigated in several experiments (e.g.,
Elgamal et al. 1989; Dobry and Liu 1992; Kokusho 1999). Under mildly sloping ground
conditions, shear strain localization occurred at the interface between the loose sand layer
and an overlying low-hydraulic conductivity layer in numerous centrifuge models. The inten-
sity of shear strain localization depended on initial soil properties, slope-induced static shear
stresses, and shaking characteristics (e.g., Fiegel and Kutter 1994; Kulasingam et al. 2004).
However, the dynamic response of shallow foundations founded on a layered soil deposit of
varying hydraulic conductivities that includes a liquefiable soil layer has not been studied
adequately.
The development of analytical procedures for estimating the combined effects of shear and
volumetric settlements due to cyclic softening of soil that underlies a building during earth-
quake strong shaking is limited (e.g., Anastasoplous et al. 2011; Andrianopoulos et al. 2010).
The state-of-the-practice for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement relies heav-
ily on empirical procedures developed to estimate post-liquefaction consolidation settlement
in the free-field (i.e., without the influence of structures). Practicing engineers often employ
engineering judgment after calculating building settlement using a combination of the avail-
able empirical 1-D liquefaction reconsolidation methods (e.g., Tokimatsu and Seed 1987;
Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992) and observational building settlement data, such as that shown
in Fig. 1, to evaluate liquefaction-induced building movements. The fundamental mecha-
nisms involved in liquefaction-induced building movements are not well understood. Hence,
there is a lack of reliable analytical procedures for use in engineering practice. The lack
of understanding of the fundamental mechanisms that govern liquefaction-induced building
settlement has often led to erroneous concepts, which will be discussed later in this paper.
3 Liquefaction-induced displacement mechanisms
Seismically induced cyclic pore water pressure generation and liquefaction may produce
several mechanisms of building movement, some of which are illustrated conceptually in
Fig. 2. It is informative to categorize movements as either volumetric-induced or shear-
induced deformations (Dashti et al. 2010a,b; Bray and Dashti 2010). The primary volumetric-
induced displacement mechanisms are:
• Localized volumetric strains during partially drained cyclic loading controlled by 3-D
transient hydraulic gradients (εp-DR ) (Fig. 2a);
• Downward displacement due to sedimentation or solidification after liquefaction or soil
structure break-down (εp-SED ); and
• Consolidation-induced volumetric strains as excess pore water pressures dissipate and
the soil’s effective stress increases (εp-CON );
The primary shear-induced displacement mechanisms are:
• Partial bearing failure under the static load of structures due to strength loss in the
foundation soil resulting in punching settlements or tilting of the structure (εq-BC ) (Fig 2b);
and
• Cumulative ratcheting foundation displacement due to SSI-induced cyclic loading near
the edges of the foundation (εq-SSI ) (Fig. 2c).
123
Fig. 2 Liquefaction-induced displacement mechanisms: a volumetric strains caused by water flow in response
to transient gradients; b partial bearing failure due to soil softening; and c SSI-induced building ratcheting
during earthquake loading (Dashti and Bray 2013)
4 Recent field observations
4.1 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake
Buildings in Adapazari, Turkey were largely stiff structures (until they underwent brittle fail-
ure) founded on very stiff and strong thick mat foundations. Many of these buildings were
damaged by ground failure. Buildings displaced vertically into the surrounding ground, tilted
due to significant differential foundation movements, and slid laterally on liquefied/softened
ground (e.g., Bray and Stewart 2000; Sancio et al. 2002; Bray et al. 2004; Bray and Sancio
2009). Ground failure largely resulted from cyclic softening or liquefaction of shallow, sat-
urated low plasticity silty soils in the upper few meters of the soil profile. Measured vertical
displacements of the buildings relative to the surrounding ground were larger than what could
be explained by post-liquefaction reconsolidation settlement. Moreover, seismically induced
ground settlements in the free-field were significantly less than seismically induced building
settlements even though building widths were significantly greater than the thickness of the
relatively thin shallow liquefiable layer. Shear-induced deformation and localized volumetric
strain under the building foundations must have contributed to the relatively large building
settlements. Building settlements were significantly greater for taller, heavier buildings than
for shorter, lighter buildings. Tall buildings with relatively narrow foundation widths were
prone to tilt excessively or topple.
123
Fig. 3 a Elevation view looking west of the Riesco building depicting the general components of its structural
system; b evidence of large sediment ejecta at its northeast corner, and c entrance to the building in the middle
of its east facing side with 1◦ tilt observed in coupling beam (from Bray et al. 2012)
In contrast to the observations of building performance at sites with thick liquefiable

soil layers that had been made following previous earthquakes, many of the structures in
Adapazari, Turkey that were damaged during the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake were affected by
the liquefaction of relatively thin layers of loose, saturated soils. The significant levels of
building settlement commonly observed in Adapazari cannot be estimated using available
empirical relations, because the thickness of the liquefiable soil layer in Adapazari was
commonly only a few meters thick. Additionally, the inertial loading of structures appeared
to be largely detrimental in Adapazari during the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, because ground
failure was systematically observed near structures and less so away from the buildings
(Sancio et al. 2002). The most common mechanism of building settlement in Adapazari during
this earthquake was believed to be the rapid spreading of the soil directly under the building
outward due to a temporary loss of bearing capacity and soil–structure-interaction (SSI)
ratcheting of buildings into the softened ground. Building’s contact pressure and height/width
(H/B) ratio were found to greatly influence the amount of building settlement and tilt,
respectively (Sancio et al. 2004). Therefore, the width of the foundation and the thickness
of the liquefiable layer were shown to be insufficient for predicting building response on
softened ground.
4.2 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake
Soil liquefaction played a key role in the seismic performance of several modern buildings
and industrial facilities during the February 27, 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile earthquake. Most
buildings within the strongly shaken areas performed well, but several modern buildings were
damaged in part due to liquefaction-induced ground failure (Bray and Frost 2010; Bray et al.
2012). Two cases are discussed in this section.
Three of four 8-story condominium buildings in Concepción were damaged by
liquefaction-induced ground movements and strong shaking. The horizontal peak ground
acceleration (PGA) in Concepción was estimated to be about 0.5 g based on a few record-
ings (Boroschek et al. 2010). The duration of strong shaking was at least a minute. The four
buildings, one of which is shown in Fig. 3a, have identical floor plans and structural details.
Each building is 11.4 m by 25.6 m in plan with a height of 18.7 m. The site consisted of
marshy ground before being developed. Sand fill was placed under the buildings. The build-
ings’ shallow foundations appear to be spread footings with interconnected grade beams.
The exterior wall footings have a design base width of 1.4 m and a stem width of 20 cm. The
slab–on–grade is a floating slab at the first floor living spaces. Groundwater was observed at
a depth of about 0.5 to 2 m.
123
Evidence of liquefaction of the sandy fill could be seen throughout the condominium
property. However, there was no evidence of liquefaction in the street that surrounded the
site, nor at the adjacent properties that contained light 1–2 story homes. The depth to the
liquefiable soil layer was about 1.5 m. It was composed primarily of well–graded silty sand
with approximately 10–15 % nonplastic to low plasticity fines. Dynamic cone-equivalent
SPT blow count penetration resistance ranged from about 5–15 in the upper 1.5 m of this
layer.
Large amounts of sand ejecta were present at the northeast corner of the Riesco Building
as shown in Fig. 3b. The northeast corner of the Riesco Building displaced downward about
40 cm with respect to the ground adjacent to the Bulnes Building, which did not appear
to displace permanently. In contrast, the southern end of the Riesco Building settled only
10 cm, while the ground surrounding the building settled about 20 cm. The northern end of
the Riesco Building tilted approximately 1◦ to the east and 1◦ to the north as a result of
the differential movement across the building. The differential movement produced tilting
and warping of the interior floor slab. In contrast to the Riesco Building performance, the
Errázuriz and Montt buildings settled uniformly about 10 cm while the surrounding ground
settled about 20 cm. The Bulnes building and surrounding ground did not settle significantly.
The Riesco building suffered the most severe structural damage. Damage appeared to
be largely due to the liquefaction-induced differential building movements. The differential
foundation movements and rotation of the northern half of the building about its transverse
axis overloaded the coupling beams. All coupling beams along the building height exhibited
shear failure at their interface with the shear wall at the elevator core (Fig. 3c). Spalled regions
and extensive cracks were observed along the full depth of the coupling beam at its interface
with the pier wall. Shear walls in the transverse direction of the Riesco Building appeared
to be undamaged. In contrast, first floor transverse shear walls in the other three buildings,
which did not significantly rotate due to foundation movement, exhibited a pattern of shear
cracks along the longest transverse end walls of the buildings.
Liquefaction-induced ground deformations affected the seismic performance of the new
regional hospital facility built in Curanilahue, which is about 80 km southwest of Concepción.
The horizontal PGA and significant duration of strong shaking at this site was estimated to
be on the order of 0.3 g and 80 s, respectively. Most structures in Curanilahue are one or two
stories, and liquefaction was not observed at these sites. However, the new hospital facility
has 10 structurally independent wings with heights ranging from one to six stories, with the
taller ones being the tallest buildings in the city (Fig. 4). The lateral load resisting system is
composed predominantly of structural concrete pier shear walls coupled with deep spandrel
Fig. 4 a View looking southeast of Curanilahue Hosptial and b hospital schematic
123
Fig. 5 Sediment ejecta observed at hospital: a ejecta observed along exterior staircase of Wing 1D, b ejecta
observed along exterior of Wing 1C, and c damaged partition wall and attached tiles due to floor distortion in
Wing 1B (from Bray et al. 2012)
Fig. 6 Measurements of relative building movement at Curanilahue Hospital (Bray et al. 2012)
beams. Structural shear walls are used absent of coupling elements along the transverse axis
for the taller structures. Interior concrete columns are used to carry gravity loads with a
slab-girder style diaphragm. The foundations are shallow isolated and wall footings with
interconnecting grade-beams.
An abandoned channel of the adjacent river runs under Wings 1A to 1F. The abandoned
channel is encountered between depths of 4 and 8 m and consists of silty gravel, silty sand,
and sandy silts of low plasticity. Shallower soils consist of fill, nonplastic sandy silt, and
low plasticity clayey silt and silty clay with some gravel. Clayey soils underlie the alluvium.
Dynamic cone penetration tests indicate equivalent SPT blow counts ranging from about
10–20. Groundwater was at an average depth of 0.9 m. Clear evidence of soil liquefaction
was observed throughout the hospital grounds adjacent to the structures as shown in Fig. 5.
Index tests performed on ejecta samples indicate fines contents ranging from 20 to 90 % and
low plasticity (PI ≤ 5).
Measurements of relative building movement are provided in Fig. 6. Wing 1C is the tallest
wing. It displaced downward more than the other wings of the hospital, with about 11 cm of
downward movement relative to Wing 1A, 9.5 cm relative to the southwest corner of Wing
1B, and 1.0 cm relative to Wing 1D. The northeast side of Wing 1D was pulled down locally
123
with respect to Wing 1C and tilted 1.5◦ downward toward Wing 1C. There was evidence of
internal distortion of these wings and their foundations such as the extensive warping of the
slab-on-grade in Wing 1B shown in Fig. 5c.
The northeast corner of the Wing 1B extension displaced 4.5 cm downward and 4 cm
southward relative to Wing 2G, and the southeast corner of the Wing 1B extension moved
downward 14 cm relative to Wing 2G. Wing 1B tilted 1.5◦ with respect to Wing 2G, which
appeared not to tilt. Additionally, the southeast corner of Wing 1B displaced downward 8 cm
relative to Wing 1F, and the northwest corner of Wing 1B displaced downward 4 cm relative
to Wing 1A. Although sediment ejecta were found along its southern sides, Wings 1F and 1D
did not tilt noticeably, except the northeast corner of Wing 1D, and there was no significant
relative downward movement with respect to the surrounding walkway. Wings 2G, 2H, 2I, and
2J, which are adjacent two-story structures, did not appear to undergo significant movement.
Ejecta were found adjacent to these wings, and some hairline fractures were observed in its
brick facing. However, no structural tilt or relative ground movements were observed.
Structural damage in the hospital was mostly concentrated near the isolation gaps provided
between the wings. The most pronounced structural damage was associated with closure of
the seismic gap and resulting contact between wings, particularly between Wing 1C and
its neighboring structures. There was some minor shear wall damage in some locations.
In contrast, nonstructural damage was observed and largely attributed to the foundation
movement. It was largely confined to partition walls and ceiling systems. The hospital was
not available for use for a period of months after the earthquake.
4.3 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake
During 2010–2011, Christchurch was strongly shaken by a series of earthquakes that included
the 4 September 2010 (Mw = 7.1) Darfield and 22 February 2011 (Mw = 6.2) Christchurch
earthquakes. These earthquakes produced strong ground motions within the Central Business
District (CBD) of Christchurch with the 22 February earthquake being the most damaging and
causing 185 fatalities. Soil liquefaction in a substantial part of the CBD adversely affected the
performance of many buildings resulting in total and differential settlements, lateral move-
ment of foundations, tilt of buildings, and bearing failures. There were 4,225 commercial
and residential buildings within the CBD prior to the earthquake. Recent estimates indicate
that 1,046 of these buildings have been or will be demolished or partially demolished due
to earthquake related damage (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, personal com-
munication, October 4, 2013). Cumulative insured losses from the Canterbury earthquake
sequence are estimated to be on the order of 18 billion USD (Wood 2012).
The Christchurch CBD is located on Holocene deposits of the Canterbury Plains. Surface
postglacial sediments have a thickness between 15 and 40 m and overlie 300–400 m thick
inter-layered formations of gravels and fine-grained sediments, representing deposition dur-
ing episodic glacial and interglacial periods, and together comprise a series of groundwater
aquifers (Brown and Weeber 1992). The shallow soil deposits (i.e., depths of up to 15–20 m)
vary significantly within short distances, both horizontally and vertically, but they are largely
nonplastic sands, gravels, and silty sands, with some organic deposits. The Avon River mean-
ders through the CBD, and the water table is generally within 1.5–2.0 m of the ground surface
within the CBD.
The Mw = 7.1 Darfield earthquake fault rupture was about 18–20 km west of the CBD.
A maximum horizontal PGA of 0.24 g was recorded in the CBD. The Mw = 6.2 Christchurch
earthquake was only 3–6 km from the CBD. The close proximity of this reverse-fault event
produced high intensity shaking in the CBD. Several of the recordings exhibited significant
123
Fig. 7 Liquefaction-induced
punching movements of building
(Cubrinovski et al. 2011)
forward-directivity velocity pulses. In the CBD, horizontal PGAs of between 0.37 and 0.52 g
were recorded (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011).
Several buildings with shallow foundations located within the liquefied zone underwent
punching settlements with some undergoing significant differential settlements and bearing
capacity failures (Cubrinovski et al. 2011; Bray et al. 2014). An example of such performance
is shown in Fig. 7 for a two story industrial building. There were continuous sand ejecta
around the perimeter of the footing and signs of punching shear failure mechanism. At the
front entrance of the building large sinkholes were created due to upward flow of water. The
building settled approximately 25 cm relative to a fence at its SE corner and settled 10–20 cm
relative to the ground at its NW corner. Its ground floor was uplifted differentially, which
is consistent with the pronounced settlement beneath the walls along the perimeter of the
building.
Several buildings were affected by severe liquefaction in a shallow silty sand layer that
induced significant differential settlements or lateral movements near the intersection of
Madras and Armagh Streets (Bray et al. 2014). Liquefaction was manifested by a well-
defined, narrow zone of surface cracks, fissures, and depression of the ground surface about
50 m wide, as well as water and sand ejecta. This zone stretches from the Avon River to the
north towards the buildings near this intersection. One of these buildings is the three-story
structure shown in Fig. 8a. Its shallow foundations settled substantially at its front resulting in
large differential settlements that tilted the building about 2◦ . The building was also uniformly
displaced laterally approximately 15 cm towards the area of significant liquefaction near the
front (north side) of the building. There was a large volume of sand ejecta at this area with
ground tension cracks propagating east of the building and in the rear car-park which were
consistent with the lateral movement of the building towards north.
The six-story building shown in Fig. 8b is immediately across the street to the north.
Downward movement relative to the non-displaced building to its north are provided. Its
foundation is 2.4 m by 2.4 m isolated footings that are 0.6 m deep with tie beams and perimeter
grade beam. There was an overall differential settlement across the structure of 25 cm, with
20 cm of it occurring across the two most southern spans. A strong tie beam that was 0.6 m
wide and 1.2 m deep was used between the footings for the first two most northern spans;
whereas the tie beams between the footings for the remaining spans were only 0.3 m wide
and 0.45 m deep. This foundation detail together with the liquefaction being most severe at
the southeast corner of the building led to substantial differential settlements and pronounced
structural distortion and cracking.
Contrary to what was often observed in the CBD, a seven-story building near the Town
Hall did not punch significantly into the liquefied ground nor undergo significant differential
123
(a) (b)
11 8 7 6
15 31 20
Fig. 8 Liquefaction-induced differential settlement and sliding of two buildings in CBD (displacements are
given in cm; from Cubrinovski et al. 2011 and Bray et al. 2014)
Fig. 9 Differing responses of

pile-supported building and
building with shallow foundation
relative to free-field ground; note
person in blue standing in front of
the three-story building is
standing on the top of the
entrance slab that was at same
elevation as entrance to
pile-supported building that is on
the left side of the photograph
(from Ashford et al., GEER 2011)
settlement. Although there were significant amounts of sand ejecta observed in the area,
there was no obvious evidence of significant differential ground or building movement.
The differential settlement measured between adjacent columns was typically negligible,
but differential settlements of up to 3.5 cm were measured at a few locations. It is a case of
liquefaction without significant differential settlement and building damage. The satisfactory
seismic performance of this building was largely due to the installation of 75 reinforced
concrete drilled shafts (nominally 0.6–0.9 m in diameter and 9 m long) that were founded on
a dense gravel layer that underlies the shallow liquefiable soils at the site (Zupan 2014).
Several pile-supported structures were identified in areas of severe liquefaction. Although
significant ground failure occurred and the ground surrounding the structures settled, the
buildings supported on piles typically suffered less damage (Cubrinovski et al. 2011; Bray et
al. 2014). However, there are cases where pile-supported structures were damaged in areas
that underwent lateral spreading near the Avon River.
4.4 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake
The March 11, 2011 (Mw = 9.0) Tohoku, Japan earthquake devastated areas of Japan,
especially as a result of the tsunami. There were also important observations of the effects of
liquefaction on the built environment. Comprehensive studies (e.g., Tokimatsu et al. 2011)
have documented many cases of liquefaction-induced building movements. In this paper,
only one illustrative case is discussed, and the interested reader should refer to the results of
the Japanese research teams.
The differing responses of the side-by-side buildings shown in Fig. 9 are informative.
The building to the left is supported on piles, and it appears to have not displaced vertically
123
in this area of Urayasu which underwent massive liquefaction of its loose sandy fills. The
adjacent ground has settled about 40 cm relative to the pile-supported building. This amount
of ground settlement in the free-field was pervasive in this part of Urayasu. The three-story
building to the right of the pile-supported structure punched into the ground and displaced
30 cm into the surrounding ground, so that it displaced downward 70 cm relative to the pile-
supported structure. Thus, liquefaction produced about 40 cm of settlement of the ground
surface in the free-field condition, but the three-story building that was supported on a shal-
low foundation punched 30 cm further into the ground and the pile-supported structure did
not appear to move downward. These observations clearly show that buildings supported
by shallow foundations displace downward more than the 1-D volumetric reconsolidation
liquefaction-induced settlement for the free-field, level ground case.
5 Geotechnical centrifuge experiments
5.1 Centrifuge experiments
Centrifuge experiments offer a means for better understanding the performance of build-
ings founded on liquefiable soils. Four geotechnical centrifuge experiments were performed
by the authors to investigate the performance of model buildings on liquefied ground. The
soil response in the free-field was compared to that observed in the ground surrounding the
structures, and the dominant mechanisms of settlement at different locations were identified
through these experiments. These experiments were described in detail by Dashti (2009),
Dashti et al. (2010a,b), therefore the reader is referred to these publications for more infor-
mation. In this section, a few critical observations are summarized.
Figure 10 presents the plan view and cross section of the model used in one of the
experiments. The liquefiable layer was composed of uniform, fine Nevada Sand (D50 =
0.14 mm, Cu ≈ 2.0, emin ≈ 0.51, emax ≈ 0.78) that had a thickness ranging from 3 to 6 m
(in the prototype scale) and was dry pluviated to attain Dr ≈ 30 or 50 %. The models were
spun to 55 g of gravitational acceleration. The hydraulic conductivity of water in Nevada
Sand is approximately 5 × 10−2 cm/s (Fiegel and Kutter 1994). A solution of hydroxypropyl
methylcellulose in water was used as the pore fluid in these experiments with a viscosity
of approximately 22(±2) times that of water (Stewart et al. 1998). The models were placed
under vacuum and then flooded with CO2 before saturation with the pore fluid. The phreatic
surface was maintained at approximately 1.1 m below the ground surface. The title of each
Fig. 10 Centrifuge test T3-30; dimensions are in meters in prototype scale (Dashti et al. 2010a)
123
Acceleration (g)
Baseline Structure - Moderate Port Island Event
-50 0.5
Vertical Displacement (mm)

Input Acceleration
0 0
50 T3-50 -0.5
100
T3-50-SILT
150
200 T3-30
250
300
100
Pressure (kPa)
ru = 1.0
Excess Pore
60
T3-30
20
T3-50-SILT
T3-50
-20
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
Fig. 11 Excess pore water pressure recordings at the mid-depth of the liquefiable layer under the baseline and
average building vertical displacement–time histories in experiments T3-30, T3-50-SILT, and T3-50 during
the moderate P.I. event (from Dashti et al. 2010b)
experiment describes the thickness of the liquefiable soil layer in meters and its relative den-
sity (i.e., Experiment T3-30 has 3 m of liquefiable soil with Dr = 30 %). One of the tests had
a silt layer above the liquefiable soil to retard pore water pressure dissipation, so the term
“SILT” is added to its title.
All structural models were single-degree-of-freedom, elastic, flexible structures made of
steel and aluminum placed on a 1 m-thick, rigid mat foundation. Structure A represented
a two-story, stout building with a contact pressure of 80 kPa; Structure B had an increased
footing contact area but the same contact pressure; and Structure C represented a taller four-
story building with increased bearing pressure of 130 kPa. The fixed-base natural period of
the structures ranged from 0.2 to 0.3 s. A series of realistic earthquake motions were applied
to the base of the model consecutively in each experiment. The input motions included a
sequence of scaled versions of the north–south, fault-normal component of the 1995 Kobe
Port Island motion that was recorded at a depth of 80 m and a modified version of the fault-
normal component of the ground motion recorded at the free-field TCU078 station during
the 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan Earthquake with a peak base acceleration of 0.13 g.
5.2 Building movements
Representative excess pore water pressure- and settlement–time histories recorded under
Structure A during the moderate Port Island event in experiments T3-30, T3-50-SILT, and
T3-50 are shown in Fig. 11. The input base acceleration time-history recorded during T3-50
is also shown. Structures began to settle after one significant loading cycle. More significant
excess pore water pressure generation and strength loss under structures within the looser
soil in T3-30 (Dr = 30 %) amplified key liquefaction-induced displacement mechanisms
during and after strong shaking. Building settlement rates reduced dramatically and almost
stopped after the end of strong shaking (t ≈ 10−12 s) in T3-50-SILT and T3-50, while
123
Fig. 12 Settlement–time Large Port Island Event

-50
histories in experiments T6-30,
T3-30, and T3-50-SILT during 0
Free Field; T3-30
the large P.I. event (from Dashti 50
and Bray 2013)

100
Free Field; T3-50-SILT
150
Free Field; T6-30
200
250
300
350 B; T3-50-SILT
A; T3-50-SILT
400
B; T3-30
450
C; T3-30
500 A; T3-30
C; T3-50-SILT
550 B; T6-30
600
A; T6-30
650 C; T6-30
Acceleration
700
0.6 Input Accel.
(g)
0.0
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec)
they continued at a rapidly decreasing rate in T3-30 beyond the end of strong shaking. In
addition to the higher resistance to pore water pressure generation and the smaller void
space available for volumetric densification, the greater stiffness and dilative tendency of
the Dr = 50 % sand likely arrested shear strains under buildings sooner. These observations
may not apply to buildings with larger height/width (H/B) ratios and larger building inertial
loads, because they may respond more vigorously to amplified ground oscillations resulting
from an increase in the soil’s relative density. In fact, Structure C (with the largest H/B ratio
and contact pressure) settled more in T3-50-SILT than in T3-30 during the large Port Island
motion likely due to amplified SSI-induced building ratcheting into the softened ground
(εq-SSI ) (Dashti 2009).
The average building vertical displacement–time histories in T6-30, T3-30, and T3-50-
SILT during the more intense, large Port Island event are shown in Fig. 12. Average free-
field displacement–time histories as well as the input ground motion (during T3-30) are
also provided for comparison. Building settlement rates reduced dramatically after the end
of strong shaking (t ≈ 12s) and became negligible at the end of shaking (t ≈ 25s). The
observed trends during the moderate and large Port Island events suggest that the contribution
of post-shaking reconsolidation settlements to the total building settlement must have been
relatively minor in these experiments. As a result, other volumetric and shear mechanisms of
settlement must have been responsible for the majority of building settlements that occurred
during shaking. The link between the initiation and intensity of shaking and the initiation
and rate of building settlements, respectively, highlights the importance of cyclic inertial
forces acting on the structure. Additionally, the effects of partial drainage during earthquake
shaking on the responses of the soil and structure are important during these experiments.
Large hydraulic gradients formed vertically upward and horizontally away from the build-
ing foundations within the liquefiable layer after a few seconds of strong shaking (Dashti
2009). Representative results from one experiment are shown in Fig. 13. Excess pore water
123
Underneath Structure Adjacent to Structure Free-Field

Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)
60 Bottom Bottom
Location within Middle
Middle
the Liquef. Layer:
Bottom
30
Middle
Acceleration (g)
0
Top 0.5 Top 0.5 0.5
Top
0 0 0
Input Acceleration Input Acceleration Input Acceleration
-30 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Total Head (m) Total Head (m) Total Head (m)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
2
12
Depth (m)
t=4s
t=6s
17
t = 12 s
t = 30 s
22 t = 100 s
ru = 1.0
27
Fig. 13 Representative excess pore water pressure–time histories and total head isochrones measured around
Structure A during the moderate Port Island event in T3-50 (from Dashti et al. 2010b)
pressures maintained their peaks throughout strong shaking while oscillating vigorously.
After the end of strong shaking, excess pore water pressures reduced rapidly underneath the
structures, because no significant excess pore water pressures were being generated during
this time and three-dimensional (3-D) hydraulic gradients were near their peak values. After
both vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients declined, slower upward vertical pore water
pressure dissipation began to control the flow under buildings until pore water pressures
approached the hydrostatic condition.
Previous centrifuge experiments indicated primarily that water flowed laterally away from
the liquefiable soil beneath the foundations (e.g., Liu and Dobry 1997). Full pore water
pressure generation (i.e., u e ∼ = σvo ) was not observed underneath the buildings in most
cases. Smaller excess pore water pressure ratios (ru = u e /σvo ) were created under the
structural models compared to the free-field. However, sand under higher confinement is
capable of sustaining larger net excess pore water pressures if subjected to sufficiently strong
ground motions. Net excess pore water pressures generated under the structure appear to be a
function of the properties of the structure (e.g., weight, contact area, and height of the center
of gravity), liquefiable soil (e.g., thickness and relative density), and the ground motion. The
direction of flow was primarily away from underneath the foundations in the experiments.
This indicates that higher excess pore water pressures were generated within the liquefiable
soil under the buildings during these events. However, there were a few cases in which water
flowed laterally towards the liquefiable soil underneath the foundations (Dashti 2009).
During the large Port Island event, in contrast to the displacement patterns observed in
the free-field, approximately 96 ± 2 % of total building settlements in T6-30 and T3-30
123
Fig. 14 Normalized foundation Upper Bound 1964 Niigata and 1990 Luzon EQ
0.3 Lower Bound 1964 Niigata and 1990 Luzon EQ
settlements obtained from three Yoshimi-Tokimatsu Shaking Table Tests, 1977
Average Foundation Settlement /

Thickness of Liquefiable Layer
Liu and Dobry Centrifuge Tests, 1997 - without compaction
centrifuge experiments during the Hausler Centrifuge Tests, 2002 - without compaction
large Port Island event with the 0.25 T3-30 Results
T3-50-SILT Results
available case histories and T6-30 Results
physical model tests (from Dashti 0.2

et al. 2010a). Note that this
normalization does not work for 0.15
Bldg A
the cases involving relatively thin Bldg C
Bldg C Bldg B
layers of liquefiable soil (i.e., 0.1
HL = 3 m for the T3-30 and Bldg C Bldg A
Bldg A
T3-50-SILT tests). Thus, it 0.05 Bldg B
Bldg B
should not be used
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Building Width / Thickness of Liquefiable Layer
occurred during shaking. Post-shaking structural settlements were completed within 50–
70 s in these experiments, after which buildings essentially stopped moving. In experiment
T3-50-SILT, however, the presence of the low-permeability silt layer on top of liquefiable
Nevada Sand slightly increased the contribution of post-earthquake structural settlements.
The structures achieved approximately 90 ± 5 % of their total permanent settlements during
shaking in T3-50-SILT, and around 5 ± 2 % of their total displacements occurred 170 s after
the end of shaking. In addition to slower volumetric settlements caused by slower flow, void
redistribution within Nevada Sand that was capped by silica flour likely reduced the soil’s
resistance to static building loads for an extended time after shaking stopped. This likely led
to additional post-earthquake building settlements during T3-50-SILT.
The normalized average permanent building settlements measured during the large Port
Island event in the three centrifuge tests are shown in Fig. 14. Results from the available case
histories and experiments are also included in this figure. The building settlements plotted in
Fig. 14 were estimated as the total settlement of structures minus the average settlement of
the lower deposit of dense Nevada Sand during the large Port Island motion. Settlements were
then normalized by the initial thickness of the liquefying layer (HL ). The results of T6-30,
where the liquefiable layer was relatively thick (i.e., HL = 6 m), were consistent with the
results from previous experiments and case histories involving deep deposits of liquefiable
materials. The results of T3-30 and T3-50-SILT, where the liquefiable layer was relatively
thin (i.e., HL = 3 m), were not consistent with other experimental results and case history
observations.
If there is a sufficient thickness of liquefiable soil present under building foundations,
significant liquefaction-induced building settlements can occur that are not proportional to
the thickness of the liquefying layer. Liquefaction-induced building settlements in these cases
are governed by shear strains. Structural settlement is not governed by volumetric strains.
Therefore, building settlement is not proportional to the thickness of the liquefiable layer
as would be suggested if it were governed by volumetric strains. These results indicate
that normalizing building settlement by the thickness of the liquefiable layer is misleading in
understanding the response of different structures founded on relatively thin, shallow deposits
of saturated granular soils. Therefore, this type of plot should not be used in engineering
practice. The results also highlight the need for a better understanding of the primary factors
influencing liquefaction-induced building settlements.
The settlement–time histories of Structure A and soil surface in the free-field in experiment
T3-50 during different earthquake scenarios are depicted in Fig. 15. Arias Intensity–time
123
Fig. 15 Vertical displacement of the base-line structure (BL or A) and soil surface in the free-field in experi-
ment T3-50 during different shaking events and the corresponding Arias Intensity time histories of the input
motions (Bray and Dashti 2010)
histories of the input motions are also shown. Arias Intensity (Ia ) is an index representing
the energy of the ground motion in units of L/T (Arias 1970) and defined as
T
π
Ia (T ) = a 2 (t) · dt (1)
2·g
0
over the time period from 0 to T, where a = the measured acceleration value. The settlement–
time history of the baseline building during each earthquake follows the shape of the Arias
Intensity–time histories of each motion (see Fig. 15). The Arias Intensity of an earthquake
motion depends on the amplitude, frequency content, and duration of the ground motion. Its
rate represents roughly the rate of earthquake energy build-up. This rate may be quantified
by the Shaking Intensity Rate (SIR; Dashti et al. 2010b) as
S I R = Ia5-75 /D5-75 (2)
where Ia5-75 is the change in Arias Intensity from 5 to 75 % of its total value during which it is
approximately linear in these tests, and D5-75 is its corresponding time duration. The SIR of a
ground motion represents the rate of soil particle disturbance, excess pore pressure generation,
seismic demand on structures, and the resulting SSI effects in the foundation soil. As a result,
the initiation, rate, and amount of liquefaction-induced building settlement are expected to
correlate to SIR. By combining the effects of ground motion intensity, frequency content,
and duration, the parameter SIR better defines the seismic demand in terms of liquefaction-
induced building settlement than the more conventionally used cyclic stress ratio (CSR). As
shown in Fig. 16, the rate of settlement increases as a motion’s SIR increases and as the soil
Dr decreases (Dashti et al. 2010b). The apparent dependency of building settlement on SIR
may allow it to be used in combination with other parameters in procedures that evaluate the
consequences of liquefaction.
5.3 Mitigation techniques
Three identical structures were used in the last experiment (T3-50) with different lique-
faction remediation techniques (Fig. 17). Structure BL (similar to Structure A in previous
experiments) represented the baseline case with no soil remediation (Dashti et al. 2010b).
123
Dr=30% Dr=40% Dr=50% Dr=60% Dr=70% Dr=80%
Rate of Total Structural Settlement During

25
Strong Shaking (mm/s)

20
Dr Increase
15
10
0
0.01 0.10 1.00
Shaking Intensity Rate (m/s/s)
Fig. 16 Trends in the settlement rate of Structure A in experiments with 3-m thick liquefiable soil layer (Dr =
pre-event relative density of the liquefiable layer; Shaking Intensity Rate = SIR = I a5-75 /D5-75 ) (from Dashti
et al. 2010b)
Fig. 17 Centrifuge test T3-50; dimensions are in meters in prototype scale (Dashti et al. 2010b)
Structure SW was placed within an independent aluminum box that represented relatively
stiff, in-ground structural walls around the foundation, which minimized both water flow
and shear deformations in the liquefiable soil under the building. Structure WB was placed
over an in-ground latex water barrier to study the influence of restricted lateral drainage. The
structural wall and latex water barrier were not connected to the shallow foundations of the
model buildings.
The relative importance of each mechanism of settlement was shown to depend on the
characteristics of the earthquake motion, liquefiable soil, and building. For the soil and struc-
tural conditions in the last experiment, the addition of an in-ground latex water barrier around
the perimeter of the footing reduced net building settlements by up to 25 % through restrict-
ing horizontal flow in the foundation soil (reducing εp-DR ) (Dashti et al. 2010b). Minimizing
shear-induced displacements (i.e., εq-BC and εq-SSI ) in the liquefiable soil under the building
as well as localized volumetric strains due to partial drainage during shaking (εp-DR ) with
the installation of stiff, in-ground, structural walls reduced net building settlements by up
to 55 % (Dashti et al. 2010b). Additionally, both remediation techniques reduced foundation
spectral accelerations in the period range of interest for the structure and the site, reducing
the role of SSI-induced building ratcheting (εq-SSI ) in its total movements.
123
6 Numerical simulations
6.1 UBCSAND model and FLAC simulations
The authors performed numerical simulations using the UBCSAND effective stress model
(Puebla et al. 1997), which has been implemented in the computer code FLAC-2D (Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua). UBCSAND is a fully nonlinear, effective stress soil con-
stitutive model that is commonly used in practice. FLAC (Itasca 2008) solves the coupled
stress-flow problem using a finite difference approach and an explicit time stepping proce-
dure. Darcy’s law is assumed to be valid. The numerical simulations are described in detail
in Dashti and Bray (2012), Dashti and Bray (2013). In this section, important findings are
summarized.
6.2 Numerical model parameter development
The UBCSAND model can capture the liquefaction triggering response observed in field case
histories. After calibrating the UBCSAND model parameters to capture field observations of
liquefaction in general, the response of Nevada Sand with relative densities (Dr ) of approx-
imately 30–40, 50–60, and 90 % was replicated based on the results of cyclic simple shear
tests performed by Arulmoli et al. (1992) and Kammerer et al. (2000). UBCSAND model
parameters for Monterey Sand (No. 30) with Dr ≈ 85 % were developed based on the cyclic
simple shear tests performed by Kammerer et al. (2004). The UBCSAND model parameters
for the thin silt layer used in T3-50-SILT were calibrated to capture the liquefaction trig-
gering response of Fraser River Silt (ML, PI ≈ 4 %, wc ≈ 35 %, e ≈ 0.94, Gs = 2.69) as
characterized by Wijewickreme (2010). Table 1 provides a summary of the calibrated model
parameters.
The initial estimate of hydraulic conductivity (k) for each soil layer was adjusted to account
for centrifuge scaling laws. The value of k was then adjusted slightly to achieve a good match
with the excess pore water pressure measurements in the free-field during and after shaking for
each experiment. The UBCSAND model tends to slightly underestimate material damping
for small strain values (≤ 0.01 %) and overestimate it for large strains (Beaty and Byrne
2011). Rayleigh damping of 2 % was applied at the predominant frequency of the input
motion to increase small strain damping in the simulations.
6.3 Simulation of building response on liquefiable sand
The structural models in the Dashti et al. (2010a,b) centrifuge experiments were assumed
to act as independent systems due to the large distance separating them (i.e., their center-
to-center distance was approximately four times their widths). A representative mesh for
the FLAC-2D simulations of Structure A (or BL) is shown in Fig. 18. The structures were
modeled with beam elements that were connected to the underlying soil elements to simulate
a rough foundation-soil interface.
The calculated settlement- and excess pore water pressure–time histories under and adja-
cent to the baseline structure (BL), Structure SW, and Structure WB are compared to those
measured in Experiment T3-50 during the moderate P.I. event in Fig. 19. Generally, settle-
ments were estimated reasonably well under and near the buildings. The performance of
mitigation techniques (e.g., a structural wall or a water barrier in Structures SW and WB,
respectively) were also captured successfully. The calculated excess pore water pressures
123
1148
123
Table 1 Calibrated UBCSAND model parameters (Dashti and Bray 2013)
Parameter Function Loose to medium dense Nevada sand Dense Nevada sand Monterey sand Silica silt
Dr (%) Relative density 30–35 40–45 50–55 60–65 85–90 85 –

N1,60 Normalized, corrected 2.9–3.9 5.1–6.5 8.0–9.7 11.5–13.5 25 35 6–8
SPT blow count
K GE Elastic shear modulus 21.7 × 15 × (N1,60 )0.333
multiplier
me Elastic shear 0.5
exponent
n e and n p Elastic and plastic 0.5
bulk exponents
K GP Plastic bulk modulus K GE × (N1,60 )2 × 0.003 + 100.0
multiplier
φcs (◦ ) Critical state 33 33 33 33 33 33 20
friction angle
φ peak (◦ ) Peak friction angle φcs + N1,60 /5
Rf Failure ratio 1 − N1,60 /100
m_hfac1 Model parameter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
m_hfac4 Model parameter 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 3 3 1
Bull Earthquake Eng (2014) 12:1129–1156
Fig. 18 FLAC-2D mesh for simulating the response of Structure A
Centrifuge FLAC Simulation
Acceleration (g)
0.2 0.2
Base Acceleration 0.1 Base Acceleration
0 0
-0.1
-0.2 -0.2
0 0
Displacement:
Structure SW
Displacement:
40 Structure SW 40
Adjacent to Struc. BL
Structure WB
80 80 Structure WB
Adjacent to Struc. BL Structure BL
Structure BL
120 120
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a)
Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)
Under Structure BL Adjacent to Structure BL Free-Field

Middle of Liquefiable Layer
100 100 100 Centrifuge Measurement

UBCSAND
ru = 1.0
50 50 50
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)
(b)
Fig. 19 Comparison of simulated and measured response in T3-50, moderate P.I. motion: a displacement
near Structures BL, SW, and WB; b excess pore pressure (Dashti and Bray 2013)
were slightly larger than those measured under the structures, and the comparisons improved
away from the buildings.
The computed and measured spectral accelerations are compared at key locations with
respect to the structures in Fig. 20. The amplification of the spectral accelerations at the
123
Centrifuge Experiment FLAC Simulation

2 2
T3-50, Moderate P.I. T3-50, Moderate P.I.
Spectral Acceleration (g)
1.5 Mass Struc. BL 1.5

Mass Struc. BL
Free-Field Soil Surface

1 1
Foundation Struc. BL Foundation Struc. BL
Free-Field Soil Surface
0.5 0.5
Base Base
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Fig. 20 Comparison of FLAC-computed 5 %-damped acceleration response spectra to those measured in

centrifuge experiment T3-50 during the moderate P.I. event (Dashti and Bray 2013)
Fig. 21 FLAC-2D simulation of Structure BL in experiment T3-50 during the large P.I. event: a contours of
maximum shear strain, and b contours of accumulated volumetric strain
foundation and mass of the structure at periods ≤ 1 s was captured reasonably well by the
numerical model. However, the amplification at higher periods, which is a characteristic of
soil liquefaction, was not estimated well for these experiments. This is likely due to the
excessive material damping inherent in the UBCSAND model at large strains (e.g., Beaty
and Byrne 2011). The structural response in these experiments (i.e., Tst ≈ 0.3 s) was more
sensitive to the amplification of accelerations at lower periods, which was better captured.
Representative shear strain and volumetric strain contours from the numerical simulations
of Structure BL in Experiment T3-50 during the large P.I. event are shown in Fig. 21. The
concentration of large shear strains within the looser layer of Nevada Sand near and outside of
the edges of the structure was captured well in the numerical analyses (Fig. 21a). Additionally,
the simulations captured the localized volumetric strain that occurred under the edges of the
structure (Fig. 21b). The UBCSAND model was able to capture the seismic response and
movement of the structures, because it captured the shear-induced mechanisms as well as
building-induced volumetric mechanisms. The UBCSAND model did not capture the ground
settlement in the free-field well, because it was developed to primarily capture shear-induced
deformation mechanisms.
The accuracy of the numerical simulations improved for stronger ground motions and
looser sand deposits, when faster rates of soil softening and larger displacements occurred.
The UBCSAND model overestimated the rate of excess pore water pressure generation
123
Fig. 22 Comparison of numerically predicted liquefaction-induced structural settlements with those measured
during the centrifuge experiments (Dashti and Bray 2013)
and soil softening during the TCU078 motion, which had a slow rate of energy buildup
(i.e., PGA = 0.13 g and D5-95 = 28 s). The numerical simulations indicated that liquefaction
occurred under the building, when it was not observed in the centrifuge experiment for this
low SIR motion. Consequently, the calculated building displacements were three to four times
larger than those measured in T3-50 during the TCU078 event.
Although these fully coupled, nonlinear, effective stress, dynamic analyses did not capture
every individual settlement mechanism accurately, the estimated total building settlements
compared well with those measured in the centrifuge experiments in most cases. As sum-
marized in Fig. 22, the structural settlements were estimated reasonably well, mostly within
a factor of 0.7 and 1.8 of the measured values. Building displacements were mostly domi-
nated by shear-type mechanisms and partial drainage (i.e., εq-BC + εq-SSI + εp-DR ), and the
UBCSAND model captured their overall contribution relatively accurately. Nevertheless,
the poorer comparison of the soil response during the TCU078 motion indicate the need
for an improved understanding of the dynamic response of granular materials under input
motions with varying frequency content, duration, and energy rate (i.e., as quantified by the
SIR parameter).
7 Recommendations
Field observations of building performance, results of centrifuge experiments, and the insights
gained from the nonlinear effective stress analyses provide guidance regarding how to eval-
uate liquefaction-induced building movements. Volumetric-induced and shear-induced dis-
placement mechanisms contribute to liquefaction-induced building movements during and
after strong shaking. Building displacement largely occurs during earthquake strong shak-
ing, and the governing mechanisms are largely shear-induced when the liquefiable soil layer
is close to the building foundation. Methods that estimate free-field settlement (e.g., Toki-
matsu and Seed 1987; Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992) cannot be used to estimate liquefaction-
induced building settlements for this case (i.e., shallow foundation atop a shallow layer of
123
liquefiable soil). These procedures were developed to estimate post-liquefaction reconsoli-

dation ground settlements in the absence of buildings. They only capture 1-D volumetric-
induced reconsolidation strains. Thus, they cannot be used alone when shear-induced
displacement mechanisms are important, as is the case with liquefaction-induced building
displacements.
It is misleading to normalize building settlement by the thickness of the liquefied soil
layer, because it implies that volumetric-induced displacement mechanisms govern building
settlement. They do not when the liquefiable soil layer is shallow. Instead, shear-induced
displacement mechanisms govern the response of the building as the rocking heavy building
repeatedly pushes itself into the liquefied soil that is sheared under this loading. SSI-induced
foundation ratcheting deformations (εq-SSI ) and partial bearing failure due to soil strength
loss deformations (εq-BC ) govern primarily building movements. Localized volumetric strains
resulting from partial drainage in response to intense transient hydraulic gradients (εp-DR )
are also important.
Travasarou et al. (2006) found that the factor of safety for liquefaction triggering along
the edges of a shallow mat foundation was significantly underestimated using the free-field
condition, because the shallow soils adjacent to the building are subjected to higher cyclic
shear stresses due to the rocking and horizontal shaking of the building and higher cyclic
stress ratios because of the absence of the building’s static pressure. The combined effect
is a reduced factor of safety against liquefaction, which can be as much as 50 % of the
corresponding free-field value. Thus, it is appropriate to increase the seismic demand around
the perimeter of structures when performing liquefaction triggering evaluation for buildings
where potentially liquefiable layers are located at shallow depths or immediately underneath
the foundation.
If significant pore water pressures are generated in shallow soil deposits that are underneath
and adjacent to the edges of a shallow building foundation, the engineer should evaluate
liquefaction-induced building movements. At this time, no reliable simplified procedure is
available to assist in this evaluation. A well-calibrated, nonlinear, effective stress, dynamic
analysis can be performed to provide insight, and this should be done for projects when it is
important to develop reliable estimates of building movement.
Ground improvement or seismic retrofitting should be considered as they can be used
to eliminate or minimize the problems associated with liquefaction-induced building move-
ments. In developing the mitigation measures, the primary governing mechanisms should be
considered. A mitigation measure that does not arrest the primary displacement mechanisms,
which will likely be shear-induced displacement mechanisms (εq-SSI and εq-BC ) and localized
volumetric strains resulting from partial drainage (εp-DR ), will not achieve the desired seismic
performance.
The seismic bearing capacity of a building founded on shallow liquefiable soils should be
evaluated first with a procedure that considers the dynamic inertial loading of the building.
Most importantly, the analysis should be performed using the post-liquefaction residual shear
strength of the liquefied soil. If the dynamic factor of safety using post-liquefaction residual
strength approaches one, then a global instability and toppling are possible. For cases in
which the factor of safety approaches 1.5, large differential building settlements are still
possible.
In cases that pass this “instability” screening analysis, volumetric-induced strains can
be estimated in an approximate manner using conventional approaches (e.g., Ishihara and
Yoshimine 1992 or Zhang et al. 2002). The volumetric-induced settlement estimated with this
type of approach must be combined with that resulting from shear-induced movements. Shear-
induced movements can be estimated roughly using the concept of liquefaction-induced shear
123
strain potential (e.g., Shamoto et al. 1998; Zhang et al. 2004; Idriss and Boulanger 2008; Cetin
et al. 2009).
Considerable judgment is required, because intense, localized shear strains and volumet-
ric strains can accumulate to produce large building displacements. Moreover, the removal
of soils from underneath foundations due to the formation of sand ejecta features can be
especially damaging to buildings. Tall buildings with high aspect ratios (i.e., H/B > 1.5),
which are more prone to tilting, warrant scrutiny. SSI-ratcheting induces significant vertical
displacement of taller/heavier structures. The amount of vertical displacement of the building
relative to the surrounding ground is roughly proportional to the aspect ratio of the building
(i.e., H/B), which is indicative of its applied contact pressure. All else being equal, buildings
of higher aspect ratio (and higher contact pressure) experience more vertical displacement.
Regardless of the width of the foundation, taller/heavier buildings tend to undergo more
vertical displacement than smaller/lighter buildings.
8 Conclusions
Liquefaction-induced building movements have caused much damage in recent earthquakes.

Buildings have punched into, tilted excessively, and slid laterally on softened ground in
Turkey, Taiwan, Chile, New Zealand, and Japan, among other locations. Much of the build-
ing movement occurs during earthquake strong shaking. Shear-induced movements result-
ing from shaking-induced ratcheting of the buildings into the softened soil and volumetric-
induced movements due to localized drainage in response to high transient hydraulic gradients
during shaking are important effects that are not captured in most design procedures. Addi-
tionally, the removal of soils from underneath foundations due to the formation of sand ejecta
features can be especially damaging. The relative importance of each mechanism depends
on the characteristics of the earthquake motion, liquefiable soil, and building. The initiation,
rate, and amount of liquefaction-induced building settlement depend greatly on the shaking
intensity rate (SIR) of the ground motion.
The dominant liquefaction-induced building displacement mechanisms for many cases
involving shallow foundations on shallow and relatively thin deposits of liquefied soil were
found to be loss of support due to sediment ejecta, SSI-induced foundation ratcheting defor-
mations (εq-SSI ), partial bearing failure due to soil strength loss deformations (εq-BC ), and
localized volumetric strains resulting from partial drainage in response to intense transient
hydraulic gradients (εp-DR ). If excess pore pressures reached the initial effective vertical
stress during earthquake shaking (i.e., ru = u e /σvo ∼ 1), then sedimentation after liquefac-
=
tion (εp-SED ) also contributed significantly to the observed building settlement. In the cases
studied, the contribution of consolidation-induced volumetric strains (εp-CON ) to the total
building settlement was relatively minor.
The state-of-the-practice still largely involves estimating building settlement using empir-
ical procedures developed to calculate post-liquefaction consolidation settlement in the free-
field. This approach cannot possibly capture shear-induced and localized volumetric-induced
deformations in the soil underneath shallow foundations, which primarily occur during earth-
quake loading. Currently, simplified procedures that directly address this problem are not
available. Recommendations are provided in this paper to help guide the engineer in a
performance-based earthquake engineering assessment that involves this phenomenon. The
use of well-calibrated, nonlinear, effective stress analyses combined with sound engineering
judgment appears to be the most reliable path forward at this time other than eliminating the
problem through ground improvement or foundation retrofitting. Numerical simulations with
123
the UBCSAND model implemented in FLAC-2D were shown to capture building settlements
measured in centrifuge experiments reasonably well. The soil model captured the overall con-
tribution of shear displacement mechanisms and localized volumetric strains during partially
drained cyclic loading. However, in practical applications, the numerical simulations will
need to be calibrated through the use of conventional field tests and laboratory data, so the
estimation of liquefaction-induced building movements in the field will be more challenging
than the back-analyses of experimental results shown in this study. Additionally, it is difficult
to estimate the loss of ground due to sediment ejecta. Therefore, significant additional work
is still required to advance the profession’s understanding of this problem and to develop
reliable analytical procedures that can be used in engineering practice with confidence.
Acknowledgments This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Founda-
tion (NSF) under Grant No. CMMI-0530714. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. Profs.
Juan Pestana and Michael Riemer of UC Berkeley and Dr. Daniel Wilson of UC Davis participated in the
NSF-funded centrifuge testing program. Prof. Bruce Kutter of UC Davis shared insights. Centrifuge tests were
performed at the large geotechnical centrifuge at UC Davis, which is supported by the NSF George E. Brown,
Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) program under Award No. CMMI-0402490. The
staff at UC Davis was of great help in performing these tests. NSF also provided support through the Geotech-
nical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association for much of the field studies through Award No.
CMMI-0825734 and other CMMI RAPID grants. Prof. Misko Cubrinovski of the Univ. of Canterbury, Prof.
Kohji Tokimatsu of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Prof. Tara Hutchinson of UC San Diego, Prof. Pedro
Arduino of Univ. of Washington, Prof. David Frost of Georgia Tech., Prof. Christian Ledezma of Pontificia
Univ. Católica de Chile, Dr. Rodolfo Sancio of Geosyntec Consultants, Prof. Les Youd of BYU, Prof. Tom
O’Rourke of Cornell Univ., Prof. Russell Green of Virginia Tech, Prof. Liam Wotherspoon of Auckland Univ.,
Prof. Brendon Bradley of Univ. of Canterbury, Josh Zupan of UC Berkeley, Merrick Taylor of Univ. of Can-
terbury, and others participated in the field studies. Professor Peter Bryne of the Univ. of British Columbia
shared his UBCSAND model with us and provided guidance on its use.
References
Adalier K, Elgamal A (2005) Liquefaction of over-consolidated sand: a centrifuge investigation. J Earthq Eng
9(1):127–150
Anastasoplous I, Gelagoti F, Kourkoulis R, Gazetas G (2011) Simplified constitutive model for simulation
of cyclic response of shallow foundations: validation against laboratory tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 137(12):1154–1168
Andrianopoulos KI, Papadimitriou AG, Bouckovalas GD (2010) Bounding surface plasticity model for the
seismic liquefaction analysis of geostructures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(10):895-911
Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants.
MIT Press, Cambridge
Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan KK, Hossain MM, Fruth LS (1992) VELACS: verification of liquefaction analy-
ses by centrifuge studies, Laboratory Testing Program. Soil data report. Project No. 90-0562. The Earth
Technology Corporation, Irvine
Ashford S, Boulanger R, Donahue J, Stewart J (2011) Geotechnical quick report on the Kanto Plain region
during the March 11, 2011, Off Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake, Japan. GEER quick report, April 5
Beaty MH, Byrne PM (2011) UBCSAND constitutive model version 904aR. Documentation report:
UBCSAND constitutive model on Itasca UDM Website
Boroschek R et al (2010) Maule region earthquake February 27, 2010 Mw=8.8. National Strong Motion
Network, Universidad de Chile
Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M (2011) Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011
Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):853–865
Bray JD, Stewart JP (2000) Damage patterns and foundation performance in Adapazari. Chapter 8 of the
Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999 reconnaissance report. Earthq Spectra J EERI 16(A):
163–189
123
Bray JD, Sancio RB, Travasarou HT, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A, Youd TL, Stewart JP, Seed RB, Cetin OK, Bol
E, Baturay MB, Christensen C, Karadayilar T (2004) Subsurface characterization at ground failure sites in
Adapazari, Turkey. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(7):673–685
Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(9):1165–1177
Bray JD, Sancio RB (2009) Performance of buildings in Adapazari during the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earth-
quake. In: Kokusho T (ed) Earthquake geotechnical case histories for performance based design. TC4
Committee, ISSMFE, CRC Press, Balkema, pp 325–340
Bray JD, Dashti S (2010) Liquefaction-induced movements of buildings with shallow foundations. In: Fifth
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics,
May 24–29, San Diego, CA, Paper No. OSP-2
Bray JD, Frost JD (Eds) (2010) Geo-engineering reconnaissance of the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake. A
report of the NSF- Sponsored GEER Association Team, primary authors: Arduino et al. http://www.
geerassociation.org/
Bray JD, Rollins K, Hutchinson T, Verdugo R, Ledezma C, Mylonakis G, Assimaki A, Montalva G, Arduino
P, Olson SM, Kayen R, Hashash YMA, Candia G (2012) Effects of ground failure on buildings, ports, and
industrial facilities. Earthq Spectra J 28(S1):S97–S118
Bray JD, Cubrinovski M, Zupan J, Taylor M (2014) Liquefaction effects on buildings in the central business
district of Christchurch. Earthq Spectra J 30(S1) doi:10.1193/022113EQS043M
Brown LJ, Weeber JH (1992) Geology of the Christchurch urban area. Institute of Geological and Nuclear
Sciences, Lower Hutt
Cetin KO, Bilge HT, Wu J, Kammerer AM, Seed RB (2009) Probabilistic models for cyclic straining of
saturated sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 135(3):371–386
Cubrinovski M, Bray JD, Taylor M, Giorgini S, Bradley B, Wotherspoon L, Zupan J (2011) Soil liquefaction
effects in the central business district during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett
82(6):893–904
Dashti S (2009) Toward evaluating building performance on softened ground. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley
Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer MR, Wilson D (2010a) Mechanisms of seismically-induced settlement
of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(1):151–164
Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer MR, Wilson D (2010b) Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate
liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(7):918–929
Dashti S, Bray JD (2012) Numerical insights into liquefaction-induced building settlement. In: Proceeding of
the 2012 Geo-Congress, Geo-Institute, ASCE, Oakland, CA
Dashti S, Bray JD (2013) Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 139(8):1235–1249
Dobry R, Liu L (1992) Centrifuge modeling of soil liquefaction. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference
on earthquake engineering, International Association for Earthquake Engineering. (IAEE), Madrid, Spain,
pp 7801–6809
Elgamal AW, Dobry R, Adalier K (1989) Small scale shaking table tests of saturated layered sand-silt deposits.
2nd U.S.-Japan workshop on soil liquefaction, Buffalo, NY. NCEER Report No. 89-0032, pp 233–245
Fiegel GL, Kutter BL (1994) Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading of mildly sloping ground. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 120(12):2236–2243
Hausler EA (2002) Influence of ground improvement on settlement and liquefaction: a study based on field
case history evidence and dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests. Ph.D, UCB, Berkeley
Idriss IM, Boulanger RS (2008) Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. EERI MNO-12, Oakland
Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford University Press Inc, New York, NY
Ishihara K, Yoshimine M (1992) Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during
earthquakes. J Soils Found 32(1):173–188
Ishii Y, Tokimatsu K (1988) Simplified procedures for the evaluation of settlements of structures during
earthquakes. In: Proceedings from the ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto,
Japan, vol 3, pp 95–100
Itasca (2008) FLAC, version 6.0, Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis
Kammerer A, Wu J, Pestana J, Riemer M, Seed R (2000) Cyclic simple shear testing of Nevada sand for
PEER Center. Project 2051999. Geotechnical engineering research report, UCB/GT/00-01, University of
California, Berkeley
Kammerer A, Wu J, Riemer M, Pestana J, Seed R (2004) A new multi-directional simple shear testing database.
In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, No. 2083
Kokusho T (1999) Water film in liquefied sand and its effect on lateral spread. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 125(10):817–826
123
Kulasingam R, Malvick EJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL (2004) Strength loss and localization at silt interlayers
in slopes of liquefied sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(11):1192–1202
Liu H (1995) An empirical formula for evaluation of buildings settlements due to earthquake liquefaction. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering
and soil dynamics, vol 1, pp 289–293
Liu L, Dobry R (1997) Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 123(6):557–567
Puebla H, Byrne PM, Philips R (1997) Analysis of CANLEX liquefaction embankments: prototype and
centrifuge models. Can Geotech J 34(5):641–657
Sancio RB, Bray JD, Stewart JP, Youd TL, Durgunoglu HT, Onalp A, Seed RB, Christensen C, Baturay MB,
Karadayilar T (2002) Correlation between ground failure and soil conditions in Adapazari, Turkey. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng J 22(9–12):1093–1102
Sancio R, Bray JD, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A (2004) Performance of buildings over liquefiable ground in
Adapazari, Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver,
No. 935
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer A, Wu J, Pestana J, Riemer M, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE,
Faris A (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and consistent framework.
Keynote presentation, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Long Beach, CA,
April 30
Shahien MM (1998) Settlement of structures on granular soils subjected to static and earthquake loads. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
Shamoto Y, Zhang J-M, Tokimatsu K (1998) Methods for evaluating residual post-liquefaction ground settle-
ment and horizontal displacement. Soils Found, Special issue on geotechnical aspects of January 17, 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu EQ, No. 2, September, pp 69–83
Stewart DP, Chen YR, Kutter BL (1998) Experience with the use of methylcellulose as a viscous pore fluid in
centrifuge models. Geotech Test J ASTM 21(4):365–369
Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 113(8):861–878
Tokimatsu K et al (2011) Quick report on geotechnical problems in the 2011 Tohoku Pacific Ocean earth-
quake. Research reports on earthquake engineering, CUEE, Tokyo Institute of Technology, #118, pp 21–47
(in Japanese)
Travasarou T, Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Soil–structure interaction analyses of building responses during the
1999 Kocaeli earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 8th US national conference on earthquake engineering,
100th anniversary earthquake conference commemorating the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. EERI, April,
Paper 1877
Wijewickreme D (2010) Cyclic shear response of low plastic Fraser River silt. In: Proceedings of the 9th U.S.
national and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, No. 1431
Wood A (2012) February quake ’third most expensive’. Stuff.co.nz. Fairfax New Zealand Ltd., 30 March.
Web Accessed 1 Sept 2012
Yoshimi Y, Tokimatsu K (1977) Settlement of buildings on saturated sand during earthquakes. Soils Found
17(1):23–38
Youd TL et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
127(10):817–833
Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman RWI (2002) Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from
CPT for level ground. Can Geotech J 39:1168–1180
Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman R (2004) Estimating liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the
standard penetration test or cone penetration test. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(8):861–871
Zupan JD (2014) Seismic performance of buildings subjected to soil liquefaction, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley
123

Liquefaction-Induced Building Movements

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Liquefaction-Induced Building Movements

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bull Earthquake Eng (2014) 12:1129–1156

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Liquefaction-induced building movements

Jonathan D. Bray · Shideh Dashti

Keywords Earthquake · Foundations · Liquefaction · Settlement ·

The state-of-the-practice for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement is largely

Earthquake-induced vertical displacements of shallow foundations on granular soils have

Average Foundation Settlement / Thickness of

Building Width / Thickness of Liquefied Soil

3 Liquefaction-induced displacement mechanisms

The primary shear-induced displacement mechanisms are:

4 Recent field observations

4.1 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake

In contrast to the observations of building performance at sites with thick liquefiable

4.2 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake

Fig. 4 a View looking southeast of Curanilahue Hosptial and b hospital schematic

4.3 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake

Fig. 9 Differing responses of

4.4 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake

5 Geotechnical centrifuge experiments

5.1 Centrifuge experiments

Vertical Displacement (mm)

5.2 Building movements

Fig. 12 Settlement–time Large Port Island Event

Vertical Displacement (mm)

Underneath Structure Adjacent to Structure Free-Field

Total Head (m) Total Head (m) Total Head (m)

Average Foundation Settlement /

physical model tests (from Dashti 0.2

5.3 Mitigation techniques

Dr=30% Dr=40% Dr=50% Dr=60% Dr=70% Dr=80%

Rate of Total Structural Settlement During

Strong Shaking (mm/s)

6.1 UBCSAND model and FLAC simulations

6.2 Numerical model parameter development

6.3 Simulation of building response on liquefiable sand

Dr (%) Relative density 30–35 40–45 50–55 60–65 85–90 85 –

Fig. 18 FLAC-2D mesh for simulating the response of Structure A

Centrifuge FLAC Simulation

Adjacent to Struc. BL Structure BL

Under Structure BL Adjacent to Structure BL Free-Field

100 100 100 Centrifuge Measurement

Centrifuge Experiment FLAC Simulation

1.5 Mass Struc. BL 1.5

Free-Field Soil Surface

Fig. 20 Comparison of FLAC-computed 5 %-damped acceleration response spectra to those measured in

liquefiable soil). These procedures were developed to estimate post-liquefaction reconsoli-

Liquefaction-induced building movements have caused much damage in recent earthquakes.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen