UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

Soil Liquefaction

By
Mong’are Brenda Kwamboka
F16/42981/2011

A project submitted as a partial fulfilment

for the requirement for the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

2016
Abstract
This project provides knowledge on liquefaction of soils. Liquefaction can be defined as a
process that creates a non-liquid phase to behave as per fluid dynamics. Soil liquefaction is when
soil merely behaves like a liquid mass with hardly any shear strength rather than a solid mass.
Liquefaction causes soil failures and, therefore, severe damages to structures supported on such
grounds leading to significant economic losses.

In this project liquefaction has been divided into two broad categories, these are liquefaction due
to flow and liquefaction due to chemical processes in particular dispersive soils since structural
failures attributed to dispersive soils have occurred in many countries worldwide as dispersive
clay soils deflocculate and are rapidly eroded and carried away by water flow.

Presented also are the various criteria used for evaluating soil susceptible to liquefaction, ground
failures resulting from soil liquefaction, factors affecting liquefaction and the in-situ testing
procedures used to assess liquefaction of soils.

A case study of the Niigata earthquake in Japan, 1964 was chosen as a sample to show the
tremendous damaging effects of liquefaction due to flow as this was one of the cases that brought
the phenomenon of liquefaction to the attention of geotechnical engineers.

Another case study of Wister Dam, Oklahoma, 1949 was chosen as a sample as its unique
erosional patterns, led to the identification of dispersive clay and its negative behavioral
properties. It also led the geotechnical engineering community to the conclusion that
homogeneous dams are unsafe without internal drains or filters to control concentrated leaks.

Finally, the various methods used to mitigate the dangers of liquefaction at a site are also
discussed.

i
Dedication
This project is dedicated to my loving, caring and very supportive parents. This is to my dear
father, who taught me that knowledge has to be improved, challenged and increased constantly
or it vanishes and also to my loving mother, who taught me that even the largest task can be
accomplished if it is done one step at a time.

I also dedicate this project to my two loving and tremendously supportive sisters Nicole and
Mevon.

I am incredibly grateful for all your support I would not have come this far on my own, may the
good Lord bless you.

ii
Acknowledgements
My first acknowledgement goes to the almighty God for being faithful and bringing me this far.

I would also like to acknowledge my supervisor, Engineer J.R.Ruigu he has been the ideal
project supervisor. His sage advice, insightful criticisms, and patient encouragement aided the
writing of this project in innumerable ways. I am very grateful, and God bless you.

iii
Table of contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
Chapter one ................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background of the study ........................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Objective of the study ............................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Relevant research questions ...................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Limitation of the research ......................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Significance of the research ...................................................................................................... 3
Chapter two ................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Definition of Liquefaction ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Soil Liquefaction Phenomenon ................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Liquefaction due to flow ........................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Categories of liquefaction due to flow ........................................................................... 5
2.4 Process of soil liquefaction due to flow .................................................................................... 8
2.5 Criteria for evaluating Soils Susceptible to Liquefaction ....................................................... 10
2.5.1 Historical Criteria ......................................................................................................... 10
2.5.2 Compositional Criteria ................................................................................................. 10
2.5.3 Geological Criteria ....................................................................................................... 12
2.5.4 State Criteria ................................................................................................................. 12
2.6 Liquefaction Zonation Criteria ............................................................................................... 12
2.7 Ground failure resulting from soil liquefaction ...................................................................... 13
2.7.1 Sand boils and Quicksand conditions ........................................................................... 14
2.7.2 Flow failures ................................................................................................................. 16
2.7.3 Lateral spreading .......................................................................................................... 18
2.7.4 Ground oscillation ........................................................................................................ 21
2.7.5 Loss of bearing capacity ............................................................................................... 22

iv
 2.7.6 Buoyant rise of buried structures .................................................................................. 23
2.7.7 Ground settlement......................................................................................................... 24
2.7.8 Failure of retaining wall ............................................................................................... 25
2.8 Factors affecting liquefaction ................................................................................................. 26
2.8.1 Grain-Size Distribution and Soil Types........................................................................ 26
2.8.2 Relative Density ........................................................................................................... 28
2.8.3 Earthquake Loading Characteristics ............................................................................. 28
2.8.4 Vertical Effective Stress and Overconsolidation .......................................................... 28
2.8.5 Age and Origin of the Soils .......................................................................................... 28
2.8.6 Seismic Strain History .................................................................................................. 29
2.8.7 Degree of Saturation ..................................................................................................... 29
2.8.8 Thickness of Sand Layer .............................................................................................. 29
2.9 Test procedures used to asses soil liquefaction....................................................................... 31
2.9.1. Mapping based on Geological criteria ......................................................................... 31
2.9.2 Empirical Correlations between In-Situ Characteristics and Observed Performance .. 31
2.9.3 Threshold Shear Strain Concept ................................................................................... 32
2.9.4. Liquefaction Probability .............................................................................................. 32
2.9.5. Steady-State Strength concept for analyzing stability of embankments and slopes
against flow failures............................................................................................................... 32
2.9.6 Cyclic stress approach .................................................................................................. 34
2.10 Occasions when quantitative evaluation of Liquefaction hazard potential is not required .. 34
2.11 Liquefaction due to chemical processes (Dispersion) .......................................................... 35
2.11.1 Definition of dispersive clay soils .............................................................................. 35
2.11.2 Difference between dispersive clays and ordinary erosion resistant clays ................. 35
2.11.3 Importance of study of dispersive clay soils .............................................................. 36
2.11.4 Origin and Geographical location of dispersive soils ................................................. 37
2.11.5 Engineering problems associated with dispersive soils .............................................. 38
2.11.6 Identification of dispersive clay soils ......................................................................... 40
2.11.7 Laboratory tests .......................................................................................................... 41
Chapter three .............................................................................................................................. 49
Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 49
3.1 A case study of liquefaction due to flow; Niigata earthquake 1964 ....................................... 49
3.2 A case study of liquefaction due to chemical process; Wister Dam, Oklahoma, 1949. ......... 52

v
Chapter four ................................................................................................................................ 56
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 56
4.1 Source of data ......................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter five ................................................................................................................................. 57
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Liquefaction due to flow ......................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Elimination and Mitigation of Liquefaction hazards .............................................................. 57
5.2.1 Avoid Liquefaction susceptible soils. ........................................................................... 58
5.2.2 Build Liquefaction restraint structures. ........................................................................ 58
5.2.3 Improve soils prone to Liquefaction ............................................................................. 60
5.3 Liquefaction due to chemical process ..................................................................................... 66
5.3.1 Design and Construction Measures .............................................................................. 66
5.3.2 Selection of Materials for Economic Construction ...................................................... 67
Chapter six ................................................................................................................................... 68
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 68
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 69
References ..................................................................................................................................... 70

vi
List of tables
Table 1: Comparison of Flow Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening ................................................ 7
Table 2: Liquefaction Susceptibility of Silty and Clayey Sands ................................................. 11
Table 3: Classes of Liquefaction-Induced Structural Instability ................................................. 25
Table 4: In-Situ Deep Compaction .............................................................................................. 62
Table 5: Compression .................................................................................................................. 63
Table 6: Pore-water pressure relief .............................................................................................. 63
Table 7: Injection and Grouting ................................................................................................... 64
Table 8: Admixture Stabilization ................................................................................................. 65
Table 9: Soil Reinforcement ........................................................................................................ 65

vii
List of figures
Figure 1: Soil grains in a soil deposit ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Size of the contact forces between individual soil grains .............................................. 8
Figure 3: Contact forces due to high water pressure. .................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Formation of trapped water interlayer, and delayed sand boil ..................................... 15
Figure 5: Bearing capacity failure ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 6: Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils .......... 27
Figure 7: Proposed boundary curves for site identification of liquefaction-induced damage ..... 30
Figure 8: Undrained stress-strain curve for loose sand................................................................ 33
Figure 9: Undrained stress-strain curve for dense sand ............................................................... 34
Figure 10: Tests for dispersive soils. ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 11: A graph of doule hydrometer test ............................................................................... 44
Figure 12: Dispersive grade versus, flow rate from the pinhole test ........................................... 46
Figure 13: Buried utilities with ductile connections .................................................................... 59
Figure 14: Piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement .............................................. 59
Figure 15: Pile connection failure hence developing vertical loadsfrom superstructure ............. 60

viii
List of plates
Plate 1: Sand boils that erupted during the 2011 Canterbury earthquake. ................................... 16
Plate 2: This flow failure in San Francisco during the 1957 Daly City earthquake .................... 17
Plate 3: Lateral spreading in Kaiapoi during the Darfield earthquake ......................................... 20
Plate 4: Lateral Spreading of Coastal Lagoon during 1995 Manzanillo Earthquake................... 20
Plate 5: Deformation caused by ground oscillation in Marina District of San Francisco ............ 21
Plate 6: Tilted apartment buildings at Kawagishi-cho, Niigata, Japan ........................................ 23
Plate 7: Manhole pushed up due to buoyacy in Brooklands ........................................................ 24
Plate 8: Characteristic of rilling/jugging pattern in dispersive soils ............................................ 49
Plate 9: Aerial view of leaning apartment houses in Niigata during the 1964 earthquake .......... 50
Plate 10: Collapse of Showa Bridge in Niigata during the 1964 earthquake .............................. 51

ix
Chapter one

Introduction
1.1 Scope of the study
The purpose of this project is to provide knowledge on soil liquefaction which is a major
problem in Civil engineering, particularly under the branch of Geotechnical that studies the
behavior of soils under the influence of loading forces and soil-water interactions. Secondly to
present the most widely accepted methods for evaluating the potential of liquefaction in soils.
Lastly to show various methods in which mitigation of liquefaction hazards can be achieved and
also present a few case studies on soil liquefaction.

1.2 Background of the study

It has been learned that solid ground can turn into mush under conditions that are not so rare.
Soil that had supported structures before could suddenly become fluid, anything on it can slip or
sink. The soil loses its strength and the soil transfers from solid state to liquefied state.
Liquefaction is categorized into two broad categories:

 Liquefaction due to flow

 Liquefaction due to chemical processes an example is dispersive clay soils.

Liquefaction due to flow is the result of excess pore water pressure generated in saturated
granular soils, from rapid loading, and is often associated with earthquake shaking. A more
precise definition of soil liquefaction is given by Sladen et al (1985) as, “Liquefaction is a
phenomenon wherein a mass of soil loses a large percentage of its shear resistance when
subjected to monotonic, cyclic or shock loading, and flows in a manner resembling a liquid until
the shear stresses acting on the mass are as low as the reduced shear resistance.”

Liquefaction due to chemical process is as the result of the nature of cations in the pore water of
the soil mass in this case dispersive soils are as a result of liquefaction due to a chemical process.

1
Dispersive clays have a preponderance of sodium cations, whereas ordinary clays have a
preponderance of calcium, potassium, and magnesium cations in the pore water (Sherard et
al.,1976).The presence of water will overcome and eliminate the inter-particle forces and would
move even with an existing slow water flow.

Soil liquefaction due to flow was not thought to be a significant component of earthquake
damage until 1964 during Niigata Earthquake and Alaska Earthquake in which liquefaction was
identified as the major cause of damage. More than 250 bridges were destroyed by this
phenomenon during the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. It was also a main factor in the destruction in
San Francisco's Marina District during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and in Port of Kobe
during the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake. More recently liquefaction was largely responsible
for extensive damage to residential properties in the eastern suburbs and satellite townships of
Christchurch, New Zealand during the 2010 Canterbury earthquake and more extensively again
in early and mid-2011.

The importance of the dispersive soils that are as a result of soil liquefaction due to chemical
process, in civil engineering practice was not recognized until the early 1960's, when research
on piping failure in earth dams due to dispersive clay behavior was initiated in Australia because
of many failures of small clay dams (Aitchison and Wood, 1965). Investigations have been
performed for identifying dispersive clays because they cannot be identified by the conventional
laboratory index tests such as visual classification, gradation, specific gravity, or atterberg limits.

1.3 Statement of the problem

The effect of soil liquefaction on built environment can be extremely damaging. Buildings whose
foundations bear directly on soil which liquefies will experience a sudden loss of support, which
will result in drastic and irregular settlement of the building causing structural damage, including
cracking of foundations and damage to the building structure itself, or it may leave the structure
unserviceable afterward even without structural damage. The irregular settlement of the ground
may also break underground utility lines. Bridges and large building constructed on pile
foundations may lose support from the adjacent soil and buckle. Sloping ground and ground next
to rivers and lakes may slide on a liquefied soil layer this is known as lateral spreading, opening
large cracks or fissures in the ground. Buried tanks and manholes may float due to buoyancy.

2
Methods to mitigate liquefaction hazards include to avoid liquefaction susceptible soils, build
liquefaction restraint structures and improve soils prone to liquefaction by inducing ground
modification techniques such as dynamic compaction, vibroflotation, and grouting.

1.4 Objective of the study

The purpose of this project is to provide knowledge on soil liquefaction. The objectives include;

1. To describe soil liquefaction and the process that occurs during soil liquefaction.
2. To determine criteria for evaluating soil susceptible to liquefaction.
3. To identify the factors affecting soil liquefaction.
4. To establish most widely accepted testing procedures used to assess soil liquefaction.
5. To determine problems and failures caused by soil liquefaction.
6. To elaborate on the liquefaction phenomenon by giving case histories best documented
and most adversely affected by liquefaction.
7. To identify methods of mitigation and elimination of liquefaction hazards.

1.5 Relevant research questions

1. What is soil liquefaction and what is the process leading to liquefaction of soils?
2. How to distinguish soils susceptible to liquefaction?
3. What are the factors that affect liquefaction?
4. What are the problems and failures associated with soil liquefaction?
5. Are there widely accepted methods for assessing soil liquefaction?
6. What methods can be employed to mitigate or even eliminate liquefaction hazards?

1.6 Limitation of the research

The study is done only with the help of secondary data. Primary data is not used in the study of
this project.

1.7 Significance of the research

Structural damage due to liquefaction-induced ground failure is a very costly phenomenon
leading to significant economic and life losses. It is an area in Geotechnical engineering that
requires extensive research so as to be well understood and properly dealt with as the mitigation
procedures available are either very expensive or require extensive ground disturbance to
implement.

3
Chapter two

Literature Review

2.1 Definition of Liquefaction

Liquefaction is a term used to refer to any process which either generates a liquid from solid or
gas. It can also be defined as a process that creates a non-liquid phase to behave as per fluid
dynamics.

2.2 Soil Liquefaction Phenomenon

Soil liquefaction is when soil merely behaves like a liquid mass with hardly any shear strength
rather than a solid mass. Liquefaction of soil can lead to severe damage of structures constructed
in such soils.

Liquefaction is categorized into two broad categories:

 Liquefaction due to flow

 Liquefaction due to chemical processes
 Dispersion

2.3 Liquefaction due to flow

Liquefaction phenomenon is observed when there is a loss of strength and stiffness in saturated
and cohesion-less soils in response to an applied stress, or a sudden change in stress condition,
causing it to behave like a liquid. Saturated soils are soils in which the space between individual
particles is filled with water while cohesion-less soils are any free running type of soils such as
sand or gravel whose strength depends on friction between particles.

Here soil liquefaction is as a result of increased pore water pressure and hence reduced effective
stresses due to dynamic loading. When a loosely packed, saturated fine uniform deposit of sand
is subjected to a shearing stress at a very fast rate, for example due to earthquake shocks, pile
driving, explosive blasting or even rapid draw down in dams, there is a tendency of rapid
decrease in the volume of soil. Since the soil volume contraction cannot occur within such a
short period, the soil mass behaves like an undrained system. Hence, there is a sudden increase in
the pore water pressure and consequently, an equal decrease in the effective stress.

4
If this reduction is such that the effective stress almost reduces to zero, the soil in that zone will
be transferred to a fluid-like mass with hardly any shear strength.

Since soil strength is proportional to the vertical effective stress (σvo'), the reduction of effective
stress from increased pore pressures (u) will lead to strength loss in a soil deposit. The pore
water pressure in the soil will be a combination of initial in-situ pore water stress (uo) and the
shear- induced pore water pressure (∆u). When the pore water pressure (u = ∆u + uo) equals the
total overburden stress (σvo), the effective stress (σvo' = σvo - u) will go to zero causing initial
liquefaction (Seed & Lee, 1966).

2.3.1 Categories of liquefaction due to flow

Soil liquefaction phenomenon can be divided into two main categories:

 Flow liquefaction.
 Cyclic softening.

2.3.1.1 Flow liquefaction

Flow Liquefaction is a phenomenon used for undrained flow of a saturated, contractive soil
when the static equilibrium is destroyed by static or dynamic loads in a soil deposit with low
residual strength. Residual strength is the strength of a liquefied soil. Failure maybe triggered by
cyclic or monotic shear loading.

2.3.1.2 Cyclic softening

Cyclic softening is used to describe large deformations occurring during cyclic shear due to pore
pressure build up in soils that would tend to dilate in undrained monotic shear.

Cyclic softening, in which deformation do not continue after cyclic loading ceases, can be further
classified as:

1. Cyclic liquefaction
2. Cyclic mobility.

5
Cyclic liquefaction occurs when cyclic shear stresses exceed the initial static shear stress to
produce a stress reversal. A condition of zero effective stress maybe achieved during which large
deformations may occur.

Cyclic mobility occurs when cyclic loads do not yield a shear stress and a condition of zero
effective stress does not develop. Deformation accumulates in each cycle of shear stress. It
occurs in soil deposits with static shear stresses lower than the soil strength. Deformations due to
cyclic mobility develop incrementally because of static and dynamic stresses that exist during an
earthquake. Lateral spreading, a common result of cyclic mobility, can occur on gently sloping
and on flat ground close to rivers and lakes

6
Table 1: Comparison of Flow Liquefaction and Cyclic Softening

Flow liquefaction Cyclic Softening

Flow Liquefaction Cyclic Liquefaction Cyclic Mobility
Loading Conditions Static or Cyclic Cyclic with stress Cyclic without stress
reversal reversal
Drainage Undrained Undrained Undrained
Soil Response to Strain Softening Strain Softening and Strain Softening and
Shear Strain Hardening Strain Hardening
Induced Stress In-situ shear stresses Effective stress state Effective stress state
State greater than reaches essentially reaches essentially
minimum undrained zero zero
shear strength
Failure or Sufficient volume of Strain softened shear Limited
Deformation soil must strain modulus can lead to deformations, unless
Potential soften. Failure can large deformations very loose soil results
result in slide or flow during cyclic loading. in flow liquefaction.
depending upon Soils will tend to
internal geometry and stabilize upon
stress state. termination of cyclic
loading.
Soil Types Any metastable Almost all saturated Almost all saturated
saturated soil; very sands, with limited sands, with limited
loose granular deformations in clay deformations in clay
deposits, very soils. soils.
sensitive clays, and
loose deposits
Controlling Stresses Static Shear Stress Static and Cyclic Static and Cyclic
Shear Stresses Shear Stresses

Stress reversal - during cyclic loading, the shear stresses alternate from positive to negative.

7
2.4 Process of soil liquefaction due to flow
To understand liquefaction, it is important to recognize the conditions that exist in a soil deposit
before an earthquake or a rapid loading. A soil deposit consists of an assemblage of individual
soil particles. If we look closely at these particles, we can see that each particle is in contact with
a number of neighboring particles. The weight of the overlying soil particles produce contact
forces between the particles - these forces hold individual particles in place and give the soil its
strength.

Figure 1: Soil grains in a soil deposit. The height of the blue column to the right represents the
level of pore water pressure in the soil.

Figure 2: The length of the arrows represent the size of the contact forces between individual
soil grains. The contact forces are large when the pore water pressure is low.

8
Liquefaction occurs when the structure of a loose, saturated sand breaks down due to some
rapidly applied loading. As the structure breaks down, the loosely-packed individual soil
particles attempt to move into a denser configuration. In an earthquake, however, there is not
enough time for the water in the pores of the soil to be squeezed out. Instead, the water is
"trapped" and prevents the soil particles from moving closer together. This is accompanied by an
increase in water pressure which reduces the contact forces between the individual soil particles,
thereby softening and weakening the soil deposit.

Figure 3: Contact forces due to high water pressure.

Observe how small the contact forces are because of the high water pressure. In an extreme case,
the pore water pressure may become so high that many of the soil particles lose contact with
each other. In such cases, the soil will have very little strength, and will behave more like a
liquid than a solid - hence, the name liquefaction.

Because liquefaction due to flow only occurs in saturated soil, its effects are most commonly
observed in low-lying areas near bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans. Port and
wharf facilities are often located in areas susceptible to liquefaction, and many have been
damaged by liquefaction in past earthquakes. Most ports and wharves have major retaining
structures, or quay walls, to allow large ships to moor adjacent to flat cargo handling areas.
When the soil behind and/or beneath such a wall liquefies, the pressure it exerts on the wall can
increase greatly, enough to cause the wall to slide and/or tilt toward the water.

9
2.5 Criteria for evaluating Soils Susceptible to Liquefaction
There are a number of different ways to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility of a soil deposit.
This includes the following:

 Historical Criteria
 Compositional Criteria
 Geological Criteria
 State Criteria

2.5.1 Historical Criteria

Soils that have liquefied in the past can liquefy again in future earthquakes. Observations from
earlier earthquakes provide a great deal of information about the liquefaction susceptibility of
certain types of soils and sites. Information is also available in the form of maps of areas where
liquefaction has occurred in the past and/or is expected to occur in the future. Many local
government agencies have prepared maps of sensitive areas, including areas susceptible to
liquefaction. Suppose for example someone wants to build a house and he/she would like to find
out if their site is susceptible to liquefaction, he/she could investigate previous earthquakes to see
if they caused liquefaction at that site.

2.5.2 Compositional Criteria

Liquefaction susceptibility depends on the soil type. Clayey soil, particularly sensitive soils, may
exhibit strain-softening behavior similar to that of liquefied soil, but do no liquefy in the same
manner as sandy soils.

Soils composed of particles that are all about the same size are more susceptible to liquefaction
than soils with a wide range of particle sizes. In a soil with many different size particles, the
small particles tend to fill in the voids between the bigger particles thereby reducing the tendency
for densification and pore water pressure development when shaken by various dynamic loads.
Thus a uniformly graded soil is more susceptible to soil liquefaction than a well-graded soil due
to the reduced volumetric strain, hence decreases the amount of excess pore pressure that can
develop under undrained conditions.

The geologic process of soil deposits that are either fluvial, colluvial or aeolian deposits tend to
sort particles into uniform grain sizes and produce rounded particles.

10
The friction between angular particles is higher than between rounded particles, hence a soil
deposit with angular particles is normally stronger and less susceptible to liquefaction.

Historically, sands were considered to be the only type of soil susceptible to liquefaction, but
liquefaction has also been observed in gravel and silt. Strain-softening of fine grained soils can
produce effects similar to those of liquefaction.

Fine-grained soils are susceptible to this type of behavior if they satisfy the criteria shown below
(Wang, 1979)

 Fraction finer than 0.005 mm< 15%

 Liquid Limit, LL < 35%
 Natural water content > 0.9 LL
 Liquidity Index < 0.75

Table 2: Liquefaction Susceptibility of Silty and Clayey Sands (after Andrews and Martin,
2000)

Liquid Limit < 32 (1)

Clay Content < 10% (2)
Clay Content ≥ 10%
Notes:
Susceptible Further Studies Required
(Considering plastic non-clay
sized grains - such as Mica)
Further Studies Required Not Susceptible
(Considering non-plastic clay
sized
grains – such as mine and
quarry
tailings)

1. Liquid Limit determined by Casagrande-type percussion apparatus

2. Clay defined as grains finer than 0.002mm

11
2.5.3 Geological Criteria
The type of geologic process that created a soil deposit has a strong influence on its liquefaction
susceptibility. Saturated soil deposits that have been created by sedimentation in rivers and lakes
(fluvial or alluvial deposits), deposition of debris or eroded material (colluvial deposits), or
deposits formed by wind action (aeolian deposits) can be very liquefaction susceptible. These
processes sort particles into uniform grain sizes and deposit them in loose state which tend to
densify when shaken by earthquakes. The tendency for densification leads to increasing pore
water pressure and decreasing strength. Man-made soil deposits, particularly those created by the
process of hydraulic filling, may also be susceptible to liquefaction.

2.5.4 State Criteria

The initial "state" of a soil is defined by its density and effective stress at the time it is subjected
to rapid loading. At a given effective stress level, looser soils are more susceptible to liquefaction
than dense soils. For a given density, soils at high effective stresses are generally more
susceptible to liquefaction than soils at low effective stresses.

At constant confining pressure, the liquefaction resistance increases with the relative density, and
at constant relative density, the liquefaction resistance increases with increasing confining
pressure. Various investigations (Castro, 1969; Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.,1982; and Kramer
and Seed,1988;) have shown that pre-existing shear static stress in a soil deposit is critical to a
soil's susceptibility to static liquefaction. The higher the initial shear stresses, the greater is the
liquefaction potential and the smaller disturbance is needed to liquefy the soil.

2.6 Liquefaction Zonation Criteria

Liquefaction zones are areas meeting one or more of the following:

1) Areas known to have experienced liquefaction during historical earthquakes

2) Areas of uncompacted artificial fill that are saturated, nearly saturated, or may be expected to
become saturated
3) Areas where sufficient existing geotechnical data and analyses indicate that the soils are
potentially liquefiable

12
4) Areas where existing subsurface data are not sufficient for quantitative evaluation of
liquefaction hazard. These zones may be delineated by geologic criteria. The criteria are
considered as follows:
 Areas containing soil deposits of late Holocene age ( Less than 1000 years old, current
river channels and their historical floodplains, marshes and estuaries), where the
groundwater is less than 40ft(12.2m) deep and the anticipated earthquake peak ground
acceleration (PGA) having a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years is greater
than or equal to 0.10 g
 Areas containing soil deposits of Holocene age (less than 11,000 years), where the
groundwater is less than 30ft(9.2m) below the surface and the anticipated earthquake
peak ground acceleration (PGA) having a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years
is greater than or equal to 0.20 g
 Areas containing soil deposits of latest Pleistocene age (11,000 to 15,000 years), where
the groundwater is less than 20ft(6.1m) and the anticipated earthquake peak ground
acceleration (PGA) have 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years is greater than or
equal to 0.30 g

2.7 Ground failure resulting from soil liquefaction

The liquefaction phenomenon by itself may not be particularly damaging or hazardous. Only
when liquefaction is accompanied by some form of ground displacement or ground failure is it
destructive to the built environment.

Once the likelihood of soil liquefaction has been identified, an engineering evaluation must be
done on the mode and magnitude of ground failures that might result. The nature and severity of
liquefaction damage is a function of the reduced shear strength and the magnitude of the static
shear loads supported by the soil deposit.

When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to
support foundations for buildings and bridges is reduced. Liquefied soil also exerts higher
pressure on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt or slide. This movement can cause
settlement of the retained soil and destruction of structures on the ground surface. Increased
water pressure can also trigger landslides and cause the collapse of dams.

13
Thus the building codes in many developed countries require engineers to consider the effects of
soil liquefaction in the design of new buildings and infrastructure such as bridges, embankment
dams and retaining structures.

The various types of failures include:

 Sand boils and quicksand conditions

 Flow failures
 Lateral spreads
 Ground oscillation
 Loss of bearing capacity
 Buoyant rise of buried structures
 Ground settlement
 Failure of retaining walls

2.7.1 Sand boils and Quicksand conditions

Seed points out that secondary type of liquefaction normally occurs in the upper layers and is not
caused by ground motions themselves but rather by liquefaction of underlying layers.

For instance, if a layer of sand liquefies during an earthquake. The water under high pressure
tries to flow. It cannot flow downwards or sideways because of similar conditions in both
directions. The water can therefore only go upwards, into the overlaying soils which may not
have liquefied during the application of dynamic loading like an earthquake.

This upward flow of water then liquefies near surface layers, which behaves like quicksand.
Quicksand is a colloid hydrogel consisting of fine granular material such as sand or silt, clay, and
water. It forms in saturated loose sand when the sand is suddenly agitated. When water in the
sand cannot escape, it creates a liquefied soil that loses strength and cannot support weight.

The upward flow of water from underlying liquefied layers may well be the cause of the surface
manifestation of liquefaction, such as sand boils, here the water looks like it is "boiling" up from
the bed of sand, hence the name, quicksand conditions or general condition of water seepage,
causing situations that can cause major damage to structures supported on the near surface soils.

14
In fact, Seed says near surface soils are most likely to become liquefied by upward flow of water
from lower layers of liquefied soils than they are from the direct effects of the earthquake
shaking or applied dynamic loading.

Sand boils may develop during or after a strong ground shaking phase and they appear in various
sizes (in a conical shape or along a longitudinal crack).

The ejected water-soil mixture has been reported to reach heights in excess of 1.2 m above the
ground (e.g., Kawakami 1965). The amount of fluid extruded to the surface depends on the
degree of damage inflicted on the solid particle skeleton. For very loose soil formations, 15% or
more of the pore fluid may be extruded upwards due to cyclic loading.

Elgamal et al. (1989) observed sand boils in small-scale tests of stratified deposits (of varying
permeability), following the water interlayer formation along the boundary of lower coarser and
upper finer layers. It may be roughly concluded that boils that eject large amounts of saturated
soil occur mainly during and soon after an earthquake. At this stage, dispersed soil may be
available for ejection. Once the soil sediments, large craters may still develop if the released
fluid is trapped below an impervious boundary. In this case, most of the ejected soil will be that
of overlying soil along with large amounts of almost pure fluid.

Figure 4: Formation of trapped water interlayer, and delayed sand boil following a hydraulic
fracture mechanism (Elgamal et al. 1989).

15
Plate 1: Sand boils that erupted during the 2011 Canterbury earthquake.

2.7.2 Flow failures

Where conditions are favorable, liquefaction in the field may lead to a state of unlimited flow.
Flow failures are the most catastrophic ground failures caused by liquefaction. These flows
develops on slopes greater than three degrees(Youd, 1992) and are composed of completely
liquefied soil or intact blocks of soil riding on a layer of liquefied material. This type of failures
commonly displaces great volumes of soil for tens of meters or more, often at high velocities. In
this type of failure, flow ceases only when the driving shear forces are reduced, such as by slope
reduction to values less than the viscous shear resistance of the flowing material.

Failures may occur on natural ground, man-made earth structures such as earth dams, mine-
waste tailing dams and in coastal areas flow failures under water have carried away sections of
port facilities.

16
The earliest known flow failures occurred in the 1811-1812 in Missouri, New Madrid earthquake
(Fuller, 1912).Several flow landslides have occurred in the estuary section of the Dutch province
of Zeeland (Koppejan and others, 1948), including some that have caused disastrous breaches in
the dikes of that region.

Dike slopes before failure was typically about 20°, with banks as high as 40 m. After failure,
many slopes were 4° or less. Liquefaction of a loose granular layer underlying the slides areas
was the apparent cause of the flow failures. A flow failure occurred in the Fort Peck Dam,
Montana, during construction of a hydraulic-fill embankment (Casagrande, 1965). A 250-m long
section of the upstream shell failed and moved 460 m upstream in about 4 min. Before failure,
the slope of the up- stream embankment was about 14°; after failure slopes on the failed mass
were generally less than 3°. The cause of failure is believed to have been liquefaction of a sand
zone in the shell and possibly a natural granular layer beneath the dam (Casagrande, 1965,).More
recently, the failure of the upstream slope of the Lower San Fernando Dam during 1971 San
Fernando, California, earthquake is another notable example of flow failure.(Seed,1975).

Plate 2: This flow failure, which developed in highway fill at the western edge of Lake Merced
in San Francisco during the 1957 Daly City earthquake, involved movement downslope; the
migrating material disappeared to the right beneath the surface of Lake Merced.

17
2.7.3 Lateral spreading
Lateral spreads have caused more damage than any other liquefaction induced soil failure. It
involves displacement of large blocks of ground down gentle slopes or towards stream channels.

Liquefaction induced lateral spreading is also defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently
sloping grounds as a result of pore water pressure build up or liquefaction in a shallow
underlying deposit during an earthquake.

Geological conditions conducive to lateral spreading include:

 Gentle surface slope

 Shallow water table
 Liquefiable cohesionless soils

As described by Bartlet and Youd(1992a;1992b),liquefaction induced lateral spreading does

occur on mild slopes of 0.3% to5% underlain by loose sand and shallow water table.

Such soil deposits are prone to pore pressure generation, softening and liquefaction during large
earthquakes. Suppose liquefaction occurs, the unsaturated overburden soil can slide as intact
blocks over the lower liquefied deposit.

The movement of soil deposits undergoing lateral spreading can range from a few centimeters to
several meters, and can cause significant damage to buildings, bridges, pipelines, and other
elements of infrastructure. . Structures at the head of the slide are sometimes pulled apart while
those at the toe are subject to buckling or compression of the foundation soils. Differential
settlements or heaving of the ground surface can also damage structures. While large ground
movements can collapse buildings, horizontal and vertical displacements of lesser magnitude can
lead to severe structural damage.

Lateral spreading often occurs along riverbanks and shorelines where loose, saturated sandy soils
are commonly encountered at shallow depths. Structures supported on shallow foundations,
pavements, and buried pipelines are particularly susceptible to

The following few examples of lateral-spreading ground failures illustrate their typical
dimensions and character damage.

18
Lateral spread resulting from the 1964 Alaskan Earthquake caused severe damage to the Alaskan
Highway and Railroad in southern Alaska mainly due to differential movement of channel and
floodplain deposits. It is estimated that lateral spread caused $80 million damage (1964 value) to
266 bridges and numerous sections of embankment along the Alaska Railroad and Highway
(McCulloch and Bonilla, 1970; Kachadoorian, 1968).

During the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, lateral-spreading ground failures occurred on both
sides of Van Norman Lake (Youd, 1971; 1973; Smith and Fallgren, 1973; Proctor and others,
1972). Northeast of the lake the landslide was tongue shaped in plan, 1.2 km long, and about 0.3
km wide. The mean slope from head to toe of the failure was about 1.5 percent (0.9°).

Horizontal displacements were as large as 1.9 m, whereas maximum vertical displacements were
only about 0.15 m. The surface layer was fractured into several large blocks that slid downslope
with very little tilting. Sand boils, indicative of increased pore pressures at depth, erupted at
several points on and near the slide. The soil profile beneath the slide consisted of a firm surface
layer overlying a soft saturated layer composed of sand and sandy silt. Liquefaction in the lower
layer presumably led to the failure by repeated episodes of limited flow. Relict pre-earthquake
fissures and sand boils that were found in post-earthquake exploratory trenches are evidence that
similar ground failures had occurred before at this site, most likely during previous earthquakes
(Youd, 1972b).

West of the lake, the surface ruptures broke roughly parallel to the long free face formed by the
west shore of Van Norman Lake and severely disrupted the newly constructed fill for the Jensen
water-filtration plant. Maximum horizontal displacements were about 1 m near the free face and
decreased with distance upslope. Sand boils were found near the toe of the landslide and on the
fill in the southern part of the zone. A layer of saturated fine sand was discovered in post-
earthquake borings at depths of 2-3 m below the original ground surface (Proctor and others,
1972). The failure presumably was caused by liquefaction of this layer.

19
Plate 3: Lateral spreading where the earth literally is pulled apart sideways occurred in Kaiapoi
during the Darfield earthquake, as seen in this parking area of a tavern near the Kaiapoi River.
The concrete blocks in the wall at middle left have also separated due to lateral spreading and
uneven ground settlement. Kaiapoi was one of the worst-hit areas. Buildings were damaged due
to the severe ground shaking combined with the underlying geology of saturated fine sand and
silt which turned into a jelly-like consistency during the earthquake.

Plate 4: Lateral Spreading of Coastal Lagoon due to Liquefaction, 1995 Manzanillo Earthquake.

20
2.7.4 Ground oscillation
Ground oscillation can simply be defined as the surface layer, riding on a buried liquefied layer,
which is thrown back and forth by shaking and can be severely deformed.

The Committee on Earthquake Engineering (1985) identified ground oscillation as a source of

transient ground deformation (TGD) associated with liquefaction in areas of virtually level
ground where near-surface soils oscillate on top of an underlying liquefied layer.

Ground oscillation affects flat ground. The liquefied sediment starts to slosh into waves as
shaking continues. Whatever is on top of the sediment gets broken and thrown around. Cracks in
the ground open and close, and water or mud may erupt from them.

Ground oscillation is a phenomenon that occurs on relatively level ground where lateral
spreading does not occur. In this phenomenon, broken blocks of non-liquefied soil oscillate back
and forth and up and down on top of an underlying liquefied layer during an earthquake. This
phenomenon of soil block jostling produces an oscillation as ground waves. It is reported (Youd,
1984) that the decoupled surface layer vibrates in a different mode than the underlying and
surrounding firm ground, causing fissures to form and impacts to occur between oscillating
blocks and adjacent firm ground. Ground oscillation can present an enormous clean-up problem
if they occur in a built-up area.

Plate 5: The Marina District of San Francisco, showing the deformation caused by ground
oscillation.

21
The Marina District of San Francisco suffered from relatively intense shaking and liquefaction in
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The soft bay and marsh soils in the area, which were covered
by dredged sand in the early 1900s, amplified earthquake shaking. The sandy fill material
liquefied, causing disruption of streets, sidewalks, telephone and power poles and homes. Here,
the liquefied sand decoupled the overlying fill and structures from the underlying sediment,
allowing the overlying materials to oscillate with shaking that continued after the fill material
liquefied. In such "ground oscillation" permanent deformations may be small, but displacements
during earthquake shaking may be damaging (Youd, 1995).

2.7.5 Loss of bearing capacity

Loss of bearing capacity results from the loss of soil strength associated with the increase in pore
water pressures and softening of the soil occurring during liquefaction. When the soil supporting
a structure liquefies and loses strength, large deformations can occur, leading to large settlements
and/or tilting of structures.

Figure 5: Bearing capacity failure (after Youd, 1984)

22
Plate 6: Tilted apartment buildings at Kawagishi cho, Niigata, Japan; the soils beneath these
buildings liquefied during an earthquake in 1964 and provided little support for the building
foundations due to loss of bearing strength.

2.7.6 Buoyant rise of buried structures

Tanks, pipelines, cut-off timber, and other buried structures that are lighter in weight than the
surrounding soils rise buoyantly when the surrounding soil liquefies. Spectacular emergences of
several buried tanks have occurred during earthquakes. In other instances, old bridge piles have
shot upward a meter or so, marking the past location of a long forgotten structure. Damage
caused by a buoyant rise of structures is seldom catastrophic, but can have important
consequences to lifelines and restoration of and restoration of community services.

23
Plate 7: Damage in Brooklands from the 2010 Canterbury earthquake, where buoyancy caused
by soil liquefaction pushed up an underground service including this manhole.

2.7.7 Ground settlement

When a load is applied on the ground, it increases the vertical effective stress. This stress
increases the vertical strain in the soil. This increase in vertical strain causes the ground to move
downward. This downward movement of the ground is called settlement. When downward
movement of the ground occurs over a large area due to increase in vertical strain in the soil.
Then this movement is sometimes called Subsidence.

Liquefaction-induced ground settlements are essentially vertical deformations of surficial soil

layers caused by the densification and compaction of loose granular soils following earthquake
loading. Settlement of the ground surface can be broken down into two components:

 Total settlement - General overall settlement of the area.

 Differential settlement - The difference in settlement between points within the area.

Several methods have been proposed to calculate liquefaction induced ground deformations,
including numerical and analytical methods, laboratory modeling and testing, and field testing
based methods. The expense and difficulty associated with obtaining and testing high quality
samples of loose sandy soils may only be feasible for high-risk projects where the consequences
of liquefaction may result in severe damage and large costs. Semi-empirical approaches using
data from field tests are likely best suited to provide simple, reliable and direct methods to
estimate liquefaction induced ground deformations for low to medium risk projects, and also to
provide preliminary estimates for higher risk projects.

24
2.7.8 Failure of retaining wall
Retaining wall is a relatively rigid wall used for supporting the soil mass laterally so that the soil
can be retained at different levels on the two sides of the wall.

Liquefied soil exerts higher pressure on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt or slide.
Failures of retaining walls have occurred many times during past earthquakes. While design
calculations have been developed for retaining walls with dry backfills, the complex nature of
excess pore pressure buildup in saturated soils makes most simple design calculations unsuitable
for the design of waterfront retaining structures when significant pore pressure is generated. In
particular, when liquefaction is initiated in soils, the stability of retaining walls is seriously
compromised. Over the years, a large number of centrifuge tests have been conducted on
retaining wall models subjected to simulated earthquake loading.

Table 3: Classes of Liquefaction-Induced Structural Instability (National Research

Council, 1985)

Structures Most Often Affected Types of Structural Instability

Buried and surface structures Loss of foundation bearing capacity
Structures built on or at the base of a slope Slope instability slides
Dam embankments and foundations Slope instability slides
Bridge piers Movement of liquefied soil adjacent to
Railway lines topographic depressions
Highways
Utility lines
Structures, especially those with slabs on Lateral spreading on horizontal ground
grade
Utility lines
Highways
Railways
Buried tanks Excess structural buoyancy caused by high
Utility poles subsurface pore pressure
Structures built on grade Formation of sink holes from sand blows
Retaining walls Increase of lateral stress in liquefied soil
Port structures

25
2.8 Factors affecting liquefaction

2.8.1 Grain-Size Distribution and Soil Types

The type of soil most susceptible to liquefaction is one in which the resistance to deformation is
mobilized by friction between particles. If other factors such as grain shape, uniformity
coefficient and relative density are equal, the frictional resistance of cohesionless soil decreases
as the grain size of soils becomes smaller. Tsuchida (1970) summarized the results of sieve
analyses performed on a number of alluvial and diluvial soils that were known to have liquefied
or not to have liquefied during earthquakes. He proposed ranges of grain size curves separating
liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils as shown in Figure below. The area within the two inner
curves in the figure represents sands and silty sands, the soils with the lowest resistance to
liquefaction. A soil with a gradation curve falling in the zones between the outer and inner
curves is less likely to liquefy. Soils with a higher percentage of gravels tend to mobilize higher
strength during shearing, and to dissipate excess pore pressures more rapidly than sands.
However, there are case histories indicating that liquefaction has occurred in loose gravelly soils
(Seed, 1968; Ishihara, 1985; Andrus, et al., 1991) during severe ground shaking or when the
gravel layer is confined by an impervious layer. The space between the two curves farthest to the
left reflects the influence of fines in decreasing the tendency of sands to densify during seismic
shearing. Fines with cohesion and cementation tend to make sand particles more difficult to
liquefy or to seek denser arrangements. However, non-plastic fines such as rock flour, silt and
tailing slimes may not have as much of this restraining effect. Ishihara (1985) stated that clay or
silt-size materials having a low plasticity index value will exhibit physical characteristics
resembling those of cohesionless soils, and thus have a high degree of potential for liquefaction.

Walker and Steward (1989), based on their extensive dynamic tests on silts, have also concluded
that non-plastic and low plasticity silts, despite having their grain size distribution curves outside
of Tsuchida's boundaries for soils susceptible to liquefaction, have a potential for liquefaction
similar to that of sands and that increased plasticity will reduce the level of pore pressure
response in silts. This reduction, however, is not significant enough to resist liquefaction for soils
with plasticity indices of 5 or less.

26
 Figure 6: Limits in the gradation curves separating liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils
(Tsuchida, 1970).

Even though major slide movements during earthquakes have occurred in clay deposits, they are
commonly considered to be non-liquefiable during earthquakes in the sense that an extensive
zone of clay soil is converted into a heavy fluid condition. However, it is believed that quick
clays may lose most of their strength after strong shaking and that other types of clay may lose a
proportion of their strength resulting in slope failures. Frequently, landslides in clay deposits
containing sand or silt lenses are initially triggered by the liquefaction of these lenses before any
significant strength loss occurs in the clay. This has been supported by laboratory test results
which indicate that the strain required to liquefy sands is considerably smaller than the strain
required to overcome the peak strength of cohesive soils (Seed, 1968; Poulos, Robinsky and
Keller, 1985).

There is also ample evidence to show that uniformly graded materials, generally having a
uniformity coefficient smaller than five, are more susceptible to liquefaction than well-graded
materials (Ross, et al., 1969; Lee and Fitton, 1969) and that for uniformly graded soils, fine
sands tend to liquefy more easily than coarse sands, gravelly soils, silts or clay.

27
2.8.2 Relative Density
Laboratory test results and field case histories indicate that, for a given soil, initial void ratio or
relative density is one of the most important factors controlling liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs
principally in saturated clean sands and silty sands having a relative density less than 50%. For
dense sands, however, their tendency to dilate during cyclic shearing will generate negative pore
water pressures and increase their resistance to shear stress. The lower limit of relative density
beyond which liquefaction will not occur is about 75%.

2.8.3 Earthquake Loading Characteristics

The vulnerability of any cohesionless soil to liquefaction during an earthquake depends on the
magnitude and number of cycles of stresses or strains induced in it by the earthquake shaking.
These in turn are related to the intensity, predominant frequency, and duration of ground
shaking.

2.8.4 Vertical Effective Stress and Overconsolidation

It is well known that an increase in the effective vertical stress increases the bearing capacity and
shear strength of soil, and thereby increases the shear stress required to cause liquefaction and
decreases the potential for liquefaction. From field observations it has been concluded by a
number of investigators that saturated sands located deeper than 50 to 60 feet (15 to 18 m) are
not likely to liquefy. These depths are in general agreement with Kishida (1969) who states that a
saturated sandy soil is not liquefiable if the value of the effective overburden pressure exceeds
(190 kN/m2).

Both theory and experimental data show that for a given soil a higher over consolidation ratio
leads to higher lateral earth pressure at rest and thereby increases the shear stress ratio required to
cause liquefaction.

2.8.5 Age and Origin of the Soils

Natural deposits of alluvial and fluvial origins generally have soil grains in the state of loose
packing. These deposits are young, weak and free from added strength due to cementation and
aging.

28
Youd and Hoose (1977) stated that, as a rule of thumb, alluvial deposits older than late
Pleistocene (10,000- 130,000 years) are unlikely to liquefy except under severe earthquake
loading conditions, while late Holocene deposits (1,000 years or less) are most likely to liquefy,
and earlier Holocene (1,000-10,000 years) deposits are moderately liquefiable.

2.8.6 Seismic Strain History

It has been demonstrated from laboratory test results that prior seismic strain history can
significantly affect the resistance of soils to liquefaction (Finn et al., 1970; Seed et al., 1977;
Singh et al., 1980). Low levels of prior seismic strain history, as a result of a series of previous
shakings producing low levels of excess pore pressure, can significantly increase soil resistance
to pore pressure buildup during subsequent cyclic loading. This increased resistance may result
from uniform densification of the soil or from better interlocking of the particles in the original
structure due to elimination of small local instabilities at the contact points without any general
structural rearrangement taking place. Large strains, however, associated with large pore
pressure generation and conditions of full liquefaction can develop weak zones in the soil due to
uneven densification and redistribution of water content (National Research Council, 1985;
Whitman, 1985), and thus lower the resistance of the soil to pore pressure generation during
subsequent cyclic loading.

2.8.7 Degree of Saturation

Liquefaction will not occur in dry soils. Only settlement, as a result of densification during
shaking, may be of some concern. Very little is known on the liquefaction potential of partially
saturated sands. Available laboratory test results (Sherif et al., 1977) show liquefaction resistance
for soils increases with decreasing degree of saturation, and that sand samples with low degree of
saturation can become liquefied only under severe and long duration of earthquake shaking.

2.8.8 Thickness of Sand Layer

In order to induce extensive damage at level ground surface from liquefaction, the liquefied soil
layer must be thick enough so that the resulting uplift pressure and amount of water expelled
from the liquefied layer can result in ground rupture such as sand boiling and fissuring (Ishihara,
1985; Dobry, 1989).

29
If the liquefied sand layer is thin and buried within a soil profile, the presence of a non-
liquefiable surface layer may prevent the effects of the at-depth liquefaction from reaching the
surface. Ishihara (1985) has set up a criterion to stipulate a threshold value for the thickness of a
non-liquefiable surface layer to avoid ground damage due to liquefaction, as shown in Figure
below. Although this figure is believed to be speculative and should not be used for design
purposes, it provides initial guidance in this matter for sites having a buried liquefiable sand
layer with a standard penetration resistance of less than 10 blows per foot (0.3 m). It should also
be noted that even though the thickness of a non-liquefiable surface layer exceeds the threshold
thickness shown in the figure, the ground surface may still experience some settlement which
may be undesirable for certain settlement-sensitive structures. However, this figure is based on
just three case histories, may need to be modified as more data become available.

Figure 7: Proposed boundary curves for site identification of liquefaction-induced damage

(Ishirhara, 1985)

30
2.9 Test procedures used to asses soil liquefaction
Various procedures for assessing the liquefaction potential of saturated soil deposits have been
proposed in the past twenty years. These procedures, requiring various degrees of laboratory
and/or in-situ testing, may be classified into the following categories:

2.9.1. Mapping based on Geological criteria

A method for constructing liquefaction potential maps was developed by Youd and Perkins
(1978), relating geological age, origin of sediments and site distance to the potential earthquake
epicenter. The proposed criteria are widely used for general assessment of regional liquefaction
hazards (Youd et al., 1978; Anderson et al., 1982; Tinsley et al., 1985).

2.9.2 Empirical Correlations between In-Situ Characteristics and Observed Performance

Soil liquefaction characteristics determined by field performance have been correlated with a
variety of soil parameters such as;
 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Resistance (Seed and Idriss, 1971; Seed, 1979; Seed et
al., 1983, 1985; Ishihara, 1985) Soil layers with a normalized SPT blow count (N1)60
less than 22 have been known to liquefy. (Seed et al 1985).
An SPT value of (N1)60 less than 30 can be used as the threshold for suspecting
liquefaction potential. (Marcuson et al,1990).
 Cone Penetration Resistance (Douglas et al., 1981; Robertson et al., 1983; Kovas et al.,
1984; Baldi et al., 1985; Robertson and Campanella, 1985; Seed et al., 1985;)
Liquefaction has also been shown to occur if the normalized CPT cone resistance (qc) is
less than (15Mpa) (Shibataband Taparaska, 1988).
 Shear Wave Velocity (Dobry et al., 1981; Campanella and Robertson, 1984; Bierschwale
and Stokoe, 1984).
 Resistivity and Capacitance of Soil (Arulanandan,1977; Arulmoli et al., 1985).
Laboratory tests that can be conducted include, dynamic/cyclic tri-axial tests and cyclic simple
shear stresses.

31
2.9.3 Threshold Shear Strain Concept
For a given cohesionless soil there exists a threshold shear strain, typically 0.01 percent. If the
peak shear strain induced by an earthquake does not exceed this strain, the shaking will not cause
a buildup of excess pore pressure regardless of the number of loading cycles, and, therefore,
liquefaction cannot occur (Dobry et al., 1980). The peak shear strain caused by an earthquake
ground motion may be estimated with reasonable accuracy using the following equation:
r = 1.2 a Z / Vs²

Where:
r = strain. Z = depth.
a = peak acceleration at ground surface. Vs = shear wave velocity.

2.9.4. Liquefaction Probability

Probabilistic approaches to liquefaction analyses have been proposed by several researchers
(Yegian and Whitman, 1978; Haldar and Tang, 1979; Fardis and Veneziano, 1982; Chameau and
Clough, 1983; Liao et al., 1988). However, the usefulness of this approach depends on the
soundness of the assumed mechanistic models and on the feasibility of quantifying uncertainty
for model parameters.

2.9.5. Steady-State Strength concept for analyzing stability of embankments and slopes
against flow failures
The steady-state strength concept, founded on Casagrande's "Critical Void Ratio
Theory"(Casagrande, 1936), has been developed to evaluate the susceptibility of an embankment
or slope to a liquefaction flow failure (Castro, 1969; Poulos, 1981; Castro et al., 1982; Poulos,
Castro and France, 1985). Castro and Poulos have shown that even after liquefaction, many
sands retain a strength which may be appreciable. Seed and his co-workers use the term residual
strength to refer to the strength of liquefied materials.

If the sand beneath an embankment or slope is very loose and has the type of stress-strain
behavior shown in the figure below, a seismic loading of sufficient intensity and duration can
strain the soil over the peak of the stress-strain curve and trigger initial liquefaction.

32
Once this condition is reached, creep and progressive failure will cause the shear resistance of
the soil to continuously decline until the steady state or residual strength is reached. If the
undrained steady-state strength is smaller than the initial shear stress required for static
equilibrium, the slope will be destabilized and a flow failure will occur. Therefore, when a flow
failure occurs, the reduced strength need not be zero, and, conversely, even a very low reduced
strength may not lead to a flow failure if other soils along the potential failure surface are strong
enough to prevent a loss of stability.

Figure 8: Undrained stress-strain curve for loose sand (Seed et al., 1989)

During earthquake shaking, dense sands have a tendency to dilate and generate negative pore
water pressure. As a result, soil shearing resistance increases until a maximum value is reached,
as shown in figure below. At the end of the shaking, the initial static shear stress is still less than
the peak shear resistance. Therefore, slope instability is unlikely to occur in dense sands under
earthquake loading.

33
 Figure 9: Undrained stress-strain curve for dense sand (National Research Council, 1985)

The evaluation procedure involves laboratory steady-state strength testing followed by

appropriate conservative corrections to the in-situ void ratio condition taking all relevant factors
into account.

2.9.6 Cyclic stress approach

In the cyclic stress approach, both the loading imposed on the soil by the earthquake and the
resistance of the soil to liquefaction is characterized in terms of cyclic shear stresses. By
characterizing both loading and resistance in common terms, they can be directly compared to
determine potential for liquefaction.

2.10 Occasions when quantitative evaluation of Liquefaction hazard potential is not

required
 If the corrected standard penetration blow count, (N1)60 is greater than or equal to 30 in all
samples of clean sands with a sufficient number of tests, Liquefaction assessment is not
required.
 If cone penetration soundings are made, the corrected cone penetration test tip resistance,
qc1N should be greater than or equal to 160 in all soundings in sand materials.
 Depth-corrected normalized cone penetration resistance values qc1N >175, or stress-
corrected shear wave velocity Vs >230 m/sec are considered of sufficient density to pose
little risk of liquefying.

34
2.11 Liquefaction due to chemical processes (Dispersion)

2.11.1 Definition of dispersive clay soils

Dispersive clay soils are those in which the clay content has a high percentage of sodium. They
are also known as Sodic Soils. This clay fraction readily breaks down to form a suspension in
water. The particles will move apart, forming a colloidal solution. The presence of water will
overcome and eliminate the inter-particle forces and would move even with an existing slow
water flow. However non-dispersive soils are eroded only when the water flow is strong enough
to overcome the inter-particle attractions.
The tendency for dispersive erosion in a given soil depends on variables such as:
 Mineralogy
 Chemistry of the clay
 Dissolved salts in the water, in soil pores and in the eroding water (Sherard and Decker,
1977).

Dispersive clay soils are eroded rapidly by slow-moving water, even when compared to
cohesionless fine sands and silts. When immersed in water, the clay fraction behaves like single-
grained particles that have minimum electrochemical attraction and fail to closely bond with
other, the soil particles are instead easily carried away. Such erosion may start in a drying crack,
settlement crack, hydraulic fracture crack, or other channel of high permeability in a soil mass.

2.11.2 Difference between dispersive clays and ordinary erosion resistant clays
The principal difference between dispersive clays and ordinary erosion resistant clays appears to
be the nature of the cations in the pore water of the clay mass. Dispersive clays have a
preponderance of sodium cations, whereas ordinary clays have a preponderance of calcium,
potassium, and magnesium cations in the pore water (Sherard et al., 1976).

Ordinary clays have a flocculated or aggregated structure because of the electrochemical

attraction of the particles to each other and to water. This accounts for these soils' cohesive, non-
erosive behavior.
Dispersive clays have an imbalance in the electrochemical forces between particles.

35
This imbalance causes the minute soil particles in a dispersive clay to be repulsed rather than
attracted to one another. Consequently, dispersive clay particles tend to react as single-grained
particles and not as an aggregated mass of particles.

Dispersive clays are most easily eroded by water that is low in ion concentration, such as rain
water. Runoff water has the opportunity to attain ions from land surface contact making it more
in ionic balance with the dispersive clays and less erosive.

Dispersive clay soils can be red, brown, gray, yellow, or various combinations of these colors.
Black soils with obviously high organic content are not dispersive (Steele, 1976).

2.11.3 Importance of study of dispersive clay soils

Dispersive clay soils can be a problem for many practices or structures. In appearance, they are
like normal clays that are stable and somewhat resistant to erosion, but in reality they can be
highly erosive and subject to severe damage or failure. It is important to understand the nature of
these soils and to be able to identify them so they can be treated or avoided.

Dispersive clay phenomena was first noted by agronomists over 100 years ago and its basic
nature was fairly well understood by soil scientists and agricultural engineers nearly 50 years ago
(Richards, 1954; Yolk, 1937), but the importance of the subject in civil engineering practice was
not recognized until the early 1960's when research on piping failure in earth dams due to
dispersive clay behavior was initiated in Australia because of many failures of small clay dams
(Aitchison and Wood, 1965). Since that time, many investigations have been performed to refine
procedures for identifying dispersive clays, because they cannot be identified by the
conventional laboratory index tests such as visual classification, gradation, specific gravity, or
Atterberg limits (Sherard et al,1972a). Observations show there can be great differences in
erodibility in materials with identical visual appearance and index properties when the samples
are taken from locations only a few feet apart.

36
2.11.4 Origin and Geographical location of dispersive soils

2.11.4.1 Origin of dispersive soils

 Weathering of sedimentary rocks, transfers Sodium ions from the rock components to the
soil.
 In Dry climates, vaporization of water induces a high sodium content top layer, especially
in case of low permeability underlying layers.
 Existence and flow of Salty water in the area especially in deserts
 Fluctuating groundwater tables causes higher sodium content close to the surface.

2.11.4.2 Geographical location

Dispersive clays have not been definitively associated with any specific geologic origin but most
have been found as alluvial clays in the form of slope wash, lake bed deposits, loess deposits,
and flood plain deposits. In some areas claystone and shales laid down as marine deposits have
the same pore water salts as dispersive clay, and their residual soils are dispersive. In Zimbabwe
dispersive clays have been associated with granites and sandstones as well (Clarle,1986).

In areas of sloping topography where dispersive clays exist, a characteristic pattern of surface
erosion is evidenced by jagged, sinuous ridges and deep rapidly forming channels and tunnels. In
gently rolling or flat areas there is frequently no surface evidence of dispersive clay due to an
overlying protective layer of silty sand or topsoil from which the dispersive clay particles have
been removed. The absence of surface erosion patterns typical of dispersive clays does not
necessarily indicate that no dispersive clays are present. Dispersive clay soils can be red, brown,
gray, yellow, or various combinations of these colors. Black soils with obviously high organic
content are not dispersive (Steele, 1976).

Nearly all fine-grained soils tested, known to be derived from in situ weathering of igneous and
metamorphic rocks have been non dispersive, as well as all soils derived from limestone
(Sherard and Decker, 1977).

37
Early studies indicated that dispersive clays were associated only with soils formed in arid or
semiarid climates and in areas of alkaline soils.

Recently the same soils and erosion problems have been found in humid climates in various
geographic locations. Australia, Tasmania, Mexico, Trinidad, Vietnam, South Africa, Thailand,
Israel, Ghana, Brazil, Venezuela, and many parts of the Southern United States have experienced
problems with dispersive clays in water projects. Dispersive soils are found in 60 percent of
Zimbabwe, and an embankment dam failure from dispersive soils was reported in Kenya (Clark,
1986).

2.11.5 Engineering problems associated with dispersive soils

Most studies reported in the literature have shown that failures of structures built of dispersive
clay soils occurred on first wetting. All failures were associated with the presence of water and
cracking by shrinkage, differential settlement, or construction deficiencies. These failures
emphasize the importance of early recognition and identification of dispersive clay soils;
otherwise, the problems they cause can result in sudden, irreversible, and catastrophic failures.

Problems caused by dispersive soils include:

 Surface erosion.
 Internal erosion.
 Tunnel formation.
 Gulley formation.
 Sinkholes.
 Jugging (formation of the vertical portion of an underground erosion tunnel where the
base is larger than the top, resembling a jug).

The problems may be placed into two broad categories.

 Erosion of external soil slopes

 Internal erosion

38
Plate 8: Dispersive clays erode easily, producing the characteristic of rilling/jugging pattern.

Erosion of external soil slopes

Rainfall and runoff on exposed slopes of dispersive clays can cause severe erosion. Cut slopes in
natural soils and slopes of earth fills may both be affected. The erosion usually results in severe
rilling and gullying on the slopes.

Internal erosion

Earth fills constructed of dispersive clays have failed because of internal erosion through cracks
or other openings in the fill. Water flowing through a crack rapidly enlarges the crack, creating
an irregularly shaped tunnel through the fill. The primary causes of cracking in earth fills are
drying, differential settlement, and poor compaction around conduits. Failures usually occur
when the fills are first subjected to water storage.

39
2.11.6 Identification of dispersive clay soils
Identification of dispersive soils should start with field reconnaissance investigations to
determine if there are any surface indications such as unusual erosional patterns with tunnels and
deep gullies, concurrent with excessive turbidity in any storage water. Areas of poor crop
production and stunted vegetative growth may indicate highly saline soils, many of which are
dispersive. However, dispersive soils can also occur in neutral or acidic soils and can support
lush grass growth (Elges, 1985).

The following is a field test for aggregate dispersion that can be carried during field
reconnaissance investigations (Sorensen 1995).

Figure 10: Tests for dispersive soils.

Although surface evidence can give a strong indication of dispersive soils, lack of such evidence
does not in itself preclude the presence of dispersive clay at depth and further explorations
should proceed. Dispersive clays cannot be identified by the standard laboratory index tests such
as visual classification, grain size analysis, specific gravity, or atterberg limits, therefore, other
laboratory tests have been devised for this purpose.

Clay soils should be routinely tested for dispersive characteristics during design studies for
hydraulic structures where clay may be subjected to potential erosion and piping.

40
2.11.7 Laboratory tests
The five laboratory tests most generally performed to identify dispersive clays are:

 Crumb test
 Double hydrometer test
 Pinhole test
 Chemical test
i. Test of dissolved salts in the pore water
ii. ESP (exchangeable sodium percentage) based tests

The first four tests are most commonly used in the United States and the fifth test is the one most
common and reliable in Australia (Aitchison and Wood, 1965; Eagles, 1978; Murley and Reilly,
1977; Rallings, 1966; Stone, 1977), South Africa (Elges, 1985), and Zimbabwe (Clark, 1986).

It is important that all soil specimens be maintained and tested at their natural water content
since drying, especially oven drying may alter dispersive characteristics (Acciardi, 1984; Sherard
et al., 1976a; Sherard and Decker, 1977). While the several tests give consistent results for many
soils, there are a significant number of exceptions. Consequently, it is prudent to perform all five
tests on each soil sample.

Sampling for dispersion testing should recognize that dispersive clays often occur as random
lenses in soil profiles. A number of samples may be required to determine the extent of
dispersive soils in a project area.

2.11.7.1 Crumb test

The Emerson Crumb Test (Emerson, 1967) was developed as a simple procedure to identify
dispersive soil behavior in the field, but is now often used in the laboratory as well. The test
consists of either preparing a cubical specimen of about 15 mm on a side at natural water content
or selecting a soil crumb at natural water content of about equal volume. The specimen is
carefully placed in about 250 mL of distilled water. As the soil crumb begins to hydrate, the
tendency for colloidal-sized particles to deflocculate and go into suspension is observed.

41
Results are interpreted at timed intervals and four grades of reaction are discernible:

 1 - No reaction
 2 - Slight reaction
 3 - Moderate reaction
 4 - Strong reaction (colloidal cloud covering the entire bottom of the container).

1 - No reaction

No colloidal cloud develops. Even though the crumb may slake and particles spread away from
the original clod because of this slaking activity, no trace of a colloidal cloud is observed in the
water.

2 - Slight reaction

A colloidal cloud is observable, but only immediately surrounding the original clod. The cloud
has not spread any appreciable distance from the crumb.

3 - Moderate reaction

A colloidal cloud emanates an appreciable distance from the crumb. However, the cloud does not
cover the bottom of the glass, and it does not meet on the opposite side of the glass bottom from
the crumb.

4 - Strong reaction

The colloidal cloud spreads completely around the circumference of the glass. The cloud may
not completely obscure the bottom of the glass, but the cloud does completely cover the
circumference of the glass. In extreme cases, the entire bottom of the glass is covered by the
colloidal cloud.

The crumb test is a good positive indicator for dispersive characteristics, but may be a poor
negative indicator. Soils that have grade 3 or 4 reaction in this test are almost always dispersive
in other tests and in field performance. Special design features should be incorporated if these
soils are to be used in a project. Soils that have grade 1 or 2 crumb test reaction occasionally are
shown to be dispersive in other tests or field performance.

42
Therefore, a second test, such as the double hydrometer test, should be performed to verify the
dispersion characteristics of soils grading as grade 3 or 4 in the crumb test and to detect any
dispersive properties of soils grading as grade 1 or 2.

2.11.7.2 Double Hydrometer test

The SCS (Soil Conservation Service) laboratory dispersion test, also known as the double
hydrometer test, is one of the first methods developed to assess dispersion of clay soils. The
current test method was developed in 1937 from a procedure proposed by Volk (1937).

The sample should be shipped to the laboratory in an airtight container to prevent moisture loss.
Testing is performed on specimens at natural water content.

The particle size distribution is first determined using the standard hydrometer test in which the
soil specimen is dispersed in distilled water with strong mechanical agitation and a chemical
dispersant. A parallel hydrometer test is then made on a duplicate soil specimen, but without
mechanical agitation and without a chemical dispersant. The "percent dispersion" is the ratio of
the dry mass of particles smaller than 0.005-mm diameter of the second test to the first expressed
as a percentage as shown below:

43
 Figure 11: A graph showing a curve of standard hydrometer test and a second curve of no
chemical dispersant or strong agitation.

Criteria for evaluating degree of dispersion using results from the double hydrometer test are:

Percent dispersion Degree of dispersion

Less than 30% dispersion Non-dispersive

30% to 50% dispersion Intermediate

More than 50% dispersion Dispersive

Numerous tests should be performed because soil dispersiveness can vary greatly over short
distances within a borrow area, along a canal alignment, or within an existing embankment. Test
results show that a high percentage of soils with dispersive characteristics, exhibited 30 percent
or more dispersion when tested by this method (Sherard and Decker, 1977).

44
2.11.7.3 Pinhole test

The pinhole test is considered the most reliable since it is a direct physical test.

In the pinhole test, a sample of soil at its natural water content is compacted into a plastic
cylinder. A hole is formed in the specimen by inserting a needle through the center of the
specimen. Distilled water under specified heads flows through the hole in the specimen.

The water is carefully observed for turbidity, and the flow rate is closely monitored to determine
if the hole in the sample is enlarging by erosion.

Dispersive clays will rapidly erode as water flows through the 1 millimeter hole under a small
water head pressure. Rapid enlargement of the hole is reflected in an increasing flow rate and the
turbidity of the collected water.

Pinhole tests results are recorded and interpreted using the following system:

 A rating of D-1 or D-2 indicates the soils are dispersive enough to require special designs
if the soils must be used in the project.
 A rating of ND-1 indicates the soil is not dispersive.
 A rating of ND-2, ND-3, or ND-4 indicates the soils are slightly to moderately dispersive.
Some defensive measures may need to be incorporated into the design.

Another important use of the pinhole test is to determine efficiency of chemical amendments for
dispersive clays. Soil samples are prepared with a range of treatment rates of a chemical additive,
and the pinhole test is used to determine what rate of treatment is necessary to achieve erodibility
reduction.

45
Figure 12: Dispersive grade versus, flow rate from the pinhole test.

46
2.11.7.4 Chemical tests

During the 1960's Australian researchers recognized the presence of exchangeable sodium as a
main contributing chemical factor to dispersive clay behavior (Aitchison and Wood, 1965; Ingles
and Wood, 1964a; Rallings, 1966). The basic parameter to quantify this effect is ESP
(exchangeable sodium percentage), where:

𝑒𝑥𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑚
ESP = × 100
𝐶𝐸𝑆 (𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑥𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦)

Soils with ESP of 10 or above which are subject to having free salts leached by seepage or
relatively pure water are classified as dispersive.

Criteria which have been used to classify dispersive clays using ESP data are:

ESP Degree of dispersion

Less than 7% ESP Non-dispersive

7% to 10% ESP Intermediate

More than 10% ESP Dispersive

Another parameter commonly evaluated to quantify the role of sodium with respect to dispersion
when free salts are present is the SAR (sodium absorption ratio) of the pore water where:

𝑁𝑎
SAR = with units of meq/L
0.5 (𝐶𝑎+𝑀𝑔 )

The SAR method is not applicable if no free salts are present. Use of the SAR is based on the
fact that soils in nature are in equilibrium with their environment.

In particular there is a relationship between electrolyte concentration of the soil pore water and
the exchangeable ions in the clay adsorbed layer. Australian researchers showed that all soils
were dispersive if SAR exceeded 2. This shows reasonable agreement for soils with TDS (total
dissolved salts) between 0.5 and 3 meq/L but not for soils outside this range (Clark, 1986).

47
The currently accepted method of evaluating the chemical influence on dispersive behavior in
the USA is shown below:

𝑁𝑎 (100)
Percent sodium = with TDS = Na + Ca + Mg + K
𝑇𝐷𝑆

All units are in meq/L of saturation extract.

To obtain saturation extract, soil is mixed with distilled water until a saturated soil paste with
water content near the Atterberg liquid limit is obtained. The paste is allowed to set for a number
of hours until equilibrium is attained between the salts in the pore water and those on the cation
exchange complex.

Subsequently, a small quantity of pore water is filtered from the soil paste using a vacuum. This
extracted pore water is tested using routine chemical tests to determine the amounts of the main
metallic cations; calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, in terms of milliequivalents per
liter. The percent sodium and TDS (sum of the four metallic cations) are determined.

Soils with more than 60 percent of their total salts being sodium are dispersive. Soils with less
than 40 percent of their total salts being sodium are usually not dispersive. Soils with 40 to 60
percent sodium are transition in dispersive characteristics.

48
Chapter three

Case Studies
3.1 A case study of liquefaction due to flow; Niigata earthquake 1964
The Niigata earthquake of June 16, 1964 had a magnitude of 7.5 Richter scale. It caused severe
damage to many structures in Niigata. The city of Niigata is on the west coast of Japan, where
the Shinano River which is the largest river in Japan flows from Nagano to Niigata, enters the
sea. The river built up sand deposits nearly 100 meters thick on which the city was built. The
older sections of Niigata were built on high dunes while the newer parts of the city rested on
younger, lowland sediments and reclaimed land near the river.

Although the number of victims was fortunately small 36 people dead or missing and 385 people
injured, the material damage was great, 3,534 houses were destroyed and 11,000 houses were
damaged. Extensive area of low-lying deposits liquefied. The destruction was observed to be
largely limited to buildings that were founded on top of loose, saturated soil deposits.

A remarkable ground failure occurred near the Shinano river bank where the Kawagishi-cho
apartment buildings suffered bearing capacity failures and tilted severely. Sand boils and ground
fissures were observed at various sites in Niigata. A large rectangular sewage treatment tank,
originally with its top at the ground level, tilted and rose to about three meters due to buoyancy.
Lateral spreading caused the foundations of the Showa Bridge to move laterally so much that the
simply supported spans became unseated and collapsed.

The performance of structures during the Niigata earthquake and the nature of damage suffered
clearly brought out the fact that soil and soil foundation interaction play a significant role in
controlling the performance of structures. The extensive liquefaction of loose saturated sands and
its devastating effects during the Niigata earthquake brought the liquefaction phenomena to the
attention of engineers and seismologists.

Seed and Lee (1966) reported the first comprehensive data on liquefaction of sand using the
cyclic tri-axial test. Peacock and Seed (1968) used oscillatory shear device to study liquefaction
in sand and a comparison was made of the shear stresses causing liquefaction in sand in the
cyclic tri-axial and the cyclic simple shear tests.

49
It may be noted that remarkable progress has been made in the procedures for estimating
liquefaction potential of sands based on laboratory investigations or on simple in-situ test data
such as standard penetration values ( N1 or (N1)60) or on cone penetration data, and the
experience during the past earthquakes, (Mitchell and Tseng, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Robertson
and Campnella , 1985; Prakash,1981; Seed and Idriss, 1981; Seed and DeAlba, 1986; Seed ,
Idriss and Arango , 1983; Seed and Lee, 1966; Seed and Harder, 1990; Seed The cyclic stress
approach (Seed and Idriss ,1981) and the cyclic strain approach (Dobry et al, 1982) are
commonly used for evaluation of liquefaction potential of sands.

Plate 9: Aerial view of leaning apartment houses in Niigata during the 1964 earthquake, caused
by soil liquefaction. Most of the damage was caused by cracking and unequal settlement of the
ground. (National Geophysical Data Center).

50
Plate 10: The Showa Bridge in Niigata, Japan had only recently been opened to traffic. The
bridge had seven spans across the river, each supported by piers consisting of structural steel
girders carrying a reinforced concrete deck. Two of the piers collapsed. The corresponding spans
of the bridge collapsed and dropped into the river. The successive spans toward the west bank
also dropped while one end of each span remained connected at the top of successive piers
during 1964 Niigata earthquake. The construction was such that one end of the girders was
locked and the other end was free to slide longitudinally off the pier after about 30 cm of
movement. (National Geophysical Data Center)

51
3.2 A case study of liquefaction due to chemical process; Wister Dam, Oklahoma, 1949.
The unique erosional patterns at Wister Dam, with many others, led to the identification of
dispersive clay and its negative behavioral properties. Wister Dam nearly failed on its first
filling, when a large, concentrated leak broke through the dam. At the time, the cause of the leak
could not be determined, although cracking due to differential settlement was deemed the most
probable.

The dam was constructed on the Poteau River in the San Bois Mountains in Le Flore County of
far eastern Oklahoma. The Tulsa District Corps of Engineers designed and built the project.
Construction began in April 1946, and the project was placed in full flood control operation in
December 1949. The embankment dam is 5,700 feet long and rises to a maximum height of 99
feet above the streambed. The foundation is composed of 30 to 35 feet of medium-stiff clay
alluvium overlying Pennsylvanian-aged marine shale. There was also a 30-foot high bank of
relatively incompressible shale in the right wall of the river channel.

The dam is a rolled, homogeneous earth-fill consisting of silty clay of low to medium plasticity.
Riprap was used for slope protection. The elevation at the top of the dam is 527.5 feet.
Construction methods were standard: it was compacted in 6-inch lifts with eight passes of a
sheep’s-foot roller to an average density of 97 percent of standard AASHO maximum dry
density. The water content was close to that of the average standard AASHO optimum. The
outlet works was a double-barreled conduit 14 by 16 feet in dimension. No chimney filter was
installed.

Both upstream and downstream berms were constructed of randomly placed shale, with some
sandstone, placed in 3-foot lifts that were not compacted. The river channel ran diagonally
through the dam axis, and the closure section was the last to be constructed. This section was
completed in October 1948.

Muddy water began discharging on the downstream slope on the morning of January 30 from a
small, concentrated leak a few feet above the berm in the vicinity of the old river channel. The
initial leak was at an elevation of about 454 feet, 40 feet below the pool elevation.

52
By that afternoon, a series of individual leaks with an estimated total volume of 5 cfs was
emerging from a 600-foot long section of the toe.

During the next few days, the total leakage flow volume increased, as did the elevation of the
point of discharge. On February 3, the measured total leakage was about 20 cfs, and most of the
flow was exiting the slope of the berm at an elevation of about 475 feet. During the day, a vortex
appeared in the surface of the reservoir near the embankment; water was entering a large erosion
tunnel near the surface of the embankment, at an elevation of 485 feet.

Dye was introduced into the tunnel and appeared 13 minutes later in one of the major leaks at an
elevation of 475 feet. The dye followed a nearly horizontal, diagonal path through the dam
approximating the old river channel, travelling about 740 feet under a head of 15 feet. This is a
gradient of just over 1:50, and a velocity of about 1 foot per second.

The reservoir continued to drop, and by February 7 several additional tunnel entrances were
exposed in the embankment. Most of the tunnel entrances were about 485 feet in elevation,
extending about 300 feet across the upstream face in the area of the old river channel. Using an
excavator, tunnels that were about 2 feet in diameter were exposed, extending horizontally into
the embankment. Water was flowing through these tunnels directly into the dam.

After the reservoir level had dropped below the elevation of the erosional tunnels, the leakage
stopped. Maintenance crews excavated and plugged the tunnel openings. No cracks had been
observed on either the crest or slopes of the embankment to that point.

Remedial measures were undertaken soon after, consisting of the installation of a steel sheet-pile
wall across the closure section, extensive grouting, and adding upstream and downstream berms
and drains. The sheet-pile cutoff wall was installed along the upstream berm 117 feet from the
centerline and covered with an impervious cap.

The downstream berm was excavated to bedrock and a filter blanket and perforated drain were
installed to intersect and drain seepage through this area.

During the grouting operation, the upstream embankment took 3,167 sacks of cement; a grout
curtain using another 4,475 sacks of cement was placed in the bedrock. A mud grouting
operation along the centerline placed 32,140 cubic feet of mud grout.

53
Open cracks up to 0.25 inches wide were generated at the crest of the embankment, even though
only gravity pressure was used.

The cracks were parallel with the longitudinal axis of the dam and appeared to be vertical. The
mud grouting operation was cancelled once the cracks were observed, and the dam had
apparently been hydro-fractured. This work was completed in the fall of 1949. The dam has
been in continuous operation since and has had no major problems.

Erosion of the downstream embankment slopes has been a constant maintenance issue since the
dam was completed. Bermuda grass was planted on the downstream slope of the dam above the
berm, and it produced an excellent grass cover. It was fertilized at frequent intervals and mowed
several times a year. Nevertheless, vertical tunnels with diameters of several feet continued to
form on the slope. They extended downward 6 to 8 feet, day lighting at the slope at a lower
elevation. As they developed, the holes were filled with sand and the surface covered with sod,
however dozens more tunnels occurred in new locations each year. There were no erosion
gullies on the slope and the grass cover is thick and extensive; tunnel development had to have
been from rainfall entering the vertical drying cracks.

The construction methods listed above were standard at that time. It was compacted to a
relatively high dry density, at about optimum water content. The silty clay soils were relatively
low in plasticity. These conditions probably resulted in a somewhat brittle fill likely to crack
when subjected to differential settlement. Once the cracks were formed, even small cracks, the
dispersive nature of the clays caused them to erode rapidly, creating unusual-appearing jugs and
tunnels. The characteristics of dispersive clay had not been identified at the time of the failure.

A board of consultants was convened, concluding that the cause of the leakage path in the
embankment dam could only be attributed to differential settlement in the embankment, despite
the relatively small settlement. There was no evidence discovered that would support any other
hypothesis.

It was not until later that the project was reviewed and evaluated within the context of dispersive
clays that the true cause of failure was determined. The incident demonstrated that even well-
constructed embankment dams are susceptible to hydraulic fracturing and internal erosion if they
are not protected by internal chimney filters.

54
Modern embankment dam designs include protective filters for all significant and high hazard
embankment dams, and low hazard dams if they are constructed of dispersive clays.

A major rehabilitation project was undertaken in 1990, including a special investigation of the
seepage potential of the embankment. By then, dispersive soils had been identified at the site,
confirmed by laboratory testing, and their role in the near-disaster confirmed. Twenty-one
borings were completed, and SPT data was collected, showing widespread vertical cracks as well
as laminations and weak horizontal seams in both the embankment and foundation. In addition,
the as-builts showed that the sheet piles did not all extend into bedrock; some were as much as
15 feet above it.

Repairs included the construction of a filter blanket and corresponding toe drain system. The
dispersive clay soils on the outer zones of the dam were treated with lime, and a positive cutoff
wall was installed along an upstream berm. A plastic-concrete slurry mix was designed for the
impermeable cutoff as it can yield or deform without damage, and cracks cannot propagate
through it.

55
Chapter four

Methodology

4.1 Source of data

For this project secondary data was used. Secondary data is the data that has been already
collected and recorded by someone else other than the user and is readily available from other
sources.

Secondary data analysis is economical and can save time that would otherwise be spent
collecting data, particularly in the case of quantitative data it can provide larger and higher
quality databases that would be unfeasible for any individual researcher to collect on their own.
It also helps to improve the understanding of the problem and it provides a basis for comparison
on the data that is collected by the researcher.

However, the main disadvantage of secondary data is that the accuracy is not known and the data
maybe outdated.

Internet, books, thesis, journal articles, conference proceedings, reports and newspaper articles
played as a source for the data collection in this project.

56
Chapter five

Discussion

5.1 Liquefaction due to flow

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils is one of the major causes for structure damage and human
casualties. When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil
deposit to support foundations for buildings and bridges is reduced. The nature and severity of
liquefaction damage is a function of the reduced shear strength and the magnitude of the static
shear loads supported by the soil deposit.

Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt or
slide. This movement can cause settlement of the retained soil and destruction of structures on
the ground surface. Increased water pressure can also trigger landslides and cause the collapse of
dams.

Once the likelihood of soil liquefaction has been identified, an engineering evaluation must be
done on the mode and magnitude of ground failures that might result. Thus the building codes in
many developed countries require engineers to consider the effects of soil liquefaction in the
design of new buildings and infrastructure such as bridges, embankment dams and retaining
structures.

One can ensure that liquefaction in loose cohesionless soils cannot be triggered if the effective
stress of the soil is always greater than zero. The development of initial liquefaction in dense
sands is often of no practical significance, since subsequent straining will decrease the amount of
pore pressure generated.

5.2 Elimination and Mitigation of Liquefaction hazards

The danger of liquefaction at a site can be significantly reduced or eliminated by the various
methods discussed below;

 Avoid Liquefaction susceptible soils.

 Build Liquefaction restraint structures.
 Improve soils prone to Liquefaction.

57
5.2.1 Avoid Liquefaction susceptible soils.
The first method of eliminating Liquefaction hazards is to avoid construction on liquefaction
susceptible soils. There are various criteria to determine the liquefaction susceptibility of a soil.
These include Historical, Geological, State and Compositional criteria. By characterizing the soil
at a particular building site according to the above criteria one can decide if the site is susceptible
to liquefaction and therefore unsuitable for the desired structure.

5.2.2 Build Liquefaction restraint structures.

If it is necessary to construct on liquefaction susceptible soil because of space restrictions,
favorable location, or other reasons, it may be possible to make the structure to be liquefaction
resistant by designing the foundation elements to resist the effects of liquefaction.
A structure that possess ductility has the ability to accommodate large deformations, it also has
adjustable supports for correction of differential settlements and has a foundation that can span
soft spots hence can greatly reduce the amount of damage a structure may suffer in case of
liquefaction.
To achieve the above features in a building there are various aspects to consider these include:
 Shallow foundation aspects
 Deep foundation aspects

5.2.2.1 Shallow foundation aspects

It is important that all foundation elements in a shallow foundation are tied together to make the
foundation move or settle uniformly, thus decreasing the amount of shear forces induced in the
structural elements resting upon the foundation.
A stiff foundation mat shown below is an example of a good type of shallow foundation, which
can transfer loads from locally liquefied zones to adjacent stronger ground.

58
Figure 13: Buried utilities, such as sewage and water pipes, should have ductile connections to
the structure to accommodate the large movements and settlements that can occur due to
liquefaction.

5.2.2.2 Deep foundation aspects

Liquefaction can cause large lateral loads on pile foundations. Piles driven through a weak,
potentially liquefiable soil layer to a stronger layer not only have to carry vertical loads from the
superstructure, but must also be able to resist horizontal loads and bending moments induced by
lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies.

Figure 14: Sufficient resistance can be achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more
reinforcement. It is important that the piles are connected to the cap in a ductile manner that
allows some rotation to occur without a failure of the connection.

59
Figure 15: If the pile connections fail, the cap cannot resist overturning moments from the
superstructure by developing vertical loads in the piles as shown above.

5.2.3 Improve soils prone to Liquefaction

Soils prone to liquefaction can be improved by improving their strength, density, and drainage
characteristics of the soil.

This can be achieved by;

 Dewatering.
 Increasing the in-situ density.
 Making provisions to reduce the time required for relieving the excess pore water
pressures generated by earthquake loading.

These, except dewatering, may be best achieved by ground improvement techniques.

5.2.3.1 Dewatering

Dewatering increases the effective stress and shear strength and reduces the extent of saturated
soil, all of which increase resistance to liquefaction. However, dewatering a foundation soil is
not an easy task. It may require continuous pumping and construction of slurry trenches or walls.
It may not be cost-effective and may not be feasible in an alluvial deposit.

60
5.2.3.2 Soil Improvement by In-Situ Techniques

If the potentially liquefiable soil layer is located at the ground surface and is not thicker than 3.5
m, the most economical solution may be removal and replacement with properly compacted non-
liquefiable soils. However, for liquefaction-prone soil layers located deeper than 3.5 m from the
ground surface, ground modification techniques such as dynamic compaction, vibroflotation,
stone columns and grouting may be the optimal solution. The table below summarizes the
technical considerations for 15 methods to improve potentially liquefiable soil foundation
conditions (Ledbetter, 1985).

Each method, according to its function, can be classified into at least one of the following
categories:

 In-situ deep compaction

 Compression
 Pore pressure relief
 Injection and grouting
 Admixture stabilization
 Soil reinforcement

The two most important factors for consideration in choosing an improvement method are the
verifiability of improvement and stabilization, and the absence of perceivable safety problems
during construction.

61
 Table 4: In-Situ Deep Compaction.
Improvement of Liquefiable Soil Foundation Conditions (Ledbetter, 1985)
Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal
Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties
Treatment Treated of Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Vibratory Densification Saturated or dry 20m >(1000m²) Can obtain
probe by vibration; clean sand; sand. routinely relative
liquefaction- (ineffective densities of
induced above 3-4m 80% or
settlement and depth) more.
settlement in 30m Ineffective
dry soil under sometimes. in some
overburden to sands.
produce a
higher density.
Vibroflotation Densification Cohesionless soils > (30 m) >(1000m²) Can obtain
by vibration with less than 20% high relative
and fines. densities
compaction of (over 85%),
backfill good
material of uniformity.
sand or gravel.
Compaction Densification Loose sandy soils; > (20 m) >(1000m²) Can obtain
piles by partly saturated high
displacement clayey soils; loess. densities,
of pile volume good
and by uniformity.
vibration Relative
during driving, densities of
increase in more than
lateral effective 80%.
earth pressure.
Dynamic Repeated Cohesionless soils > (20 m) (3300 m²) Can obtain
Compaction application of best, other types possible high relative
high-intensity can also be densities,
impacts at improved. reasonable
surface. uniformity.

62
 Table 5: Compression.
Improvement of Liquefiable Soil Foundation Conditions (Ledbetter, 1985)
Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal
Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties of
Treatment Treated Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Displacement/ Highly viscous All soils. Unlimited Small Grout bulbs
Compaction grout acts as within
grout radial hydraulic compressed
jack when soil matrix.
pumped in under Soil mass as a
high pressure. whole is
strengthened.
Surcharge/ The weight of a Can be placed on -- >(1000m²) Increase
Buttress surcharge/buttre any soil surface. strength and
ss increases the reduce
liquefaction compressibility
resistance by .
increasing the
effective
continuing
pressures in the
foundation.

Table 6: Pore-water pressure relief.

Improvement of Liquefiable Soil Foundation Conditions (Ledbetter, 1985)
Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal
Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties of
Treatment Treated Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Gravel Relief of excess Sand, silt, clay. > (30 m) >(1500m²) Fast relief of
Drains pore water excess pore
pressure to water pressure
prevent will prevent
liquefaction. liquefaction.

63
 Table 7: Injection and Grouting.

Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal

Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties of
Treatment Treated Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Particulate Penetration Medium to coarse Unlimited Small Impervious,
grouting grouting-fill soil sand and gravel. high strength
pores with soil, with cement
cement, and/or grout. Voids
clay. filled so they
cannot collapse
under cyclic
loading.
Chemical Solutions of two Medium silts and Unlimited Small Impervious,
grouting or more coarser. low to high
chemicals react strength. Voids
in soil pores to filled so they
form a gel or a cannot collapse
solid precipitate. under cyclic
loading.
Pressure- Penetration Medium to coarse Unlimited Small Impervious to
injected lime grouting – fill sand and gravel. some degree.
soil pores with No significant
lime. strength
increase.
Collapse of
voids under
cyclic loading
reduced.
Stabilizing Saturated sands, Unknown Small Increased
Electrokinetic chemicals move silts, silty clays. strength,
injection into and fill soil reduced
pores by electro- compressibility
osmosis or , voids filled so
colloids into they cannot
pores by electro- collapse under
phoresis. cyclic loading.
Jet grouting High-speed jets Sands, silts, clays. Unknown Small Solidified
at depths columns and
excavate, inject, walls.
and mix a
stabilizer with
soil to form
columns or
panels.

64
 Table 8: Admixture Stabilization.
Improvement of Liquefiable Soil Foundation Conditions (Ledbetter, 1985)
Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal
Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties of
Treatment Treated Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Mix-in-place Lime, cement, or Sand, silt, clays, all >(20 m) Small Solidified soil
piles and asphalt soft or loose And 60 m piles or walls
walls introduced inorganic soils. obtained in of relatively
through rotating Japan high strength.
auger or special
in-place mixer.

Table 9: Soil Reinforcement.

Method Principle Most Suitable Soil Maximum Economic Ideal

Conditions/Types Effective Size of Properties of
Treatment Treated Treated
Depth Areas Materials
Vibro- Hole jetted into Sands, silts, clays. >(30 m) >(1500m²) Increased
replacement fine-grained soil limited by fine- vertical and
stone and and backfilled vibratory grained horizontal load
sand columns with densely equipment soils, carrying
A. Grouted compacted >(1000m²) capacity.
B. Not gravel or sand; Density
grouted hole formed in increase in
cohesionless oils cohesionless
by vibro soils. Shorter
techniques and drainage paths.
backfilled with
compacted
gravel or sand.
For grouted
columns, voids
filled with a
grout.
Root piles, Small-diameter All soils. Unknown Unknown Reinforced
soil nailing inclusion used to zone of soil
carry tension, behaves as a
shear and coherent mass.
compression.

65
5.3 Liquefaction due to chemical process
An example of Liquefaction due to chemical process is Dispersive clay soils. These are soils that
have a high percentage content of sodium. They are also known as Sodic Soils. This clay fraction
readily breaks down to form a suspension in water.

Using dispersive clay soils in hydraulic structures, embankment dams, or other structures such as
roadway embankments can cause serious engineering problems if these soils are not identified
and used appropriately.

Therefore when dispersive clays are detected in a site investigation and verified by testing, a
decision can be made to look for alternate materials or proceed with necessary engineering
provisions to deal with the dispersive properties. The defensive measures that must be
incorporated are summarized below.

5.3.1 Design and Construction Measures

Almost all of the failures due to dispersive clay have occurred in homogeneous earth
embankments without filters and all piping failures were caused by an initial concentrated
seepage path through the embankment. Seepage paths through embankments can be caused by
cracking due to desiccation, differential settlement, saturation settlement, or hydraulic fracturing.

Additionally, areas of potentially high soil permeability such as around conduits through the
embankment, concrete structures, and at the foundation interface all require special treatment and
attention during construction. If piping due to deflocculation is to be avoided, permeability
should be less than 10˄-5cm/s. Careful control of compaction and water content during
construction are thus necessary to minimize these conditions.

Sand filters can effectively and safely control leaks in embankments whether they are
constructed of dispersive or non-dispersive clay. In sealing and filtering a leak in dispersive clay
the filter cannot stop the colloidal particles in suspension from passing through, but the silt-size
particles carried by the flow cannot enter the sand filter and are retained in the leakage channel
upstream of the filter, and gradually seal the leak. With non-dispersive soils the filter is designed
to prevent all fine particles from a protected zone from entering the filter.

66
Based on the above, Sherard et al. (1984b) state that sand or gravelly sand filters with D15=0.5
mm or smaller will safely control and seal concentrated leaks through most dispersive clays with
d85 larger than about 0.03 rom. Sand filters with D15=0.2 mm or smaller are conservative for
the very finest dispersive clays. For clays having similar particle size distribution, whether
dispersive or non-dispersive, the required filters are the same,

where;

D15 =particle size in the filter of which 15 percent are smaller, by dry mass of soil

d85 = particle size of the base soil of which 85 percent are smaller, by dry mass of soil

The filter should be non-cohesive to be effective when cracks form. If it is not, the filter could
sustain an open crack and fail to protect the cracked core. Similar design criteria can be used if a
geotextile is used for the filter element.

Dams with dispersive cores on rock foundations should be given special consideration to prevent
the clay from penetrating small rock cracks. This can be done by cleaning the cracks to a
minimum depth of three times their width and by filling the cracks with cement mortar before
slush grouting the core-rock contact. Dispersive clay modified with hydrated lime (Haliburton et
al., 1975, Knodel, 1987) or non-dispersive clay of medium to high plasticity can also be utilized
for this important embankment-foundation interface, depending upon the circumstance (Forbes
et al., 1980; Logani, 1979; McDaniel and Decker, 1979; Sherard and Decker, 1977).

Great care should be taken during compacting soil adjacent to rigid structures such as conduits.
In some cases, lime-modified dispersive clay has been used for portions of this interface. Lime
modification of dispersive clay may be necessary for slope protection where other means such as
gravel with the necessary filter layers are not economically feasible.

5.3.2 Selection of Materials for Economic Construction

Although dispersive soils require special provisions when used in earth embankments, these
materials may represent the most economic choice of materials for a specific situation. Concern
for the limitations of these materials and the serious problems they may cause should not be
reason to avoid their use where alternate materials would be more expensive.

67
Chapter six

Conclusions
The aim of this project is to provide knowledge on soil liquefaction, which is a major problem in
Civil engineering particularly under the branch of Geotechnical that studies the behavior of soils
under the influence of loading forces and soil-water interactions. For this purpose, the various
criteria used for evaluating soil susceptible to liquefaction, ground failures resulting from soil
liquefaction, factors affecting liquefaction and the in-situ testing procedures used to evaluate
liquefaction of soils were studied.

It can clearly be concluded that the ill effects caused by liquefaction have devastating damages to
structures built on liquefied soils. Hence the various methods in which the severity of damage as
a result of liquefaction can be reduced were also studied, these include the most obvious which is
to avoid planning development on liquefaction susceptible soils, building liquefaction restraint
structures and improving soils prone to liquefaction by various ground improvement techniques
that increase soil drainage and density.

For dispersive soils, the various laboratory test carried to detect these soils were studied and it
can be concluded that when dispersive clays are detected in a site investigation and verified by
testing, a decision can be made to look for alternate materials or proceed but with necessary
engineering provisions to deal with the dispersive properties including soil improvement of the
dispersive clay, by adding hydrated lime or non-dispersive clay.

68
Recommendations
Soil liquefaction has serious damaging effects. Structural damage due to liquefaction-induced
ground failure is a very costly phenomenon leading to significant economic losses and life losses
therefore:

 Areas that have liquefied soils or soils susceptible to liquefaction should be avoided or
necessary mitigation against liquefaction hazards should be applied.
 The various tests to evaluate liquefaction should always be performed in areas susceptible
to liquefaction before any development is planned.
 All testing and inspection records of construction activities in liquefaction zones should
be kept for future reference and easier analysis.
 Finally liquefaction of soil is an area in Geotechnical engineering that requires extensive
research so as to be well understood and properly dealt with as the mitigation procedures
available are either very expensive or require extensive ground disturbance to implement.

69
References
Arulanandan K. and Scott R. F., (eds.), (1993). Verification of Numerical Procedures for the
Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems. Proceedings of the International. Conference on the
Verification of Numerical Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems, Davis, CA,
Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Vol. 1, 1-1231.

Arulmoli, K., Arulanandan, K., and Seed, H. B., (1985). "New Method for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No.
GT1.

Balakrishnan, A. and Kutter, B. L. (1999). "Settlement, sliding and liquefaction of layered soil,"
Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 125, No. 11,
November.

Bourdeaux, G. and Imaizumi, H., (1975). Technological and Design Studies for Sobradinho
Earth Dam Concerning the Dispersive Characteristics of the Clayey Soils. Proceedings of the
fifth Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. II, pp. 99-
120.

Castro, G.,(1969). Liquefaction of Sands. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Harvard University.

Craft, D., and R. G. Acciardi, (1984)"Failure of Pore-Water Analyses for Dispersion," Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 110, No.4.

Dobry, R., (1989). Some Basic Aspects of Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Proceedings of
the Conference on Earthquake Hazards and the Design of Constructed Facilities in the Eastern
United States, Academy of Sciences, New York.

Decker, R.S., and Dunnigan, L.P., (1977). Development and use of the Soil Conservation Service
dispersion test. In: Sherard J.L., Decker, R.S., (eds) ( May1977 )ASTM Special Technical
Publication, vol. 623, pp 94-109.

Egan, J.A. and Wang, Z.-L. (1991). Liquefaction-related ground deformation and effects on
facilities at Treasure Island, San Francisco, during the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. United States NCEER Technical report NCEER-91-0001.

70
Eagles, J. H., (1978).Dispersive Soils: Testing of a Sydney Basin Day. ANCOLD Bulletin, No.
51.

Finn, W. D. L., Brandy, P. L., and Pickering, D. L., (1970) "Effect of Strain History on
Liquefaction of Sand," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No.
GT6.

Forbes, P. J., A. Sheennan-Chase, and J. Birrell, (December 1980) Control of Dispersion in the
Mnjoli Dam, International Water Power and Dam Construction, vol. 32, No. 12.

Gilstrap, S. D. 1998. CPT based liquefaction resistance analyses evaluated using case histories,
Master of Science Thesis, Department of Civil Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young
University, Technical Report CEG-98-01.

Garner, S.J., and J.C. Sobkowicz, (October,2002) Internal Instability in Gap-Graded Cores and
Filters, Canadian Dam Association Annual Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Hryciw, R. D. (1991), Post Lorna Prieta earthquake CPT, DMT and shear wave velocity
investigationsof liquefaction sites in Santa Cruz and on Treasure Island, Report to the U. S.
Geological Survey, Award No. 14-08-0001-GI865.

Haliburton, T. A., T. M. Petry, and M. L. Hayden, (July 1975) Identification and Treatment of
Dispersive Day Soils, pp. 12-13, Report to Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Ishihara, K. (1985), Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of 11th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Vol. I,
pp 321-376.

Ingles, 0. G., and C. C. Wood, (1946) "The Recognition of Failure in Earth Dams by Aerial
Survey," Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 26, No. 11.

Konard, J. M., (1990)"Minimum Undrained Strength of Two Sands," Journal of the

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. GT6.

71
Kinney, J. L.,(September 1979) Laboratory Procedures for Determining the Dispersibility of
Clayey Soils, Report No.REC-ERC-79-1O, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Liu, H. and Qiao, T. (1984). Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sand Deposits Underlying
Foundation of Structure, Proceedings of 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
Francisco, California, Vol. III, July, pp. 199-206.

McElroy, Charles H., (1982) Effectiveness of Dispersive Clay Treatments, Progress Report. SCS
Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Fort Worth, Texas.

National Research Council (NRC). (1985). Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Perry, E. B., ,( November 1975), Piping in Earth Dams Constructed of Dispersive

Clay;Literature Review and Design of Laboratory Tests, Technical Report S-75-15, U.S. Army
Engineer Water Ways Experiment Station, pp. 55-69.

Peacock, W. H., and Seed, H. B.,( 1968), Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading simple shear
conditions: Am.Soc. Civil Engineers Proc., Jour. Soil Mechanic sand Found, Div., v. 94, no.
SM3, p. 689-708.

Ryker, Norman L., (May 1977) Encountering Dispersive Clay on Soil Conservation Service
Projects in Oklahoma, ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 623, pp. 370-389.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G., (1985) Liquefaction Potential of Sands Using the
CPT," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. GT3.

Sherard,. L., L. P. Dunnigan, and R. S. Decker, (April 1976b ) "Identification and Nature of
Dispersive Soils," Journal,Geotechnical Division, ASCE, vol. 102, No. GT4.

Seed, H. B.,(1987) "Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction," Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. GT8.

72
Seed, H. B.,(1968) "Landslides During Earthquakes," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SM5, September.

Tsuchida, H.,(1970) "Prediction and Countermeasure Against the Liquefaction in Sand

Deposits," Abstract of the Seminar in the Port and Harbor Research Institute Japan.

Terzaghi K, Peck R.B., Mesri G., (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd edition,
Wiley and Sons, Newyork.

USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, R-91-09, (October 1991) Characteristics and Problems of

Dispersive Clay Soils.

Volk, G.M., 1937, The method of determination of degree of dispersion of the clay fraction of
soils as used in investigation of abnormal characteristics of soils in Region 8 of the Soil
Conservation Service, Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 2, p. 561-5.

Vasequez-Herrera, A., and Dobry, R.,(September 1989),The Behavior of Undrained Contractive

Sand and its Effect on Seismic Liquefaction Flow Failures of Earth Structures, Re-evaluation of
the Lower San Fernando Dam Report 3, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, prepared for
Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., Contract Report GL-89-2.

Wang, W. S. (1979). Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction, Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric
Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing,China.

Zhou, S. G. (1981). Influence of Fines on Evaluating Liquefaction of Sand by CPT. Proceeding:

International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp 167-172.

73