Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

# Pipeline Design Training

Assessment Of Earthquake
14 August 2006 Liquefaction
induced

NRG ENGINEERING

training@nrgengineering.com

General

## Liquefaction assessment due to seismic forces is a

very complex phenomenon.

## Simplified methodology using empirical procedures

to evaluate earthquake-induced liquefaction has
been proposed by Seed (Ref. [1], [2], [3]).

## This procedure has been widely used in the

industry and has been verified by field data base.

## The procedure compares the cyclic stress ratio

(CSR) caused by seismic acceleration to the cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR) of the soil.

at that area.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

The cyclic stress ratio (CSR), which reflects the stresses
exerted on the soil element by seismic actions is the
average cyclic shear stress (tav) developed on the
horizontal surfaces of sand to the effective overburden
pressure (o).
The CSR ratio can be determined conveniently from the
following relationship (Ref. [4]):

av
amax o
CSR ' 0.65
rd
'
g o
o
NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

Where
tav

## Average cyclic shear stress (kPa)

o
=
Effective overburden pressure at depth under
consideration (kPa)
o

amax
=
rd
=
value of

## Total overburden pressure at depth under consideration (kP

Peak Ground seismic acceleration (m/s2)
Stress reduction factor, which decreases from a
1 at ground surface to a value of about 0.9 at a

depth of
g

NRG ENGINEERING

10.7m ( - )
Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

27 May 2015

## Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)

Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) is the ratio of normalized soil
shear resistance (tav) to the effective overburden pressure
(o) at a given depth.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Determine the qc / N60 ratio

for a given mean grain size
D50 from Figure 1, where qc
is the tip resistance (in bars)
at a given depth from CPT,
and N60 is the penetration
resistance in blows per foot
and corresponds to a transfer
of approximately 60% of the
theoretical free-fall hammer
energy to the stem.

## Figure 1 shows the correlation

between the SPT test data
and CPT test data proposed
by Robertson (Ref. [5]).

NRG ENGINEERING

## FIGURE 1 RATIO OF TIP RESISTANCE TIP

STANDARD BLOW (qc / N60) VS MEAN GRAIN
SIZE, D50

27 May 2015

## 2. Determine the N60 for a given qc

Substitute the qc value obtained from the CPT results to the
qc / N60 ratio to determine the N60 value.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## 3. Determine the penetration

resistance of soil (N1)60
The blow counts N60 is then corrected to the normalized
SPT blow count, (N1)60 where (N1)60 is the penetration
resistance the soil would have under an effective
overburden pressure of 1 ton per sq ft.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## 3. Determine the penetration

resistance of soil (N1)60

## The value of (N1)60 can be

determined by multiplying
N60 by the effective stress
correction factor, CN
(obtained from Figure 2, (Ref.
[4])) as follows:

(N1 ) 60 C N N 60

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## FIGURE 2 EFFECTIVE STRESS

CORRECTION COEFFICIENT CN VS
Power to Deliver #9
EFFECTIVE OVERBURDENThe
PRESSURE

Ratio (CRR)

## The cyclic resistance ratio

(CRR) at a given depth for a
7.5 earthquake magnitude on
Richter scale for silty sands
can be predicted by using the
correlation between the field
liquefaction behaviour of
sands and the normalized SPT
blow count for three contents
of fines (Figure 3, (Ref. [4])).
FIGURE 3 CYCLIC RESISTANCE
RATIO (CRR) VS CORRECTED SPT
(N1)60 FOR A EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE OF 7.5 ON RITCHER
SCALE FOR SILTY SAND

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## The Power to Deliver #10

Assessment Methodology

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## The Power to Deliver #11

General
The CPT results show a wide range of various soil
parameters within the layer of soil concern. These variables
include the percentage of fines, mean grain size, relative
density and depth of soil.
As such, limiting tip resistance for liquefaction to occur for
various soil parameters due to seismic acceleration of
0.23g, for example, is determined.
These limiting tip resistances are compared with the
average tip resistances from the CPT results and
conclusions are drawn for the liquefaction potential of the
soil layer being studied.
NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Determination of Cyclic Stress Ratio

Assume that the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) for seismic
acceleration equates to 0.23g.
This CSR ratio corresponds to the CRR ratio and are plotted
on Figure 3 to determine the limiting (N1)60 values at the
respective peak ground acceleration. This is illustrated in
Figure 4.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## FIGURE 4 (CRR = CSR) VS CORRECTED SPT (N1)60 FOR A EARTHQUAKE

MAGNITUDE OF 7.5 ON RITCHER SCALE FOR SILTY SAND FOR SEISMIC
ACCELERATION OF 0.23g

## Determination of Cyclic Stress Ratio

(contd)
Table 1 presents the corresponding limiting (N1)60 values
determined for seismic acceleration of 0.23g.

## TABLE 1 LIMITING PENETRATION RESISTANCE (N1)60 VALUES AT

LIQUEFACTION
Seismic Acceleration

0.23g

26

21

17.5

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Determination of qc / N60 ratio

The qc / N60 ratio for a given mean grain size D50 of the
soil layer of interest can be obtained from Figure 1.
Table 2 presents the mean grain size (D50) and their
corresponding qc / N60 ratio for a range of D50 from
0.001mm to 1.0mm.
TABLE 2 QC / N60 RATIO

qc / N60

0.001

0.01

2.2

0.1

3.8

1.0

8.0

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## The Power to Deliver #16

Determination of CN Value
The effective overburden pressure (o) for soil depth of
interest or a range, for example, from 1m to 5m, is
determined and the corresponding effective stress
correction factor, CN are obtained from Figure 2.
TABLE 5.3 CN VALUES FOR SOIL DEPTH 1M TO 5M
Soil Depth
(m)

Effective Overburden
Pressure (kips/sq
ft)

CN for Dr = 40 to
60%

CN for Dr = 60 to
80%

0.2

1.6

1.6

0.4

1.6

1.6

0.6

1.6

1.6

0.8

1.55

1.53

1.0

1.35

1.36

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Determination of N60 Value and qc

Value
With the given CN and (N1)60, the N60 term can be
determine from the penetration resistance of soil
relationship.
The N60 term is then used to determine the various limiting
tip resistance value, qc, for liquefaction to occur for various
depth (1m to 5m), mean grain size (0.001 to 1mm),
percentage fines (< 5% to 35%) and relative density (40 to
60% and 60% to 80%) and are illustrated in Figures 5 to 10.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## FIGURE 5 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (q c) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS FOR 0.23g

SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 40 TO 60% AND PERCENTAGE FINES < 5%

## FIGURE 6 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (q c) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS FOR

0.23g SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 40 TO 60% AND PERCENTAGE FINES = 15%

## FIGURE 7 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (q c) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS FOR

0.23g SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 40 TO 60% AND PERCENTAGE FINES = 35%

## FIGURE 8 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (qc) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS FOR

0.23g SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 60 TO 80% AND PERCENTAGE FINES < 5%

## FIGURE 9 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (q c) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS FOR

0.23g SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 60 TO 80% AND PERCENTAGE FINES = 15%

## FIGURE 10 LIMITING TIP RESISTANCE (q c) FOR LIQUEFACTION TO OCCURS

FOR 0.23g SEISMIC ACCELERATION, DR = 60 TO 80% AND PERCENTAGE

## Determination of Soil Liquefaction

Regions
With the soil relative density, Dr, and percentage of fines of
the soil in the region of interest, the appropriate graph in
Figure 5 to 10 is selected.
A comparison of the soil tip resistance can then be made
against the limiting soil tip resistance value, qc, for
liquefaction to occur in the appropriate graph, based on the
mean grain size of the soil, to determine the propensity of
the soil region of interest to liquefy during earthquake.
Soil liquefaction would most likely occur if the soil tip
resistance is lower than the limiting value.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

REFERENCES

## Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M (1971), Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil

Liquefaction Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, September, 1971.

Seed, H. B. (1979), Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level
Ground during earthquakes, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Vol. 5 No. GT2

## Seed, H. B, Idriss, I.M. and Arango, I. (1983), Evaluation of Liquefaction

Potential using Field Performance Data, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering , Vol. 109, No. 3, March, 1983.

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Riley M. Chung (1985), Influence
of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 12, December, 1985.

## Robertson, P.K. And Campanella, R. G. (1985), Liquefaction Potential of

Sands using CPT, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 3, 1985.

NRG ENGINEERING

27 May 2015

## Pipeline Design Training

Any questions?

NRG ENGINEERING

training@nrgengineering.com