Liquefaction hazard assessment and building foundation safety for Chennai city, India
Transcription
Liquefaction hazard assessment and building foundation safety for Chennai city, India
Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Liquefaction hazard assessment and building foundation safety for Chennai city, India Rajarathnam S.*, Renu M. S., Santhakumar A. R. and Premalatha K. Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Anna University, Chennai-600025, INDIA *[email protected] water pressure causes the loose saturated soils to liquefy, lateral spreading, sand boils, ground oscillations, settlements etc. to appear at the surface and is major cause of concern particularly with respect to destruction of constructed facilities. It is one of the most destructive phenomena caused by earthquake and has widely occurred in loose saturated sands soil deposit. It tends to reoccur at the same sites during successive earthquakes where geological conditions and hydro-geological conditions remain fairly stable16. The death toll in earthquake is estimated to be more than half than due to all the disasters combined. This is mainly due to the poorly designed and badly built buildings which kill people. Such studies need to identify liquefiable areas and map for urban cities which are prone for moderate to severe earthquake hazard. Abstract Chennai is India’s 4th largest metropolitan city having a multi-dimensional growth in development of its infrastructures and population. The city is prone for moderate seismic activity and the anticipated earthquake is with magnitude of 6.5 based on past earthquake history. The Chennai city with variety of geological deposits and the geotechnical characteristics of sediment deposits has its own importance on ground movements. Liquefaction is one of the most destructive phenomena caused by earthquake and especially in loose saturated sand deposit. Hence there is a need to prepare liquefaction hazard map which will enable urban planners to design earthquake resistant structures and strengthen existing unstable structures. In this study, SPT data from 666 boreholes was used to evaluate the liquefaction potential. Chennai city is the state capital of Tamil Nadu, India. The city has a multi-dimensional growth in development of its infrastructures and population. Chennai city became Extended Chennai city to an area increased from 177 sq.km to 425 sq.km in 2012. The study area is restricted to Chennai city of 177sq.km. It is the 34th largest metropolitan city in the world. Its population density is 24418 per sq. km and this makes Chennai as one of the densest cities in the World. A Liquefaction Hazard Map is prepared and the result has been correlated with various geological deposits. It shows that the marine deposits has higher liquefaction hazard compared to that of fluvial deposits. Among marine deposits, the paleo tidal litho unit is more prone for liquefaction compared to strand flat and tidal flat litho units. The result shows that the liquefaction layer thickness varies from 1m to 10m. The Severity of Liquefaction (SL) is calculated for Very Severe and Severe categories of Factor of Safety (FS) and utilized to arrive the pile diameter for preventing of buckling of building foundation piles. In this study, over 50,000 buildings from 3 to 14 stories have been studied to evaluate the foundation stability against the sand layer thicknesses of liquefiable zones. Generic recommendations for shallow foundation and deep foundation of multistoried buildings have been suggested to mitigate against the effect of liquefaction hazard for building foundation safety. The seismic status of Chennai city was elevated to moderate active zone (zone III) from low active zone (zone II) in 2002 i.e. the constructed buildings in the city prior to the year 2002 are not designed for moderate earthquake hazard (IS1893 (part I):2002). Even a moderate earthquake in Chennai city can be the source of high level socioeconomic disasters. Hence liquefaction hazard map based on SPT N60 values from 666 boreholes was prepared. The severity of liquefaction (SL) calculated considering the layer thickness of liquefiable soil of Very Severe and Severe categories of hazard. The SL was used for safety design of shallow and deep foundation of buildings. Geology of Chennai City Chennai forms part of coastal plains of Tamil Nadu state of India. Major part of the city is flat topography with very gentle slope towards east. The elevations of land surface vary from 14m above MSL in the southwest to sea level in the east. The Chennai has river systems namely Adayar and Coovum. Both drain to Bay of Bengal and remain flooded during monsoon. Chennai is underlain by various geological formations. It can be grouped into three units viz Archaen crystalline bedrocks in southwestern part, Gondwana (Lower Cretaceous to Lower Jurassic) in western and north western and Tertiary sediments (Eocene Keyword: Liquefaction Hazard, Factor of Safety, Severity of Liquefaction, N- value, Marine and fluvial deposits, Multi storied buildings, Building Foundation stability. Introduction The seismic shaking by the earthquake and increase in pore * Author for Correspondence 1 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 to Pliocene) and Recent alluvium (Pleistocene and SubRecent) in north, western, central and southern parts of the city. Various authors worked on deterministic seismic hazard for Chennai city19 and arrived at different values for PGA at basement rock level as 0.134g 34, 0.126g29 and 0.176g5. Response spectrum provided the IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002 which is based on the concept and past earthquake attenuation consideration and the zonal factor of 0.16 for Chennai city and estimated PGA as 0.2 g. For the present study the PGA at rock level arrived is 0.16g based on the study carried out by various authors. Most of the geological formations are concealed since they are overlain by the alluvial materials excepting for a few exposures of crystalline rocks of charnockites in southwestern part of Chennai. The thickness of sediments varies from a few meters in south western to 20 to 30m in the northern, eastern and southern parts to as much as >100m depth of sediments of Gondwana age. The Chennai city represents the flood plain of fluvial environment of Gondwana periods and the other types of sediments namely strand flat deposits, tidal flat deposits, paleo flat deposits deposited under marine environment. All the deposits are parallel to coast of Bay of Bengal. The Cooum River and Adyar River flow west to east direction and it has fluvial deposit of leeve, point bar and channel bar deposit in the courses of rivers and estuary deposits close to the sea. Based on Probabilistic approach, Vipin et al35 arrived PGA 0.25g for site class D at surface level for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years and Uma Maheswari et al34 estimated PGAmax at surface level based on site-response studies as 0.3g. Methodology The present study involves two aspects in the methodology adopted viz. liquefaction hazard assessment and building foundation safety based on Severity of liquefaction hazard. Sediments also contain at places peat bogs and fossiliferous horizons, at varying depths, indicative of fluvial, estuarine and marine conditions. The sediments consist of sand, clay, sandy clay, silt and occasional gravels and are underlain by crystalline rocks mostly of charnockite suites. Fig. 1 shows the geology map of Chennai city18. Liquefaction hazard assessment: Scientists have conducted extensive research and have proposed many methods to predict the occurrence of liquefaction. Undrained cyclic loading laboratory tests had been used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a soil under a special cyclic loading which simulates an earthquake excitation. But due to difficulties in obtaining undisturbed samples of loose sandy soils, since 1980s many researchers have preferred to use in situ tests to evaluate liquefaction and lateral spreading potential. Robertson and Companella22, Shibata and Teparaska26 and Stark and Olson30 adopted the Cone Penetration Test (CPT) for evaluating liquefaction potential. The Standard Penetration Test because of its simplicity was one of the first in situ tests to be widely used27. Seismicity in and around Chennai Peninsular India is a shield region which has maintained its continental structure since the Permian age. An earthquake is not supposed to be well-known phenomena in a shield area. However, the earthquakes of Coimbatore (1900), Koyna (1967) and Lattur (1993) with intensity of 6 to 7 on the Ritcher scale have exploded the myth that Peninsular India is earthquake free. The information on past earthquakes gives an idea of the seismic status of a place or region. It requires a variety of geological and seismological information such as details of epicenters origin, time, focus depth and magnitude; the various fault systems along with earthquakes had occurred as well as those which are currently active 31. In this study, to evaluate the liquefaction potential, the SPT (field test) has been used. Nearly 666 borehole data drilled for design foundation to residential/commercial multi storied buildings and bridges were collected from various sources. Liquefaction susceptibility was evaluated based on the primary relevant soil properties such as grain size, fine content and density, degree of saturation, SPT N60 values and age of the soil deposit in each of the borelogs. These susceptible areas have been identified by considering the approach of Pearce and Baldwin17. To know about the regional seismicity of around 300km of Chennai, past earthquakes data were collected for a period of over 200 years (1815 onwards). Microseismic event data are from the seismicity array of Gauribidanur, Karnataka state6, moderate seismic events from Indian Meteorological Observatories and National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) observatories. These are earthquakes with magnitude of <3 to 6 on the Ritcher Scale. The available earthquake data were plotted over such a lineament and geotectonic elements map, the major percentage of the data is aligned along the NE-SW and NW-SE trend of fractures. A few of them fall on the E-W and N-S trend of fractures. The NE-SW lineaments are longer in length compared to those with other trends 21. Soil is susceptible for liquefaction if (1) presence of sand layers at depths less than 20m, (2) encounter water table depth less than 10m, (3) SPT filed “N” blow counts less than 20 and (4) Clayey sand with <10% of clay content and Liquid Limit is <322 . By using ArcInfo GIS software, interpolate susceptibility of map has been prepared. To prepare the liquefaction susceptibility map the N value observed in the field, using the SPT must be necessarily corrected for various corrections1,12,14,15,20,23,25,28,32,33 such as: (a) Fines Content (Cfines), (b) Overburden Pressures 2 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 (CN), (c) Stress Reduction Factor (CS), (d) Hammer energy (CE) and (e) Bore hole diameter (CB). Corrected N value i.e. (N60) is obtained using the following equation: N60 = N * Cfines* CN * CS * CE * CB (6) Magnitude correction factors for cyclic stress approach are shown in table 1. (1) Factor of safety against liquefaction of soil has been evaluated based on the revision of the simplified procedure of Seed and Idriss 24,25, Youd et al36 and Cetin et al3 considered for evaluation. Since the liquefaction resistance increases with increasing confining stress, a correction factor, Kσ, is applied such that the values of CSR correspond to an equivalent overburden pressure (σv) of 1 atmosphere. In this method, the earthquake induced loading is expressed in terms of cyclic shear stress and this is compared with liquefaction resistance of soil. The two variables were defined for evaluation of factor of safety against liquefaction. They are (1) the seismic demand of a soil layer and is represented by cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and (2) the capacity of soil to resist liquefaction represented by cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). (7) where Kσ = 1 - Cσ ln Evaluation of Cyclic Stress Ratio: The CSR induced by earthquake ground motions, at a given depth z below the ground surface, is calculated using the following equation24: amax CSR = 0.65 g γz σv’ rd Cσ = (2) (3) α (z) = -1.012 – 1.126 sin z 5.133 11.73 (4) β(z) = -0.106 + 0.118 sin sin z 5.142 11.28 (5) Pa ≤ 1.0 1 (9) 18.9 – 2.55√ (N1)60 (8) ≤ 0.3 (9) Pa is the atmospheric pressure = 100 kpa and (N1)60 is the corrected SPT-N value, limited to a maximum value of 37. where amax is the peak horizontal acceleration on the ground surface, γ is the bulk unit weight of soil, σv′ is the effective overburden pressure, g is the acceleration due to gravity and rd is the stress reduction factor that measures the attenuation of peak shear stress with depth due to the non-elastic behavior of soil. All the boreholes considered in the present work being less than 34 m depth, the stress reduction coefficient (rd) is calculated using the following equations7,8: Ln(rd) = α (z) + β(z) M σ'v Evaluation of Cyclic resistance ratio: The following expression was used for determining the CRR for cohesion less soil with fines content (FC): (10) (N1)60cs= (N1)60 + Δ(N1)60 (11) where Δ(N1)60 is the correction for fines content present in the soil in percent (FC)20 and is given as: As practiced, the values of CSR that pertain to the equivalent uniform shear stress induced by an earthquake having a moment magnitude Mw , are corrected through the Magnitude Scaling Factor so that the adjusted values of CSR would pertain to the equivalent uniform shear stress induced by an earthquake having a moment magnitude Mw = 7.5, i.e. (CSR)Mw = 7.5. The magnitude of factor of resistance indicates the degree of resistance to liquefaction. (12) Factor of Safety: The factor of safety against liquefaction is calculated using the following formula: The MSF is calculated using the equation proposed by Idriss8 as: Factor of Safety = 3 CRR CSR M=7.5, σ = 1 (13) Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 The subscript 7.5 for CSR denotes CSR values calculated for the earthquake moment magnitude scaling 7.5. The factor of safety against liquefaction has been grouped into 4 categories as shown in table 2. foundation for buildings upto 3 stories is 2 to 2.5m. They are classified as shallow foundation. If SL is of the order of 10, the depth of liquefiable layer will be>12m. In shallow foundation this thickness of liquefiable layer will induce large settlements causing structural damages to shallow buildings of 3 – 4 stories. However, for tall multistoried buildings which are generally founded on piles the larger SL values will induce loss of lateral support for the pile which can cause buckling of the pile. Therefore the effect of larger liquefaction depth can manifest different types of foundation distress in shallow and deep foundations. Severity of liquefaction hazard and building foundation safety The Severity of Liquefaction in a particular area is directly related to the layer thickness of liquefiable soil, both under very severe and severe categories of hazard and inversely to the depth of the layers from the surface. SL = Φ1*tvs + Φ2 * ts + Φ3* d1 d2 (14) When SL value is in the range of 5-10, liquefiable layer ( thickness can be in the order of 6 – 8m and the possibility of severe distress in deep foundations can be estimated based on actual depth of liquefaction and the lateral pressures it develops. When SL<5, the maximum thickness of the liquefiable layer will be 6m. The effect of this on shallow foundation will be severe if this layer is occurring close to the surface. On the other hand when this layer occurs deep, its effect on pile foundation will depend on the pile diameter used. Table 1 Magnitude correction factors where SL is Severity of Liquefaction, tvs is thickness of layers coming under Very Severe category, ts is thickness of layers coming under Severe category and d is depth of the layer. This parameter SL can be used to assess the effect of liquefaction severity on the building foundation. A high value of SL will indicate severe condition with respect to the depth of liquefied layer and directly to the total thickness. The severity of liquefaction is influenced by three parameters Φ1, Φ2 and Φ3. The very severe condition has been identified as having factor of safety <,1, such a condition will induce nearby 100% effect of liquefaction on the foundation. Hence Φ1 factor is taken as 1.0 for the thickness of layer having factor of safety <1. The parameter Φ2 relates to severe condition and the corresponding factor of safety is 1 to 1.5. Since factor of safety is 1.5, its effect on foundation is less severe than the thickness containing FS<1.0 (Φ1). Therefore the parameter is chosen as 1/1.5 as it will induce same amount of severity as a lesser thickness having FS <1.0. Hence Φ2 factor is chosen as Φ2=1/1.5. MSF 5.25 1.50 6 1.32 6.75 1.13 7.5 1 8.5 0.89 Table 2 Factor of safety and criticality index of liquefaction The severity of liquefaction is influenced by the depth at which the liquefiable layer occurs and the total depth up to the bottom of liquefiable layer. Its influence is much less compared to factor of safety related to thicknesses. Therefore the severity components coming from the depth of occurrence of liquefiable layer are given 20% weightage (i.e. Φ3 = 0.2) and the depths are chosen as (d1/d2) where d1 is depth at the bottom of the liquefiable layer and d2 is depth at the top of the liquefiable layer. Thus the equation for severity of liquefaction (SL) is derived as: SL = tvs + ts + 0.2d1 1.5 d2 Magnitude(Mw) Group 1 2 3 4 (15) Group According to the SL value, liquefiable areas are classified in to three viz. Very High Severity, High Severity and Moderate Severity of Liquefaction as shown in the table 3. Over 50,000 buildings of 3 stories to 15 stories were studied. The foundation systems adopted in buildings in Chennai are summarized in table 4. The depth of 4 Factor of safety range <1 1 to 1.5 1.5 to 2 >2 Criticality index Very Severe Severe Medium to Low Not Liquefiable Table 3 Severity of liquefaction (15) SL Category 1 > 10 2 5 to 10 3 <5 Very High Severity of liquefaction (VHSL) High Severity of liquefaction (HSL) Moderate Severity of liquefaction (MSL) Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 areas and infrastructure of bridges. However, it is to be noted that the liquefiable layers are not restricted to shallow depth but also continue their distribution down to the maximum depth of 20m. The shallow depth liquefiable layers are in the flood plain by the influence of the rivers. But the deeper sands are from the depositional environment of the deposits of the various litho-units. Results The liquefaction study is attempted for deposit of sediments, based upon 666 boreholes which are spread out to all types of litho-units of Chennai city. For example, 53 number of boreholes in strand flat deposit, 73 number of boreholes in tidal flat deposit, 173 number of boreholes in paleo tidal deposits, 138 number of boreholes in fluvial deposits and 37 number of boreholes in thin sediments underlined by Charnokites (Fig. 1). The areal distributions are 17, 24, 44, 61 and 16sq.km respectively. No borehole is available in sand flat deposits and medium grey brown sand with levees litho units of thin layers and is not considered for the present study. Table 5 is the typical representative borehole and shows the methodology adopted for the liquefaction hazard assessment of Chennai city. The bore hole encountered fine to medium sand, stiff clay, fine to medium sandy silt down to the borehole depth of 22.5m. The water table is at 2m depth. N value corrected and calculated FS for corrected N60 value of <37. Table 6 shows the various litho-units grouped in to three categories viz. Charnokites, fluvial/terrestrial deposits of Gondwana age group and deposits of marine origin. Charnockite rock area is underlined by thin sediment maximum to 5m and is free from any hazards of liquefaction. Terrestrial deposits of Gondwana Group cover 33.93% of the study area but the very severe and severe categories occupied 3.53% and 13.07% respectively whereas the marine deposits occupied 23.03% and 62.13% of the said hazard categories. The study identified that the marine deposits are more liquefaction prone than the terrestrial origin of deposits (Fig.1 and Fig.2). The calculated Critical Index is >2 to the depth of 4.5m and the FS is <1 to >1.5 category between the depths 5m to 20.5m, following the hard rock at depth of 22.5m of the borehole. Liquefaction zone is between 5 to 20.5m. The different category of critically index arrived from 666 boreholes upto the depth of 20m and the least Factor of Safety was considered to represent the respective borehole and mapped. The prepared liquefaction hazard map of Chennai city based on Inverse Distance Weighted tool of ArcInfo uses a method of interpolation in GIS platform (Fig.2). The study reveals the Chennai city prone for liquefaction hazards 9, 27, 33, 86 sq.km of liquefaction zone as Very Severe, (FS: <1), Severe (FS: 1-1.5), Moderate to Low (FS 1.5 – 2) and Not Liquefiable (FS :> 2) as detailed in fig.2 and table 6. Among the marine deposits, paleo tidal and tidal flat are higher liquefaction hazards than the strand flat deposits (Table 6). In case of Tidal Flat deposits, the very severe category areas restricted to two locations are in the estuary deposits of Coovum River and Marshy area converted into residential land areas. But the areas of very severe category in paleo tidal deposit are distributed all over the areas of the deposit. Based on liquefaction hazard distribution, it is to be stated that paleo tidal deposits are comparatively higher hazard prone than tidal flat deposits. The study also reveals that the marine deposits of south of Adyar River, south east of Chennai, are not prone of hazard possibly due to their layer of sediments overlying the Charnockite bedrock. From fig. 2, the FS of <1 (Very Severe category) areas are selected to represent in table 7 for discussion e. g. Tondiarpet where the thickness for FS <1 and FS 1 – 1.5 are 9.5m and 3m respectively. The sands occupy in the depth range 4 to 20.5m. For mapping of liquefaction hazard assessment the least level of FS i.e. < 1 is assigned to the borehole of Tondiarpet. The distribution of liquefiable soil varies from 1m in Kolathur and down to 20 m. The soil layers of thickness FS < 1 are in the range of 2 to 12.5. The arrived pile diameter from SL correlates that higher is the liquefiable thickness layer, larger will be the pile diameter. The Severity of Liquefaction (SL) calculated for Very Severe and Severe categories of Factor of Safety of the respective boreholes and the result for selective areas are presented in table 7. The result is used to design the shallow and deep foundation for earthquake resistant buildings. Discussion The result of the study is discussed on two aspects viz. liquefaction hazard correlated with geological deposits and vulnerability of buildings and liquefiable layers for shallow and deep foundation. The vulnerability of buildings and liquefiable layer for shallow and deep foundations: Preliminary study has been attempted to correlate the shallow and deep foundations stability and their impact pertaining to the liquefaction hazard of the site. Fig. 2 shows the liquefaction hazard map in which the red areas have most vulnerability with the factor of safety in the region of <1 and those in brown colour have factor of safety against liquefaction 11.5. These areas are figuratively in potential hazard zone among the borehole data areas which have been chosen for Liquefaction hazard assessment: The liquefaction hazard areas are distributed almost within the flood plain of rivers viz. Adayar, Cooum and Otteri. The hazard area in north eastern of Chennai is also located in the areas of converted marshy land in to the residential areas (Fig.2). The distributions of liquefiable sands are in the range of 1m to maximum depth 20m, considered for the study as evident from the drilled boreholes for development of residential 5 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 a detailed study. The areas chosen are listed in the table 7 along with the approximate liquefiable depth with factor of safety less than 1 (FS < 1 is very severe) and factor of safety less than 1.5 (FS 1 - 1.5 is severe). as shown in fig.4. It is also to be noted that the pile bends in double curvature mode. The maximum thickness of liquefiable depth of soil would make the piles to fail by buckling. The diameter of piles required to avoid instability failure based on the liquefiable depth is proposed below: Deep foundation adopted in Chennai is mostly bored cast in-situ piles of depth 5 to 8m in some areas like Chepauk and Adyar and 12 to 15 m in areas like Koyembedu and Thondiarpet. An examination of table 7 shows that the depth of liquefiable layer is less in Koyembedu and Anna Nagar whereas it is significantly more in Raja Annamalaipuram and Saligramam. When liquefiable depth is less, it does not pose a serious problem to pile foundation since the length of affected soil will not change the pile behavior from short to long. Table 4 also shows that two different types of piles are in use depending on type of soil. In areas like Anna Nagar, the use of under reamed piles of depth 5 to 8 m is common. Buildings up to 3 to 4 storeys in Chennai city are supported by shallow foundation (individual or strip footing) or raft slab whereas tall buildings are supported by deep foundation. Normally piles are used for deep foundation. The behavior of the pile will depend on the thickness of liquefiable layer. If the thickness of liquefiable layer is less than 12 times the diameter of the pile, then the pile will behave as a short column (IS:456, 2000). Hence failure will not occur due to buckling. If the thickness of liquefiable layer is larger than 12 times diameter, there is a chance for the pile to buckle and fail prematurely. Hence if we choose the diameter of the pile greater than liquefiable thickness/12, then the pile will behave as a short column and hence the foundation will be safe against buckling as per design. For example, the liquefiable depth at Egmore is 4.5m (Fig.5). For this location the diameter of the pile required based on the above principle is D = (4.5/12) = 0.375m. This can be rounded off and a safe 0.4m diameter of the pile can be adopted. This will avoid possibility of instability of the pile due to liquefaction. Shallow foundation Maximum number of buildings having less than 4 floors is supported on shallow foundation. The bulb of pressure for buildings with shallow foundation is shown in figure 3. As can be seen, the depth to which the bulb of pressure goes will be about 2.5 + 2 = 4.5 m below ground level (Fig.3 and table 8). If we take another example at Raja Annamalaipuram (Fig.6), the liquefiable depth as per table 6 is 10.7m. For long piles effective length of buckling can be assumed to be 0.75 times the free length of pile losing lateral support. Hence effective length of pile for the site at Raja Annamalaipuram becomes 10.7*0.75=8.025. Thus, the diameter of the pile required to prevent buckling works out to 8.025/12=0.668m and this is rounded off as 0.7m for adoption. Adoption of 0.7m diameter will avoid instability of pile due to liquefaction at Raja Annamalaipuram. On examination, table 7 shows that the liquefiable soil in the boreholes examined starts from a depth of 1m. Except Mandaveli, Raja Annamalaipuram and Virugambakkam all other areas have liquefiable soil within 5m from the surface. The shallow foundation will be affected by the liquefiable layer present in these areas. The example noted at Egmore and Raja Annamalaipuram demonstrates how the pile diameter can be chosen according to a particular location based on liquefaction depth to prevent instability failure of the pile. In other areas, it is necessary to use pile diameter of not less than 300 mm. If the suggested pile diameters are used, the possibility of buckling failure of piles can be avoided. In the above description, it was assumed that all piles are bearing piles. It is also suggested to avoid friction piles for tall buildings founded in the liquefiable zones identified in fig.2. Fig. 3 shows the bulb of pressure for a shallow foundation. It can be seen that the pressure bulb is at a depth of about 2.5m to 5m. If the liquefiable layer occurs in the zone of 2.5m to 5m, the shallow foundation will be affected severely. If the liquefiable layer occurs below 5m as in case of Mandaveli, Raja Annamalaipuram and Virugambakkam, the foundation will suffer only subsidence and may not collapse (Table 7). Deep foundation Fig.7 shows a pile driven through two layers i.e. top unliquefied and bottom liquefied layer. Due to movement of pile laterally it will experience passive earth pressure at the top and flow of sand at the bottom 13. Of late, there are many multistory building in the form of flats using deep pile foundation. The failure of the pile can be caused by either the entire depth or a small layer losing its resistance due to liquefaction. These foundations are taken to the rock bottom and are supported on the rock. However they pass through belts of liquefiable soil whose thickness and depth from ground level vary depending upon the area in which the building is located. When large depth gets associated, the end conditions of the pile are likely to reduce the effective length due to end continuity9 The lateral pressure p(z) on a pile which acts in the vertical direction can be determined by using the expression, p(z) = az2 + bz + c 6 (16) Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 in which the parameters a, b and c are unknown. This equation is integrated twice to obtain the bending moment as: M = - [(az4/12) + (bz3/6) + (cz2/2) + dz + e] parameters a, b, c, d and e are arrived at 74.12, 94.9, 34*103, 58.2*104 and -45*105. The moment is calculated as -39.2 *106, the negative and positive sign denote the direction of pile bending. The bending moment will act in presence of axial compression. For this moment, using interaction curve the required steel for RCC pile should be arrived at and adopted which will give enough bending strength against failure. (17) Using the boundary conditions in the above equation, the parameters a, b, c, d and e are determined. When the liquefiable depth of Chepauk is analyzed, the value of Fig. 1: Fig. 1: Geology map of Chennai City 7 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Fig. 2: Factor of safety against liquefaction for Chennai city Fig. 3: Bulb of Pressure for Buildings with Shallow Foundation 8 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Table 4 Summary of foundations adopted for various types of Buildings in Chennai No. of Stories 1 2 3 4 5 6 Type of construction Shallow Foundation Depth of Foundation (m) Brick Brick RC RC RC RC 1-1.5 1.5-2 1.5-2 2-2.5 3 - Deep Foundation Depth of Pile Depth of under rear piles (m) 5 Upto bed rock >10m 8 Upto bed rock >10m 8 Upto bed rock>10m - Table 5 Table showing calculation of FS after N corrections in a sample borehole Depth Material WL N CS CE CB CN CR N60 NCRR CSR CRR 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.7 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 29.88 49.8 0.062982 28.92 48.2 0.062967 81.93 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC 2.89 136.5 5 125.3 1 160.6 5 4.82 0.47759 4 0.42477 4 NC 0.117501 0.63 2.89 4.82 0.130004 1.93 3.21 0.151084 2.89 4.82 0.149931 3.75 6.25 NC 0.07456 7 0.07475 1 0.06971 5 0.10384 8 NC 1.93 3.21 0.181516 0.38 17.38 28.96 0.110338 14.71 24.52 0.117007 2.7 4.5 0.171487 3.59 5.98 0.158504 10.22 17.03 0.126631 13.96 23.27 0.117483 11.71 19.51 0.124549 96.39 160.6 5 NC 0.06971 6 0.17752 8 0.15372 1 0.07356 7 0.07825 9 0.11957 9 0.14760 8 0.13029 6 NC 0.75 Fine to medium sand 2 31 1.2 0.6 1.5 Fine to medium sand 2 30 1.2 0.6 2.25 Fine to medium sand 2 85 1.2 0.6 3 Fine to medium sand 2 78 1.2 0.6 4 Fine to medium sand 2 1.2 0.6 5 Fine to medium sand 2 10 0 3 1.2 0.6 6 Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Firm clay 2 3 1.2 0.6 2 2 1.2 0.6 2 3 1.2 0.6 2 5 1.2 0.6 Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt Fine to medium sand with silt 2 2 1.2 0.6 2 34 1.2 0.6 2 29 1.2 0.6 2 4 1.2 0.6 2 6 1.2 0.6 2 22 1.2 0.6 2 34 1.2 0.6 2 28 1.2 0.6 2 10 0 1.2 0.6 7 8 9 10 11.5 13 14.5 16 17.5 19 20.5 22.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 2 1.7 0.9 0.8 9 1.1 9 1.0 6 0.8 2 0.7 2 0.7 4 1.7 NC: Not calculated due to N60 value >37 or clay layer 9 75.18 96.39 Factor of safety 7.58 6.75 NC 0.57 0.46 0.69 NC 1.61 1.31 0.43 0.49 0.94 1.26 1.05 NC Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Table 6 Liquefaction hazard areas in different geological soil types Soil Type Total Area (sq.km) % Area 0-1 Sq.km % 2.12 3.53 1-1.5 Sq.km % 7.85 13.07 1.5-2 Sq.km % 12.55 20.90 >2 Sq.km % 36.82 61.31 Fluvial deposit of Gondwana Group Black clay and sandy clay 60.06 33.93 Paleo tidal deposit Black clay under sandy cover 44.04 24.88 2.94 6.68 11.80 26.79 10.35 23.50 16.57 37.62 Tidal Flat deposit Black clay 24.4 13.79 2.95 12.09 4.98 20.41 7.35 30.12 8.12 33.28 Strand flat deposit Medium grey brown sand 16.41 9.27 0.70 4.27 2.45 14.93 2.52 15.36 8.86 53.99 Charnokites 15.93 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.31 15.88 99.69 Fig. 6: Influence of liquefaction depth on pile diameter Conclusion Fig. 4: Pile susceptible for Buckling The liquefaction hazard assessment of Chennai city is based on geology, seismicity and geotechnical characteristics of soil collected from 666 boreholes in Chennai and various sources. The distribution of liquefaction hazard categories is Very Severe, Severe, Medium to Low and Not liquefiable and percents are as 5.62%, 17.48%, 21.19% and 56% respectively. It is observed that 22% of Chennai city is prone for very severe and severe liquefaction hazard showing significantly low N60 values and high water table conditions. All type of sediments has liquefiable sand layer and it was identified that marine deposits are higher hazard prone than the terrestrial deposits. Among the marine deposits the hazard graded as paleo tidal deposits tidal flat deposit and strand flat deposits. The severity of liquefaction (SL) calculated for the very severe was severe areas and divided into three levels viz. SL is >10, 5 to 10 and <5. The derived SL value is utilized to study about the building foundation safety for Chennai city. H=4.5m Fig. 5: Liquefaction depth influencing pile diameter 10 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Table 7 Severity of Liquefaction calculated for selected sites and Diameter required for preventing buckling of piles Name of the Depth Layer Layer Depth at SL Remark Total Length Diamete Area of Thickness Thickness which s liquefiabl of r Bedro (FS<1 (FS 1 - 1.5 liquefiabl e affecte required ck Very Severe) e soil thickness d pile (m) severe) exist Thondiarpet 26.9 9.5 3 4.0 – 20.5 12.5 VHSL 16.5 12.37 1 (4+1+4.5) (1+2) Egmore 16.5 2.8 ---5.4 – 3.27 MSL 7.2 7.2 0.6 (1.2 + 1.6) 12.6 0.9 1 3 -7.5 2.07 MSL 4.5 4.5 0.4 Chepauk 17.5 7 2 4.5– 17.5 9.1 HSL 13 9.75 0.8 (2+5) Adyar 14.0 2.3 6.5 1.0-13.5 9.33 HSL 12.5 9.375 0.8 3.7 ---5.8 – 9.5 4.02 MSL 3.7 3.7 0.3 Perambur 22.0 1 1 3-7 2.13 MSL 3 3 0.3 Vyasarpadi 2.5 ---5.5 – 10 2.86 MSL 4.5 4.5 0.4 (1+1.5) Veperi 2.3 1.4 2.99 – 9.5 3.86 MSL 6.51 6.51 0.54 Purusawakkm 21.0 1.3 2.1 4.5 – 11 3.18 MSL 6.5 6.5 0.54 4.4 ---4.0 – 10 4.9 MSL 6 6 0.5 (3+1.4) Triplicane 4.5 8 3.5 – 16 10.7 MSL 12.5 9.375 0.8 (1.5 +2+1) (1+2+2.5+2. 4 5) Mandaveli 17.5 4.5 ----18.5 – 23 4.75 MSL 4.5 4.5 0.4 Raja 8.9 ---2.3 -13 10.0 VHSL 10.7 8.02 0.7 Annamalai (3.3 3 Puram +0.9+4.7) Virugampakkam Koyambedu Anna Nagar Kolathur Kodambakkam Chetpet Teynampet Alwarpet 3.8 (1.5 +2.3) 1.5 1.3 2 1.5 1 1.7 (0.9+0.8) 1.1 2.8 9.3 5.8 4.7 (2.2 +2.5 ) 3 1.3 +1.7 ---2.6 1.2 1 7.5 – 24.5 7.58 HSL 17 12.75 1 .06 6.8 – 13 3.88 MSL 6.2 4.65 0.4 3.7 – 5 6.0 – 10.6 2.8 – 8.8 1.0 – 3 1.57 4.08 2.92 2.27 MSL MSL MSL MSL 1.3 4.6 6 2 ---- 6.4 – 11.2 2.05 MSL 4.8 1.3 0.3 4.6 0.4 6 0.5 Shallow Foundation 4.8 0.4 2.2 1.1 3.7 ---- 6 – 9.3 4.8 – 14.3 2 – 15 8.6 – 14.4 2.87 4.12 13.2 6.13 MSL MSL VHSL HSL 3.3 9.7 13 5.8 3.3 9.7 9.75 5.8 11 0.275 0.8 0.81 0.48 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 Table 8 Depth of pressure bulb for shallow foundation S. N. 1 2 3 Width of foundation 1 1.5 2 Depth of foundation 1 2 2.5 Size of bulb 1.5 1.75 3 Chennai is prone to have foundation failures due to liquefaction based on potential areas if high SL>10. The failure can be due to either buckling or excessive moments developed due to lateral pressure. The liquefaction affects both shallow foundation and deep pile foundation. In many areas liquefiable depth occurs at a shallow depth. The bulb of pressure is at a depth of 2.5m to 5m. Hence buildings in these potential zones with shallow foundations will be affected by liquefaction. The areas where such a problem can arise have been identified and listed. Depth at which pressure bulb extends 2.5 3.75 5.5 Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to the Department of Information Technology, Government of India for funding the sponsored research project entitled “ Remote Sensing & GIS Application for Chennai city on EGovernance Aspects”. Authors also acknowledge Anna University and Govt. of Tamil Nadu for their support. The authors extend their thanks to M/s Geotechnical Solutions, Chennai, M/s Neo Geocons, Chennai, M/s GeoMarine Consultants (P) Ltd., Chennai, M/s GeoEngineers, Chennai, M/s Josmer, Chennai and M/s Nagadi Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Chennai for providing the borehole data of the regions reported in the paper. Deep foundation like piles can fail buckling when the depth of liquefaction becomes large. The diameters to be adopted to prevent buckling failures in such areas have been identified in the potential areas such as Egmore and Kotturpuram. Deep foundations can also be affected due to lateral pressure caused by liquefaction. An expression to calculate the lateral has been included. The effect of bending moment on the pile due to liquefaction can be taken care by proper design of pile using required steel requirements. References 1. Anbazhagan P. and Premalatha K., Microzonation of Liquefaction factor of safety of Chennai city, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 227-230 (2004) 2. Andrews D. C. A. and Martin G. R., Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils, Proc. 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand (2000) 3. Cetin K. O., Seed H. B., Der Kiureghian A., Tokimatsu K., Harder L. F. Jr., Kayen R. E. and Moss R. E. S., Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(12), 1314–1340 (2004) 4. CGWB Report: Ground water Resources and Development Prospects in Madras District, Tamil Nadu, Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Hyderabad (1993) 5. Ganapathy G.P., First level seismic microzonation map of Chennai city-a GIS approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci, 11, 549-559 (2011) 6. Gangrade B.K. et al, Earthquakes from peninsular India: data from the Gauribidanur seismic array for the Period January 1987 – December 1988, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (1989) 7. Golesorkhi R., Factors influencing the computational determination of earthquake-induced shear stresses in sandy soils, PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. (1989) 8. Idriss I. M., An update to the Seed–Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential, Presentation Notes, Proc. work-shop, New Approaches to Liquefaction Analysis, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (1999) Fig.7: Example of lateral earth pressure for design due to lateral displacement of liquefied subsoil 9. Ikuo Towhata, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Springer series in Geomechanics & Geoengineering (2008) 12 Disaster Advances Vol. 7 (11) November 2014 10. IS: 456: Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (2000) 24. Seed H.B. and Idriss I.M., Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, J. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 97(9), 1249-1273 (1971) 11. IS: 1893 Indian standard: Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, Fifth revision BIS, New Delhi (2002) 25. Seed H.B., Idriss I.M. and Arango I., Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential using field performance data, J. Geotech Engg, ASCE, 109(3), 458-482 (1983) 12. Kayen R. E., Mitchell J. K., Seed R. B., Lodge A., Nishio S. and Coutinho R., Evaluation of SPT-CPT and Shear Wave Based Methods for Liquefaction Potential Assessment Using Loma Prieta Data, Proceedings, Fourth Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, Technical Report NCEER-92-0019, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, M. Hamada and T.D. O’Rourke, eds., National Centre for Earthquake Engg. Research Buffalo, NY, 1, 177-204 (1992) 26. Shibata T. and Teparaska W., Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soils using cone penetration testing, Soils Found., 282, 49–60 (1988) 27. Sitharam T.G., Anbazhagan P.G. and Mahesh G.U., 3-D Subsurface Modelling and Preliminary Liquefaction Hazard Mapping of Bangalore City Using SPT data and GIS, Indian Geotechnical Journal, 37(3), 210-226 (2007) 13. Kramer S. L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson Education Pvt. Ltd., Reprinted 2003, Delhi, India (1996) 28. Skempton A.W., Standard Penetration Test Procedures and the Effects in Sands of Overburden Pressure, Relative Density, Particle Size, Ageing and Over Consolidation, Geotechnique, 36(3), 425-447 (1986) 14. Kulhawy F. H., On the evaluation of Static soil properties, Stability and performance of slopes and embankments- II (A 25 years perspective), ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, 31, 108 (1992) 15. Liao S. C. and Whitman R. V., Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 112(3), 373-377 (1986) 29. Srinivasan R., Balaji R., Abdul Gaffar P., Rama Murthy V. and Srinivas S., First level Seismic hazard microzonation of Chennai Metropolis, Geological Survey of India report (unpublished) (2011) 16. Nath S.K. and Thingbaijam K.K.S., Seismic hazard assessment – a holistic microzonation approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 1445-1459 (2009) 30. Stark T. D. and Olson S. M., Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories, J. Geotech. Eng., 121(12), 856–869 (1995) 17. Pearce J. T. and Baldwin J. N., Liquefaction Susceptibility Mapping St. Louis, Missouri and Illinois, Final Technical report, published in web.er.usgs.gov/reports/abstract/2003/cu/03HQGR 0029.pdf (2003) 31. Tandon A. N., Zoning of India liable to earthquake damage, Indian Journal of Meteorology and Geophysics, 10, 137–146 (1956) 32. Terzaghi and Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1948) 18. Prabhakar A., District Resource Map – Geology for Chennai District, Tamil Nadu, Geological Survey of India Publication (2005) 33. Tosun H., Seyrek E., Orhan A., Savas H. and Turkoz M., Soil Liquefaction Potential in Eskisehir, NW Turkey, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,11, 1071-1082 (2011) 19. Raghu Kanth S. T. G. and Iyengar R. N., Estimation of Seismic Spectral Acceleration in Peninsular India, J. Earth Sys. Sci., 116(3), 199–214 (2007) 34. Uma Maheswari R., Boominathan A. and Dodagoudar G.R., Nonlinear seismic response analysis of selected sites in Chennai, 12th International Conference of IACMAG, 2835-2842 (2008) 20. Raghu Kanth S. T. G. and Dash Sujit Kumar, Evaluation of seismic soil-liquefaction at Guwahati city, Environ Earth Sci, 61, 355–368 (2010) 35. Vipin K.S., Anbazhagan P. and Sitharam T.G., Estimation of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for South India with local site effects: probabilistic approach, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci, 9, 865-878 (2009) 21. Rajarathnam S., Identification of seismic prone faults – Using Remote sensing data: A case study of Tamil Nadu, India, Disasters, Environment and Development – Book published by Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 36. Youd T. L. and Idriss I.M., Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10) 817-833 (2001). 22. Robertson P. K. and Campanella R. G., Liquefaction potential of sand using the CPT, J. Geotech. Eng., 1113, 384–403 (1985) 23. Robertson P. K. and Wride C. E., Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Can. Geotech. J., 353, 442–459 (1998) (Received 14th August 2014, accepted 20th September 2014) 13