Liquefaction Assessment Procedures

Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E., NAE

Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence
University of California, Berkeley
Liquefaction Triggering Evaluation Procedures

Boulanger & Idriss 2014

Seed et al. (Cetin et al. 2004 & Moss et al. 2006)

Youd et al. 2001

Liquefaction Evaluation for Level Ground

Liquefaction
at eq in
5 cycles
LIQUEFACTION Factor of Safety (FS)

CRR

Liquefaction
C Effects Observed at FS = CRR / CSR
Ground Surface No Liquefaction
S Effects Observed at
Ground Surface
R CSR = 0.65(amax/g)(σv/σv′) rd

(N1)60 CRR

Youd et al. 2001 based on Seed et al. 1985

Liquefaction Evaluation for Level Ground

FSl = CRR / CSR

CSR & CRR

Nl = 20 = f(Mw, etc.)

LIQUEFACTION
(FSl < 1)

Z
Residual Excess Pore Water Pressure and FSl

Marcuson et al. 1990

FS < 0.9 Will Likely Liquefy – Mitigate

FS ≈ 1+/- Additional Analysis?
*If MCE PGA is used,
FS > 1.2 Probably Acceptable* then FS > 1.0 is
FS > 1.4 Acceptable probably acceptable
LARGE OR LIMITED STRAIN POTENTIAL

Limited
Large Strain
Strain Potential
Potential

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

LIQUEFACTION Factor of Safety (FS)

Robertson & Wride (Robertson 2009)

 LIQUEFACTION Factor of Safety (FS)
PL
80% 20% Moss et al. 2006
95% 50% 5%
0.6

0.5

0.4
CSR*

0.3

0.2

0.1

MW=7.5 V'=1.0 atm

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
qC,1,mod
LIQUEFACTION Factor of Safety (FS)
 ONCE LIQUEFACTION IS TRIGGERED,
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO EVALUATE
• LOW RESIDUAL UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH

• REDUCED EFFECTIVE STRESS DECREASES SOIL’S

DYNAMIC STIFFNESS AND AFFECTS SEISMIC RESPONSE

• DILATION MAY LEAD TO ACCELERATION SPIKES

• SEDIMENTATION & EJECTA CAUSES SIGNIFICANT

DEFORMATION

• SHEAR STRAINS LEAD TO DEFORMATION

• DISSIPATION OF EXCESS PORE WATER PRESSURE LEADS

TO RECONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT
Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Boulanger & Idriss 2008

Seed & Harder 1990

Seed et al. 2015

Stark & Olson 2002 & 2004

Kramer 2008

Weber & Seed 2015

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Seed & Harder 1990

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Olsen & Stark, 2002

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Sur ≠ constant
&
Sur / ’v ≠ constant

Sur = constant (’v)#

More recent work is along this direction

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Sr(psf) = exp(0.1407 N1,60,CS + 4.2399 ’v0.120)

– 0.43991(N1,60,CS1.45 + 0.2 N1,60,CS ’v2.48 + 41.13)

Weber & Seed Method (in Weber 2015)

 Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

Sr(atm) = exp[−8.444 + 0.109N + 5.379S0.1 − 0.253σm ]

where N = average value of (N1)60, S = mean vertical effective stress (atm), and
m = [1.627 + 0.000796N2 + 0.0194N − 0.027NS0.1 − 3.099S0.1 + 1.635S0.2]0.5
Kramer & Wang Method (in Kramer 2008; WA-RD 668.1)
Liquefaction-Induced Deformation
Liquefaction-Induced Free-Field Settlement of Level Ground

 = ∑ [(v)(h)]

Ishihara & Yoshimine 1992 – do not use N1 or qc1 values

Liquefaction-Induced Free-Field Settlement of Level Ground

Zhang et al. 2002 Cetin et al. 2009 (based on Wu 2002) Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Note – adjustment factors are required to handle Mw ≠ 7.5 & confining stress and to compensate for bias
 Lateral Ground Movements
Liquefaction-Induced Shear Strain Potential

LDI = ∑ [(max)(z)]

 max

Ishihara & Yoshimine 1992 – do not use N1 or qc1 values

 Liquefaction-Induced Shear Strain Potential

Zhang et al. 2004 Cetin et al. 2009 (from work by Wu 2003) Idriss & Boulanger 2008
 Lateral Spreading Estimates
Faris et al. 2006

Hmax = exp(1.0443 ln(DPImax) + 0.0046 ln() + 0.0029 Mw)

where DPImax is calculated from the bottom-up using SPI for each layer times its thickness;
 = hv/v’; and Mw = moment magnitude. Only use method when post-liquefaction FS > 1
 Lateral Spreading Estimates
Cubrinovski et al. 2014

Found that Zhang et al. (2004) often over-estimated free-field displacements by 2-3
Abutment displacement ≈50% of displacement near abutment & latter was ≈50% of FF
Liquefaction-Induced
Building Movements
COMMON APPROACH: Estimate Liquefaction-
Induced Free-Field Settlement of Level Ground

 = ∑ (v)(h) Estimates 1D settlements

due to post-liquefaction
volumetric reconsolidation

Dr = 60% FSl = 0.6 No shear-induced

Dr = 40% FSl = 0.4 displacements
Dr = 90% FSl = 2.5

Nonliquefiable Does not estimate

building movement

Ishihara & Yoshimine 1992

 Liquefaction-Induced Building Movements
March 11, 2011 Tohoku, Japan Earthquake (Mw = 9.0)

30 cm 70 cm = 30 cm + 40 cm

Tokimatsu et al. & GEER ( Ashford et al. 2011)

Measured Displacements in Model Tests
Large Port Island Event

2 m dense sand
3 m liquefiable layer

21 m dense sand

Structure B during Large Port Island event - Test 3-30

Dashti et al. 2010a & 2010b
Pore Water Pressure Response Near Buildings
(3 m thick liquefiable layer; SHD02: Dr = 30% & SHD03: Dr = 50%)

SHD02
150 SHD03
Under Structure A
120 A Ru = 1.0
excess pore pressure

90
60
(kPa)

30
0
-30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-60
tim e (sec) SHD02

150
SHD03 A B C
Adjacent to Structure A
120 B Ru = 1.0
excess pore pressure

90
60
(kPa)

30
0
-30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-60
tim e (sec)

SHD02
150
C Free Field SHD03
excess pore pressure

120
Ru = 1.0
90
60
(kPa)

30
0
-30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-60
tim e (sec)
 DISPLACEMENT MECHANISMS
1. Ground Loss due to Ejecta

2. Shear-Induced Deformations
Bearing Capacity Failure (εq-BC)

SSI-Induced Ratcheting (εq-SSI)

3. Volumetric Deformations
Partial Drainage (εp-DR)

Sedimentation (εp-SED)

Consolidation (εp-CON)
Dashti et al. 2010a
 Effects of Ground Motion
Dashti et al. 2010b

PGA = 0.15 g PGA = 0.13 g PGA = 0.38 g

D5-95 (s) = 8 s D5-95 (s) = 28 s D5-95 (s) = 11 s
Ia = 0.3 m/s Ia = 0.6 m/s Ia = 2.8 m/s
SIR = Ia5-75/D5-75 = 0.05 m/s/s SIR = 0.02 m/s/s SIR = 0.36 m/s/s
 Liquefaction Mechanisms and Mitigation
-20 Moderate Port Island -7

(Baseline)
Struc. BL
0 0
Vertical Displacement (mm)

20 7

Arias Intensity (cm/s)

(Water Barrier)
40

Struc. WB
Struc. SW 14

60
21

Struc. WB
80
28

(Structural Wall)
Struc. SW
Arias Intensity
100
35
Struc. BL

120
0 10 20 30 40 50
Liquefaction Factor of Safety
CRR
B B/4 FS   MSF  K   K 
CSR
0.65  cyc
CSR 
'v 0

1.3 FSff 0.5 FSff FSff < 2m

1.3 FSff
FSff FSff 2- 10 m
FSff

FSff FSff FSff > 10 m

Underneath Corner Free-field

Travasarou et al. 2006
Liquefaction Effects in Christchurch

From M. Cubrinovski
Capturing Liquefaction Effects
Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain (v)

Decreasing Dr

Decreasing FS Increasing v
Ishihara & Yoshimine 1992
Capturing Liquefaction Effects

LSN considers when FS > 1

LSN limited by max v

LSN affected by Dr

LSN heavily weights

shallow layers

van Ballegooy et al. 2014

Capturing Liquefaction Effects

van Ballegooy et al.

2014
Liquefaction in Christchurch

(van Ballegooy et al. 2014)

 Liquefaction Assessment at Stratified Site
0
GWT GWT GWT

1 Settlement ~ 13 cm

CS
DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (m)

LSN = 29
CRR

R
2

5
BUT no liquefaction
6 effects observed
7

10
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 3 6 9 12 15

CRR & CSR Factor of Safety Settlement (cm)

Riccarton Road Site 23 22 Feb 2011 EQ: PGA = 0.37 g, GWT = 0.6 m BGS, PL=50%, LPI = 19, CPT_36420
(Beyzaei et al.; CRR and FS plots exported from CLiq)
Observations of Liquefaction Ejecta

2010 Darfield EQ

Ejecta Observed

No Ejecta

Ic = 1.8

van Ballegooy et al.

Tonkin & Taylor
for the EQC
 Depositional Environment (Beyzaei et al.)

WAIMAKARIRI RIVER

Canterbury 
RAKAIA RIVER
Plains PORT 
HILLS

1880 Photo from Christchurch: Swamp to City  1918 Photo from Christchurch: Swamp to City
 Liquefaction Effects on Structures

1.8o

30 cm

15 cm

Tilting and Sliding of Buildings Settlement of Ground next to Piled Bldg.

 = 1/70
Cracking due to Differential Settlement Uniform Settlement of Building
 CTUC Building
Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlement Induces Distress

Ejecta

490 0

8 7 6
31 20 11
Building Settlement (cm)
Maximum Angular Distortion ≈ 1 / 50

GEER: Bray, Cubrinovski et al.

CTUC Building

Severe
Liquefaction B’
Zone
CTUC Building: Christchurch EQ

N
2011 Christchurch EQ: Robertson & Wride (1998)
CTUC Building Settlement
Actual Settlement
~40 cm
~15 cm
~15 cm ~10 cm ~5 cm

Robertson & Wride (1998) & Zhang, Robertson et al. (2002)

CTUC Building: Sensitivity of Results
0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4
Depth (m)

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 4 SEP 10 8
26 DEC 10
9 22 FEB 11 9
13 JUN 11
10 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 15 20
FS Settlement (cm)
CPT Z4-5

Robertson & Wride (1998) & Zhang, Robertson et al. (2002)

 SA Building
Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlement

GEER: Bray, Cubrinovski et al.

SA Building: Christchurch EQ

2011 Christchurch EQ: Robertson & Wride (1998)

 CONCLUSIONS
Building settlements are not proportional to the
thickness of the liquefiable layer

Free-field settlements result from volumetric strains

Building movements result from shear strains and

volumetric strains & loss of ground with ejecta

Building settlement is related to shaking intensity rate

and relative density of soil

These observations are not captured in available

simplified methods that focus on free-field
reconsolidation settlement
 RECOMMENDATIONS
For level ground conditions with no free-face:

Pile foundation with its neutral plane in firm ground

below the liquefiable layer will not settle significantly

Shallow foundation with deep liquefiable layer will

largely undergo volumetric reconsolidation that can be
estimated using 1D procedures

Shallow foundation with shallow liquefiable layer can

undergo largely shear-induced movements that cannot
be estimated using available 1D procedures

Effective stress analyses based on good earthquake &

soil characterization can provide useful insights
 RECOMMENDATIONS
Shallow Foundation with Shallow Liquefiable Layer
Gain insight through analyses (Bray et al. 2017 SDEE):

1. Assess liquefaction triggering and 1D post-

liquefaction settlement (e.g., Zhang et al. 2002)
2. Estimate ejecta potential (e.g., LSN & Ishihara 1985)
3. Perform bearing capacity analysis using post-
liquefaction strength; if FS < 1.5 or 2.0 for light/medium
or heavy/tall buildings, large movements likely
4. Perform nonlinear effective stress analyses to
estimate building movements that includes shear-
induced deformation; requires good soil and EQ
characterization
5. Use engineering judgment (e.g., case histories)
Liquefaction Mitigation
Liquefaction Mitigation Approaches

1. Replacement

2. Robust Foundation (e.g., reinforced mat)

3. Vibratory Densification

4. Reinforcement Densification

5. Admixtures

6. Drainage
Liquefaction Mitigation Verification

1. CPTu (before and after)

2. Time Effects
Advanced Analyses
 Advanced Analysis

FLAC analysis of Lower San Fernando Dam (Beaty & Byrne; Beaty 2001)
Nonlinear Soil Constitutive Model

UBCSAND (Park & Byrne 2004)

Calculated Shear Strain & Volumetric Strain

FLAC Analyses with UBC-Sand: Maximum Shear Strain

Model A in Test T3-50 large P.I. event
30

Arulmoli CSS Test

20 UBCSAND1 Calibration
Strain (%) (%)

10
ShearStrain

0
Shear

-10

-20 Nevada Sand CSS tests

Arulmoli et al. 1992
Dr = 63%, CSR = 0.3, K = 0
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec)
6 7 8 9 10
Volumetric Strain
Time (sec)
 Measured vs. Calculated Responses
Centrifuge FLAC Simulation

Acceleration (g)
Vertical Displacement (mm)

0.5 0.5
0 0
0 Base Acceleration 0 Base Acceleration
-0.5 -0.5
50 50
Structure BL Displacement
100 100
Structure BL Displacement
150 150

200 200
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)

60 60
Position within liquef. layer:
Position within liquef. layer:

40 Bottom 40 Bottom
Middle

20 Middle 20
Top
Top
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Centrifuge experiment T3-50 during the moderate Port Island event

Calculated vs. Measured Settlement

Calculated Settlement (mm)

Nonlinear Soil Constitutive Model
80 1.2
DR = 35%
1
Shear stress (kPa)
'vo = 100 kPa
40
0.8

G/Gmax
0 0.6
Dashed lines:
0.4 EPRI (1993)
-40 for depths of
0.2 0-6 m & 36-76 m.

-80 0
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)
200 60

Equiv. damping ratio (%)

DR = 35% Solid lines:
Shear stress (kPa)

'vo = 400 kPa Simulations for

100 'vo = 100, 400,
40
& 1,600 kPa

0
20

-100
0

-200
-4 -2 0 2 4 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

PM4Sand (Ver 3: Boulanger & Ziotopoulou 2015)

SARDIS DAM ANALYSIS (Finn 1990)
 PILE PINNING EFFECT

Pile pinning across liquefiable layer as proposed by Finn and others

(an implementation is described by Ledezma & Bray 2010)
Levee Crest Settlement Estimates (Finn 2000)

HD

HNL

HL

See also “A Simplified Tool for Assessing Deformation of Embankment Dams

and Levees on Liquefied Soil” by FMSM Engineers (2007) for USACE
 FULLY NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

ADVANTAGES:

1. Dynamic soil properties change continually during the

analysis depending on the current strain level, effective
stress, and stress history
2. Captures influence of pore water pressure generation
3. Can estimate displacements reliably
4. Does not allow the calculated maximum shear stress to
exceed the dynamic shear strength of the soil
 FULLY NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

DISADVANTAGES:

1. Most fully nonlinear models cannot "match" both the

strain-dependent shear modulus reduction and material
damping curves
2. Typically, overestimate damping at large strain levels
3. Requires introduction of "viscous damping" to prevent
excessive high frequency oscillations at low strain levels
4. Requires more soil parameters
5. Utilizes simple lumped mass or complex FEM/FDM
scheme
6. Results are more sensitive to input and less validated
than equivalent-linear results
 FULLY NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

REQUIREMENTS:

1. Always have a "feel" for what the results should look

like before performing a fully nonlinear response
analyses, e.g.:
• Use simplified site response methods first
• Perform SHAKE analyses to estimate PGA and
acceleration response spectrum
2. Check the calculated shape of shear modulus reduction
and damping curves based on model parameters
3. Watch for excessive high frequency response or over-
damping of response
4. Employ 2 soil models/computer programs on critical
projects