Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering | EveryEng

Skip to main content

Self-paced Advanced

Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

1(1)

3 enrolled

552 views

FREE

2327 min

Anytime

English

552 views

Engineering AcademyLearn Without Limits: Free Engineering Courses

Infrastructure & Construction

Geotechnical Engineering

Lifetime access
Anytime Learning
Learn from Industry Expert
Career Option Guideline

Why enroll

This course is highly valuable for civil and geotechnical engineers involved in infrastructure projects located in seismic regions. It helps learners understand earthquake-induced soil problems such as liquefaction and slope failure and equips them with tools to design safer foundations and earth structures. The knowledge gained is essential for seismic design practice, disaster risk reduction, and careers in geotechnical and earthquake engineering.

Your instructor

Engineering Academy

Engineer

Learn Without Limits: Free Engineering Courses

5+ yrs experience·India

Is this course for you?

You should take this if

You work in Infrastructure & Construction
You're a Geotechnical Engineering / Civil & Structural professional
You have 3+ years of hands-on experience in this field
You prefer self-paced learning you can revisit

You should skip if

You're new to this field with no prior experience
You need a different specialisation outside Geotechnical Engineering
You need live interaction with an instructor

Course details

The Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering course focuses on the behavior of soil and foundations under seismic loading. It explains how earthquakes affect ground response, soil strength, and stability, and how these effects influence the performance of foundations, retaining structures, slopes, and earth dams. The course bridges geotechnical engineering principles with earthquake engineering concepts to address seismic safety of infrastructure.

The course emphasizes soil dynamics, site response analysis, and earthquake-induced ground failures. Learners gain insight into the interaction between seismic waves and soil layers and how geotechnical design can mitigate earthquake-related risks.

SOURCE- Youtube[ nptelhrd]

Course suitable for

Key topics covered

Fundamentals of soil dynamics
Seismic waves and ground motion characteristics
Site response and soil amplification
Dynamic properties of soils
Liquefaction: evaluation and mitigation
Seismic bearing capacity of foundations
Earthquake effects on retaining walls and slopes
Seismic stability of earth dams and embankments
Ground improvement techniques for seismic conditions
Geotechnical aspects of seismic design codes

Course content

The course is readily available, allowing learners to start and complete it at their own pace.

42 lectures38 hr 47 min

Introduction to Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
53 min
Introduction to Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (continued)
58 min
Basics of Vibration Theory
56 min
Engineering Seismology part -I
59 min
Engineering Seismology (continued) part -II
51 min
Engineering Seismology (continued) part -III
52 min
Engineering Seismology (continued) part -IV
54 min
Engineering Seismology (continued) part -V
52 min
Engineering Seismology (continued) part –VI
62 min
Strong Ground Motion
48 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –II
58 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –III
56 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –IV
56 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –V
55 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –VI
52 min
Strong Ground Motion (continued) part –VII
57 min
Wave Propagation
53 min
Wave Propagation (continued) part –II
57 min
Wave Propagation (continued) part –III
57 min
Wave Propagation (continued) part –IV
58 min
Dynamic Soil Properties
56 min
Dynamic Soil Properties (continued) Part -II
52 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis
54 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) Part -II
62 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –III
58 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –IV
56 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –V
55 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –VI
55 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –VII
51 min
Seismic Hazard Analysis (continued) part –VIII
56 min
Site Response Analysis
56 min
Site Response Analysis (continued) part –II
55 min
Site Response Analysis (continued) part –III
55 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures
53 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –II
58 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –III
53 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –IV
55 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –V
64 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –VI
54 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –VII
53 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –VIII
58 min
Seismic Analysis and Design of Various Geotechnical Structures (continued) part –IX
54 min

Opportunities that await you!

Career opportunities

Why people choose EveryEng

Industry-aligned courses, expert training, hands-on learning, recognized certifications, and job opportunities-all in a flexible and supportive environment.

FREE

Access anytime

Questions and Answers

Q: You're under audit and need a defensible number before the afternoon briefing. For a saturated sand layer at 8 m depth, unit weight 18 kN/m³, groundwater at surface, PGA = 0.35 g, rd = 0.9. You're googling "calculate cyclic stress ratio liquefaction SPT" but the inspector wants the CSR value now. What do you record?

A: That's the most common mistake — mixing total and effective stress or quietly dropping rd because it looks close to 1. The difference matters because liquefaction triggering hinges on σv/σ'v blowing up in saturated profiles, and COMAH reviewers will check the arithmetic. Using σv = 144 kPa, σ'v = 64 kPa gives the higher ratio that drives CSR to about 0.29.

Q: The client asks why excess pore pressure spiked during the main shock even though the clay cap stayed intact. You're searching "earthquake pore pressure dissipation time liquefaction" while the HSE inspector listens. As cyclic shear strain increases in loose sand, what's the correct downstream response?

A: That's the most common mistake — importing drained intuition into an undrained cyclic problem. The difference matters because during shaking the sand can't dissipate pressure fast enough, effective stress collapses, and you get cyclic mobility right when loads peak. Saying drainage saves you during the event won't survive a regulator's challenge.

Q: You're reviewing a quay wall rebuild in a seismic coastal zone and typing "liquefaction ground improvement stone column corrosion seawater". Given saturated sand, high chloride groundwater, and cyclic shear reversal, what governs long-term degradation of vibro-replacement stone columns?

A: That's the most common mistake — reaching for a chemical attack mechanism because the environment sounds aggressive. The difference matters because stone columns fail mechanically under earthquake cycling; aggregate breaks down and the column softens. Chlorides are a steel problem, not a crushed rock one, and an inspector will call that out fast.

Q: Post-event inspection shows lateral spreading toward a river, intact superstructure, cracked pavements, and tilted piles. You're under time pressure before the next pour in 6 hours and searching "lateral spreading failure mode piles earthquake". What's the root cause you log?

A: That's the most common mistake — blaming axial capacity when the geometry screams kinematic demand. The difference matters because lateral spreading imposes bending from soil movement, not from the structure. If you mislabel it, the mitigation and the audit trail both fall apart.