Earthquake geotechnical

engineering practice
MODULE 3: Identification, assessment
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards


•• Prof Misko Cubrinovski (lead author) – University International Reviewers
of Canterbury •• Prof Ross Boulanger – University of California Davis
•• Dr Kevin McManus (contributing author) – McManus •• Prof Jonathan Bray – University of California Berkeley
Geotech Ltd
•• Kevin Anderson (contributing author) – AECOM Authors and reviewers of July 2010
NZGS Liquefaction Module (superseded)
NZGS Reviewers
•• Trevor Matuschka – Engineering Geology Ltd
•• Dr Alexei Murashev – Opus NZGS/MBIE Editorial Panel
•• Grant Murray – JGM Associates •• Refer Module 1
•• Tim Sinclair – Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
•• Ann Williams – Beca Ltd

Document Status
ISBN: 978-0-947-497-33-0 (print) While the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
ISBN: 978-0-947497-50-7 (online) MBIE, and the NZGS have taken care in preparing this
document, it is only a guide and, if used, does not relieve any
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS) and Ministry
person of the obligation to consider any matter to which
of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) Earthquake
that information relates, according to the circumstances
Geotechnical Engineering Practice in New Zealand
of the case. All users should satisfy themselves as to the
Rev 0 applicability of the content and should not act on the basis of
any matter contained in this document without considering,
Issue Date May 2016
and if necessary, taking appropriate professional advice.
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS)
The document may be updated from time to time and the
c/ Institution of Professional Engineers
latest version is available from the Ministry’s website at
New Zealand or the New Zealand Geotechnical Society’s
PO Box 12–241
website at
Wellington 6013

Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) Important notice
Building System Performance Branch This document is preliminary and the contents should be
PO Box 1473 treated as draft guidelines. Submissions by the geotechnical
Wellington 6140 community to the Society (email:
are encouraged, after which a further review will be
This document published by the Chief Executive of MBIE as
undertaken. The contents may be subject to further changes,
guidance under section 175 of the Building Act 2004 to assist
additions, and deletions.
parties to comply with their obligations under the Building
Act 2004.
© Copyright
It is not mandatory to follow the guidance, but if followed: The copyright owner authorises reproduction of this
•• it does not relieve any person of the obligation to work, in whole or in part, so long as no charge is made
consider any matter to which that information relates for the supply of copies, and the integrity and attribution
according to the circumstances of the particular case; of the contributors and publishers of the document is
•• users should consider taking appropriate professional not interfered with in any way.
advice prior to entering into a construction contract
which incorporates all or parts of this document.

DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0
Module 3: identification, assessment
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards

3 contents

Preface ii

1 Introduction 1

2 Scope 2

3 Soil liquefaction hazard 3

3.1 Ground shaking 3
3.2 Liquefaction and lateral spreading 4

4 Estimating ground motion parameters 5

5 Identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 6

5.1 Site investigation and hazard identification 9
5.2 Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility and triggering 12
5.3 Liquefaction-induced ground deformation 18
5.4 Residual strength of liquefied soils 23
5.5 Effects of liquefaction on structures 24
5.6 Advanced numerical procedures 26

6 Mitigation of liquefaction and lateral spreading 27

6.1 Soil remediation 28
6.2 Structural modification 28

7 Clay soils 29

7.1 Ground failure of clay soils 29
7.2 Mitigation of clay soils 29

8 Volcanic soils 30

9 References 31

Appendix A. Important differences between Boulanger
and Idriss (2014) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) methods 34

DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0
Module 3: identification, assessment
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards

preface 3

The sequence of strong earthquakes in Canterbury in 2010 to 2011, most notably the devastating
Mw 6.2 earthquake on 22 February 2011, the source of which was located within Christchurch, resulted
in 185 fatalities and extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure. Liquefaction occurred on several
occasions through the city and nearby areas. The damaging effects of this liquefaction included lateral
spreading, settlement, foundation failures, subsidence of areas close to waterways, and large volumes
of sediment ejecta on the ground surface.

The first edition of the liquefaction guidelines In this first revision of the module on liquefaction assessment,
(formerly Module 1 of the Guidelines) was published some of the more general material contained in the original
in July 2010 shortly before the Darfield earthquake edition, including the general discussion of geotechnical
of September 2010 and was well received and timely, earthquake hazards and estimating ground motion
considering the subsequent events. It proved very parameters has been moved to a new Module 1: Overview
useful in guiding practice during a period when a very of earthquake geotechnical engineering practice guidelines
large number of liquefaction site assessments were for New Zealand. This new module explains the overall
carried out following the Christchurch earthquakes scope of the planned guidance documents, and contains an
and widespread liquefaction. introduction to seismic hazards, fault rupture, ground shaking,
liquefaction, and other hazards such as landslide and tsunami.
As a result of the earthquakes, the New Zealand
It also contains information on the regulatory environment
Government established the Canterbury Earthquakes
and geotechnical considerations for the built environment.
Royal Commission (CERC) to consider the adequacy of
current legal and best practice requirements for the This first revision of the module on liquefaction
design, construction, and maintenance of buildings in assessment, now renamed Module 3, focusses on the
the context of earthquake risk. Seven volumes of reports identification, evaluation, and mitigation of liquefaction
were published with 189 recommendations. Of these hazards. More detailed information on geotechnical
recommendations, 175 sit with Ministry of Business, investigations for liquefaction assessment purposes is
Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to execute with about covered in Module 2. More detailed information on the
20 percent relating to geotechnical issues. mitigation of liquefaction hazards by ground improvement
is covered in Modules 5 and 5a, and on foundation design
The CERC reports resulted in a large and critically
at sites with liquefaction in Module 4.
important work programme for MBIE and this has
included the development of more formal links with As a result of the 2010–2011 sequence of earthquakes in
the engineering community. In 2014 MBIE signed a Canterbury, there is a heightened risk of seismic activity
Memorandum of Understanding with the New Zealand within Canterbury over the next few decades. The Verification
Geotechnical Society (NZGS) to better align and create Method B1/VM1 has been amended to reflect an increased
a shared understanding of each organisation’s objectives. seismic hazard factor for the Canterbury earthquake region.
It was also agreed to jointly update the existing These changes have been incorporated into the relevant
Guidelines module on liquefaction assessment to sections of this document.
include latest developments resulting from the
Canterbury earthquakes and other major earthquakes Charlie Price Mike Stannard
worldwide and to accelerate the preparation of the Chair Chief Engineer
additional modules of the Guidelines. New Zealand Ministry of Business
Geotechnical Society Innovation & Employment

DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0
Module 3: identification, assessment
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards

2 earthquake. The high seismic hazard and profound relevance The main aim of this guidance document is to promote of geotechnical engineering were demonstrated in consistency of approach to everyday engineering practice the Canterbury earthquake sequence. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. improve geotechnical-earthquake aspects of and Canterbury were hit hard by a series of strong the performance of the built environment. the collapse of two multi-storey buildings. and soil liquefaction theory. Complex and unusual could be attributed to the geotechnical impacts of the situations are not covered.1 Darfield event. The 22 February advances. The users of Mw 6. this document should familiarise themselves with recent and over 100 Mw 4 to 5 earthquakes. professional geotechnical engineers. About half of the total economic loss which continues to advance rapidly. tens of thousands of residential buildings. thus. In these cases special or earthquake-induced liquefaction and rockslides. 2014). and causing This document is not intended to be a detailed treatise extensive damage to the lifelines and infrastructure over of latest research in geotechnical earthquake engineering. site-specific studies are considered more appropriate. has been estimated to be NZ$40 billion (NZ Treasury. earthquake engineering. which are informed In the period between 4 September 2010 and December by latest research. much of the city. The effects of earthquake shaking need to always be considered in geotechnical engineering practice and frequently are found to govern design. fatalities. the destructive 22 February 2011 engineering is advancing at a rapid rate. and interpret and apply the recommendations 2011 earthquake was the most devastating causing 185 herein appropriately as time passes. as well as rock slides. The Canterbury Neither is it a book of rules – users of the document are earthquakes triggered widespread liquefaction in the assumed to have sufficient knowledge and experience eastern suburbs of Christchurch. and to be qualified. and nearly total devastation of the Central Business District This document is not intended to be a primer on soil with approximately 70 percent of its buildings being liquefaction – readers are assumed to have a sound damaged beyond economic repair. Christchurch and. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 1 . 12 other Mw 5 to 6 earthquakes. 3 introduction 1 Introduction New Zealand is a high earthquake hazard region and earthquake considerations are integral to the design of the built environment in New Zealand. The geotechnical aspects and impacts of the earthquakes were of economic and societal significance. 2011. It is intended earthquakes generated by previously unmapped faults to provide sound guidelines to support rational design located in the vicinity or within the city boundaries. to apply professional judgement in interpreting and rock falls and cliff instabilities in the Port Hills affecting applying the recommendations contained herein. the intense seismic activity produced the magnitude The science and practice of geotechnical earthquake (Mw) 7. The total rebuild cost background in soil mechanics. approaches for everyday situations.

Professional studies are considered more appropriate. particular situation. •• NZ Transport Agency – Bridge Manual The topic of mitigation of liquefaction and lateral •• Transpower – New Zealand Transmission spreading is covered briefly in this document. The intention is that who are expected to also apply sound engineering liquefaction hazards should be properly investigated judgement in adapting the recommendations to each and assessed at the subdivision stage of development. Information on seismic design of foundations among different guidelines and design manuals. information is provided in Module 2 of the Guidelines. and these should. (including liquefaction) is provided in Module 4. judgement needs to be applied in all cases.scope 3 2 Scope The material in this document relates specifically to earthquake hazards and should not be assumed to have wider applicability. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 2 . Examples include: The topic of estimating ground motion parameters •• New Zealand Society on Large Dams is covered briefly in this document. it is the responsibility of the engineer to resolve such discrepancies as far as practicable. is covered briefly in this document. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. simpler investigations and assessments are not covered. The recommendations in this document are intended The recommendations made in this document may to be applied to everyday engineering practice by seem excessive or burdensome for very small projects qualified and experienced geotechnical engineers such as single unit dwellings. Structure Foundation Manual. It is intended to provide general guidance for geotechnical earthquake engineering practice with a particular focus on soil liquefaction and lateral spreading. take precedence over this document. Complex and unusual situations Then. More detailed in general. Other documents may provide more specific guidelines The topic of site investigation planning and procedures or rules for specialist structures. More detailed – Dam Safety Guidelines information is provided in Module 1 of the Guidelines. More detailed information on ground improvement as mitigation is provided in Modules 5 and 5a of the Where significant discrepancies are identified Guidelines. In these cases special or site-specific would be adequate for individual sites.

frequency content. in particular liquefaction and lateral spreading. and reflected as they travel through the earth. Ruptures propagate over approximately planar surfaces called faults releasing large amounts of strain energy. the level of ground deformation. and duration of ground shaking. Energy radiates from the rupture as seismic waves. Surface waves (Rayleigh and Love waves) are generated where body waves (p-waves and s-waves) interact with the earth’s surface. Similarly.1 Ground shaking Ground shaking is one of the principal seismic hazards that can cause extensive damage to the built environment and failure of engineering systems over large areas. 3 soil liquefaction hazard 3 Soil liquefaction hazard Earthquakes are sudden ruptures of the earth’s crust caused by accumulating stresses (elastic strain-energy) resulting from internal processes of the planet. This Module of the Guidelines is focussed on ground shaking and resulting ground damage. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 3 . refracted. These waves are attenuated. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. eventually reaching the surface where they cause ground shaking. damage to earth structures and ground failures are closely related to the severity of ground shaking. Three characteristics of ground shaking are typically considered: •• Amplitude •• Frequency content •• Duration of significant shaking (ie time over which the ground motion has significant amplitudes). Earthquake loads and their effects on structures are directly related to the intensity. The principal geotechnical hazards associated with earthquakes are: 1 Fault rupture 2 Ground shaking 3 Liquefaction and lateral spreading 4 Landslides. 3.

2007). number of different phenomena may cause such damage. are also typical manifestations of Bray and Sancio (2006). and to ‘clay-like’ behaviour depends primarily on the excessive residual deformations such as settlements of mineralogy of the fine-grained fraction of the soil the ground and lateral spreads. liquefaction source-to-site distance.2 Liquefaction and loaded areas. Note that are classified as ‘sand-like’ or liquefiable.soil liquefaction hazard 3 These characteristics of ground motion at a given site down-slope direction or towards waterways (lateral are affected by numerous complex factors such as the spreads). the transition from ‘sand-like’ ground movements during the period of shaking. Studies by Boulanger and Idriss (2006. Dams. liquefaction at the ground surface. source mechanism. earthquake magnitude. rupture directivity. Hence. and settlement of 3. On the other hand. and consequent large clarifying issues and identifying adequate assessment ground deformation as a result of the development procedures regarding soil liquefaction and cyclic softening of large excess pore water pressures within the soil. The fines Ground surface disruption including surface cracking. Particularly damaging for engineering structures are cyclic For intermediate soils. In the case of very loose soils. effects may affect the overall stability of the ground leading of local soil and rock conditions. If sufficient shear strain accumulates. then triggering sediment (silt. if the soils are classified as ‘clay-like’ or non-liquefiable. Ground deformations that arise from cyclic lateral spreading failure may range from relatively severe in natural quick clays (sensitivity greater than 8) to relatively minor in The term ‘liquefaction’ is widely used to describe ground well-compacted or heavily over-consolidated clays (low damage caused by earthquake shaking even though a sensitivity). and the role of the fines in the soil matrix. gravel-size particles and even cobbles can susceptibility of fine-grained soils such as low plasticity be ejected on the ground surface due to seepage forces silts and silty sands with high fines contents. for weak normally taken when evaluating the characteristics of ground consolidated and lightly over-consolidated clay soils the shaking including due consideration of the importance undrained shear strength may be exceeded during shaking of the structure and particular features of the adopted leading to accumulating shear strain and damaging ground analysis procedure. and sloping ground near riverbanks where certain and propagation path of seismic waves. special care should be liquefaction phenomena. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 4 . slumping and permanent clay mineralogy as characterised by the soil’s plasticity deformations. embankments topographic and basin effects. ground distortion. of liquefied soils. If the soils caused by high excess pore water pressures. sensitive soils may lose significant shear strength leading to slope failures. There are many shear strength is required for stability under gravity unknowns and uncertainties associated with these loads are particularly prone to such failures. including ejected water and fine particles for classifying such soils as liquefiable or non-liquefiable. Liquefaction is associated with significant loss of stiffness The summary in Idriss and Boulanger (2008) is helpful in and strength in the liquefied soil. gravel) ejecta are clear evidence of and consequences of liquefaction should be evaluated soil liquefaction. However. but are not the subject of this document. liquefied sites. sand. such as large settlements and lateral index (PI). In the case of massive and other studies provide insights on the liquefaction sand boils. Idriss and Boulanger (2008). which are referenced in results in large permanent ground displacements in the Section 7. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. then effects of cyclic softening and In sloping ground and backfills behind retaining consequent ground deformation should be evaluated structures in waterfront areas. foundation failures. investigations and data interpretation should be used Sand boils. to catastrophic flow failures. liquefaction often using separate procedures. Engineering judgment based on good quality spreads. deformations. of different soil types during strong ground shaking. factors which in turn result in significant uncertainties Clay soils may also suffer some loss of strength during regarding the characteristics of the ground motion shaking but are not subject to boils and other ‘classic’ and earthquake loads. however they do not always occur at using procedures discussed in this guideline document. are commonly observed at liquefied sites. content (FC) of the soil is of lesser importance than its dislocation. and Bray and Sancio (2006) provide useful insights.

The ground shaking hazard at a site depends on the For locations within the Canterbury Earthquake Region following parameters: the following procedure is required: •• Amplitude. it is recommended that design amax values earthquake hazard presented in the be taken as the greater of these values and those NZTA Bridge Manual (2014) from the NZTA Bridge Manual. The ground motion parameters at a site to be used for For Class D sites outside of Christchurch City liquefaction hazard assessment may be evaluated using and still within the Canterbury Earthquake Region.35 g. the activity of a fault. ie the peak horizontal ground acceleration. of on-going model refinement. geotechnical earthquake engineering purposes more comprehensive guidance may be given as a result is provided in Module 1 of the Guidelines. Mw) are the key input parameters to most must be analysed and the highest calculated total common design procedures. either scenario adopted (MBIE. 2014). •• Method 2: Site-specific probabilistic For sites other than Class D within the Canterbury seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) Earthquake Region. using the NZTA Bridge Manual.19 g. or other Canterbury Earthquake Region. A more detailed discussion of procedures for These values of amax have been classified as interim estimating ground motion parameters for guidance by MBIE. for use in other geotechnical design procedures. the time since the last rupture. The Ministry has advised that further. There is much uncertainty over the variability of the strain rate over time. amax) and ULS amax = 0. the recurrence interval. Level 2 buildings. and the location of all active faults. Method 1 is appropriate for routine engineering design The above amax values have been developed specifically projects.13 g. more complex sites. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 5 .5 the amplitude (commonly represented by the largest and amax = 0. Mw = 7. Mw for Class D sites as well as bedrock properties themselves (deep and/or soft soil sites) within the Canterbury earthquake region for liquefaction-triggering analysis •• Proximity of the site to active faults only are given below. Reference should be made to the MBIE website for the latest updates. one of the following methods: especially sites closer to the Southern Alps and •• Method 1: Risk based method using the foothills. SLS amax = 0. For engineering evaluation of liquefaction phenomena.5 the duration of ground shaking (related to earthquake For the SLS. estimating ground 3 motion parameters 4 Estimating ground motion parameters Earthquakes occur on faults with a recurrence interval that depends on the rate of strain-energy accumulation. Methods 2 and 3 are preferred for more for liquefaction triggering assessments within the significant projects. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. with no direct consideration volumetric strain resulting from liquefaction under of the frequency (represented by the response spectrum). both combinations of amax and Mw magnitude. and duration of shaking at bedrock beneath the site Canterbury Earthquake Region •• Thickness and properties of soil strata The following recommended values of amax and beneath the site and overlying the bedrock. Intervals vary from hundreds to tens of thousands of years. The annual probability of (including near-fault effects) exceedance is considered to be the average over the •• Three-dimensional relief both of the surface next 50 years. Mw = 6 value of acceleration recorded during the earthquake. frequency content. They are not applicable cases where advanced analysis can be justified. considered appropriate for Importance contours and sub-strata. amax values should be derived •• Method 3: Site-specific response analysis. Mw7. effective earthquake magnitude.

The mechanism of pore water pressure build-up is governed by a contractive tendency of soils (or tendency to reduce in volume during shearing) under cyclic loading. liquefaction refers to the sudden loss in shear stiffness and strength of soils associated with the reduction in the effective stress due to pore water pressure generation during cyclic loading caused by an earthquake shaking. the effective stress may drop to zero or nearly zero (ie the excess pore water pressure reaches the initial effective overburden stress or the total pore water pressure rises to equal the total overburden stress) and the soil will liquefy. an immediate volume reduction in the soil skeleton is prevented by the presence of incompressible pore water and insufficient time for drainage to occur. When saturated soils are subjected to rapid earthquake loading. The contractive tendency instead results in a build-up of excess pore water pressure and eventual liquefaction. In these Guidelines.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5 Identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards Cyclic behaviour of saturated soils during strong earthquakes is characterized by development of excess pore water pressures and consequent reduction in effective stress. In the extreme case. loose granular soils are particularly susceptible to liquefaction because they are highly compressible and contractive under cyclic shearing due to the high volume of voids in their soil skeleton (particle arrangement/structure). assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 6 . In this context. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification.

the limited deformational potential under cyclic loading. residual strength and extreme ground deformation. Figure 5. In this document. triggering of liquefaction. one can identify ‘flow liquefaction’ as an stresses associated with lateral spreading. and consequences of liquefaction should be recognised liquefaction triggering. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards It is important to emphasize at the outset of the resistances (𝑞𝑐1Ncs) are shown (Idriss and Boulanger. The plot. Finally. been derived assuming presence of driving shear In this context. Note that some of the maximum shear strain of excess pore water pressure build-up. and liquefaction-induced and accounted for in the liquefaction assessment.1 (corresponding to low penetration liquefaction manifestation. flow liquefaction results in practically zero different densities (ie penetration resistances).5% CRR recommended by Idriss & Boulanger (2006) 0 for clean sands 50 100 150 200 Normalized corrected CPT tip resistance – 𝑞𝑐1Ncs 1% DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. temporarily occurs during cyclic mobility.1: Maximum shear strains for clean sands with M=7. ground deformation. which is liquefaction-induced ground deformation.2 5% 0.4 50% 0.5 and s’vc = 1 atm (Source: Idriss & Boulanger 2008) 0. dense sands exhibit transient highlight important issues to consider when evaluating liquefaction in which nearly zero-effective stress only liquefaction susceptibility. Figure 5. flow-charts important factors to consider in the induced ground deformation is illustrated in Figure 5. Remedial techniques for where maximum shear strains associated with various mitigation of liquefaction and its consequences are briefly combinations of cyclic stress ratios (CSR) and penetration addressed in Section 6 of this guideline document.1 3. Assessment of the liquefaction hazard and its effects In loose to medium dense sands. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 7 . severity of values in this Figure 5. discussion on liquefaction assessment that the rate 2008). gmax 0. term simplified (liquefaction evaluation) procedure is These effects of soil density on the pore water used to refer to state-of-the-practice semi-empirical pressure build-up. mechanism of strain development methods for assessment of liquefaction susceptibility.3 20% 10% 0. liquefaction results on structures involves several steps using either in a (nearly) complete loss of effective stress and simplified or detailed analysis procedures. clearly depicts the significant differences rapid pore water pressure build-up is associated with in the consequences of liquefaction (in terms of maximum strain-softening behaviour and undrained instability shear strains or strain potential) for sand deposits with (flow).6 Maximum shear strains.5 Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) 100% 0. and effects associated with a gradual development of strains and of liquefaction on structures. These rapid development of strains in subsequent cycles of Guidelines outline some of the available procedures and shear stresses. and consequent ground resistances) are overly conservative since they have deformation strongly depend on the density of the soil.1 liquefaction assessment. extreme behaviour of very loose sandy soils in which a however.2 illustrates through The effects of density on the potential for liquefaction.

water table depth. Ic-based. interlayered liquefied deposit. LSN.2 and 5. (soil type. thickness. amax. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 8 . CPT. crust thickness Liquefaction susceptibility and integrity.1 (Sections 5. c Liquefaction triggering representative soil profile and liquefaction-induced a Overview of simplified and liquefaction susceptibility ground deformation liquefaction evaluation (Sections 4. offsets) DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. …) historical evidence) d Lateral spreading e Effects on structures (Section 5.2. PI/Ic properties. PI/Ic source and manifestation). 5. impacts on services Spreading displacements: – Maximum ground displacement Estimated performance – Zone affected by spreading versus desired performance – Lateral and vertical distribution for relevant return periods within spreading zone (stretch. amax and Mw pairs for scenario earthquakes) Liquefaction susceptibility Liquefaction triggering (B&I.3 of this module) (Section 5. SPT. continuity of critical layers. borehole. land damage Liquefaction mitigation paleo-liquefaction and other indices: LPI. amax.5 of this module) Lateral spreading Quantify effects of liquefaction-induced ground deformation and earthquake loads on deformation Free face and topographic and damage to the structure conditions. Mw .2: Factors to consider in liquefaction vulnerability assessment b Ground motion parameters. residual strength) Location of structure and foundations in relation to Uncertainties in GWL. 2014) Geology. depositional environment.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 Figure 5. Flow-deformation potential potential instability (in situ state/loads vs.3. critical layer(s) (liquefaction FC (CFC/Ic). severity of effects. MSF Subsoil stratigraphy and representative soil profile Liquefaction-induced Uncertainties in GWL. homogeneous or (PI-based. de-aggregated magnitudes.3 procedure of this module) of this module) Site characterisation Ground motion parameters Level ground conditions and seismic hazard evaluation (seismic hazard assessment: amax. geologic evaluation Consider uncertainties in kinematic and inertial loads. Vs/Vp) Effects of liquefaction Review and interpretation on structures (critical layers. index ground deformation FC (CFC/Ic). age of soils. geomorphology and geohydrology Liquefaction triggering Effects of fines content.1 and 5.2.

1. lake parameters and empirical relationships as described in shore delta deposits. deep foundations. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards 5. former pond. these are fluvial or constructed fill deposits laid down evidence of liquefaction in past earthquakes generally in a low energy environment and which are normally indicates liquefaction susceptibility of a given site. Current state-of-practice considers that backwater deposits (beach ridge and dune deposits are for surface structures and shallow foundations the usually of higher density and not as prone to liquefaction likelihood of surface damage decreases with increasing but may overlie backwater deposits). Hence.1 Site investigation and hazard identification This section covers site investigation for liquefaction assessment purposes. waterways or land features associated with high liquefaction potential. including liquefaction-related hazards. whenever soils and by measurement of undrained shear strength DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. recent depositional history and geomorphology. and this possibility is addressed in the simplified Typical sites where liquefaction has been observed liquefaction evaluation procedure through a set of include river meander and point bar deposits. SPT) for ‘sand-like’ be carefully considered in the site evaluation. Such sites should be considered as except for cases in which liquefaction at greater depths having a high risk of liquefaction and be subjected to an is also of particular concern such as thick reclaimed fills. Identification of liquefaction hazard at a site firstly requires a thorough investigation and sound understanding of the site geology. Such sites are often readily identifiable from Liquefaction can occur within strata at great depths. as described above. investigation capable of identifying liquefiable strata. and the level of risk to people and property arising from structural failure and loss of amenity. Typically. consolidated. All sites with potentially susceptible geological 5.1 Investigation plan history/geomorphology should be considered a possible liquefaction hazard and be subject to a The main objective of the site investigation is to identify detailed investigation and liquefaction assessment susceptible soil strata and to evaluate the in situ state of appropriate to the scale and type of development. The historical Evaluation of the in situ soil state will typically be carried performance of the site in past earthquake events should out by penetration soundings (eg CPT. Sites to be developed as part of the built environment must be thoroughly investigated to allow identification and assessment of all geotechnical hazards. susceptible soils. site features before construction and old river •• Atterberg limit tests for fine-grained soils (PI). fills. There are numerous case young deposits of poorly consolidated alluvial soils or histories where liquefaction has occurred repeatedly at fills with a high water table (saturated soils). beach ridge Section 5. the importance of the facilities planned for the site. The level of investigation should be appropriate to the geomorphology of the site. CPT or Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)) Historical evidence for the site should be compiled and •• Sampling of susceptible strata evaluated. estuarine deposits. or earth dams. abandoned river depth of liquefaction.2. This includes documents and data on local land •• Grading of susceptible soils (fines content) use. the same location during strong earthquakes. A suitable investigation should include the following features. and therefore liquefaction-related channels. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 9 . The present day surface geomorphology Penetration Testing (CPT) and/or borehole) may obscure previous episodes of low energy deposition •• Measurement of depth to water table of liquefiable soils and care should be taken when •• In situ testing of all susceptible strata (usually by predicting the likely sub-surface stratigraphy of a site. the scale of the proposed development. reclamation investigations are commonly limited to depths of 20m fills and tailing dams. marsh or swamp. a basic understanding of the regional geomorphology. Most cases of soil liquefaction have occurred in relatively such evidence is available. as appropriate to the scale and type of development: New Zealand has a high rate of tectonic movement (uplift mostly) and has also been affected by Holocene sea level •• Continuous profile of the subsoil (usually by Cone fluctuations. channels.3. Module 2 provides guidance on earthquake geotechnical engineering ground investigation.

Simple procedures such as Where sampling of loose. strata of interest. without the Atterberg Typically for larger projects. Procedures giving at sites with high-risk geomorphologies. Comment The following suitable investigation procedures are For projects where the SPT is being used as the routinely available within New Zealand: main investigation tool. and should not be used There is often significant variation of subsoil stratification for liquefaction assessment. is insufficiently sensitive and unable to achieve the required depth of profiling. 2015. the recovered SPT •• Cone Penetration Test (CPT) split-spoon samples should be used to carry out •• Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The Cone Penetration Test using an electronic cone Fines content measurements are necessary to (preferably CPTU where pore water pressure is make significant corrections to the SPT blow count measured). assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 10 . Taylor et al. repeatability. but has the (see Section 5. importance of the Procedures relying on recovery of undisturbed soil structure. where the cost of testing cannot be justified. fines content and Atterberg limit measurements.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 and sensitivity (eg shear vane) for ‘clay-like’ soils.2. because of its sensitivity. quality samples..2) for additional information). projects. cohesionless sand is unsupported test pit excavations and hand augers impracticable because of difficulty retaining material are usually unable to penetrate far below the water within a sampler. and spatial variability of the soil profiles at samples may fail because of the difficulty of recovering the site. Correlations between The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed these soil properties and the CPT are poor in silty using a standardised split-spoon sampler within a soils and may result in less reliable liquefaction borehole that is supported with drilling mud or casing triggering assessments unless site specific (ASTM D6066-11). may be uneconomic for smaller projects. undetected lenses of liquefiable soils commonly associated with high-risk geomorphologies are unlikely to cause major damage but the risk of and even relatively thin strata of liquefiable soil damage increases with increasing spatial extent of may pose a significant hazard in some cases.1. Without making fines content corrections. The objective is to develop a geological model undisturbed samples of loose.. Judgement continuous measurement of the soil in situ state should be used to develop a suitable investigation (eg CPT) are preferred because complex stratification is plan. Likewise. main investigation tool. the CPT will be used to limit measurements it will be necessary to make provide a grid of profiles across a site with a limited conservative assumptions regarding the liquefaction number of boreholes to recover samples from susceptibility of the soils. cohesionless soils. Stringer et al. At some sites. Small. 2015. such deposits. but also more practical methods for recovering undisturbed samples using ‘gel-push’ Sampling and laboratory testing (fines content and samplers and Dames & Moore (Osterberg-type) Atterberg limits) should be carried out for all significant hydraulic fixed-piston samplers should be considered layers of ‘suspect’ soils that are identified (or. it should be assumed that the soil is table in loose.2 Investigation procedures Intermediate soils (ie silty soils) can be evaluated with Investigation of sites with liquefiable strata presents both penetration soundings and strength testing. Some CPT rigs are able to recover For projects where the CPT is being used as the samples using push-in devices. and understanding of the site so as to have a level of Methods such as ground freezing may obtain higher confidence of detecting significant liquefaction hazards. for small (Beyzaei et al. The Scala penetrometer susceptible to liquefaction until proven otherwise. is the preferred in situ test procedure readings. it is still recommended to susceptible strata will be overlaid by gravelly soils carry out some drilling to confirm the stratigraphy that refuse penetration by the CPT and it will be and to recover samples for fines content and necessary to pre-drill through these soils. The number of subsurface profiles necessary will vary with the size. very conservative. special difficulties. and ability to the liquefaction triggering analysis results may be provide continuous profiling and to detect thin strata. Atterberg limit measurements. It has the advantage that a disturbed correlations based on sampling are available soil sample is recovered after each test. cohesionless soils. 2015) although it is noted that these methodologies conservative assumptions should be made).. 5. disadvantage that test depth-intervals are widely DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification.

primarily because the available database are encountered to ensure each layer has at least one of case histories is much less than for the SPT and CPT. Comment Pending additional research into pumice soils. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards spaced and susceptible soil strata may be overlooked. both Weight Sounding (SWS) testing has been introduced destructive and non-destructive. (2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). However. The SPT procedure has Typically. Seismic CPT procedures using recommendations of Seed et al. are provided in Module 2 of the Guidelines. Other techniques. velocity measurements are commonly taken at set intervals SPT energy should be measured to greatly reduce the (typically 1m) and so do not provide a continuous profile uncertainty in the collected SPT data. (1985). Further calibration and verification of SWS for site and soil characterisation. residential properties where more robust CPT or SPT High quality undisturbed samples and specialised tests are either difficult or uneconomic to conduct. Initial application and validation of profiling shear wave velocity versus depth. consistent testing procedures and interpretation of results. In the interim. Swedish wave velocity measurements. operator dependence and often lack of that are separated a known distance is preferred) and critical information on the testing procedure (eg energy performed in conjunction with a CPT sounding. Shear wave efficiency specific to the employed testing procedure).75m) interval in measuring SPT versus depth are becoming widely accepted. the SWS should only be on site investigations for liquefaction assessment used where local CPT correlations are carried out. dynamic laboratory tests (eg cyclic triaxial or simple shear tests) may be considered for large projects. However. reduce the ambiguity in the interpretation of shear Following the 2010 Darfield earthquake. SWS suggest that the test might be useful for quick Penetrometer tests have been shown to be less effective and cost-effective site investigations of individual in assessing liquefaction susceptibility in pumice soils. If the SPT is to be with depth. and to find an appropriate role for this test in site investigations of individual residential More comprehensive information and guidance properties. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 11 . but there is no is needed in New Zealand in order to develop database of proven case studies for these soils. as summarised two receivers are recommended since they substantially in Youd et al. then the results should correlated with CPT penetration resistance to give a be carefully interpreted and corrected according to the pseudo-continuous profile. shear The SWS has been adopted in Japan as the standard wave velocity profiling may prove to be an important field test for site investigation of residential investigation tool in conjunction with other methods land. SPT value to characterise it. but a SPT should be performed when new layers procedures. the shear wave velocity may be relied upon for an investigation. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. resistance is recommended for collecting data in critical shear wave velocity liquefaction triggering procedures layers. shear wave velocity profiles are obtained using other technical limitations including relatively poor a seismic CPT (a CPT probe with two in-built geophones repeatability. A larger interval may be used in less critical are still not considered to be as robust as CPT-based layers. Evaluation procedures using profiles of shear wave velocity A one-metre (or even 0. are also available for to New Zealand.

Based on principal characteristics of undrained reported in late Pleistocene sediments (Youd et al. shaking of the adopted design earthquake strong Criteria based only on grain size distribution are now enough to trigger liquefaction at the site? generally not accepted for liquefaction susceptibility.1 Liquefaction susceptibility silts). 1977. there is abundant deformation and effects on structures? evidence of liquefaction occurring in non-plastic and low-plasticity soils outside this range (eg gravels and 5. those which behave: It should be noted that time since last liquefaction •• more fundamentally like clays (clay-like behaviour). do consider when assessing liquefaction susceptibility. gravels and non-plastic silts the excess to quantify and are usually not directly addressed in pore pressure can rise to equal the effective overburden design procedures. amount of fines. extensive classification are often adopted to examine whether the liquefaction occurred in sands containing a significant soils at the site might be susceptible to liquefaction or not. then is the ground preliminary evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. 1978). However. charts for liquefaction evaluation were in Holocene There are numerous subtle differences between the deposits or constructed fills (Seed and Idriss. 1985. The greatest difficulty arises in soils that liquefied previously in particular are susceptible the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained to liquefaction (Youd and Hoose. Youd and soils that are in the transition zone between the liquefiable Perkins. Most liquefaction-induced failures sands and non-liquefiable clays. Boulanger and Idriss. Estimation of site-specific engineering properties of soils massive liquefaction occurred in well-graded reclaimed fills and site conditions is a key aspect in the evaluation of containing 30 percent to 60 percent gravels. 1971.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. undrained responses of sands and clayey soils. 3 If liquefaction occurs.. 2003).2 Assessment of liquefaction susceptibility and triggering This section discusses susceptibility criteria and analysis procedures for assessment of triggering and consequences of liquefaction. constructed fills. 2008). Assessment of liquefaction hazard at a given site Compositional criteria generally involves three steps to evaluate: Classification of soils based on soil type and grain-size 1 Are the soils at the site susceptible to liquefaction? composition was commonly used in the past for 2 If the soils are susceptible. Thus. not exhibit typical liquefaction features. on the other hand. Note that liquefaction has been stress. In the 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake for example. 2006) identified two types of part in the total body of liquefaction case histories. 2000 Tottori (Japan) procedures based on geological criteria and soil and the 2010 to 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. such as silts and sands and nearly all case history data compiled in empirical containing low-plasticity silts or some amount of clays. soil gradation criteria alone are not It is also worth noting that previous liquefaction doesn’t a reliable indicator of liquefaction susceptibility. fine-grained soils. •• more fundamentally like sands (sand-like behaviour).. screening Kocaeli (Turkey). improve soil liquefaction resistance to future events. and therefore are Young Holocene sediments. There is general agreement that sands. however. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 12 . and considered non-liquefiable.2. non-plastic silts. fine sands. Clays. Pore Seed et al. resulting liquefaction-induced ground cohesionless. then what will be the Most cases of liquefaction have occurred in saturated. Initially. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. behaviour and relevant procedures for their evaluation. though such episodes are rare and comprise a small Boulanger and Idriss (2004. and gravels and their mixtures form soils that are susceptible Geological criteria to liquefaction. even though they The age of the deposit is an important factor to may significantly soften and fail under cyclic loading. and event supersedes deposition age. It has pressure rise in clayey soils is typically limited to 60 been generally accepted that aging improves liquefaction percent to 80 percent of the effective overburden stress resistance of soils. 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan). In the 1999 liquefaction potential at a given site. ageing effects are difficult whereas in sands.

and 𝜎𝑣𝑜 = total vertical stress. and fines-containing sands is limited and therefore in cases Robertson and Cabal (2014) provide some updates where characterisation of such soils is difficult. calculated from the CPT •• PI < 7. 𝑞𝑐 = cone tip to have ‘clay-like’ behaviour and are evaluated resistance. 𝑓𝑠 •• PI > 12.6. that Ic =2. soils. some clay soils can undergo significant strength loss as result of earthquake Comment shaking.6 are most likely too clay-rich simplified procedure for sands and non-plastic to liquefy silts presented in these Guidelines. Bray and Sancio. Deviations from the adopted threshold value are possible but should only be adopted in the The so-called ‘Chinese Criteria’. FC = percent of dry mass passing through a 0.6 is commonly used as a threshold susceptible to liquefaction does not imply for separating between liquefiable and non-liquefiable that these soils are inherently stable. factor and the threshold Ic value separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils. Robertson (2009). Not Susceptible to Liquefaction: F= x 100% 𝑞𝑐 − 𝜎𝑣𝑜 Soils classified under this category are assumed in which fs = cone sleeve resistance. Ic =2. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 13 . be carried out to confirm liquefaction susceptibility. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. be sampled and tested (or assumed liquefiable). the soils of the procedure of Robertson and Wride (1998) should be either conservatively treated (as liquefiable) with regard to the overburden stress correction or detailed laboratory testing should be conducted. which have been liquefaction evaluation if proven by substantial traditionally used to determine liquefaction susceptibility testing of the subject soils and rigorous scrutiny of fine-grained soils. Potentially Susceptible to Liquefaction: to confirm the soil type and susceptibility Soils classified under this category should be (or assumed liquefiable) considered as ‘sand-like’ and evaluated either using the simplified procedure for sands and non-plastic 3 Soils with Ic > 2. of soils – which is inherently embodied in the For high risk/high consequence projects. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards The guidelines for treatment of fine-grained soils herein Preferably. but with a normalised friction silts or using site-specific studies including ratio F < 1%. 2 Soils with Ic ≥ 2.4 should be sampled and tested •• 7 ≤ PI ≤ 12. Here. using the procedure outlined in Section 7. 2001). without any sampling. so classifying these soils as not In practice. sieve) in the transition zone is simply characterised based then liquefaction susceptibility may be evaluated by use on the plasticity index (PI) as follows: of the soil behaviour type index. summarised by Youd et. 2006. Susceptible to Liquefaction: data (Robertson and Wride. Soils classified under this category should be al. Ic should not semi-empirical liquefaction-triggering charts based be relied upon and soil sampling and testing should on CPT or SPT – is given in Cubrinovski et al. should no longer be used via other susceptibility criteria. Liquefaction Samples recovered from the SPT split-spoon sampler susceptibility of fines-containing soils (FC > 30%. Idriss (2006) and Bray and Sancio (2006). Comment Further discussion on the effects of fines on the Reliance on Ic alone may give conservative results liquefaction resistance of sandy soils including in silty soils and supplementary soil sampling and the effects of fines on the penetration resistance testing is recommended. Importantly. 2006). Ic. The following criteria are recommended: considered as ‘sand-like’ and evaluated using the 1 Soils with Ic > 2.075mm Where CPT data alone is available. soil samples should be obtained from all soil are based on the knowledge and recommendations layers of concern so that the fines content and plasticity from recent studies such as those by Boulanger and index can be measured by standard laboratory tests. if there is evidence (Boulanger and Idriss. or. 1998.6 is not an appropriate threshold based Current understanding of the seismic behaviour of on observed performance.. where are suitable for this purpose. may be very sensitive and should laboratory tests on good-quality soil samples. (2010).

There are several procedures. The Green et al. velocity liquefaction triggering procedures are triggering of liquefaction should be assessed still not considered to be as robust as CPT-based throughout the depth of the layer. earthquake shaking. and accuracy for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. Moss et al. obtained across the three triggering methods. estimation and Idriss (2014). A more detailed Canterbury earthquakes. generally consistent results were (Tonkin and Taylor. The aforementioned studies Further updates and calibration of the triggering used extensive CPT investigations and detailed methods for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method documentation of liquefaction manifestation based on the Christchurch data were included observed in Christchurch after the 2010 to 2011 in Boulanger and Idriss (2014). assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 14 . 2014. detailed studies on the Christchurch liquefaction In both studies. profiles of shear wave velocity versus depth are Comment The predictive capacity of three CPT liquefaction triggering based on detailed analysis of 25 well- assessment methods was scrutinised in two documented case studies from Christchurch. 2014). as summarised in recommendations of the particular method for each the NCEER Guidelines by Youd et al. (1985). which represents the additional experiences from the 2010–2011 Christchurch seismic demand on a soil layer caused by the design earthquakes and elsewhere. and more step in the liquefaction evaluation. In this revision of the Guidelines the of two variables is required for evaluation of liquefaction most recent update by Boulanger and Idriss (2014) is triggering the: recommended as it offers some additional insights and flexibility in the liquefaction evaluation and recent •• Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR). Boulanger and Idriss (2014) is provided in Appendix A. (2006). shear wave For all soils identified as susceptible to liquefaction. These guidelines recommend the widely methods are not in common usage. however.2. evaluation procedures using capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction. The Tonkin and Taylor (T&T) discussion of the important differences between study assessed liquefaction vulnerability based on the method of Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and a comprehensive CPT data set of over 1000 tests. The examined methods were Robertson and though both studies indicated slightly higher level of Wride (1998). used CPT and SPT-based simplified procedure based on It is essential that whichever method is chosen.2 Triggering of liquefaction becoming widely accepted. recently by Idriss and Boulanger (2008). it the empirical method originally proposed by Seed and is consistently and rigorously applied following the Idriss (1971) and Seed et al. Green et al.. and Boulanger In the simplified procedure described herein. (2014) study assessed liquefaction DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. and •• Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). (2001). Idriss and Boulanger (2008). which represents the As stated previously. Other simplified methods based on energy approaches available for assessment of triggering of considerations are also available although these liquefaction.

DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. stress ratio that is required to cause liquefaction The triggering factor FL is determined (for liquefiable in a specified number of cycles. and for Mw required for calculating rd.1): obtained using one of the methods described in Section 4. MSF. amax 𝜎𝑣𝑜 (5. it is recommended earthquake. (2001): of cycles. In this context. represented by Ks. so-called Magnitude Scaling Factor. are using Equation (5.5 event 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 = effective vertical stress at depth z and corresponds approximately to the stress ratio that causes liquefaction in 15 uniform cycles. The corresponding NCEER (Youd et al. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards Values for the peak ground acceleration amax required in The liquefaction triggering factor (FL) is computed Equation 5. Methods of calculation for CSR and CRR are given For each liquefiable layer consisting of sands. then additional analyses and considerations should be given to effects of depth and overburden stress on both CSR and CRR. overburden the dynamic response of the soil profile corrective factor. while or liquefaction or surcharges).0.1) FL = Whether liquefaction will be triggered or not in a CSR given layer depends both on the amplitude and on in which: CRR = Cyclic Resistance Ratio the number of cycles of shear stresses caused by CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio the earthquake.2) considered appropriate for assessment of gravelly soils. (Boulanger and Idriss (2014) give an updated Note that use of the simplified procedure is expression for calculating rd as a function of depth recommended for use up to 15m depth. For the purpose of liquefaction evaluation.65 rd 𝑔 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 Comment in which: The MSF relationship of Boulanger and Idriss (2014) amax = p  eak horizontal acceleration considers not only the effect of increasing duration at the ground surface (or numbers of cycles) with earthquake magnitude (Note that amax is an estimate for but also accounts for differences in the soil response the peak ground acceleration at a depending on soil density (represented by penetration level site for a hypothetical response resistance). It implies that the MSF varies significantly without effects of excess pore pressure in dense sands (high penetration resistance). CSR = 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 In the simplified procedure.1. If it is employed and Mw) for greater depths.3. is then using the simplified expression proposed used to estimate CRR for different magnitudes or number by Seed and Idriss (1971) given in Youd et al. CRR is evaluated by means in which: 𝜏𝑐𝑦𝑐 = cyclic shear stress of semi-empirical charts for a magnitude Mw = 7. non-plastic silts or fine-grained soils considered to In the course of the ground shaking during an be susceptible in Section 5. A correction For routine projects. CSR can be estimated factor. the variation of MSF with Mw is much smaller See Section 4. and in effect indicates soils) throughout the depth of the deposit.  cceleration of gravity (in same units as amax) g=a Further discussion is included in Appendix A. the soil is subjected to cyclic shear that CRR be estimated using the Boulanger and Idriss stresses.3) CSR = 0. the liquefaction resistance of the soil.. for loose sands (low penetration resistance). CRR represents a Liquefaction triggered is indicated if FL ≤ 1. in full detail in Boulanger and Idriss (2014).3. in the simplified procedure). CRR (5. (2014) procedures based on penetration resistance these cyclic shear stresses are expressed in terms (SPT or CPT). 𝜎𝑣𝑜 = t otal vertical stress 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 = effective vertical stress Adjustments are also made to CRR for overburden rd = s tress reduction factor that accounts for pressure (ie depth. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 15 . of the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR): 2001) criteria based on the shear wave velocity (Vs) are 𝜏𝑐𝑦𝑐 (5.

(normalizing factors CN or CQ) and liquefaction resistance (overburden stress factor. penetration resistance of liquefaction are likely to occur. cyclic liquefaction evaluation procedures should be limited stress ratios (seismic demand) at depths greater than to 15m depth. Effects of large depths through sensitivity studies. in the case of deep foundations. it is straightforward to recover the split-spoon significantly on the fines content (FC) of the soil for samples and have the FC measured in a laboratory (and two main reasons: also the PI for susceptibility determination). Kσ). over the relevant range of their values. In such evaluations. Values for CRR correlated to CPT and SPT depend For the SPT. Where sampling and measurement of of CPT (𝑞𝑐) and SPT (N) in silty sand to give ‘equivalent’ FC is not carried out. the determination of the FC of the should be complemented by drilling and sampling of subject soil is critically important to the liquefaction potentially problematic soils to verify the Ic correlations triggering analysis (and also to the determination of with FC or determine site specific correlations for liquefaction susceptibility. earth dams. rd). For the CPT.1). each soil layer (or make FC corrections manually in Adjustments are made to increase the measured values the analysis). but a very few data points for depths greater than 9m. tailing With this background in mind. it is possible that liquefaction may case histories is limited to depths less than 12m with have occurred deeper within the soil profile. the triggering procedure. application of simplified dams or thick reclaimed fills. and high overburden stresses on the liquefaction resistance of soils should be carefully evaluated Importantly. the sensitivity of the analysis resistance values for clean sand using the procedure to the FC – Ic correlation should be investigated by of Boulanger and Idriss (2014). DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. Extrapolation to 20m depth should 20m should be evaluated using dynamic analyses. and variations greater than 15m by evaluating the effects of variation associated with the ground motion characteristics in parameters. non-liquefiable surface layer could have obscured One should also acknowledge that in the simplified its manifestation on the ground surface. deformation and interaction issues. including liquefaction were observed (ie liquefaction cases) stability. liquefaction at various depths is simplified empirical method appears to be the most considered by using a set of parameters incorporating suitable for evaluating shallow liquefaction and for the effects of depth on the seismic demand (stress identifying those cases wherein surface manifestations reduction factor. account for the increased uncertainties at depths including considerations of uncertainties. CPT testing Accordingly. empirically-based liquefaction triggering using experimental evidence from relevant soils. 1 the presence of fines affects the resistance no sample is recovered and instead a correlation is made of soil to cyclic loading. indicated that the database of CPT liquefaction In the latter case. Boulanger and Idriss (2014) were not observed (ie no liquefaction cases). There are Special expertise and considerations are required significant uncertainties with these parameters for for liquefaction evaluation at greater depths such as depths greater than those covered in the database.3. procedures divide case histories into two categories: Consequences of liquefaction should be considered 1 cases wherein surface manifestations of in the context of the particular structure. and between FC and the soil behaviour type index Ic using the procedure given in Boulanger and Idriss (2014).identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 Comment In their recent revision of the CPT-based liquefaction 2 cases wherein surface manifestations of liquefaction triggering procedure. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 16 . 2 the presence of fines also reduces the penetration resistance measured in the CPT and SPT. varying the correlation-fitting factor according to the recommendation of Boulanger and Idriss (2014). as discussed in Section 5. and for high risk/high consequence projects. The correlation between FC and Ic is very weak. and dynamic ground response. Thus.

29 to +0. shear seismic hazard evaluation. Comment Efforts to obtain site specific correlations for CFC Uniform gravels in which gravel-size particles form should be carried out with care given the difficulties the soil matrix have lower liquefaction potential associated with obtaining representative soil samples than sandy soils because of their high hydraulic from the exact locations of specific CPT readings. to test the sensitivity of the analysis to variations in the FC correlation to Ic. Effects Further discussion of the FC – Ic correlation is of grain size distribution on penetration resistance are given in Appendix A.29. Boulanger and Idriss (2014) discussed in Tokimatsu. such gravels show greater than the published correlation that is based on resistance to cyclic loading including lower rate significant numbers of data points. and smaller cyclic strains. CFC over the range -0. In this context. and Idriss. simplified procedure soils. conductivity and greater stiffness and strength. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards Procedures for gravelly soils based on large penetration Comment tests (BPT) are discussed in Youd et al. The ‘normal’ deterministic. of excess pore pressure build-up. (2001). it is recommended that this ‘normal’ probability of 16 percent be maintained in the liquefaction triggering analysis.1 standard deviation. at FL=1. Kokusho and Yoshida recommend varying their correlation-fitting factor (1997). For site assessments being carried out for purposes of compliance with the Building Code. about equivalent to +/. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 17 . confined gravels and gravelly soils recommended in this Guideline uses a semi-empirical containing significant amount of sands and fines curve for CRR corresponding to a 16 percent probability (well-graded gravels) should be considered of (about 1 standard deviation) for liquefaction triggering similar liquefaction susceptibility as sandy soils. 2014). such gravels A probabilistic version of the CPT-based liquefaction would have a limited strain potential and would not triggering procedure is presented in Boulanger and Idriss manifest liquefaction instability typical for sandy (2014). However. and may often be smaller than wave velocity-based evaluation offers an alternative the uncertainty in the site characterisation (Boulanger practical approach for assessment of gravels. Single point correlations for a site may be less reliable For these reasons. The uncertainty in the liquefaction triggering interpreted to account for the grain-size effects analysis is much smaller than the uncertainty in the on the penetration resistance. (1988). Even when liquefied. and Cubrinovski and Ishihara (1999). DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. considering uncertainty in the triggering analysis Penetration tests in gravels should be carefully alone.

identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. These large cyclic lateral movements are important to consider because they may generate significant kinematic loads on buried structures and deep foundations. and can displacements is generally related to the liquefaction be significant even for free-field level-ground sites. triggering factor FL and to the overall thickness of ie without the presence of an overlying structure. many resulting in settlement of the ground. Table 5. Loss of soil sites in Christchurch repeatedly liquefied during volume due to sand ejecta on the ground surface can strong earthquakes. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 18 . The peak cyclic (transient) shear strains typically range from two percent in dense sands to four percent in loose sands. Ishihara and Liquefaction-induced settlement should not be Yoshimine. soil fabric with low liquefaction resistance. resulting in large cyclic lateral displacements of the liquefied layer.1 summarises performance indication of an increase in the liquefaction resistance levels for liquefied soil deposits.5m (Ishihara and Cubrinovski. During and re-consolidation of the liquefied soil eventually the Canterbury earthquake sequence. complex process involving dissipation of excess pore weaknesses in the ground. settlements. and post-liquefaction water pressure. 2005).3 Liquefaction-induced ground deformation The significant reduction in stiffness and strength of soils from build-up of excess pore water pressure results in development of large shear strains in the ground during intense ground shaking. Post-liquefaction behaviour is characterised by a usually results in non-homogeneity. liquefaction for general guidance only. the liquefied layer (Ishihara. often exhibiting more severe also significantly contribute to global and differential liquefaction effects in the subsequent events. re-solidification. vent holes. 1985. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. These liquefaction-induced settlements The magnitude of liquefaction-induced ground occur during and after the earthquake shaking. 1992). Based on general interpretation misinterpreted as densification of the ground or an of these relations. On the contrary. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake the peak lateral displacements within liquefied fills were up to about 0. sedimentation. and should be used of the liquefied soils.

LPI = 0 LSN = 5 – 15 Liquefaction occurs in layers of limited thickness FL ≈ 1. Complete liquefaction develops in most of the deposit FL << 1. moderate differential LPI = 5 – 15 movements. (2014) and van Ballegooy et al. negligible FL > 1. (2014) provide significant insights on liquefaction-induced land damage and its interpretation through land damage indices LPI and LSN. The ranges provided in the table are based on triggering calculations using Boulanger and Idriss (2014) method. thickness and location of liquefied layer).0 L3 High transient lateral displacements.0 (small proportion of the deposit.1: General performance levels for liquefied deposits Effects from excess Performance pore water pressure Characteristics of liquefaction Characteristic Level and liquefaction and its consequences FL . but may mispredict damage/ performance for about 20 percent to 30 percent of the cases. and may produce effects equivalent to Performance Levels L3 and L4. thickness of liquefied soils and their location within the soil profile. These indices are typically applied for area-based screening. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. Notes 1 Liquefaction of relatively thin layers of near-surface soils could be very damaging. Liquefaction resulting in lateral spreading (flow). large permanent lateral ground displacements and/or L5 Very severe significant ground distortion (lateral strains/stretch.4 L0 Insignificant (no liquefaction). and in such applications have reasonable predictive capacity.. 1978) and LSN (van Ballegooy et al. 4 All being equal (ie FL . identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards Table 5.2 L1 Mild deformation of the ground and small settlements. vertical offsets and angular distortion). Maurer et al.0 resulting in large lateral displacements of the ground. L4 Severe LPI > 15 excessive differential settlements and total settlement LSN > 30 of over 200mm.. LSN quantifies this effect in a simplified manner. ground deformation LSN 10 – 25 results relatively small in differential settlements. zero-effective stress liquefaction. LPI=0 LSN <10 Limited excess pore water pressures. loose to medium dense. 3 LPI (Iwasaki et al. 2014) are damage indices that quantify liquefaction-induced damage by combining the effects of the severity of liquefaction (value of FL or F S). say 10 percent L2 Moderate LPI < 5 or less) and lateral extent. 5 The LPI and LSN should be considered in the context of particular ground conditions and structure of interest. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 19 . and settlement of the ground in the order LSN = 15 – 35 of 100mm to 200mm. and analyses and interpretation of liquefaction effects in the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Liquefaction occurs in significant portion of the deposit (say 30 percent to 50 percent) resulting in FL < 1. and dense sands respectively). Severity of liquefaction effects decreases with increasing density of the soils. and nearly zero-effective stress transient liquefaction with cyclic mobility are characteristic types of behaviour associated with very loose. liquefaction consequences and magnitude of liquefaction-induced ground deformation strongly depend on the density of the soil. The threshold values for these indices shown in relation to the performance levels are only indicative values. 2 A relatively thin liquefied layer with low residual strength could be responsible for lateral spreading and consequent very severe effects (Performance Level L5). These thresholds may vary and do not cover all liquefaction cases (scenarios and ground conditions). LPI No significant excess pore water pressures FL > 1. and importantly the mechanism of ground deformation also changes as the density of the soil increases (eg flow liquefaction.

The presence of non-liquefiable crust at the ground then both lateral displacement and settlement of the surface may reduce the manifestation and damaging ground need to be estimated. The magnitude and and in particular the liquefying layer beneath the spatial distribution of lateral spreading displacements crust. short distances. Such beneficial effects of the crust should only be expected in cases where lateral spreading does not occur. 2014). roads and buried structures should be evaluated. generally increase with the thickness of the liquefied layer. including initial density of liquefaction (ground rupture and sand boils) are of the soil.0). and in conjunction with the response of the whole deposit. If at any depth of the investigated deposit the liquefaction Shallow liquefaction (associated with large volumes triggering factor is FL ≤ 1. non-liquefied crust at the ground surface. then liquefaction-induced of sand ejecta and ground distortion) was particularly ground deformation and effects of liquefaction on damaging to shallow foundations. thickness and quality layer. including loads from the crust on the should be considered in the design. can be foundations. intensity of ground shaking. and especially with lateral spreading. If triggering of liquefaction is predicted (FL ≤ 1. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. effects of the crust layer are not always beneficial. as observed by Ishihara (1985) estimating liquefaction-induced ground deformation and more recently in the Canterbury earthquake sequence are discussed below. continuity and integrity) of an overlying stresses under gravity loads. Some procedures for effects of liquefaction. Surface manifestations depend on various factors. presence of driving (strength. thickness and location of the liquefied also influenced by the presence. and with the proximity of the liquefied layer to the ground surface and structure foundations. and there are numerous cases in It is prudent to assume that effects of liquefaction. which large lateral loads are applied from the crust on including consequent ground deformation. The effects of soil-structure interaction need to are particularly difficult to predict. and where the crust is sufficiently thick and robust to ensure reduced differential movements for relatively light structures on shallow foundations.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 There are considerable uncertainties regarding The effects of the crust layer should be considered the stiffness and strength of liquefying soils. In this context. and highly inter-layered silty soils in caused by liquefaction is affected by the properties the top 5 to 6m (consisting of layers of sandy soils and and thickness of the liquefied layer. and by the silty soils of higher Ic values). the effects of liquefaction and its manifestation on Ground displacements and liquefaction-induced damage the ground surface. the severity of ground damage ground surface. structure. and that differential movements. There is evidence from the Canterbury earthquake sequence that an adequate non-liquefied crust at the For level ground sites. and drainage conditions. consequent ground deformation. and irregularity of ground distortion often occur.1. buried structures and piles during ground highly non-uniform (horizontally and vertically) across shaking. (Tonkin and Taylor. zones of weakness. reduced or suppressed location of the liquefied layer within the soil profile. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 20 . pipelines (water and wastewater) in the 2010 to 2011 The magnitude and extent of ground deformation Christchurch earthquakes. These uncertainties be considered.

3g. as a proxy for the damaging effects of liquefaction Additional settlements may be caused by shear rather than a reliable estimate of ground settlement. (2002). relate directly to the Nihonkai-chubu and They were not intended to set or be used as a standard. 0. respectively. The calculation of liquefaction. 0.8 earthquakes. These criteria are expressed rough approximation of associated values of amax.5g). the Christchurch earthquakes have shown that other The chart was developed based on observations factors such as presence of fines or silty soils. In summary. Hence.3. M=7. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards Comments on Ishihara criteria for damaging liquefaction based on crust thickness Ishihara (1985) developed criteria identifying conditions obtained by a simple interpolation and without for occurrence of liquefaction-induced damage based direct evidence. for assessment of liquefaction triggering described In view of the limitations of the existing simplified in these Guidelines. In this •• 1976 Tengshan earthquake (China. the difference between the post-liquefaction displacement of foundation soils. shown for three levels of accelerations (0. Hence.4–0. in the development of the chart. the two solid lines data. Tengshan earthquake case histories. Experiences from describe its features and limitations. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. context. and Zhang et al. stresses induced by overlying structures and also by Moreover. These accounted for in the above simplified methods for methods are compatible with the simplified procedure evaluation of liquefaction-induced settlement. 5. and highly stratified soils of different •• 1983 Nihonkai-chubu earthquake (Japan. Ishihara generalised criterion that is applicable over a wide estimated accelerations of 0. may substantially affect the liquefaction manifestation and associated land damage. the chart summarises the ground surface (H1). M=7. and thickness of the underlying interpretation for M=7.4–0. expansion of the soil masses towards the waterway. Ishihara None of these settlement-producing mechanisms is and Yoshimine (1992). eg Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). including non-liquefiable and soils. on the seismic demand on the thickness of a crust of non-liquefied soils at (earthquake loading) side. liquefaction potential. Because the chart is often used in uniform sand deposit with a mantle of non-liquefiable liquefaction evaluation in practice.5g for the Tengshan Ishihara criteria were developed based on limited earthqauke respectively.2g for the Nihonkai. and involved multiple simplifying assumptions in the original chart of Ishihara (1985).8).2g. it is useful to briefly layer or crust at the ground surface. in a H2 – H1 chart in which boundary curves for Another important feature that needs to be identification of liquefaction-induced damage are acknowledged is that. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 21 . and particularly the pronounced non- liquefied soils.2g and to arrive at conceptual criteria for general guidance. methods (which only allow for post-liquefaction induced settlements is based on estimation of reconsolidation settlements in level ground free- cumulative vertical strains due to reconsolidation of field deposits). Ishihara considered a relatively simple soil profile of and 0. Areas affected by lateral spreading also likely differential settlement between the two points. and includes liquefied sand layer (H2). ground sites.5g. investigation point and at another site investigation such mechanisms produce excessive differential point should not be interpreted as representing the settlements. the chubu earthquake and 0. of from two earthquakes: low plasticity.7). deformation. it is rational to consider the calculated thick deposits of poorly compacted sandy soils have settlements based on the simplified methods only especially high potential for large settlements. the Ishihara chart should not be seen as a In the absence of ground motion records. range of subsurface conditions.4–0. When pronounced. including loss of soil reconsolidation settlements calculated at one site volume due to sediment ejecta. for 0.1 Liquefaction-induced settlements commonly exhibit non-uniform settlements due to Several simplified methods are available for calculation slumping of soils associated with the complex lateral of liquefaction-induced settlements of free-field level.3g in the original chart was evaluations referring to this chart.7–7. In summary. which typically range from one percent uniformity of liquefaction effects and consequent ground for dense sands to five percent for loose sands. This intent should be reflected in engineering The dashed line for 0.

Cyclic ground displacements can be calculated observed in the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes. 2007). (2002) developed equations for prediction uncertainties in the estimates of the yield acceleration of lateral ground displacements due to spreading and residual strength of liquefying or liquefied soils. and the mode of liquefiable soils. Jibson (2007). 1998. 2004). acceleration is calculated using the limit equilibrium approach. It is important to acknowledge that the underlying source distance are accounted for in this procedure. 2002. it is important to consider the Youd et al.2 Cyclic (transient) ground displacements Comment The empirical procedure proposed by Tokimatsu and Estimates of lateral spreading should consider several Asaka (1998) can be used for a preliminary assessment of the available methods and so consider the range and of cyclic ground displacements in liquefied soils of variability of the predictions and possible extent of the level-ground sites. and movement of the slope (earth structure) Empirical charts is then calculated either by using acceleration time There are several empirical methods available for history records and integrating episodes when the evaluation of lateral spreading displacements (Youd et ground acceleration exceeds the yield level. by a bottom-up integration of the estimated cyclic shear strains throughout the depth of the deposit. The low level of accuracy in the predictions.. The procedure is based on an hazard. Tokimatsu and Asaka. In this method. Zhang et al. using regression techniques with compiled data from Additional information is given by Bray and Travasarou case histories. Newmark (rigid-block) method 5. approximate equations developed from analyses based Using field observations from case histories of lateral on a suite of earthquake records (eg Bray and Travasarou. and site-to. Cubrinovski and Robinson (2015) provide guidance empirical chart correlating the maximum cyclic shear for a more systematic evaluation of lateral spreading strain in liquefied soil with the SPT blow count and based on a comprehensive study of lateral spreads CSR. spreads caused by liquefaction in past earthquakes. and provides a rational approach for quantifying the encountered. 1965). and Olson and Johnson (2008).3. yield to free faces such as waterways. This limitation should be predicted ground displacements are generally within a considered when evaluating the applicability of the factor of two (ie half or twice) of the observed lateral method to a particular problem. or by using al. SPT resistance. (2007).3. 2011). assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 22 .. In the calculations. assumption for rigid-body behaviour of the Newmark The accuracy of the simplified empirical methods for method is incompatible with the flexible deformation lateral spreading displacements is relatively low. earthquake magnitude. and the of lateral spreading displacements at bridge abutments complexity of lateral spreading emphasize the need to (PEER.3 Permanent lateral spreading Earthquake-induced permanent lateral displacements displacements can be estimated using Newmark’s procedure for Permanent lateral spreading displacements occur displacement of a rigid body subjected to base in sloping ground and are especially prevalent near accelerations (Newmark. beneficial effects of deck strutting resulting in reduction lack of theoretical basis of the empirical methods. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. Factors such as site configuration. consider and account for uncertainties in the estimates of lateral spreading displacements in engineering evaluations.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. The method may still spreading displacements though even larger deviations be useful for cases with isolated pockets of liquefiable between predicted and observed displacements are often soils.

In both cases. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 23 . strength (GEESDIV Conference. risk of bearing failures. more likely to undergo cyclic mobility with limited •• Idriss and Boulanger (2008) recommend relationships strain potential rather than flow failures. b Where void ratio redistribution effects could both normalised and non-normalised relationships be significant. At a specialised session on residual void redistribution is not possible). identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards 5. 2008) and the effects of depth of liquefaction (location of the liquefied layer within the profile) or effective overburden stress. and liquefaction-induced lateral displacements. In cases where a low permeability layer acts as a barrier and prevents the upward flow. There are several empirical relationships currently Note available for estimating the residual shear strength These relationships have been extrapolated beyond of liquefied soils: the range of available data (eg the relationships are •• The empirical correlation of Seed and Harder shown with dashed lines for 𝑞𝑐 INcs > 90 in Idriss (1990) presents the residual strength Sr as a and Boulanger. significant loosening of the liquefied layer may occur at this interface (eg water film effects and void redistribution. May 2008) there was general consensus that. and account for the outcome of such sensitivity study in the interpretation of the results and decision-making. In view of the uncertainties involved. immune from liquefaction-induced flow failures. it seems prudent to evaluate the sensitivity of the results to assumed Sr values. but this does not eliminate the possibility correlations both based on normalized SPT blow that denser soils within the extrapolated range are count (N 1)60 and normalized CPT resistance 𝑞𝑐1N. Sacramento. It has been suggested that the normalised form of the residual strength (ie Sr/𝜎′𝑣𝑜) better reflects the potential strength loss due to void redistribution (Idriss and Boulanger. Experience from previous earthquakes and experimental studies on scaled-down models indicate that residual strength of liquefied soils can be much lower than the undrained strength of soils. for the time being. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. but they are terms of a ratio (Sr/𝜎′𝑣𝑜) or normalized strength. in terms of Sr/𝜎′𝑣𝑜 based on both (N 1)60cs-Sr and (𝑞𝑐1N)cs-Sr for two separate conditions: It is important to note that the above-mentioned a Where void ratio redistribution effects are relationships are based on similar data sets and they expected to be negligible (this case should differ essentially in the interpretation of observations not be used unless it can be shown that of the case histories. dense soils may liquefy. which is sustained during the pore water pressure redistribution and groundwater flow. (2003)). the residual strength is defined in Generally. Kokusho. the primary candidates for liquefaction induced •• Olson and Stark (2002) provide empirical instability. A nearly complete loss of effective stress. and lack of evidence over the extrapolated range. (2008)) indicating uncertainties function of the equivalent sand SPT blow count. and potential loosening of liquefied soils (void ratio redistribution and expansion) due to upward water flow are considered the primary reasons for the low residual strength of liquefied soils. should be used in parallel.4 Residual strength of liquefied soils Residual shear strength of liquefied soils can be used in the assessment of post-liquefaction stability of sloping ground. (N 1)60cs-Sr (note that the fines content correction The absence of case histories where 𝑞𝑐 INcs > 90 for SPT blow count for estimating residual strength or (N 1)60cs-Sr > 15 (ie denser soils) supports the differs from the fines-content correction used concept that it is loose soil deposits which are in the liquefaction triggering evaluation).

and can be 2011.. Bray 2007.. a substantial portion of and adversely affect the structure. Maximum founded over or within liquefied soils. embankments. development of pore pressures due to liquefaction-induced sediment ejecta and soil-pile-structure interaction (Boulanger et al. If triggering of liquefaction is predicted and the resulting ground displacements are large. When structures are in the assessment of pile foundations. Large passive soil pressures from a non- •• Liquefaction-induced settlements due to liquefied crust layer and effects from kinematic loads re-consolidation of liquefied soils occur in level due to ground movement and inertial loads due to ground sites irrespective of whether or not there vibration of the superstructure. dynamic characteristics of the site and of displacement and loss of soils beneath foundations soil-structure system. to the total settlement (Martin et. bridges.. and lateral spreading of liquefied soils in particular. 2009).5 Effects of liquefaction on structures There are numerous case histories from past earthquakes demonstrating the significant effects of soil liquefaction on the seismic performance of engineering structures (buildings. need to be considered is an overlying structure. levees/stopbanks. (Cubrinovski et al. Interpretation liquefaction-induced differential settlements may and classification of lateral spreads observed in develop after strong shaking and the relative timing the Christchurch earthquakes and guidance for should be accounted for when evaluating the capacity evaluation of lateral spreading are provided in of the structure to accommodate such settlements. Hence. Care must be taken to particularly large in the case of heavy structures account for uncertainties in loads and properties of or where there is considerable sediment ejecta. There are no widely accepted simplified procedures Module 4 of the Guidelines provides more information. settlements in liquefied large and highly variable in waterfront areas soils is particularly difficult and therefore these (the magnitude of these displacements changes settlements are typically assumed to be proportional rapidly with the distance from the waterfront). DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification...identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. Cubrinovski and Robinson (2015). Tokimatsu et al. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 24 . 2014). Effects of lateral spreading on bridges including development of a specific mechanism for short-span bridges are summarized in Cubrinovski et al. 2005). storage tanks. These additional settlements analysis of piles in liquefying soils are available based can be of similar magnitude or even greater than on the pseudo-static approach (eg Ashford et al. 2011. 1999). some important issues for consideration in the design of are damaging for pile foundations (Cubrinovski et structures at liquefiable sites are briefly discussed below: al. additional inertial and kinematic loads may or may not occur settlements will occur due to shearing stresses concurrently depending upon characteristics of the induced by the overlying structure. While detailed assessment of effects of liquefaction •• Large lateral movements from ground oscillation. al. on structures is beyond the scope of these Guidelines. Cubrinovski et al. The Canterbury earthquake sequence provided many well-documented case histories on the performance of buildings and infrastructure in a New Zealand natural and built environment.. (2014). •• Lateral spreading displacements can be very Prediction of differential.. 2014). Bray et al. 2014. and also because ground motion. port structures. Various methods for and Dashti. then effects of liquefaction on structures should be assessed and addressed in the design.. the re-consolidation settlements. structures founded close to quay walls While shear-induced settlement due to rocking and revetment lines may be subjected to differential and ratcheting effects occur during the vibration lateral displacements that may stretch the foundation of the superstructure. liquefied soils when using these simplified methods. for prediction of structure-induced settlements. and lifelines).

Bray and Dashti.2). DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. ground improvement or with compatible values for the magnitude of ground structural modification should be implemented. surface may trigger post-earthquake failures in dams and embankments (Ishihara. 2011. Significant lateral Ultimate Limit State (ULS) need to be considered spreading is associated with loose soils and there separately in the assessment of liquefaction will likely be a substantial decrease in inertial loads unless the risk of liquefaction or ground damage after liquefaction triggering. 2014). Both the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and the and inertial loads from the building. pump wells and basements to ‘float’ incompatible with high accelerations or inertial loads to the ground surface. lateral spreading on pile foundations using simplified then additional measures such as strengthening analysis it is important to adopt a consistent scenario of the foundation.. 1985). Buried lifelines are also which are associated with relatively high stiffness and subjected to differential movements caused by dilation during cyclic mobility or pre-liquefaction soil spatial variability of ground conditions and ground stiffness. Seepage action. phase (ie during strong ground shaking and development Potential punching failures through a surface of excess pore water pressures) but may decrease crust and reduction of the foundation bearing substantially after triggering of liquefaction because capacity should be considered in the design. Such reduction in acceleration or their vicinity would usually result in excessive amplitudes post-liquefaction may be pronounced in transient and permanent displacements/settlements loose sandy soils that exhibit contractive behaviour. identification and assessment 3 of liquefaction hazards •• Liquefaction may cause bearing failures and lead Inertial loads due to strong shaking (vibration of to overall instability with tilting and overturning the superstructure) are significant during the cyclic of structures on poorly designed foundations. If the structure and foundation cannot When evaluating the effects of liquefaction and tolerate the imposed ground displacements.. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 25 . Very large ground displacements (indicating relatively light structures such as buried pipelines. The substantial reduction in stiffness of liquefied •• Significant vertical and horizontal ground soils leads to elongation of the vibration period of displacements should be accommodated in the the deposit which in turn may cause amplification of design of foundations and structures in liquefiable the response of long-period structures (systems). al. 2011. displacements. of the reduced capacity of liquefied soils to transfer Liquefaction in the immediate foundation soils shear stresses. Bray et al. Cubrinovski et associated with temporary dilation during cyclic shearing. soils. More detailed guidance on the treatment of displacements. soil stiffness and strength properties. reduction in strength and stiffness of the liquefied •• Liquefied soils behave as a heavy liquid causing soil. as well as marked occurring for the SLS is acceptably low (FL ≥ 1. low stiffness and strength of liquefied soils) are manholes. and potential damage to the foundations but may be negligible or even reversed in dense soils that could propagate to the superstructure exhibiting acceleration spikes from cyclic mobility (Cubrinovski and McCahon. redistribution of kinematic and inertial loads in simplified pseudo-static excess pore water pressures and rise of the phreatic analyses of piles in liquefying soils are given in Module 4. 2014.

however. liquefaction due to upward flow of water). DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. and is the primary Practical disadvantages of the effective stress tool for detailed assessment of liquefaction and its analysis are that it requires: effects on structures. and effects of liquefaction on to be used as input motion in the analysis by structures in an integrated manner.including their effects on ground and soil-structure systems affected by excess pore deformation and eismic performance of structures. though some limitations behaviour of soils (field investigations and specific must be recognized as discussed below. and post-shaking dissipation of excess pore pressure. 3-D effects. Advanced numerical procedures for liquefaction •• The analysis allows assessment of the assessment include total stress and effective stress effectiveness of countermeasures against dynamic analyses. modification). consequent •• Selection of appropriate earthquake records ground deformation. excess pore water pressure on soil behaviour.6 Advanced numerical procedures Advanced numerical procedures may be appropriate for significant projects or may be justified where there are uncertainties about the likelihood of liquefaction or where the consequences of liquefaction may be significant. both inertial loads due to vibration of the assessment using numerical analyses (Cubrinovski. loss of soil volume due to ejecta. can provide a more realistic simulation of the complex •• High-quality and specific data on the in situ ground response and soil-structure interaction conditions. and similar complex issues. of the adopted numerical procedures. Advanced analyses based on the effective stress principle are particularly valuable in the evaluation of the effectiveness of ground improvement and structural strengthening measures for mitigation of liquefaction. procedures. is critically important for a high-quality Thus. physical properties and mechanical in liquefying soils. 2011). simplification for modelling. This analysis. Particularly difficult cross interaction amongst them (base-isolation to address are large strain/displacement problems. some advantages of this analysis procedure performance of important structures. and therefore considering the seismic hazard for the site. are listed below: •• High demands on the user with respect •• The analysis allows detailed simulation of the to knowledge and understanding of the liquefaction process including build-up of excess phenomena considered and particular features pore water pressure. water pressures and liquefaction. effects and progressive seepage-induced discontinuities.identification and assessment of liquefaction hazards 3 5. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 26 . subsequent losses in strength and stiffness. All analysis methods and constitutive models have It provides realistic simulation of earthquake loads limitations with regard to their capability to model throughout the depth of the foundation soil by certain aspects of soils’ behaviour and simulate considering responses of individual layers and complex liquefaction phenomena. laboratory tests on soil samples). in which sophisticated non-linear models interpretation of non-linear soil behaviour and its can be used both for soils and structural members. while deformation develops in accordance with acknowledging the limitations of the numerical changes in stiffness and earthquake loads. stability of embankments. structure and kinematic loads due to ground The total stress analysis is an alternative procedure movements are concurrently considered while for assessment of the seismic response of ground accounting for soil nonlinearity and effects of and soil-foundation-structure systems. The latter is specifically tailored liquefaction (ground improvement or structural to analysis of soil deposits. does not directly include effects of excess •• Effects of soil-structure interaction are included in pore water pressures. and hence requires additional the analysis. The effective stress analysis addresses triggering of liquefaction. A rigorous •• Spatial and temporal variation of ground application of the advanced analyses. particularly if the analysis is used for quantifying the seismic First. triggering of liquefaction.

Two approaches are generally used to mitigate liquefaction and its consequences: •• soil remediation •• structural modification. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 27 .0 for definition of importance level) 2 Where failure or excessive deformation of the ground is a risk to services to or access to buildings of Importance Level 3 or higher. Ground deformation hazard arising from earthquake shaking (including liquefaction and lateral spreading) should be considered: 1 Where failure or excessive deformation of the ground might contribute to loss of life or loss of amenity of a building of Importance Level 2 or higher (refer NZS 1170. mitigation of liquefaction 3 and lateral spreading 6 Mitigation of liquefaction and lateral spreading Liquefaction-induced ground displacements may be large and often intolerable for the built environment.

2 Structural modification •• Drainage (prefabricated drains. stone columns) for increased permeability and faster Potential effects of liquefaction can be taken into dissipation of excess pore water pressures. ground deformation and effects of liquefaction 3 details of ground improvement procedures either by preventing. 2014). (eg density. a consequence of ground improvement. saturation. hence. 2013) and light industrial buildings (MBIE. permeation More detailed guidance on ground improvement is grouting) through cementation of soils. and strains in the ground. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. (1998). •• Containment of liquefied soils and limitation of ground deformation by reinforcement and soil mixing walls. account and accommodated in the design of the Details on mitigation measures. structure to reduce differential settlements and lateral and assessment of their effectiveness may be found in movement within the foundation. Some structure-specific examples liquefaction-mitigation measures specifically for of structural modification specific to liquefaction is residential buildings and properties (Tonkin & Taylor. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 28 . and kinematic loads due to ground effectiveness of countermeasures against liquefaction. 1 the effectiveness of many techniques depends More detailed guidance on foundation design on the soil type and ground conditions is provided in Module 4 of the Guidelines. limiting. structural modification that provides control of the comprehensive field trials were conducted by damage of structural systems and load distribution to EQC to investigate the effectiveness of various the foundations. This is commonly JGS (1997). this evaluation liquefaction resistance (CRR) and reduce should also consider a potential increase in the deformability of the soil through dynamic loads and response during shaking as increased strength and stiffness. •• Solidification (deep mixing.mitigation of liquefaction and lateral spreading 3 2 some ground treatment procedures used 6. 2015). Soil remediation is commonly 4 ground improvement should be considered based on one or a combination of the following: in the context of the particular structure •• Densification (compaction. given in the MBIE guidelines for residential buildings These benchmark field tests indicate that: (MBIE. calibration. 2001). fines content and plasticity of fines. provided in Modules 5 and 5a of the Guidelines. horizontal and vertical confinement). and its characteristics. Martin et al.1 Soil remediation in an inappropriate setting may produce highly non-uniform ground conditions and create weak Soil remediation methods effectively reduce zones with high potential for liquefaction. rigid foundation beams/ (INA. 6. and the effective stress capacity to resist both inertial loads due to vibration of analysis in particular. preloading) to increase and performance objectives. Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures achieved by using stiff raft. (1999) and Mitchell et al. or slowing-down the and their implementation in the field are critically development of excess pore water pressure or by important. Reduction of differential settlements and lateral deformation can also be achieved through Following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. implementation. movement. can be used for assessment of the superstructure. validation and QA limiting the development of shear strains and vertical are essential aspects of ground improvement. vibro-flotation. ground conditions compaction piles. walls or deep pile foundations with sufficient lateral Advanced analysis procedures.

including the effects and the shear strength used in the analyses must be on foundation capacity and overall stability of a building. eg CU triaxial or Simple Shear test) and then applying an empirical correction factor. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. Options for mitigating clay soils are more limited than Pending further research in this area. or. 2007) proposed a procedure for evaluation of cyclic softening in ‘clay-like’ fine-grained soils during earthquakes. including the use of deep foundations or stiff raft foundations. the potential for a post-peak drop in The possibility of damaging ground deformations in strength should be evaluated for sensitive clay soils. Progressive failure effects also influence the value of peak dynamic undrained shear strength 7. Boulanger and Idriss (2006. or CPT or laboratory. ‘clay-like’ soils should be evaluated. Loading rate effects increase the peak dynamic undrained shear strength of clays relative to static strength whereas cyclic degradation effects reduce it. 2 Measuring the monotonic undrained shear strength using standard procedures (in situ. Chen et al. for example.1 Ground failure of clay soils Clay soils may significantly soften and fail under cyclic loading but do not exhibit typical liquefaction features and are therefore considered non-liquefiable. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 29 . eg field vane.2 Mitigation of clay soils that should be used in limit-equilibrium analyses. Importantly. Assessment of the cyclic strength (‘cyclic softening’) of ‘clay-like’ soils is quite different to the liquefaction assessment of ‘sand-like’ soils. 3 clay soils 7 Clay soils 7. mitigation will often be structural modification. Several approaches are provided for estimating the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) based on the undrained shear strength. The typical approach to the above procedures. or ground improvement by soil cement walls. (2006) provide recommendations regarding correction factors to adjust the static undrained shear strength of a clay soil to represent its peak dynamic strength. Cyclic strength can be assessed by either: 1 Cyclic laboratory testing of ‘undisturbed’ soil samples. compatible with the calculated level of deformation. designers should for granular soils and may include pre-loading with or make assessments of stability and deformation using without additional drainage. The procedure follows a format similar to that used in the simplified procedure for ‘sand-like’ soils and allows estimating the factor of safety against cyclic failure in ‘clay-like’ fine-grained soils (using a failure criterion of three percent peak shear strain).

The methods of assessing These soils often have very high shear strength and granular or cohesive behaviour using the plasticity very low density. Ash can be and thick. the following properties are likely to influence the potential for liquefaction and consequential effects. Purmiceous should be used Penetration testing methods (eg SPT and CPT) are reliable to described the material rather than the soil. as well as previous studies on or shear boxes. including alluvium because particle crushing in pumiceous soils may and lahar deposits occur at lower levels of stresses that might be •• Other interbedded soils including paleosoils. colluvium and diatomaceous silt. Note that the term pumice refers index are useful. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. encountered in many geotechnical problems. it cells or cyclic simple shear can provide useful results. While liquefaction resistance of calcareous sands. then cyclic loading in triaxial and CPT testing methods can be unreliable). the behaviour of ash soils to highly vesicular. and that special considerations and assessment Alluvial soil with a high proportion of pumice material is required for such cases. Shear ash. sometimes reworked by climate soils and are common in the Bay of Plenty/Central and weathering effects. The properties of ash can vary North Island area. Volcanic soils include the following: Pumiceous soil particles can be relatively weak compared •• Airfall and pyroclastic flow deposits including to quartz and other more common sand minerals. may be possible to reconstitute samples in triaxial cells All of the above. be related to stress or strain). however. scoria.volcanic soils 3 8 Volcanic soils Many volcanic soils have different properties to the more common sedimentary soils that comprise the majority of the case histories and research studies of liquefaction. These Ignimbrite soils are typically pumice dominant granular include airfall deposits. establishment of liquefaction criteria for such soils. very angular particles typically can change significantly when subject to large strains. Laboratory testing of can also have very low density and relatively higher undisturbed or even reconstituted soil samples strength compared to more common sedimentary may provide basis for quantifying the liquefaction soils. However. however. These soils are difficult to investigate (eg SPT samples can be taken. The lack of studies on liquefaction in volcanic soils limits the availability of data to enable specific recommendations. suggest these samples will be somewhat disturbed. tuff. loess. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 30 . as the for ignimbrite soils. from rhyolitic eruptions. If undisturbed airfall. This is a fundamentally volcanic rocks different failure mechanism to most soils •• Transported materials. There are few studies and case histories common sand minerals cannot be applied to volcanic regarding the liquefaction potential of ignimbrite soils. soils. caution is required with material may be in situ (ignimbrite soil) or alluvial or assumptions of density and specific gravity. they are often interbedded with sensitive and may have a distinct yield point (which can ash (eg ashfall between flow events) and paleosoils. however. Volcanic ash refers to fine grained volcanic soils. however. and ignimbrite soils failure can be by particle crushing rather than dilation (ie the failure can develop through the particles •• Residual soils and completely weathered rather than around them). These can be locally homogeneous widely and many deposits are heterogeneous. These soils are typically finer than the ignimbrite resistance and developing experimental evidence for soils and are often interbedded with other materials. or recover ‘undisturbed’ samples. test results that conventional liquefaction evaluation procedures may provide reference data for geotechnical evaluation based on empirical charts for sedimentary soils of and design.

B. ‘Seismic Effective Bray. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Ansal (Ed. 381–392pp. Bridges in Liquefied Deposits during the 2010–2011 Christchurch (New Zealand) Earthquakes.D... Chile. and Bowman. Springer. Cubrinovski. (2009). 893–904. R.. (1999). Paper 1322. M. S. Cubrinovski.M.’ Technical Report prepared Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. ‘Liquefaction Cubrinovski.’ the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Theme Lecture.D... (2007).. I. UCD/CMG–14/01.D. ‘Performance of Engineering.). M. April. M. 39 (5). UCD/CMG–04/01. ‘Simplified Bradley B. ASCE. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. Chen. of Civil & Environmental Engineering.’ Bulletin of Earthquake K. J. on Deep Alluvial Soils. Haskell.M. Boulanger R. Ishihara. Bray. Boulanger R. on Geotechnical Earthquake Canterbury Earthquakes). (2006) Boulanger R... M. Engineering. R.. 100th Anniversary Engineering. and Ishihara.’ Report Slope Deformation Analysis Procedures. Cubrinovski. I.W. Pitilakis. and Poulos. Giorgini. (2011). (2014).. 61–71pp. Bray. M. Wotherspoon.’ Journal District during the February 2011 Christchurch of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Earthquake. S. K.’ In M. J. (2014). Cubrinovski. Bray. and McCahon. W. ‘Liquefaction ‘Pseudo-Static Analysis of Piles Subjected to Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays. Bray. ‘Liquefaction Effects on Buildings in ‘Liquefaction Resistance of Silty Soils at the the Central Business District of Christchurch. J.’ Lateral Spreading. 3 references 9 References Beyzaei. (2004). 5th Int.. ‘Foundations Foundations for Liquefaction Effects. Christchurch New Zealand. and Zupan.D. Engineering. University of California at Davis. and Travasarou. M. (125–144). M. Conf. L.’ Seismological Research Letters.. and Earthquake Engineering 17. (2014).W.W. (1). I. Jacka M. Rees. Riemer M. for the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. No. J. D.. Geological. Correlation between SPT N-value and Relative Density Dept. Conf. (2014). Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced ‘Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Central Business Deviatoric Slope Displacements. (2007). (2006). and Sancio. for Sandy Soils. Induced Building Movement. Winkley. Cubrinovski. J.. M.. Conf. Brandenberg. 1–4 November 2015. of Civil & Environmental 8th US Nat.. 12(3). Bray.. ‘Empirical of Silts and Clays. I. 1–24. London & New York: Springer. and Wotherspoon. Ed. Engineering. (2010). Zupan. 641–652pp.B. Proc. Boulanger. J. Geotechnical. University of California at Davis.’ Report No. and Idriss.W. and Wentz R. J. E.Y.M. 133 (6). 1165–1177. Boulanger R. (2011). ‘Evaluation ‘Effects of Non-plastic Fines on Liquefaction of Cyclic Softening in Silts and Clays. M. and Idriss. (2011). H.. Engineering. Earthquake Engineering in Europe. 82. Bray.’ Earthquake Spectra (Special Issue on the 2010–2011 Proc. Earthquake Conference Commemorating the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 31 .’ Soils and Foundations. and Idriss.. K.. 1413–1426pp. Engineering. Cubrinovski. 1129–1156pp. J.’ Riccarton Road Site.D. Dept. ‘Seismic Design of Pile Cubrinovski. 132 (9).M. (2006).A. S. T. and Taylor. 30. R.. & Armstrong. ‘Evaluation of Potential for Liquefaction or Cyclic Failure Cubrinovski. Christchurch. 132 (11). 133(4). ‘Assessment of Stress Analysis: Modelling and Application. D.’ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Geotechnical Engineering. S. Taylor. Chang. (2015). A. Garevski and A. Robinson. I. Earthquake Soils.’ Journal Resistance of Sandy Soils. L..’ Proc..’ ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 28(1): 24–39pp. Santiago. J. 6th Int. and Idriss. Stringer M.’ 4th Int. and Dashti. and Seed. M. Invited Lectures. ‘CPT and SPT ‘Shaking Table Model Experiments to Assess Seismic Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures.. 85–109pp. EERI. C. (2007). 277–302pp. M. R.’ Bulletin of the NZ Society Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental for Earthquake Engineering 42(1): 28–38pp. J. EQ Engrg.

SCEC. M.’ Soil Dynamics and Robertson. 32 (1). on Soil Mechanics and Foundation (MBIE 2014). R. Kokusho. J. C. 441p.W.M.and Geoenvironmental Engg. (2005). Deposits during Earthquakes.P. Tokida. and Boulanger R.D. Ishihara. Seismic Design Guidelines for Port NZ Ministry of Business. S. Guidance: Assessment. 132(8).). University of Southern California. 580–613pp. Geotechnical Special Publication 75. C. R. on Flow Failure Considering Void Redistribution in Liquefied Deposits.’ Soils ‘Design Considerations in Ground Improvement and Foundations. (1998).K. Grain Size Distribution. J. 885–896. http://www. P.’ J. et al. ‘Liquefied Strength Estimating Co-seismic Landslide Displacements. 11th NZ Ministry of Business. 15.’ JGS (ed.E. J.. ASCE Ishihara. (1992). 1032–1051.’ Proc. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 32 . 39 (3). A. Innovation and Employment Int. 469p. 442–459.W.’ Journal of Earthquake Der Kiureghian.A. and Wride. 629–647pp.A.’ Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35 . MNO–12. Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. Wotherspoon.M.A. B. ‘Remedial Measures NZ Treasury (2014). S. Cubrinovski. 173–188pp.’ ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Sequence. (1998) ‘Evaluating Cyclic Earthquake Engineering. 134.’ Ratio from Liquefaction Flow Failure Case Histories. and Yasuda. PEER (2011/04) – Recommended Design Practice for Kokusho. R W. R.E. ‘Characteristics of Ground Motion in Liquefied Moss. Cooke. K. (1985). Proc.. ASCE. Guidance: Repairing and Rebuilding Houses Affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes. Tatsuko. San Francisco.. K.. 3rd.’ Earthquake Spectra 30(1): 131–153.’ Special Publication 117: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.I. from the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake New Zealand. and Johnson.htm Jibson. Conf.’ Engineering Geology. 139–160pp. and Yoshimine.O. ASCE. (2003).R. B. for Seismic Risk Mitigation.. 2. of in situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential. (1965). (2007) ‘Regression Models for Olson. Budget policy statement 2014.B.’ Proceedings of 2nd International Conference Newmark. Edition.. (MBIE 2013). (2014). Innovation and Employment Structures. and Stark. Japanese Geotechnical Society (1998). ‘Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes. Idriss. Liquefaction during Earthquakes. K. F. (2008). Balkema. Stewart. K. I. ‘Effect of Earthquakes on Dams on Microzonation. (2014). and Bradley.. 23. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.’ ‘A Practical Method for Assessing Soil Liquefaction Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Potential Based on Case Studies at Various Sites in Engineering. M. (1999). M.. Kayen.. for implementation of DMG. Green. ‘Select Liquefaction Case Histories Index for Assessing Liquefaction Hazard in Christchurch.S. 37 (4). Earthquake-affected Industrial Buildings in Canterbury. Cubrinovski.references 3 Green. Seed.A.’ Geotechnique. Balkema. 105–113pp.’ Soils and Foundations. T. San Francisco.’ Theme lecture.K. Bradley. T. ‘Evaluation NZ Transport Agency (2014).E. 321–376pp. C. ‘Evaluation of the Liquefaction Potential B. R.M. and Schaeffer. 8. (2008) ‘Analyzing Liquefaction- and S-wave Velocity for Gravelly Soils with Different induced Lateral Spreads Using Strength Ratios. Against Soil Liquefaction. Maurer.. B. and Cetin. 91. H. 1–15pp. Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone Penetration Test. No. Special Issue 1. ‘CPT-based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment Iwasaki. Wood. A.. M. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. T. (1997): ‘SPT N-value Olson.treasury. Ishihara.. of Settlements in Sand Deposits following Mitchell. N. and Maurer.A. Geoenvironmental Engineering 140(7): 04014032. (2002). T. GEESD III.M. Japan. R. Soil Martin. G. 242p. and Embankments. 209–18pp. A.. Y. and Yoshida. Geotech.. International Navigation Association (2005).govt. Engineering. K. ‘Recommended Procedure Liquefaction during Earthquakes. 585–603pp. Cox. B. Bridge Manual. 1978. S.. Repair and Rebuild of Engineering. and Cubrinovski. (2006). ‘Current State of Research Pile Foundations in Laterally Spreading Ground. (1978). 9.

30 (1). Youd. ‘Liquefaction Resistance of Christchurch CBD soils. P. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 33 .D. December 2012.’ and Foundations Div. ‘Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking. S. Taylor. D. ‘Mapping Seed.. and Brachman.. Jacka. M. K. H.A.’ J. 1249–1273pp.’ Zhang. Conf.’ Proc. (1987). and Wentz R. H.L.. and Harder. V. Geoenvironmental Engineering. 39. February 2014.F. and Cabal. Cubrinovski. G. ‘Closure to Liquefaction Resistance 2011 Land Report as at 29 February 2012. 1337–1355.’ Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and J. T. of Christchurch Silty Soils: Gainsborough Reserve. Special Issue No. J. to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. p. H. Tokimatsu.B. 1977. Resistance of Soils. K. 433–446pp. (2004).’ Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 3 references Robertson. ‘Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction 6ICEGE – 6th Int. M. C. and Hoose. (1990). (2005). Penetration Testing ISOPT-1. (2015). Structural Design Actions NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Part 0: General Principles.F. (2014). ‘Liquefaction R. 130 (8).’ Proc. 1413–1426pp.’ Journal of Geotechnical and Stringer.’ Journal of Geotechnical and Problems. Geoenvironmental Engineering. H.’ Proc. 351–376pp. S. Robertson. ASCE 97 (SM9). Soil Mechanics induced Land Damage for Residential Christchurch. (1988):‘ Penetration Tests for Dynamic or Cone Penetration Test.’ Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 6th World Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. H.. 2.A. ‘Guide 753–762pp. and Bradley.. K. Y. R W I.0:2002. 6. M... and Chung. L. T.. Crawford. ASCE. 6ICEGE – 6th Int. M. Geotech. 128 (12). Malan. ASCE 113 (GT8). (2014). Div. O’Rourke. Lacrosse. (2003). on Geotechnical Earthquake of Lateral Spread Displacement. 104. on Earthquake Engineering.B.W. M. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. and Seed.’ ‘Effects of Inertial and Kinematic Interaction on Canadian Geotechnical Journal 46. Robertson. from CPT for Level Ground.F. on Geotechnical Earthquake ‘Estimating Liquefaction-induced Ground Settlements Engineering. Hansen. K. T. C... ‘SPT Based Liquefaction-induced Ground Failure Potential. Robertson. AS/NZS 1170. New Delhi. Resistance of Soils. P. L.’ Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Cowan.L. (2002). 1425–1445pp. ‘Assessment of Liquefaction- Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential.M. ‘Liquefaction Characteristics Youd. 31–55.’ Proc.. D. G. Tonkin and Taylor (2012). Youd. 37–42pp. ‘Influence of SPT procedures in Soil Susceptibility and Geologic Setting.’ J. 1–4 November 2015. Christchurch NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Ground Improvement Trials Report. T. 817–833pp. Earthquake Spectra.B. (2009) ‘Interpretation of Tokimatsu. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium (Vancouver).. N. Christchurch.’ Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.. L. Seed... Proc. 861–871pp. and Asaka.. 25. of Soils: Summary Report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 Tonkin and Taylor – EQC (2015). Engineering ASCE 111 (12). Cubrinovski M. P K. Undrained Residual Strength.B. P. Cone Penetration Tests – a Unified Approach. Bray J. B.M. and Perkins. and Brachman. Christchurch.. 117–136pp. ‘Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Displacements Using the Standard Penetration Test Tokimatsu.’ Soils and Foundations. (2015). L. (1998) ‘Effects of Liquefaction- induced Ground Displacements on Pile Performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. 127 (10).I. Jacka M. Tokimatsu. Eng. M.140. Bray.. Cubrinovski... (1985). Beyzaei. 1168–80pp.. Seismic Behaviour of Pile with Embedded Foundation.K. K. Geotechnical Conf. (2001). Conf. and Idriss I. Riemer M. 129 (11).K. ‘Simplified Procedure for S. ‘Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/ Standards NZ (2002)... Suzuki. September 1998: 163–177pp. S. 861–878pp. 1–4 November 2015. Seed. Canterbury Earthquakes 2010 and Youd et al. 2. van Ballegooy. and Sato. (1978). Youd et al. 1007–1017pp. Tokimatsu. R. and Bratlett. in press.’ Zhang. H.Jr.’ Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc. P.L.. and Geoenvironmental Engineering. R. (1971). Harder. J Geotechnical Engineering.. M. (2002).K. K.

The fines content estimation is of factor of safety against liquefaction triggering. Again. smaller for loose sands (low penetration resistance). a significant number of liquefaction MSF varies significantly in dense sands (high penetration case histories from the Canterbury earthquake resistance). has received particular attention in the profession. The key additions and modifications provided in B&I 2014 are listed first and then briefly discussed. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 34 . while the variation of MSF with Mw is much sequence (50 in total) have been added to the dataset. the CPT database has been updated As illustrated in Figure 6. while the latter determines the liquefaction resistance or capacity of the soil (‘cyclic The most significant change in relation to all previous strength’ or ‘liquefaction resistance’) in terms of shear liquefaction triggering evaluation methods is the use stress amplitude – number of cycle combinations that of a density and soil type dependent MSF relationship. by Robinson et al. data from Christchurch earthquake magnitude relationship. other liquefaction triggering evaluation methods When evaluating the proposed density and soil type because it is density and soil type dependent. as an updated and improved version of the Idriss and Boulanger (I&B 2008) method. the proposed MSF relationship adding data from recent earthquakes. dependent MSF relationship of B&I 2014. This commentary outlines some of the key features of this method.1. cause the soil to liquefy. 2 New magnitude scaling factor (MSF) relationship has All other currently available methods provide a single been proposed. This MSF relationship is fundamentally MSF – Mw relationship for all cohesionless soils and different from the MSF relationships used in all soil densities. There are several important details in which the B&I 2014 method differs from the I&B 2008 triggering evaluation method. The former relationship defines the earthquake load 4 A probabilistic version of the CPT-based liquefaction (seismic demand) in terms of the number of cycles with triggering procedure has been developed.appendix a 3 Appendix A. It implies that the Importantly. and soils have been used in the development of this 2 the relationship between the amplitude of relationship. resistance (or soil characteristics). based on a newly established relationship between the MSF essentially combines two relationships: the fines content (FC) and CPT-derived Soil Behaviour 1 number of equivalent shear stress cycles and Type Index (Ic). 1 In B&I 2014. Important differences between Boulanger and Idriss (2014) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) methods The most recent method of Boulanger and Idriss (B&I 2014). (2013) using data on liquefiable soils along the Avon River in Christchurch. and the proposed relationship in B&I cyclic shear stress and number of cycles 2014 is similar to the FC – Ic relationship developed required to trigger liquefaction. significant amplitudes. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. and also some by B&I 2014 accounts for differences in the penetration of the older case studies have been re-examined. it is important 3 A simplified procedure for estimating fines content to recognize that in the context of the simplified for use with the CPT-based liquefaction evaluation has liquefaction evaluation procedure or calculation been recommended.

1. 𝑞c1Ncs = 84 0 5 6 7 8 9 Earthquake magnitude. In this and testing (the preferred approach) are not available. This detail is recommend to explicitly consider the uncertainties in FC particularly important to be recognized when using the and soil classification estimates. 1. The above discussion is still analyses.2. but it is of no practical guideline. When site-specific sampling density. non-liquefiable soils. on the other hand. 2013). which in turn is directly procedure. composition and value (Ic = 2.5 Magnitude scaling factor. as discussed in Section 5.5 (N 1)60cs = 20. correction of the liquefaction resistance is made based which is independent of soil density or soil type. and to evaluate their B&I 2014 method since it uses soil density dependent effects on the engineering evaluation using parametric MSF – Mw relationships. context. Their recommendation is adopted in this applicable to other methods. 2014) 2.5 (N 1)60cs = 10. on the fines content. it is important to understand that MSF and one refers to the use of the FC – Ic relationship should not be interpreted as only a correction of the for estimating FC from CPT data. DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification. 𝑞c1Ncs = 175 1.0 𝑞c1Ncs = 133 0. assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 35 . a significant significance as they use a single MSF – Mw relationship.1: Variation in MSF relationship with 𝑞𝑐1Ncs and (N 1)60cs for cohesionless soils (Boulanger and Idriss.6) separating between liquefiable and depositional environment as the Canterbury soils. low fines content of less than 10 percent to 20 percent.. It reflects that. improve the assessment of liquefaction for and that uncertainties exist regarding the Ic threshold alluvial soils of similar origin. and the similarity of the proposed FC – Ic used for the fines content estimation.0 (N 1)60cs = 30. significant variability and uncertainty are associated The addition of Christchurch data in the B&I 2014 with the FC – Ic relationship. Boulanger and Idriss seismic demand (earthquake loading). on one hand. Mw The procedure of B&I 2014 is considered to more The proposed FC – Ic relationship by Boulanger and accurately depict the shape of the liquefaction Idriss (2014) and their commentary on its use also resistance curve as it depends on the soil type and deserves some attention. as observed in laboratory soil tests. MSF 2. Note that the relationship with the specific FC – Ic relationship FC – Ic correlation is particularly weak and unreliable for derived for Avon River soils (Robinson et al. 3 appendix a Figure A. and that.

assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 36 .notes 3 Notes DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification.

assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 37 . 3 notes DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification.

assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards PAGE 38 .notes 3 DATE: May 2016 Revision: 0 Module 3: identification.

appendix a .

assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards .MODULE 3: Identification.