You are on page 1of 10

GOVT.

COLLEGE OF
ENGG.AMRAVATI.

FAILURE OF FOUNDATION DUE TO


EARTHQUAKE
SWAPNIL V. THAKARE
Final year civil Engg.
Email- swap_126@rediffmail.com.
Phone-9923433522

ABSTRACT

Soil liquefaction is a common phenomenon during earthquakes. Its effects on


structures are devastating and it occurs in many forms. The mechanism of soil
liquefaction is very complicated due to the nature of soil, which renders it difficult to
fully understand. Because of the consequences it can bring to structures, soil liquefaction
should be an important factor considered in earthquake design, especially for important
structures.
The present state of liquefaction research indicates that

fortunately the above foundation failure can be reduces by adopting some precautions in

construction, which should be within the economic means of people in most countries.

Liquefaction is major part earthquake which causes foundation failure and lost of life. It

is fairly well accepted that earthquakes will continue to occur and cause disasters if we

are not prepared. Assessing earthquake risk and improving engineering strategies to

mitigate damages are the only options before us. Geologists, seismologists and engineers

are continuing their efforts to meet the requirements of improved zoning map., reliable
databases of earthquake processes and their effects; better understanding of liquefaction

characteristics and construction of foundation.

EARTHQUAKE

“An earthquake is the vibration, sometimes violent, of the Earth's surface


that follows a release of energy in the Earth's crust”, this energy can be generated by a
sudden dislocation of segments of the crust, by a volcanic eruption, or even by manmade
explosions.

Earthquakes are caused by active faults, which are, faults along which
the two sides of the fracture move with respect to each other. A fault is a fracture within
some particular rocky mass within the earth's crust. Fault sizes can vary greatly, as some
faults can be miles long. In short, an earthquake is caused by the sudden movement of
the two sides of a fault with respect to another.

There are three different groups of faults, depending on the way they move.

NORMAL FAULTS:-These occur in response to pulling or tension: the overlying block


moves down the dip of the fault plane.

THRUST (REVERSE) FAULTS :-These occur in response to squeezing or


compression: the overlying block moves up the dip of the fault plane.

STRIKE-SLIP (LATERAL) FAULTS :-These occur in response to either type of


stress: the blocks move horizontally past one another.

The slow and continuous movement of two sides of an active


fault relative to one another can noticed over time; this movement is called fault slip. The
rate of this movement may be as little as a few inches or so per year. The movement of
these two sides of the fault cannot be an entirely smooth, easy type of movement. We can
infer the existence of conditions or forces deep with the fault which resist this relative
motion of the two sides of the fault. This is because the motion along the fault is
accompanied by the gradual buildup of elastic strain energy within the rock along the
fault.as follows Damage Caused by Earthquakes can be classified as f

DAMAGES DURING EARTHQUAKE ON GROUND

GROUND SHAKING

Most earthquake damage is caused by ground shaking. The magnitude of an


earthquake, distance to the earthquake focus, type of faulting, depth, and type of material
are important factors in determining the amount of ground shaking that might be
produced at a particular site. Large earthquakes usually produce ground motions with
large amplitudes and long durations. In addition, large earthquakes produce strong
shaking over much larger areas than do smaller earthquakes. The 1949 magnitude 7.1
Olympia earthquake produced ground shaking lasting 30 seconds and was felt over an
area of 550,000 square kilometers. In contrast, the 1964 magnitude 8.3 Alaska earthquake
produced ground shaking for about 300 seconds and was felt over an area more than five
times larger.

SURFACE FAULTING

The consequences of major fault rupture at the surface can be extreme. Buildings
may be torn apart, gas lines severed, and roads made impassible. Damage by faults is
more localized than the widespread damage caused by ground shaking. Nevertheless, the
identification of active surface faults is an important part of estimating future earthquake
losses.

Most of the faults on these maps are presently inactive. Geologic evidence
indicating active fault movement within the last 10,000 years has been reported for only a
few small faults in Washington. The best documented active surface faults in the state are
located near Lake Cushman in westem Washington he most recent time of movement of
many faults is unknown because, in many places, the faults are not covered by young
geologic materials. Such material, if found to be disturbed, would provide geologic
evidence of the time of movement.

SUBSIDENCE AND UPLIFT

Sudden elevation changes during earthquakes can have severe long-term


economic impact on coastal development. Some parts of Prince William Sound were
uplifted by several meters during the 1964 Alaska earthquake; the amount of rise was as
much as two meters on Montague Island. Conversely, parts of the Kenai Peninsula and
Kodiak Island subsided as much as 2 meters during that earthquake (Plafker, 1969). Some
raised harbors on Prince William Sound could no longer be used by boats.

BUILDING COLLAPSE

People can be trapped in collapsed buildings or under rubble that collapses into
the street. This is the type of damage that leads to the worst casulaties. The worst thing to
do in a quake is to rush out into the street during the quake. The danger from being hit by
falling glass and debris is many times greater in front of the building than inside. In the
1989 Loma Prieta quake the streets of San Francisco's financial district were covered by
broken glass and people were buried under the facade of a brick building that fell forward
into the street. Likewise in the 1964 Alaska quake, a huge concrete facade fell off of a
department store onto pedestrians passing by.

BUILDINGS KNOCKED OFF THEIR FOUNDATION

Buildings that can otherwise withstand the quake can be knocked off their
foundations and severly damaged. This type of damage can be largely prevented by
bolting the frame securely to the foundation, so it will remain in place.

LANDSIDES
Buildings can be damaged when the ground gives way beneath them. This can be
in the form of a landslide down a hill, or liquifaction of soils that can cause severe
settling of the ground. Ground movement can change the whole landscape, as in the New
Madrid Quake that changed the course of the Mississppi River. A landslide into a lake or
resevoir can cause flooding downstream. This kind of damage is not unique to
earthquakes, but can be triggered by a quake.
LIQUEFACTION
Soil liquefaction and related ground failures are commonly associated with large
earthquakes. In common usage, liquefaction refers to the loss of strength in saturated,
cohesion fewer soils due to the build-up of pore water pressures during dynamic loading.
A more precise definition of soil liquefaction is given by Sladen
"Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein a mass of soil loses a large percentage of
its shear resistance, when subjected to monotonic, cyclic, or shock loading, and
flows in a manner resembling a liquid until the shear stresses acting on the mass
are as low as the reduced shear resistance."
In a more general manner, soil liquefaction has been defined as the transformation
"from a solid state to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore pressure and
reduced effective stress" ("Definition of terms..." 1978). Some ground failures attributed
to soil liquefaction are more correctly described to “cyclic mobility” which results in
limited soil deformations without liquid-like flow. The proper, concise definition for soil
liquefaction has been the subject of a continuing debate within the geotechnical
profession. While investigators have argued that liquefaction and cyclic mobility should
be carefully distinguished (Castro and Poulos 1977), “liquefaction” is commonly used to
describe all failure mechanisms resulting from the build-up of pore pressures during
undrained cyclic shear of saturated soils.
When dense sands are monotonically sheared, the soil skeleton may first
compress and then dilate as the sand particles move up and over one another. For dense,
saturated sands sheared without pore water drainage, the tendency for dilation or volume
increase results in a decrease in pore water pressure and an increase in the effective stress
and shear strength. When a dense sand sample is subjected to cycles of small shear strains
under undrained conditions, excess pore pressure may be generated in each load cycle
leading to softening and the accumulation of deformations. However, at larger shear
strains, dilation relieves the excess pore pressure resulting in an increased shear
resistance. The behavior of loose and dense sands in undrained shear is discussed further.

(1) Flow liquefaction, used for the undrained flow of a saturated, contractive soil
when the static shear stress exceeds the residual strength of the soil. Failure may
be triggered by cyclic or monotonic shear loading.
(2) Cyclic liquefaction, which occurs when cyclic shear stresses exceed the initial,
static shear stress to produce a stress reversal. A condition of zero effective stress
may be achieved during which large deformations may occur.
• Cyclic mobility, in which cyclic loads do not yield a shear stress reversal and a
condition of zero effective stress does not develop. Deformations accumulate in
each cycle of shear stress.

This classification system for liquefaction recognizes that various mechanisms


may be involved in a given ground failure. Yet, this definition preserves the contemporary
usage of the term “liquefaction” to broadly describe the failure of saturated, cohesion less
soils during earthquakes.

GROUND FAILURE RESULTING FROM SOIL LIQUEFACTION.


Once the likelihood of soil liquefaction has been identified, an engineering
evaluation must focus on the mode and magnitude of ground failures that might result.
The National Research Council (Liquefaction… 1985) lists eight types of failure
commonly associated with soil liquefaction in earthquakes:
 Sand boils, which usually result in subsidence and relatively minor damage.
 Flow failures of slopes involving very large down-slope movements of a soil
mass.
 Lateral spreads resulting from the lateral displacements of gently sloping ground.
 Ground oscillation where liquefaction of a soil deposit beneath a level site leads
to back and forth movements of intact blocks of surface soil.
 Loss of bearing capacity causing foundation failures.
 Buoyant rise of buried structures such as tanks.
 Ground settlement, often associated with some other failure mechanism.
 Failure of retaining walls due to increased lateral loads from liquefied backfill
soil or loss of support from liquefied foundation soils.

MECHANISM OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION


Liquefaction of soil is a process by which sediments below the water table
temporarily lose strength and behave more as a viscous liquid than as a solid liquefaction
occurs in saturated soils, especially clay-free sand and silts.
The water in the soil exerts pressure upon the soil particles. If this pressure is
low enough, the soil stays stable. But once the water pressure exceeds a certain level, it
forces the soil particles to move relative to each other, thus causing the strength of the
soil to decrease and failure of the soil follows. During earthquakes, when the shear wave
passes through saturated soil layers, it causes the granular soil structure to deform and the
weak part of the soil begins to collapse. The collapsed soil fills the lower layer and forces
the pore water pressure in this layer to increase. If the water pressure cannot be ready
released, it will continue to build up until it can sustain the total weight of the soil layer
above, thus the upper layer soil are ready to move and behave as a viscous liquid. It then
is said that soil liquefaction has occurred. The shear deformation of soil caused by
dynamic earthquake load. Although soil liquefaction is usually followed by significant
structural failures, it does not happen everywhere. There are some places that are more
susceptible to soil liquefaction. Generally, the more loose the soil and the higher the
underground water level, the more likely liquefaction is to occur at this site during
earthquakes. The degree of ground deformation caused by soil liquefaction is always
depended on the age, density, and depth of the soil.

SOIL LIQUEFACTION IN SOME MAJOR EARTHQUAKES


All strong earthquakes are accompanied by the phenomena of soil liquefaction
of some kind. Liquefaction can cause the failure of structures of any form in many
modes. Some typical cases of structure failure caused by soil liquefaction in some major
earthquakes are summarized below.

1. The Niigata Earthquake


2. The Alaska Earthquake
3. The Loma Prieta Earthquake
4. The Kobe Earthquake
5. The Izmit Earthquake
6. The Taiwan Earthquake

CASE STUDY PILE INSTABILITY DURING EARTHQUAKE LIQUEFACTION

Pile failure during earthquake liquefaction


Structural failure of piles passing through liquefiable layers has been
observed in many recent strong earthquakes, for example Figures 1(a), (b), (c) and (d).
This implies that the bending moments or shear forces that are experienced by the piles
exceed that predicted by those design method (or code of practice). All current design
codes apparently provide a high margin of safety (partial safety factors on load,
material stress), which would mean that the actual moment or shear force experienced by
the pile is many times the predicted moment or shear. It may be concluded that design
methods are not consistent with the physical mechanism that governs the failure The
study of the case histories seems to show a dependence of pile performance on buckling
parameters. As short columns fail in crushing and long columns in buckling ,the analysis
suggests that pile failure in liquefied soils is similar in some ways to the failure of long
columns in air. The lateral support offered to the pile by the soil prior to the earthquake is
removed during liquefaction.
Figure : Observed failure

of a piled foundation in

2001 Bhuj earthquake,

(2001).

CASE STUDY 2
Inconsistency in Observations of Pile Failure with the Current Understanding

This section of the paper highlights some of the inconsistencies of observations of

pile failure with respect to the current understanding. They are summarized below.

After the detailed investigation of the failure of piles during 1995 Kobe

earthquake, Tokimatsu and Asaka (1998) reports that: “In the liquefied level ground, most

PC piles (Prestressed Concrete pile used before 1980’s) and PHC piles (Prestressed High

Strength Concrete piles used after 1980’s) bearing on firm strata below liquefied layers

suffered severe damage accompanied by settlement and/or tilting of their superstructure,

…..”. If lateral spreading is the main cause of failure, why would most of high strength

PHC piles collapse in level grounds i.e. in the absence of lateral spreading.

It is a common observation in seismic bridge failure that piers collapse while

abutments remain stable, for example Figures 1 (a&b). Figure 1 (a) shows the collapse of

one the piers of the Million Dollar Bridge leading to bridge failure. Similar failures were

also observed of the Showa Bridge during the 1964 Niigata earthquake; see Figure 1(b).
Figure 1: Failure of bridges in earthquakes; (a): Million Dollar Bridge after the

1964 Alaska earthquake; (b): Showa Bridge after the 1964 Niigata earthquake.

CONCLUSION

 Soil liquefaction should be an important factor considered in earthquake design,


especially for important structures.
 Foundation failure can be reduces by adopting some precautions in construction.
 Earthquake liquefaction zone the Bearing capacity can be improve by using
Reinforces soil.
REFERENCES
1. Bhattacharya, S., Madabhushi, S.P.G and Bolton, M.D (2002): An

alternativemechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes,

Technical reportof University of Cambridge, CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (Oct

2002).http://wwwciv.eng.cam.ac.uk/geotech_new/publications/TR/TR324.pdf

2. Soil Liquefaction Web site, University of Washington,

3. Madabhushi, S.P.G., Patel, D. and Haigh, S.K. (2001). Draft version of .EEFIT

reporton the 26th.Jan 2001 Bhuj earthquake in India. Institution of Structural

Engineers, UK. erthquake Report, Oct 1999.

You might also like