24.12.2014 Views

Earthquake Engineering Research - HKU Libraries - The University ...

Earthquake Engineering Research - HKU Libraries - The University ...

Earthquake Engineering Research - HKU Libraries - The University ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Proceedings of the International Conference on<br />

Advances and New Challenges in <strong>Earthquake</strong><br />

<strong>Engineering</strong> <strong>Research</strong>, Hong Kong Volume<br />

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD TO EVALUATE LIQUEFACTION<br />

OF SUBSOIL OF BUILDING<br />

Jing Liping and Wu Zhaoying<br />

Institute of <strong>Engineering</strong> Mechanics<br />

China seismological Bureau, Harbin<br />

Abstract<br />

In this paper, based on the simplified method proposed by Men et al and Martin's model of the<br />

pore water pressure, a new simplified method is presented to evaluate the pore water pressure in<br />

the subsoil of buildings during earthquake. According to the cone model theory the subsoil of<br />

buildings may be approximately divided into three zones, in which the seismic shear stress and<br />

additional dynamic stress can be evaluated with the use of Seed's simplified method and the<br />

cone model. <strong>The</strong>n the pore water pressures in these three zones may be approximately evaluated<br />

with the use of Martin's model <strong>The</strong> method could be directly applied to analyze the initial<br />

liquefaction potential of subsoil of building with pore pressure ratio.<br />

Key words subsoil of building, cone model, pore water pressure, seismic liquefaction<br />

Introduction<br />

As is well known up to the present soil liquefaction evaluation methods available have been set<br />

up largely for the free field without building, <strong>The</strong>se methods may be divided into four groups i.e.<br />

(1) Seed's simplified method, (2) seismic response analysis method including both total and<br />

effective stress approach, (3) empirical formulae, (4) probabilistic and statistical method. Since<br />

the 1964 Niigata <strong>Earthquake</strong> and Alaska <strong>Earthquake</strong> brought about an extensive damage of soil<br />

liquefaction, many investigators have devoted much attention to study seismic liquefaction<br />

problems and remarkable achievements have been gotten as shown in the methods of four groups<br />

cited above. When buildings are existed the pattern of liquefaction would be different from that<br />

in the free ground. However seismic liquefaction evaluations of subsoil of buildings have not yet<br />

been resolved in such a way that general and practicable methods with sufficient accuracy and<br />

plausibility can be established for the use of engineering design and analysis. This fact may be<br />

due to that (1) building subsoil are much more complicated to deal with in contrast with free<br />

field of ground since the existence of building makes a non-uniform stress field and a<br />

complicated wave propagation pattern due to soil-structure interaction and (2) a variety of<br />

influencing factors relevant to building such as size, shape, rigidity, base area, buried depth of<br />

foundation, dead and seismic loading, etc. have to be considered <strong>The</strong>re have been only limited<br />

results of study on the problem and model tests 1 " 4 , but these studies bring large time and<br />

manpower consumption and could not meet the needs of evaluating liquefaction of subsoil of<br />

building in engineering<br />

Men et al (1997) 5 have presented a new simplified method to evaluate seismic liquefaction of<br />

subsoil of buildings. <strong>The</strong>y have devised the method in such a way that it is simple to handle and<br />

has clear physical insight and sufficient engineering accuracy by taking advantage of Seed's

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!