Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Springer Natural Hazards) Yu Huang, Miao Yu (Auth.) - Hazard Analysis of Seismic Soil Liquefaction-Springer Singapore (2017) PDF
(Springer Natural Hazards) Yu Huang, Miao Yu (Auth.) - Hazard Analysis of Seismic Soil Liquefaction-Springer Singapore (2017) PDF
Yu Huang
Miao Yu
Hazard
Analysis of
Seismic Soil
Liquefaction
Springer Natural Hazards
The Springer Natural Hazards series seeks to publish a broad portfolio of scientific
books, aiming at researchers, students, and everyone interested in Natural Hazard
research. The series includes peer-reviewed monographs, edited volumes, text-
books, and conference proceedings. It covers all categories of hazards such as
atmospheric/climatological/oceanographic hazards, storms, tsunamis, floods, ava-
lanches, landslides, erosion, earthquakes, volcanoes, and welcomes book proposals
on topics like risk assessment, risk management, and mitigation of hazards, and
related subjects.
123
Yu Huang Miao Yu
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Geotechnical Engineering,
College of Civil Engineering College of Civil Engineering
Tongji University Tongji University
Shanghai Shanghai
China China
and
Faculty of Engineering
China University of Geosciences
Wuhan, Hubei
China
Liquefaction is one of the major causes of damage to soils and foundations during
earthquakes and is one of the most important aspects in seismic research and the
design of foundations. Recent seismic liquefaction-related damage to soils and
foundations demonstrates the need for comprehensive hazard analysis of seismic
soil liquefaction, in order to reduce related damages and to protect lives. The aim of
this book is to examine the disaster mechanisms and deformation evolution of
seismic liquefaction and provide references for risk assessment.
This book summarizes and generalizes the authors’ research into seismic liq-
uefaction, including mechanisms, deformation characteristics, and comprehensive
evaluations. First, macroscopic liquefaction phenomena observed since the begin-
ning of this century are reviewed, and then the liquefaction potential evaluations
based on in situ testing are discussed. Then, the studies of the dynamic mechanisms
of liquefaction via laboratory and model tests are presented. In addition, numerical
simulations for deformation analysis of liquefiable soils are described. Finally, a
comprehensive evaluation of liquefaction damage during earthquakes is proposed.
This book has seven chapters. Chapter 1, the introduction, gives a preliminary
presentation of seismic hazards in the world, and liquefaction hazards are detailed
using typical earthquake damage examples. After introducing these natural hazards,
current major components of liquefaction hazard analysis are reviewed.
In Chap. 2, major earthquakes and related liquefaction damage since the
beginning of this century worldwide are reviewed in detail. Conventional lique-
faction phenomena and macroscopic characteristics (e.g., sand boiling or sand
blows, ground cracking or fissures, and lateral spread) are summarized by analyzing
observations from various earthquakes. In addition, several new phenomena related
to earthquakes in the twenty-first century are introduced.
Chapter 3 presents liquefaction potential evaluations based on in situ testing,
including the standard penetration, cone penetration, dynamic cone penetration or
Becker penetration, and wave velocity tests.
The next three chapters focus on dynamic behavior and deformation charac-
teristic analyses of seismic liquefaction by laboratory experiment (Chap. 4), cen-
trifugal shaking table testing (Chap. 5), and numerical simulation (Chap. 6). In the
v
vi Preface
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 1
1.1 Seismic Hazards and Related Liquefaction Damage
Worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 1
1.2 Multi-approaches for Hazard Analysis of Seismic Soil
Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 In Situ Test Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 Experimental Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3 Numerical Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Book Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1 Earthquakes Induced Widespread Liquefaction since
the Beginning of this Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Characteristics of Liquefaction Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.3 Classification of Liquefaction Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.4 Related Liquefaction Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Case Study: Field Investigation of Liquefaction from the 2008
Wenchuan Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1 Introduction to Wenchuan Earthquake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.2 Survey Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.3 Liquefaction Distribution and Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.4 Foundation Damage Related to Liquefaction
in the Dujiangyan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 New Liquefaction Phenomena During Recent Earthquakes . . . . . . 28
2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vii
viii Contents
Prof. Yu Huang first author of this book, born 1973, received his Ph.D. in
geotechnical engineering from Tongji University, Shanghai, China in 1999.
Professor Huang’s primary area of research includes earthquake engineering
geology, geological disasters, computational geomechanics, foundation engineer-
ing, and environmental geology. He has authored more than 170 technical publi-
cations, including more than 50 papers in international refereed journals such as the
Engineering Geology, Landslides, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering (ASCE), Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
Natural Hazards, Environmental Earth Sciences, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities (ASCE). As the first author, he has written a
monograph entitled “Geo-disaster modeling and analysis: An SPH-based approach”
published by Springer-Verlag in 2014. He now serves on the editorial board for the
Engineering Geology (Elsevier), Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment (Springer), Geotechnical Research (ICE), and Geoenvironmental
Disasters (Springer).
Dr. Miao Yu Co-author of this book, born 1989, received her Ph.D. in geological
engineering from Tongji University under the guidance of Prof. Yu Huang in 2016.
She is currently working as assistant professor at the China University of
Geosciences, Wuhan.
xi
List of Figures
xiii
xiv List of Figures
Figure 6.1 Relationship between shear modulus ratio and shear strain of
Shanghai clay (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009b) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 6.2 Relationship between damping ratio and shear strain of
Shanghai clay (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009b) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 6.3 Relationship between pore-water pressure ratio and N of
Shanghai clay (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009b) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 6.4 Comparison of theoretical and experimental results of
undrained torsional shear tests (after Matsuo et al. 2000)
a shear stress—shear strain b effective stress paths . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 6.5 Configuration of earth embankment (unit: m) (reprinted from
Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 6.6 Simulation of liquefaction strength of liquefiable sand layers
(reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of
Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 6.7 Input earthquake wave with maximum acceleration 1.5 m/s2
(reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of
Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 6.8 Accelerations at points A through D (reprinted from Huang
et al. (2009a) with permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Figure 6.9 Horizontal and vertical displacement at points A through
D (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of
Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 6.10 Configuration of earth embankment at end of earthquake
(reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of
Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 6.11 Time histories of excess pore-water pressure ratios (ηEPWPR)
at points B and D (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 6.12 Excess pore-water pressure ratio of earth embankment at end
of earthquake (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 6.13 Schematic cross-section showing ground improvement
constructed as a liquefaction countermeasure for a sluice
gate (reprinted from Huang et al. (2008b) with permission of
Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 6.14 Numerical simulation of undrained response of foundation
soil, As (reprinted from Huang et al. (2008b) with
permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 6.15 Time histories of horizontal displacements (reprinted from
Huang et al. (2008b) with permission of Springer) . . . . . . . . . 136
xviii List of Figures
xix
xx List of Tables
An earthquake can be defined as the result of a sudden energy release of the Earth’s
crust that creates seismic waves and leads to shaking of the ground. Earthquakes
happen frequently and have a wide distribution around the world according to
statistics. Figure 1.1 shows the distribution of seismicity worldwide from 1900 to
2013; different colors indicate different earthquake depths. Powerful earthquakes
could lead to great loss of life and property owing to the shaking and secondary
destruction from seismic liquefaction or tsunamis. The 10 largest earthquakes since
1900 are listed in Table 1.1. It can be seen that three-tenths of the largest earth-
quakes occurred in the first 10 years of the 21st century.
During these strong earthquakes, liquefaction hazards were widely distributed
and caused serious losses. Since the 1964 Niigata Earthquake (Japan) and 1964
Great Alaskan Earthquake (United States), seismic liquefaction has been studied
extensively (Seed and Idriss 1967). However, over the past five decades, research
into seismic liquefaction is still being conducted on recent earthquakes (Huang et al.
2014). Liquefaction of gravelly soils was found in the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake,
with mean grain sizes ranging from 1 to >30 mm (Cao et al. 2011; Huang and Jiang
2010). On March 11, 2011, the Tohoku earthquake (Mw 9.0) triggered widespread
liquefaction in the Tohoku and Kanto regions of Japan. Damage to structures was
extensive, including widespread liquefaction around the parking area of Disneyland
(Fig. 1.2) (Bhattacharya et al. 2011). Since the beginning of the 21st century,
several new liquefaction phenomena related to earthquakes have been found, which
will be introduced in detail in Chap. 2. Further seismic liquefaction data must be
collected, and comprehensive evaluation of liquefaction should be conducted to
improve safety in earthquake-prone areas.
Fig. 1.1 Distribution of seismicity worldwide, 1900–2013 (United States Geological Survey
2016)
Fig. 1.2 Widespread liquefaction in Disneyland parking area (reprinted from Bhattacharya et al.
(2011) with permission of Elsevier)
Typically, there are two methods for assessing soil liquefaction under dynamic
loads, namely, laboratory experiments and in situ testing (Iwasaki et al. 1984; Moss
et al. 2006; Zhou and Chen 2007; Seed and Lee 1966). Undisturbed soil samples
are very difficult to obtain owing to the difficulty of soil sampling and preservation,
which hinder laboratory testing in liquefaction studies. For this reason, the in situ
testing method has a wide range of project applications.
The in situ testing methods that can be used for site liquefaction evaluation
include the standard penetration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), dynamic
cone penetration test (DPT) or Becker penetration test (BPT), and shear wave
velocity test (VS) (Moss et al. 2006; Idriss and Boulanger 2006; Lenz and Baise
2007; Sonmez and Gokceoglu 2005; Lin et al. 2004; Andrus et al. 2004). Among
them, SPT is currently the method most widely used worldwide to test the strength
and characteristics of in situ soil.
4 1 Introduction
Based on the in situ test results, the most highly recommended methods for
evaluating site liquefaction are introduced in this book, which includes three pro-
cedures: (I) assessment of “triggering” (initiation) of soil liquefaction;
(II) assessment of liquefaction resistance based on in situ testing; (III) assessment of
site liquefaction index and deformation of liquefiable sites. The safety factor is the
most important value for evaluating the liquefaction potential at engineering sites.
However, site investigation using one method is unsafe; if possible, two or more
test procedures should be applied to assure adequate data for evaluation of lique-
faction resistance. In addition, for more detailed assessment, laboratory testing will
be introduced in Chap. 3. A deterministic analysis method is needed to determine
the safety factor of an entire site. However, probability analysis may therefore be
more reasonable; this method will be introduced in Chap. 7.
level, continued improvement of this technology has gradually made the centrifuge
model test an important research tool in the field of geotechnical engineering.
In this book, the dynamic triaxial test is applied to a large strain scope range of
more than 10−4 and the resonant column test applied to a small strain scope range
from 10−6 to 10−4, because soil shear strain amplitude and its dynamic character-
istics are closely related. After introduction of the experimental analysis method, a
case study is proposed in which both in situ and lab experimental methods (in-
cluding the standard penetration test, dynamic triaxial test, and resonant column
test) are used to comprehensively analyze liquefaction potential and dynamic
characteristics. For laboratory model tests, we focus on the dynamic features of
seismic liquefaction of soil using centrifugal shaking tables. The principal and
scaling rules of dynamic centrifuge model tests are introduced in detail. A case
study of a constructed embankment subject to earthquake conditions is presented.
The physical modeling method is proved to be effective for researching the dynamic
characteristics of seismic liquefaction.
The finite element analysis method is thought to be able to capture the fundamental
aspects of the problems investigated, which can provide scientific references for
engineering design.
References
Andrus, R. D., Piratheepan, P., Ellis, B. S., et al. (2004). Comparing liquefaction evaluation
methods using penetration-V S relationships. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24
(9), 713–721.
Aydingun, O., & Adalier, K. (2003). Numerical analysis of seismically induced liquefaction in
earth embankment foundations. Part I. Benchmark model. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40
(4), 753–765.
Bhattacharya, S., Hyodo, M., Goda, K., et al. (2011). Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area
from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31
(11), 1618–1628.
Biot, M. A. (1941). General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied
Physics, 12(2), 155–164.
Byrne, P. M., Park, S. S., Beaty, M., et al. (2004). Numerical modeling of liquefaction and
comparison with centrifuge tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41(2), 193–211.
Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., & Yuan, X. (2011). Gravelly soils that liquefied during 2008 Wenchuan,
China earthquake, Ms = 8.0. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(8), 1132–1143.
Dafalias, Y. F., & Popov, E. P. (1975). A model of nonlinearly hardening materials for complex
loading. Acta Mechanica, 21(3), 173–192.
Di, Y., Yang, J., & Sato, T. (2008). Seismic performance of a river Dike improved by sand
compaction piles. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 22(6), 381–390.
Dungca, J. R., Kuwano, J. I. R. O., Takahashi, A., et al. (2006). Shaking table tests on the lateral
response of a pile buried in liquefied sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26(2),
287–295.
Huang, Y., & Jiang, X. (2010). Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence
during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Natural Hazards, 54(3), 839–850.
Huang, Y., Ye, W. M., & Chen, Z. C. (2009). Seismic response analysis of the deep saturated soil
deposits in Shanghai. Environmental Geology, 56, 1163–1169.
Huang, Y., & Yu, M. (2013). Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes
of the twenty-first century. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2375–2384.
Huang, Y., Yu, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Characteristics of flow failures triggered by recent
earthquakes in China. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 44(2), 218–224.
Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2006). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction
potential during earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26(2), 115–130.
Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T., & Tokida, K. I. (1984). Simplified procedures for assessing soil
liquefaction during earthquakes. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 3(1), 49–58.
Lenz, J. A., & Baise, L. G. (2007). Spatial variability of liquefaction potential in regional mapping
using CPT and SPT data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27(7), 690–702.
Lin, P. S., Chang, C. W., & Chang, W. J. (2004). Characterization of liquefaction resistance in
gravelly soil: large hammer penetration test and shear wave velocity approach. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 24(9), 675–687.
Moss, R. E., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., et al. (2006). CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic
assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(8), 1032–1051.
Oka, F., Yashima, A., Tateishi, A., et al. (1999). A cyclic elasto-plastic constitutive model for sand
considering a plain-strain dependence of the shear modulus. Geotechnique, 49(5), 661–680.
Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C., & Chan, A. H. C. (1990). Generalized plasticity and the modelling
of soil behaviour. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 14(3), 151–190.
Popescu, R., & Prevost, J. H. (1993). Centrifuge validation of a numerical model for dynamic soil
liquefaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 12(2), 73–90.
References 9
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1967). Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 93(3), 83–108.
Seed, B., & Lee, K. L. (1966). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. Journal of
Soil Mechanics & Foundations Division, 92(SM6), 105–134.
Sonmez, H., & Gokceoglu, C. (2005). A liquefaction severity index suggested for engineering
practice. Environmental Geology, 48(1), 81–91.
United States Geological Survey. (2016). Seismicity of the Earth 1900–2013. Retrieved September
20, 2016, from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/seismicity_maps/
Xenaki, V. C., & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2008). Dynamic properties and liquefaction resistance of
two soil materials in an earthfill dam—laboratory test results. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 28(8), 605–620.
Zhou, Y. G., & Chen, Y. M. (2005). Influence of seismic cyclic loading history on small strain shear
modulus of saturated sands. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(5), 341–353.
Zhou, Y. G., & Chen, Y. M. (2007). Laboratory investigation on assessing liquefaction resistance
of sandy soils by shear wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133(8), 959–972.
Zhou, Y. G., Chen, Y. M., & Shamoto, Y. (2009). Verification of the soil-type specific correlation
between liquefaction resistance and shear-wave velocity of sand by dynamic centrifuge test.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(1), 165–177.
Chapter 2
Macroscopic Characteristics
of Seismic Liquefaction
According to seismic data, seismic liquefaction and its damage to foundations and
upper structures since the beginning of this century were more frequent than before
in many places around the world. More liquefaction data have been acquired than
previously because of rapid development of science and technology, including
investigation methods and transportation facilities. To better understand macro-
scopic phenomena related to liquefaction, we examined several earthquakes in
the twenty-first century, considering the comprehensiveness and typicality of
earthquake liquefaction data acquired (Table 2.1).
Liquefaction often occurs in areas with saturated and loose sandy soils, and is
distributed near the epicenter. In general, most liquefaction phenomena are
observed near rivers, lakes or coastal areas, owing to soil property and groundwater
level there.
For example, earthquake fountains were observed near the Gulf of Kachchh in
the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, and liquefaction phenomena were mainly reported along
the shore of Lake Pinios in the 2008 Greece earthquake (Margaris et al. 2010). In
the 2010 Chile earthquake, the northernmost liquefaction was in the tailings dam
Veta del Agua, while the southernmost liquefaction was in the Calafquén and
Panguipulli lakes (Verdugo 2011). According to observations of the 2010 Darfield
earthquake, the most serious liquefaction areas were near waterways such as rivers,
Table 2.1 General information on major earthquakes in the twenty-first century (reprinted from
Huang and Yu (2013) with permission of Springer)
Earthquake Date (local Location Magnitude References
time)
Bhuj January India Mw = 7.6 Singh et al. (2005)
26, 2001
Bachu February China Ms = 6.8 Dong et al. (2010)
24, 2003
Wenchuan May 12, China Ms = 8.0 Chen et al. (2009), Huang and Jiang
2008 (2010), Hou et al. (2011), Yuan et al.
(2009)
Greece June 8, Greece Mw = 6.4 Margaris et al. (2010)
2008
Chile February Chile Mw = 8.8 Verdugo (2011), Villalobos et al. (2011)
27, 2010
Darfield September New Mw = 7.1 Wotherspoon et al. (2012)
4, 2010 Zealand
Yingjiang March 10, China Ms = 5.8 Yao et al. (2011)
2011
Tohoku March 11, Japan Mw = 9.0 Bhattacharya et al. (2011)
2011
Lushan April 20, China Mw = 6.6 Liu and Huang (2013)
2013
Ms refers to surface wave magnitude, based on measurements of Rayleigh surface waves that
travel primarily along the uppermost layers of the earth; Mw refers to moment magnitude scale,
based on seismic moment of an earthquake (Huang and Yu 2013)
streams and swamps. In the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Yamaguchi et al.
(2012) indicated that many liquefied sites were in old river beds and developed
areas near Tokyo Bay. In the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, it was estimated that
70% of liquefied sites were on the Chengdu Plain, with 15% in the Mianyang area
(Cao et al. 2011). In the 2011 Yingjiang earthquake, liquefied areas were found on
both sides of the river, nearly parallel to the Dayingjiang fault. The liquefaction area
was about 2000 square km and was mainly in three areas—lowlands (even marsh
and desert), east of the earthquake region, and along rivers and to the northwest
along the tectonic line (Dong et al. 2010). Compared with the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake, in the Lushan earthquake, liquefaction only occurred near river terraces
and alluvial flats along the Shuangshi-Dachuan fault, a sub-fault of the
Longmenshan fault (Shi et al. 2014).
Various liquefaction features have been observed, such as geometry, type, and
dimension. Wang et al. (1983) stated that for similar soil conditions, macro-features
2.1 Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction 13
Sand boiling, also called sand boils, sand blows or sand volcanoes, is regarded as
decisive evidence of liquefaction that occurs when void water pressure reaches a
certain value. The phenomenon is called sand boiling because water looks like it is
“boiling” up from the soil foundation. This boiling is actually a mixture of sand and
water that comes from shallow depths to form features of different shapes and sizes
on the ground surface during an earthquake. In general, it can be classified into two
categories based on its formation or the way that liquefied soils eject through the
weak upper soil layer. Both categories are described in the following.
The first formation category may be referred to as flat-cone sand volcanoes.
These volcanoes can be further divided into solitary and clustered cones, both of
which were observed in the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake (Sahoo et al. 2007). In the
2003 Bachu Earthquake, the typical sand boiling diameter was 1–2 m, with the
largest up to 3 m (Dong et al. 2010). Sand boiling was observed at many sites,
including farms where the water spouting was <1 m and the mixtures mainly
contained silty sand and water, according to field surveys. The shapes of sand
boiling holes can be separated into two types, circular and oval, with numerous
forms in the Bachu earthquake. In the 2011 Yingjiang earthquake, sand volcanoes
clustered with heights of no more than 30 cm, and diameters of 10–50 cm were
observed at some locales (Yao et al. 2011). In addition, various types of liquefied
materials that ejected in the shape of clustered cones were observed at certain spots
in the 2008 Greece earthquake (Margaris et al. 2010). In the 2013 Lushan earth-
quake, liquefaction in the form of sand boiling was observed and was mainly
distributed in a linear zone parallel to the Longmenshan front mountain fault zone.
The ejection holes were nearly 10 cm in diameter, and the ejection height
was *1.0 m (Zhang et al. 2013).
14 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
The second category refers to sands that erupt on the surface through cracks
while liquefied. Water and sediment mixtures eject immediately and violently to the
surface through preexisting cracks induced by seismic shaking, as seen in the 2005
Kashmir earthquake (Sahoo et al. 2007). This sand boiling category was also
observed in the 2011 Tohoku (Bhattacharya et al. 2011) and 2011 Yingjiang (Yao
et al. 2011) earthquakes. Figure 2.1 shows this type of sand boiling observed in the
Tohoku quake. In the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, a sand blow near Umedpur, 50 km
north of the epicenter, occurred with a crater *10 m long. In the Tohoku earth-
quake, liquefiable soil erupted from the bed of the Jukken-gawa River in Katori
City, and the riverbed floor was filled with erupted sand boils (Tsukamoto et al.
2012). This could be classified in the second category. In the 2008 Wenchuan
earthquake, sand boiling was accompanied by ground cracks, which caused sec-
ondary damage to structures (Huang and Jiang 2010).
Ground cracks, also called ground fissures, have been reported in almost every
earthquake because of highly uneven distributions of material in the soil layer.
According to field surveys, after the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, ground cracks
were reported at 70–80% of liquefaction sites, with elongation between tens and
thousands of meters (Chen et al. 2009). In the 2009 Olancha earthquake, the length
and width of fissures were reported at about 2–20 m and 1–4 cm, respectively
(Holzer et al. 2010). Similarly, the length, width, and depth of ground cracks were
30–50 m, 3–4.5 cm, and 60–130 cm, respectively, in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake
(Sahoo et al. 2007). Sometimes, ground cracks may occur with sand boiling, as
shown in Fig. 2.2. Ground cracks induced by the 2008 Greece earthquake may be
divided into two types, open or filled with sand, with widths of 2–8 cm (Margaris
2.1 Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction 15
Fig. 2.2 Cracks observed with ejected sand (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
2001a)
et al. 2010). Cao et al. (2011) stated that in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, ground
fissures were found at many sites, and these damaged numerous buildings. In the
2011 Yingjiang earthquake, ground cracks were seen as the main cause of manu-
facturing damage. Ground cracking was seen everywhere in villages such as Heha
and Yunmao. Soil liquefaction also led to severe cracking of dykes. A crack in the
Yingjiang Dyke was *19 km in length, with average depth 1 m (Yao et al. 2011).
In the 2003 Bachu earthquake, fractures and cracks formed along the Bachu
Yarkand road slope direction, seriously damaging the highway (Dong et al. 2010).
Fig. 2.3 East–West view of lateral spread of embankment at Capitol Interpretive Center (Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2001b)
(Margaris et al. 2010). Figure 2.3 shows that lateral spread of an embankment at the
Capitol Interpretive Center occurred with damage length of *75 ft during the
Nisqually earthquake, and its direction was parallel to the river course (Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2001b). In addition, lateral spread is
frequent at relatively flat sites astride streams and other waterfronts, where satu-
rated, recent sediments are common. In the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, lateral spreads
were observed over a wide area in Gujarat and on the border between India and
Pakistan (Tuttle and Hengesh 2002). Chatzipetros et al. (2008) reported that lateral
spread was observed in the 2008 Greece earthquake along the banks of Pinios
Reservoir, at the southern end of a fault. Papathanassiou et al. (2008) reported that
the banks of the Pinios River had a horizontal displacement of 1–2 cm toward the
river. Figure 2.4 shows the location of liquefaction along the Kaiapoi River and
lateral spread around the Kaiapoi Visitors Information Center and Coast Guard
building (identified by “1”), leading to the settlement and tilt of both structures in
the 2010 Darfield earthquake (Wotherspoon et al. 2012).
Fig. 2.4 Aerial photograph of central Kaiapoi River, indicating former river channel (reprinted
from Wotherspoon et al. (2012) with permission of Elsevier)
2.1 Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction 17
double utility poles led to uneven settlement of a foundation (Dong et al. 2010).
Damage to facilities in ports or near rivers was mainly in coastal areas. In the 2001
Bhuj earthquake, Mavroulis et al. (2010) reported that considerable coastal subsi-
dence was generated by soil liquefaction, which induced secondary damage in
several coastal areas north of the epicentral area. Papathanassiou et al. (2008) stated
that there were small ground cracks in banks of the Pinios River, owing to the
ejection of coarse-grained material. Horizontal displacement of 1–2 cm toward the
river was observed. Structural damage from subsoil liquefaction was seen in the
waterfront area of Vrahneika village, at an epicentral distance of 25 km where the
pavement was cracked and lifelines were damaged.
The Wenchuan earthquake, also called the 2008 Sichuan or Great Sichuan
Earthquake, struck Sichuan Province in southwestern China on May 12, 2008. It
measured Ms 8.0 and Mw 7.9, with its epicenter in Wenchuan County, and resulted
in the deaths of more than 69,000 people. According to earthquake records, the
earthquake was the most destructive in China since the 1976 Tangshan earthquake.
The earthquake had widespread effects, and it was felt in most provinces of China
and even other countries in Asia.
The author did extensive site investigation of soil liquefaction and structural
damage, including residential buildings, libraries, dams, bridges, highways, tunnels,
underground structures, and other facilities. By combining information on earth-
quake geological conditions and forms of structural destruction, soil liquefaction
and related engineering damage were analyzed based on field investigation. The
survey area included six serious disaster zones—Wenchuan County, Beichuan
County, Mianzhu, Shifang, Qingchuan County, and Dujiangyan. This area is large
and the investigation scope was comprehensive. Table 2.2 shows investigation
subjects and Fig. 2.5 the distribution of survey sites.
2.2 Case Study: Field Investigation of Liquefaction from the 2008 … 19
The earthquake liquefaction extent involves a region with area about 500 km long
and 200 km wide, including the areas of Suining, Meishan, Deyang, Chengdu,
Mianyang, Leshan, Ya’an and Guangyuan (Chen et al. 2009). The farthest district is
Suining in the east, about 210 km from the epicenter, and Hanyuan County in the
south, about 200 km away. Longnan in Gansu Province was the northernmost point
of liquefaction, about 280 km from the epicenter.
20 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
Based on the field investigation of hydrology and geology after the Wenchuan
earthquake, the liquefaction distribution and characteristics were analyzed com-
prehensively as follows.
(1) As shown in Fig. 2.6, liquefaction sites were in a rectangular area about
160 km long and 60 km wide, with the long side in a northeast direction
(Yuan et al. 2009). Liquefied areas were mainly in the cities of Chengdu,
Deyang and Mianyang. The highest earthquake intensity areas (X, XI) were
mainly in the mountains, and a few liquefaction points were found there.
There were liquefaction points in areas of earthquake intensity VI, VII, VIII
and IX, but they were concentrated in area VIII. According to the survey, such
points concentrated in the Deyang area, Mianzhu, and Shifang, especially in
Mianzhu, which had serious damage. Liquefaction in the Chengdu area was
moderate, and was mainly in Dujiangyan. Liquefaction in Mianyang was slight,
mainly in Youxian and Jiangyou.
(2) Liquefaction points were mainly in rural areas, similar to the Tangshan earth-
quake. Unlike hydrologic conditions in rural areas, underground water depths
were 5–10 m in urban areas, such as southwest of Guanghan and west of
Deyang. Few liquefaction phenomena were observed there.
(3) Soil liquefaction was largely influenced by geologic conditions. By analyzing
the distribution of liquefaction points, it was seen that these points were
mainly in loose sediments of the Quaternary.
Fig. 2.6 Liquefaction points in the Wenchuan earthquake (modified from Yuan et al. 2009)
2.2 Case Study: Field Investigation of Liquefaction from the 2008 … 21
To detail the soil liquefaction, a case study of that liquefaction and foundation
damage in the Dujiangyan area was undertaken, as follows. Dujiangyan County is
in a transition area between the south edge of the Longmenshan fault belt and the
Chengdu new-generation, depressed northwest edge of the Sichuan Basin.
Huang and Jiang (2010) showed that sand boiling was observed at several sites in
Dujiangyan County, with maximum ejecta height >1.0 m. Sand boiling was gen-
erally accompanied by land subsidence, ground cracks, uneven settlement, and
ground collapse, which caused secondary damage to structures (Huang and Jiang
2010). Water ejection was reported at several sites, with heights from centimeters to
tens of meters. Cao et al. (2011) indicated that most investigated sites had ground
fissures, sand boil deposits, or wells clogged with intruded sand and gravel, which
evidence liquefaction.
At the locations of team numbers 17 and 18, i.e., Xingyi Village, Zhongxing
Town in Dujiangyan County, sand boiling appeared over a large area of cropland
and residences. Maximum ejecta height in these boils was >1.0 m. A large pro-
portion of ejected material was made up of yellow and white sands and cobbles
(Fig. 2.7; Huang and Jiang 2010). Sand boiling was also observed in croplands at
the locality of Team No. 14—Huzhu Village, Puyang Town, Dujiangyan County.
Yellow sands and large cobbles were ejected from croplands and surrounding
roads, reaching a maximum height of *1.0 m. Localized sand deposits 10 cm in
depth were observed in fields after the earthquake (Fig. 2.8; Huang and Jiang
2010). Sand boiling was accompanied by land subsidence, uneven settlement,
ground cracks, and ground collapse. This damaged buildings, involving leaning,
cracking, and even collapse (Fig. 2.9; Huang and Jiang 2010). At the location of
team number 14, Huzhu Village in Puyang Town of Dujiangyan County, numerous
ground cracks were observed (Fig. 2.10; Huang and Jiang 2010), accompanied by
surface uplift. The broadest ground cracks were almost 30 cm wide, which were
partly hunched and shut in during aftershocks. In addition, surrounding buildings
suffered many cracks caused by leaning (Fig. 2.11; Huang and Jiang 2010).
In Dujiangyan Puyang Town, group 14, there was widespread ejected sand and
water, with a large number of ground fissures and ground swell. The earthquake
ground crack width was *30 cm. Some cracks were from uplift, and because of
aftershocks some cracks gradually closed. Figure 2.12 shows the uneven subsi-
dence caused by liquefaction in Puyang Town. The uneven settlement cracked and
damaged foundations, causing some buildings to collapse. Figure 2.13 shows
bridge foundation displacement caused by liquefaction.
22 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
Quaternary sediments were widely distributed in the toes of dams and nearby
rivers, and mainly included fine-grained sand and silty clay. In such areas, pore
pressure can increase rapidly during an earthquake and the ground can become
liquefied because of a high groundwater level. Figure 2.14 shows buildings
downstream from the toe of the major dam of Boling Reservoir in the city of
Mianzhu (Huang and Jiang 2010). These buildings partially collapsed during the
earthquake, whereas those farther from the dam toe were only moderately or
slightly damaged. Figure 2.15 shows buildings near the Minjiang River at the
location of team number 10, Tongyi Village of Dujiangyan County (Huang and
Jiang 2010). These buildings were as close as 10 m to the levee, which was
severely damaged in the Wenchuan earthquake. As known from previous earth-
quakes, the major types of liquefiable soil are sandy silt and fine-grained sand
(Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 2003). However, in the Wenchuan earthquake,
24 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
clay, fine sand, loose cobble, slightly dense cobble, moderately dense cobble, and
dense cobble.
Dujiangyan is a geological transition area, located between the northwestern
edge of Chengdu Cenozoic in the Sichuan basin and Longmen Mountain tectonic
belt. The terrain is open, with few geologic disasters such as landslides or debris
flow. However, fine sand with medium liquefaction is widely distributed.
Quaternary Holocene artificial soil and Quaternary Holocene river alluvium
deposits are widespread in the area, and typical regional strata are as follows.
A. Fill soil: gray, grayish yellow, gray and black, mottled. Loose, slightly wet,
composed mainly of silt, gravel composite, with a thickness of 0.8–5.4 m.
B. Silt, silty clay: gray, brown gray. Slightly wet, loose, scattered distribution, with
a thickness of 0–3.0 m.
26 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
C. Fine sand: gray, slightly wet, loose, lentoid distribution, with thickness 0.6–
1.9 m.
D. Loose gravel: yellow, pale yellow, slightly wet, gravel content 50–55%, with
diameters of 3–5 cm, with a maximum 15 cm, fine sand and silt filling a pebble
skeleton. Lentoid distribution with a thickness of 0–1.4 m.
E. Slightly dense gravel: yellow, pale yellow, close to saturation, gravel content
55–60%, diameters of about 3–18 cm, with some >30 cm; disarrayed, fine sand
and gravel fill between around 40 and 45% and a small amount of gravel, the
layer of which is continuously distributed over the dense gravel layer, with a
thickness of 0.8–4.1 m.
F. Dense gravel: yellow, pale yellow, saturation. Pebble content 60–70%, a
general diameter of 5–12 cm, a maximum diameter 40 cm, staggered
arrangement, most in contacts, pebble can form a skeleton, fine sand skeleton
filled between about 30 and 40% and a small amount of gravel, pebble con-
tent *30%, unknown hickness.
G. Compacted gravel: particle size of 8–20 cm, maximum size >40 cm, gravel
skeleton content about 70–85%, unknown thickness.
In the Dujiangyan area, the sand and silt are in a lentoid distribution, and are not
deep beneath the surface. Thus, in engineering design, removal of all liquefiable
soil is recommended.
C. Density
The top cobble layer in Dujiangyan County is generally loose and unconsolidated,
with an uneven thickness of 0–1.4 m over the entire area. Cobbles make up 50–
55% of the material in this soil layer by volume and have typical diameters of 3–
5 cm, with some as large as 15 cm. The cobbles are irregularly packed and most are
independent, not forming a skeleton. They are usually suspended with fine-grained
sands and silty soil.
Undrained cyclic triaxial tests showed that the liquefaction resistance of
sand-gravel composites increases with density. By increasing the amount of gravel
(Evans and Zhou 1995), the likelihood of liquefaction decreases with increasing
density of the sand-gravel composite. In contrast, the cobble layer has a lower
density, increasing the potential for liquefaction. Groundwater in Dujiangyan
County is found on the first terrace of the Minjiang River. This water is abundant
and the water table is shallow. Perched aquifers are common in silty soil and
fine-grained sand layers. The major regional aquifer has a shallow sand and gravel
layer. The groundwater is supplied by precipitation and underground transport, and
its distribution correlates well with the large number of liquefaction occurrences
along both sides of the Minjiang River.
For deep soil, methods like water-washed vibration and vibration-immersed
tubes can be used. Vibroflotation construction causes saturated loose sand particles
under forced vibration to have a high frequency; these particles rearrange and
became compact. This produces a strong horizontal vibration force in the sur-
rounding soil, increasing relative density of the sand and reducing porosity. This
improves liquefaction resistance of the soil.
D. Fabric
The fabric of soils and buildings is also important in liquefaction. The cobble layer
in Dujiangyan County was loose and extremely porous. As a result, it had a lower
liquefaction resistance strength. Under these conditions, liquefaction takes place
much more easily through high-intensity shaking from an earthquake. Subsidence is
a common earthquake-induced phenomenon that results in the sinking of ground
and buildings. This is also known as permanent or residual deformation, and
accounts for some of the most substantial primary damage from earthquakes. The
extent of subsidence caused by past earthquakes has varied. Huang and Jiang
(2010) showed a building of brick column structure atop soft soil at Hanwang Town
in the city of Mianzhu, which did not have adequate bearing capacity. During the
earthquake, its columns sank by nearly 15 cm because of non-uniform ground
subsidence, which destroyed the structures supported by the columns. The steps of
a telecommunications building in Dujiangyan County show another example of the
effects of earthquake subsidence.
28 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
reoccurred in a Mw 6.3 aftershock on February 22, 2011, over a smaller part of the
region previously liquefied (Wotherspoon et al. 2012). Re-liquefaction during
aftershocks was also found following the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake (Onoue et al.
2012).
Research into the mechanism of re-liquefaction during aftershocks has received
much attention recently. After initial liquefaction, the soil fabric is destroyed and
becomes highly anisotropic and unstable (Ha et al. 2011). If excess pore water
pressure cannot be dissipated to a certain value before aftershocks, the liquefaction
assistance will reduce significantly. In such cases, soil may re-liquefy more readily
and lead to secondary damage (Oda et al. 2001).
2.4 Summary
Earthquakes occur in many locations worldwide every year, especially along plate
boundaries such as the one between the Pacific and North American plates.
Earthquakes can cause shaking and ground rupture, landslides, tsunamis, floods and
soil liquefaction, causing numerous injuries and loss of life. People have come to
recognize soil liquefaction over the past several centuries, from the discovery of its
related phenomena to its general characteristics.
This chapter examined several representative earthquakes around the world since
the beginning of this century and liquefaction phenomena in detail. These phe-
nomena were classified into three types—sand boiling, ground cracks, and lateral
spread. Survey investigations of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake were then
described in detail to determine seismic liquefaction. New liquefaction character-
istics were discovered according to these surveys and other literature published in
recent years. Yuan et al. (2009) forwarded three new findings from analysis of
liquefaction phenomena in the Wenchuan earthquake. Based on the surveys
described above, research findings, and the literature, the new characteristics were
divided into one of four categories:
(1) Liquefaction in areas of moderate seismic intensity
(2) Liquefaction of gravelly soils
(3) Liquefaction of deep-level sandy soils
(4) Re-liquefaction during aftershocks
Most engineering design criteria in use are based on previous experience.
Because the new liquefaction characteristics were found in the recent field inves-
tigations, previous criteria of liquefaction and building design codes may not be
adequate and must be improved or revised. If this is not done, some areas may again
suffer serious loss of life and property. We should continually correct our under-
standing of nature through further surveys or study of new phenomena, and this is
precisely the intent of our work.
References 31
References
Aydan, Ö., Ohta, Y., & Hamada, M. (2009). Geotechnical evaluation of slope and ground failures
during the 8 October 2005 Muzaffarabad earthquake. Pakistan. Journal of Seismology, 13(3),
399–413.
Bartlett, S. F. & Youd, T. L. (1992a). Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement
generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spreads (Technical Report NCEER-92-0021).
Buffalo, NY: SUNY at Buffalo.
Bartlett, S. F. & Youd, T. L. (1992b). Case histories of lateral spreads caused by the 1964 Alaska
earthquake. Case histories of liquefaction and lifelines performance during past earthquakes
(Technical Report NCEER-92-0021). Buffalo, NY: SUNY at Buffalo.
Bhattacharya, S., Hyodo, M., Goda, K., et al. (2011). Liquefaction of soil in the Tokyo Bay area
from the 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31
(11), 1618–1628.
Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., & Yuan, X. (2011). Gravelly soils that liquefied during 2008 Wenchuan,
China earthquake, Ms = 8.0. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(8), 1132–1143.
Chatzipetros, A., Valkaniotis, S., Papathanassiou, G., et al. (2008). Quick report on the surface
effects of the June 8, 2008 NW Peloponnese earthquake. Greece: Dept. of Geology, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Chen, L. W., Hou, L. Q., & Cao, Z. Z. et al. (2008). Liquefaction investigation of wenchuan
earthquake. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing.
Chen, L. W., Yuan, X. M., Cao, Z. Z., et al. (2009). Liquefaction macrophenomena in the great
Wenchuan earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(2), 219–229.
China Earthquake Administration. (2008). Seismic intensity map of the M8.0 Wenchuan
earthquake. http://www.cea.gov.cn/manage/html/8a8587881632fa5c0116674a018300cf/_
content/08_08/29/1219979564089.html Last accessed October 28, 2009 (in Chinese)
Dong, L., Hu, W., Cao, Z., et al. (2010). Comparative analysis of soil liquefaction
macro-phenomena in Bachu earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 30(6), 179–187. (in Chinese).
Evans, M. D., & Zhou, S. (1995). Liquefaction behavior of sand-gravel composites. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 121(3), 287–298.
Fairless, G. J., & Berrill, J. B. (1984). Liquefaction during historic earthquakes in New Zealand.
Earthquake Engineering, 17, 4.
Galli, P. (2000). New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction.
Tectonophysics, 324(3), 169–187.
González, L., Abdoun, T., Zeghal, M., et al. (2005). Physical modeling and visualization of soil
liquefaction under high confining stress. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
4(1), 47–57.
Ha, I. S., Olson, S. M., Seo, M. W., et al. (2011). Evaluation of reliquefaction resistance using
shaking table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(4), 682–691.
Hazarika, H., & Boominathan, A. (2009). Liquefaction and ground failures during the 2001 Bhuj
earthquake, India. Chapter, 13, 201–226.
Holzer, T. L., Jayko, A. S., Hauksson, E., et al. (2010). Liquefaction caused by the 2009 Olancha,
California (USA), M5. 2 earthquake. Engineering Geology, 116(1), 184–188.
Hou, L. Q., Li, A. F., & Qiu, Z. M. (2011). Characteristics of gravelly soil liquefaction in
Wenchuan earthquake. In Applied Mechanics and Materials (Vol. 90, pp. 1498–1502).
Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications.
Huang, Y., & Jiang, X. (2010). Field-observed phenomena of seismic liquefaction and subsidence
during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Natural Hazards, 54(3), 839–850.
Huang, Y., & Yu, M. (2013). Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes
of the twenty-first century. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2375–2384.
Jiang, X. M. (2009). Investigation on earthquake damage of soils and foundations in Wenchuan
earthquake (Master Thesis). Tongji University, China (in Chinese)
32 2 Macroscopic Characteristics of Seismic Liquefaction
Kawashima, K., Aydan, Ö., Aoki, T., et al. (2010). Reconnaissance investigation on the damage of
the 2009 L’Aquila, Central Italy earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(6), 817–841.
Kuribayashi, E., & Tatsuoka, F. (1975). Brief review of liquefaction during earthquakes in Japan.
Soils and Foundations, 15(4), 81–92.
Ledezma, C., Hutchinson, T., Ashford, S. A., et al. (2012). Effects of ground failure on bridges,
roads, and railroads. Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), 119–143.
Liu, Y. F., & Huang, R. Q. (2013). Seismic liquefaction and related damage to structures during
the 2013 Lushan Mw 6.6 earthquake in China. Disaster Advances, 6(10), 55–64.
Margaris, B., Athanasopoulos, G., Mylonakis, G., et al. (2010). The 8 June 2008 Mw 6.5
Achaia-Elia, Greece Earthquake: Source characteristics, ground motions, and ground failure.
Earthquake Spectra, 26(2), 399–424.
Mavroulis, S., Fountoulis, I., & Lekkas, E. (2010). Environmental effects caused by the Andravida
(08-06-2008, ML = 6.5, NW Peloponnese, Greece) earthquake. In Geologically active: 11th
IAEG congress (pp. 451–459). Auckland, New Zealand: Taylor & Francis Group.
Ministry of Construction of China. (2001). Code for seismic design of buildings (GB50011-2001).
Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press. (in Chinese).
Nakai, S., & Sekiguchi, T. (2011). Damage due to liquefaction during the 2011 Tohoku
earthquake. In Proceedings of the International Symposium for CSMID (pp. 1–8).
Oda, M., Kawamoto, K., Suzuki, K., et al. (2001). Microstructural interpretation on reliquefaction
of saturated granular soils under cyclic loading. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(5), 416–423.
Onoue, A., Cai, F., Nakajima, M., et al. (2012). Behavior of liquefied soil at brink of backfilled
basin. Japanese Geotechnical Journal, 7(1), 175–184. (in Japanese).
Orense, R. P. (2011). Soil liquefaction during the 2010 Darfield and 1990 Luzon Earthquakes: A
comparative study. In Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland New Zealand (p. 043). New Zealand: Building and
Earthquake-Resilient Society.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2001a). Some Observations of Geotechnical
Aspects of the February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake in Olympia, South Seattle, and
Tacoma, Washington-Soil Liquefaction and Ground Failure-Distribution and Characteristics
of Liquefaction. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/
nisqually/geotech/liquefaction/distribution/
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2001b). Some observations of geotechnical
aspects of the February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake in Olympia, South Seattle, and
Tacoma, Washington-Soil Liquefaction and Ground Failure-Later Spreads. Retrieved
September 20, 2016, from http://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/nisqually/geotech/
liquefaction/lateralspread/index.html
Papathanassiou, G., Valkaniotis, S., Chatzipetros, A., et al. (2008). Liquefaction-induced ground
disruption triggered by the earthquake of June 8, 2008 in NW Peloponnesus, Greece. In
Proceedings of the 31st General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission ESC.
Sahoo, R. N., Reddy, D. V., & Sukhija, B. S. (2007). Evidence of liquefaction near Baramulla
(Jammu and Kashmir, India) due to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Current Science, 92(3),
293–295.
Shi, Z., Wang, G., Wang, C. Y., et al. (2014). Comparison of hydrological responses to the
Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 391, 193–200.
Singh, R., Roy, D., & Jain, S. K. (2005). Analysis of earth dams affected by the 2001 Bhuj
earthquake. Engineering Geology, 80(3), 282–291.
Tsukamoto, Y., Kawabe, S., & Kokusho, T. (2012). Soil liquefaction observed at the lower stream
of Tonegawa river during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake. Soils and
Foundations, 52(5), 987–999.
Tuttle, M. P., & Hengesh, J. V. (2002). Ground failures and geotechnical effects (Liquefaction). In
Bhuj, India Earthquake of January 26, 2001 reconnaissance report (pp. 79–100), California,
USA: EERI.
References 33
Verdugo, R. (2011). Comparing liquefaction phenomena observed during the 2010 Maule, Chile
earthquake and 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. In Proceedings of international symposium
on engineering lessons learned from the the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (pp. 707–718.)
Villalobos, F., Ovando, E., Mendoza, M., & Oróstegui, P. (2011). Damages observed in the 2010
Concepción earthquake related to soil phenomena. In Proceedings of the 5th international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. Santiago, Chile.
Wang, Z. Q., Fang, H. Q., & Zhao, S. D. (1983). Macroscopic features of earthquake induced soil
liquefaction and its influence on ground damage. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(1),
61–68.
Wotherspoon, L. M., Pender, M. J., & Orense, R. P. (2012). Relationship between observed
liquefaction at Kaiapoi following the 2010 Darfield earthquake and former channels of the
Waimakariri River. Engineering Geology, 125(27), 45–55.
Xenakia, V. C., & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2003). Liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures:
An experimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 23, 183–194.
Yamaguchi, A., Mori, T., Kazama, M., et al. (2012). Liquefaction in Tohoku district during the
2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 52(5), 811–829.
Yao, X., Zhang, J. G., Zhang, Y. S., et al. (2011). Study of sand liquefaction hazard features
induced by Yingjiang Ms 5.8 earthquake on March 10, 2011. Journal of Engineering Geology,
19(2), 152–161. (in Chinese).
Yasuda, S., Harada, K., Ishikawa, K., et al. (2012). Characteristics of liquefaction in Tokyo Bay
area by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 52(5), 793–810.
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., et al. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10),
817–833.
Yuan, X., Cao, Z., Sun, R., et al. (2009). Preliminary research on liquefaction characteristics of
Wenchuan 8.0 earthquake. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 6, 1288–
1296. (in Chinese).
Zhang, J. G., Huang, T. Z., Lei, W. Z., et al. (2009). Features of earthquake disasters happened in
Yingjiang County, Yunnan Province, China during 2008 and several implications regarding
earthquake disaster prevention measures. Geological Bulletin of China, 28(8), 1077–1084.
(in Chinese).
Zhang, Y. S., Dong, S. W., Hou, C. T., et al. (2013). Geohazards induced by the Lushan Ms 7.0
earthquake in Sichuan Province, southwest China: Typical examples, types and distributional
characteristics. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 87(3), 646–657.
Chapter 3
Liquefaction Potential Evaluation
Based on In Situ Testing
Figure 3.1 shows the three steps for evaluation of the liquefaction hazard.
Procedure I is the assessment of “triggering” (initiation) of soil liquefaction, pro-
cedure II the assessment of liquefaction resistance based on in situ tests, and pro-
cedure III the assessment of site liquefaction index and deformation of liquefiable
sites. It must be pointed out that current in situ testing methods are mainly for the
horizontal strata in the seismic codes.
Earthquake action
No
Assessment of “triggering” (initiation) of soil
liquefaction
Yes
Assessment of liquefaction
resistance base on in situ tests
No danger
danger
out that soil type is very important for assessment of soil liquefaction initiation.
Soils with a flowing characteristic would be liquefied; these should include the
following criteria.
(1) Clay fines <15% (<0.005 mm)
(2) Liquid limit <35%
(3) In situ water content 90% of the liquid limit
Andrews and Martin (2000) determined that clay sizes should be defined as less
than 0.002 mm. They recommend a new criteria:
(1) Clay fines <10% (<0.002 mm) and liquid limit <32% should be considered
liquefiable soil
(2) Clay fines >*10% and liquid limit >32% are unlikely to be liquefied
(3) Soils between (1) and (2) should be sampled and tested to assess whether they
can be liquefied
According to the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (Ministry of
Construction of China 2010), if one of the following conditions is present, the soil
can be identified as non-liquefiable or the impact of liquefaction can be disregarded:
(1) For geological age of Quaternary Pleistocene (Q3) and prior, with seismic
intensity VII and VIII.
(2) Clay content (particle size <0.005 mm) for seismic intensities VII, VIII and IX
is not less than 10, 13 and 16%, respectively.
(3) For construction of shallow buried natural foundation, when the thickness of
the overlying non-liquefied soil layer and depth of the underground water level
have one of the following conditions:
3.1 Introduction to Liquefaction Evaluation Based on In Situ Testing 37
du [ d0 þ db 2 ð3:1Þ
dw [ d0 þ db 3 ð3:2Þ
where dw is depth of the underground water level (m), which should be designed
according to the average annual maximum value in the design period
du is thickness of the overlying non-liquefied soil layer (m); the mud soil layer
should be deduced
db is the foundation depth (m), when <2 m we assume it is 2 m
d0 is the characteristic depth of liquefied soil (m) and is shown in Table 3.1.
The above methods are not always correct. They use empirical statistics based on
past earthquakes and may be correct for a degree of reliability. For example,
investigations of seismic damage have indicated that the methods are not very
convincing when the clay content is considered (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Cases of soil liquefaction containing fine clay particles (Based on: Bol et al. 2010;
Hwang and Yang 2001; Tan et al. 2013; Tokimatsu and Yoshimi 1983)
Year Earthquake Investigator Soil characteristics
1964 Niigata Kishida (1969) 70% fine, 10% clay
1968 Tokachi Tohno and Yasuda (1981) 90% fine, 18% clay
1971 San Fernando Seed et al. (1989) Silty sand
1976 Tangshan Wang (1979) 20% clay
1979 Imperial Valley Bennett et al. (1981) Silt with 15% clay
1983 Idaho Youd et al. (1985) 70% fine, 20% clay
1987 Chi-Toho-Oki Ishihara et al. (1989) Silt with clay
1989 Loma Prieta Boulanger et al. (1997) PI = 17, clay content 24%
1993 Hokkaido Miura et al. (1995) 48% fine, 18% clay
1999 ChiChi Hwang and Yang (2001); Fine content 36–53%
Ku et al. (2004)
1999 Adapazari Bray and Sancio (2006); 70% fine, PI = 0–25
Bol et al. (2010)
2009 Olanche Holzer et al. (2010) Fine content 15 ± 8%
2010 Christchurch Ward et al. (2010) Silt
38 3 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation …
The safety factors in engineering seismic codes are similar in different countries.
This chapter introduces three codes (American, Japanese, and Chinese) for
assessment of liquefaction resistance, which represent the most advanced levels
worldwide. The value of the cyclic stress ratio (CSR in the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) recommended method and L in the
Japanese code) of the seismic action is calculated first, and the cyclic resistance
ratio (CRR in the NCEER recommended method and R in the Japanese code) of the
soil layer is calculated using SPT, CPT, BPT (DPT) and Vs. Finally, the lique-
faction potential of the test point can be evaluated. It can be seen in Table 3.3 that
the safety factors are similar. The Chinese code is N=Ncr , the NCEER recom-
mended method is Fs ¼ CRR=CSR, and the Japanese code is FL ¼ R=L. CSR and L
can be calculated using Eqs. 3.4–3.12. The Chinese code and cyclic resistance ratio
(CRR in Table 3.3) will be introduced in the next section, based on in situ tests.
(1) Cyclic stress ratio
The cyclic stress ratio can be calculated according to the method of Seed and Idriss
(1971) or the so-called NCEER recommended method (Eq. 3.4).
CSR ¼ sam r0mo ¼ 0:65ðamax =gÞ rmo r0mo rd ð3:4Þ
1:0 0:00765z z 9:15m
rd ¼ ð3:5Þ
1:174 0:0267z 9:15 m\z 23 m
where rmo and r0mo are the overlying total stress and effective stress at the penetration
point, respectively
amax is horizontal earthquake peak acceleration and cd is the stress reduction
coefficient; these can be calculated by Eqs. 3.5 and 3.7, respectively.
In the Japanese code for seismic design of roads and bridges (Japan Road
Association), L is equal to the cyclic stress ratio.
L ¼ rd khg rm r0m ð3:6Þ
where khg is the horizontal earthquake coefficient. Other coefficients are similar to
the NCEER recommended method.
Fs ¼ ðCRR=CSRÞMSF ð3:8Þ
CSR ¼ sam r0mo ¼ 0:65ðamax =gÞ rmo r0mo rd MSF 1 ð3:9Þ
MSF can be obtained by Eq. 3.10 (Youd et al. 2001), Eq. 3.11 (Andrus and Stokoe
1997), and other recommended curves in Fig. 3.2. A similar magnitude scaling
factor rm in the Japanese code is shown in Eq. 3.12.
The methods that can be used for liquefaction evaluation are the standard pene-
tration test (SPT), cone penetration test (CPT), dynamic cone penetration test (DPT
or BPT), and wave velocity test (VS). Liquefaction resistance is obtained by cal-
culating the penetration resistance in empirical formulas. Compared with laboratory
tests, in situ testing has a notable feature that can basically maintain the formation
structure, humidity, and ground stress of soil. The data obtained by in situ tests can
represent the state of soil (e.g., relative density) and can be used to evaluate the
liquefaction potential of sites via empirical methods.
There are eight in situ tests that are most frequently used for geotechnical
investigation, which are listed below. Tests 2–5 can be used to evaluate the liq-
uefaction potential:
(1) Plate load test (PLT)
(2) Standard penetration test (SPT)
(3) Cone penetration test (CPT)
(4) Dynamic cone penetration test or Becker penetration test (DPT or BPT)
(5) Shear-wave velocity measurements (Vs)
(6) Vane shear test (VST)
(7) Flat dilatometer test (DMT)
(8) Pressuremeter test (PMT)
Among these in situ tests, SPT, CPT, BPT and DPT are carried out in the soil,
which causes disturbance to the soil; therefore, the strain is larger than in the wave
velocity test (Vs), which produces nearly no disturbance to the soil. Although all of
these in situ tests are widely proposed in many codes for evaluating soil liquefaction
resistance, the SPT and CPT are generally preferred because there are many
databases for those methods. However, the other tests can be applied at sites of
gravelly sediment where the SPT and CPT cannot be used (Harder and Seed 1986).
Table 3.4 shows the advantages and disadvantages of these test methods (Youd
et al. 2001).
In this section, the SPT, CPT, Vs, BPT (DPT) will be introduced in two parts,
(1) the test apparatus and test procedure, and (2) data analysis for liquefaction
potential evaluation.
In addition to those methods proposed by different seismic codes, some in situ
tests have also been investigated for evaluation of liquefaction potential. For
example, Arulmoli et al. (1985) pointed out that electrical resistivity (ER) can be
used to investigate soil liquefaction. Banton et al. (1997) studied the spatial rela-
tionship between the saturated hydraulic conductivity, clay content, water content,
and electrical resistivity of soils and found that electrical resistivity can be used for
liquefaction sites. Investigation should be applied to large domains rather than to
small fields, a method that has been used by Yuan and Cao (2011b).
3.2 In Situ Testing for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation 41
Table 3.4 Advantages and disadvantages of field tests (reprinted from Youd et al. (2001) with
permission of American Society of Civil Engineers)
Feature Test type
SPT CPT Vs BPT (DPT)
Past measurements at Abundant Abundant Limited Sparse
liquefaction sites
Type of stress–strain Partially Drained, Small strain Partially
behavior influencing test drained, large large strain drained, large
strain strain
Quality control and Poor to good Very good Good Poor
repeatability
Detection of variability Good for Very good Fair Fair
of soil deposits closely spaced
tests
Soil types in which test Non-gravel Non-gravel All Primarily
is recommended gravel
Soil sample retrieved Yes No No No
Test measures index or Index Index Engineering Index
engineering properties
In engineering, the properties of soil can be determined by in situ tests, and the SPT
is a test method designed to provide soil information in geotechnical engineering.
Currently, the SPT is used worldwide for liquefaction evaluation (Bol et al. 2010;
Boulanger and Idriss 2012; Cetin et al. 2004; Hwang and Yang 2001; Kalantary
et al. 2009; Yalcin et al. 2008; Youd et al. 2001). At present, three corrections are
considered by research, namely, the confining pressure, the fine (clay) particle
content, and the hammer energy.
The test apparatus includes the drilling equipment, sampling rods, a split-barrel
sampler and a drive weight assembly. According to the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM D1586−2011) and Code for Investigation of Geotechnical
Engineering (Ministry of Construction of China 2009), the test apparatus and pro-
cedure are basically the same except for some differences in parameters. The tube
has an outside diameter of 50.8 mm, an inside diameter of 35 mm, and a
length >50 cm (Ministry of Construction of China 2009) or 45.7–76.2 cm (ASTM
D1586−2011). It is driven into the ground by a hammer with mass of 63.5 kg falling
through a distance of 760 mm.
The automatic free-drop hammer should be used and the rod should be kept
vertical. To avoid hammer eccentricity, the hammering rate should be less than
42 3 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation …
30 per minute. First, the penetrometer is imbedded in the soil to 15 cm, and then the
blow count is recorded each 10 cm. Finally, the total hammering number for 30 cm
is used as the SPT blow count. When more than 50 blow counts are reached and the
penetration depth is <30 cm the test is stopped, and Eq. 3.13 is used to convert the
equivalent penetration blow count (Ministry of Construction of China 2009).
50
N ¼ 30 ð3:13Þ
DS
The SPT can be used to evaluate liquefaction potential, soil relative density, and
liquefaction settlement, as follows.
(1) Cyclic resistance ratio calculated by SPT
(a) NCEER recommended method
The NCEER recommended method was published in 2001 (Youd et al. 2001),
and is based on the research of Seed and Idriss (1972). Many scholars advanced the
method with correction (Boulanger and Idriss 2012; Cetin et al. 2004).
Equations 3.15 and 3.17 are recommended for correcting overburden effective
stress and fine content, and the CRR value can be calculated by the corrected SPT
count (Eq. 3.14). Equation 3.14 was obtained based on many earthquake lique-
faction case histories (Fig. 3.3). We ultimately used Eq. 3.8 to evaluate soil liq-
uefaction at the penetration point.
1 ðN1 Þ60cs 50 1
CRR7:5 ¼ þ þ 2 ð3:14Þ
34 ðN1 Þ60cs 135 10 ðN1 Þ60cs þ 45 200
NCEER recommended method. Equations 3.22 and 3.23 are for correction of
effective overburden stress and fine content, respectively, and they and related
equations are as follows.
FL ¼ R=L ð3:20Þ
( pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0:0882 Na =1:7 ðNa \14Þ
R¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð3:21Þ
0:0882 Na =1:7 þ 1:6 106 ðNa 14Þ4:5 ð14 Na Þ
Na ¼ c1 N1 þ c2 ð3:23Þ
8
< 1 ð0% Fc \10%Þ
c1 ¼ ðFc þ 40Þ=50 ð10% Fc \60%Þ ; ð3:24Þ
:
Fc =20 1 ð60% Fc Þ
0 ð0% Fc \10%Þ
c2 ¼ ; ð3:25Þ
ðFc 10Þ=18 ð10% Fc Þ
Table 3.5 Value of N0 for Chinese code (Ministry of Construction of China 2010 and Ministry of
Water Resources of China 2008)
Code 0.1 g 0.15 g 0.2 g 0.3 g 0.4 g
GB 50011–2010 7 10 12 16 19
GB 50487–2008 Epicenter distance (100–1000 km) 6 8 10 13 16
Epicenter distance (>1000 km) 8 10 12 15 18
3.2 In Situ Testing for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation 45
N0 is the reference blow count, which is associated with the earthquake (Table 3.5)
b is a coefficient;
ds is the penetration point depth
dw is underground water level
qc is clay content, when it is <3% it is assumed to be 3%
When N [ Ncr , the penetration point will not be liquefied and when N Ncr , it
will be liquefied.
According to the Chinese code for Engineering Geological Investigation of
Water Resources and Hydropower (Ministry of Water Resources of China 2008),
Ncr can be defined by Eq. 3.27. This code is consistent with the previous one
(Ministry of Water Resources of China 1999) for water resources and hydropower.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3%
Ncr ¼ N0 ½0:9 þ 0:1ðds dw Þ ; ð3:27Þ
qc
where N0 is the reference N-value that depends on earthquake intensity and distance
(Table 3.6);
ds is depth from the ground surface (in meters) (set to 5 when ds is <5)
dw is underground water level
qc is clay content, when <3% it is assumed to be 3%
The measured N-value should be converted to an equivalent N-value using
0 ds þ 0:9dw þ 0:7
N63:5 ¼ N63:5 ; ð3:28Þ
ds0 þ 0:9dw0 þ 0:7
0
where N63:5 is the measured N-value;
N63:5 is the equivalent N-value;
0 0
ds and dw are depth from the ground surface and depth of the groundwater level,
respectively
(2) Evaluation of relative density of soils
According to the Code for Investigation of Geotechnical Engineering (Ministry
of Construction of China 2009), the SPT blow count can be used to evaluate the
relative density of sandy silt and sand (Table 3.6).
The SPT can be used to evaluate sand relative density quantitatively according to
Eq. 3.29.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N1
Dr ¼ 21 ð3:29Þ
1:7
The cone penetration tests are typically used in soft soil, clay, silt, sand, and sand
soil containing a small amount of gravel. The tests are not applicable to gravel soil
or very dense sand. The metal probe penetrates the soil at a standard speed, and then
penetration resistance is analyzed to evaluate soil mechanical properties. In contrast,
the cone penetration test penetrates the soil continuously, and the results can reflect
soil mechanical properties throughout the depth. Therefore, the latter test has two
functions, soil exploration and field testing, and is one of the most widely used
methods in geotechnical engineering investigation.
According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D5778
−2012) and Code for Investigation of Geotechnical Engineering (Ministry of
Construction of China 2009), the equipment for the cone penetration test includes a
friction cone penetrometer, measuring system, push rods, and friction reducer. The
test method pushes the cone with tip facing downward into the ground at a con-
trolled rate (generally 1.5–2.5 cm/s). The typical cone tips have a cross-sectional
area of either 10 or 15 cm2, corresponding to diameters of 35.7 and 43.7 mm.
There are three types of electric probe. A single bridge probe can only acquire
the specific penetration resistance ps and a double bridge probe can obtain tip
resistance qc and side friction fs. The piezocone penetration test can also obtain data
of excess pore water pressure.
Because of the poor repeatability and inherent difficulties of SPT, CPT pene-
tration resistance has been proposed to estimate CRR of soils (Robertson and Wride
1998). The results of CPT are more consistent and repeatable, and it also permits a
more detailed definition of soil layers by a continuous soil profile. The CRR can be
determined by
0:833½ðqc1N Þcs =10003 þ 0:05 ðqc1N Þcs \50
CRR7:5 ¼ 3 ; ð3:31Þ
93½ðqc1N Þcs =1000 þ 0:08 50\ðqc1N Þcs 160
where ðqc1N Þcs is clean-sand cone penetration resistance normalized to *100 kPa,
which can be calculated from Eq. 3.32. However, Kc and qc1N are still unknown,
but can be calculated from Eqs. 3.33 and 3.34.
Table 3.7 Boundaries of soil behavior type (reprinted from Robertson and Wride (1998) with
permission of NRC Research Press)
Soil behaviour type index, Ic Soil behaviour type
Ic < 1.31 Gravelly sand to dense sand
1.31 < Ic < 2.05 Sands: clean sand to silty sand
2.05 < Ic < 2.60 Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt
2.60 < Ic < 2.95 Silt mixtures: clayey silt to silty clay
2.95 < Ic < 3.60 Clays: silty clay to clay
Ic > 3.60 Organic soils: peats
48 3 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation …
potential. If qc < qccr , the soil will be liquefied. The critical penetration resistance
can be determined by
where qc0 is the reference value for critical penetration resistance (MPa); for
earthquake intensity 0.1 g, we assume it to be 4.6–5.5; for 0.2 g, 10.5–11.8; and for
0.4 g, 16.4–18.2
aw is a correction coefficient for groundwater level depth, 1.13 is the recommended
value
au is a correction coefficient for upper non-liquefied soil
ap is a correction coefficient for soil type, for sand = 1, for silt <1
The wave velocity test methods do not disturb soils and can be used at all types of
engineering sites. Andrus and Stokoe (1997, 2000) developed liquefaction resistance
criteria from field measurements of shear wave velocity (Vs). Vs values are proposed
for soils that are difficult to penetrate, such as gravelly ones or those where boring
may not be permitted. Another advantage of the Vs method is that it can calculate the
small-strain shear modulus of soils and be used to estimate the dynamics of soil
response and soil structure interaction. However, the test does not provide samples
for soil classification and should not be the only investigation method.
According to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D7400
−2014) and Code for Investigation of Geotechnical Engineering (Ministry of
Construction of China 2009), the wave velocity test is a type of engineering geo-
physical prospecting that is a direct wave method and may be used as an in situ test
method. The wave proceeding from the source directly to the receiving point is
called a direct wave, the wave velocity of which can be obtained from the direct
wave of the time-distance curve and can be used to estimate dynamic properties of
rock mass parameters.
The velocity measurement is suitable for determination of the compression
wave, shear wave or Rayleigh wave of various rock and soil. The purpose of the test
is to determine the dynamic elastic modulus of rock and soil under small strain
(10−4–10−6), which is based on the propagation velocity of an elastic wave in rock
and soil. There are downhole, crosshole and surface wave methods. Figure 3.4
displays the apparatus of the wave velocity test and its schematic diagram for
downhole seismic testing.
3.2 In Situ Testing for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation 49
Probes
Pa 0:25
Vs1 ¼ Vs ð Þ ð3:37Þ
r0m0
Vs1 2 1 1
CRR ¼ að Þ þ bð Þ ð3:38Þ
100 V S1 Vs1 Vs1
8
< 215 Fc 5%
Vs1 ¼ 0:75Fc þ 218:75 5% Fc\35% ; ð3:39Þ
:
200 35% Fc
dw 3 0:5
Vscr ¼ Vs0 ðds 0:0133ds2 Þ0:25 ½1:0 0:185½ ð Þ ; ð3:40Þ
d s qc
where Vs0 is a reference value for critical shear wave velocity, shown in Table 3.8.
Other coefficients are the same as in Eq. 3.26.
The BPT is not widely used for liquefaction evaluation because the mechanism of
gravel soil liquefaction is not well known. Liquefaction phenomena of sandy soil
containing gravel were introduced in the reference of Huang and Yu (2013). As is
known, the SPT blow count is larger for gravel soil, which causes error in lique-
faction evaluation. Investigators have also used the heavy dynamic penetration test
(DPT) N120 to evaluate mechanical properties of gravel soil (Yuan and Cao 2011a).
There is no uniform standard for this method, however.
In North America, the BPT is the primary field test to measure the penetration
resistance of gravels for liquefaction potential assessment. The BPT was developed
in Canada in the 1950s (Harder and Seed 1986). Penetration resistance is the same
as in the SPT and is defined as the blow count number through a depth of 30 cm.
Because very few liquefaction sites have had BPT data, the test has not been
very convincing in engineering. Cao et al. (2012) pointed out that the BPT has been
limited to high-cost investigations, and has not been used in many other parts of the
world. They thus used the Chinese dynamic penetration test for analysis of the
Wenchuan earthquake, and proposed more reliable and efficient methods for
gravelly soils. The DPT equipment consists of a 120-kg hammer with nominal
free-fall height of 100 cm dropped onto an anvil attached to 60-mm diameter drill
rods, which are attached to a solid cone tip 74 mm in diameter. Figure 3.5 shows
the apparatus of the DPT. N120 is the number of blows required to drive the tip
30 cm, which is used to calculate the CRR of the penetration point.
3.2 In Situ Testing for Liquefaction Potential Evaluation 51
Fig. 3.5 Apparatus for the dynamic penetration test (reprinted from Cao et al. (2012) with
permission of American Society of Civil Engineers)
The BPT data should be converted to an SPT N count, and then evaluation pro-
cedures based on the SPT applied. The relationship between BPT and SPT counts is
in Harder and Seed (1986), Harder and Idris (1997). Cao et al. (2012) also gave a
distinguishing standard for gravel soil based on N120.
Table 3.9 Assessment of site Liquefaction hazard Equation 3.41 Equation 3.42
liquefaction potential (Japan
Road Association 2002; Slight liquefaction PL 5 Ile 6
Ministry of Construction of Medium liquefaction 6 < PL 20 6 < Ile 18
China 2010) Severe liquefaction PL > 20 Ile > 18
52 3 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation …
ZH
PL ¼ ð1 FL ðzÞÞw(z)dz ð3:41Þ
0
X
n
I1e ¼ ð1 F1ei Þdi Wi ; ð3:42Þ
i¼
where FL ðzÞ and Flei are safety factors at each depth, which can be obtained by
SPT, CPT, Vs, and BPT (DPT)
wðzÞ is the weight function, for 0 m < z < 10 m,wðzÞ = 10; for 10 m < z
< 20 m,wðzÞ ¼ 10 0:5z
di is thickness of the liquefied soil layer (m)
Wi is the weight function for Eq. 3.42, for 0 m < z < 5 m,wðzÞ = 10; for 10 m < z
< 20 m, wðzÞ ¼ ð402 zÞ
3
Si ¼ di e i ð3:43Þ
X
n
S¼ Si ð3:44Þ
i¼1
3.4 Conclusions
The most highly recommended methods of various codes for routine evaluation of
liquefaction resistance were introduced in this chapter. Three steps are followed to
evaluate the liquefaction hazard, i.e., assessments of “triggering” (initiation) of soil
liquefaction, of liquefaction resistance based on in situ tests, and of the site liq-
uefaction index and deformation of liquefiable sites. Four in situ tests were intro-
duced to evaluate liquefaction potential.
(1) Generally, the assessment of liquefaction resistance based on in situ tests is the
main component of the liquefaction evaluation. The SPT, CPT, and Vs mea-
surements are widely used in worldwide. For gravelly sites, the BPT (DPT) is
recommended. Each test has its advantages and limitations.
(2) The SPT has a longer record of application and provides disturbed soil samples
from which fine contents and other grain characteristics can be determined.
The CPT can provide the most detailed soil stratigraphy and liquefaction
resistance curves. Measured Vs provides fundamental information on
small-strain soil and is also applicable to sites with gravelly sediments where
the CPT and SPT may not be possible or reliable. The BPT (DPT) test is
recommended for gravelly sites, but this method has not been standardized.
(3) Safety is the most important factor in the evaluation of liquefaction potential at
an engineering site. However, site investigation using only one method is
unsafe. If possible, two or more tests should be used to ensure adequate data to
evaluate liquefaction resistance. For a more detailed evaluation, laboratory tests
are introduced in the next chapter. For an entire site, the safety factor is
addressed by deterministic analysis. Therefore, probability analysis may be
more reasonable. This analysis is introduced in Chap. 7.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2011). Standard test method for standard
penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils (ASTM D1586−2011). Annual book of
ASTM standards.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2012). Standard test method for electronic
friction cone and piezocone penetration testing of soils (ASTM D5778−2012). Annual book of
ASTM standards.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2014). Standard test methods for downhole
seismic testing (ASTM D7400−2014). Annual book of ASTM standards.
Andrews, D. C., & Martin, G. R. (2000). Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In Proceedings of
the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. New Zealand, Paper No. 0312.
Andrus, R. D., & Stokoe, K. H. (1997). Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity. In
Technical Report NCEER (Vol. 97, pp. 89–128). US National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER).
References 57
Andrus, R. D., & Stokoe, K. H., II. (2000). Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave
velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(11), 1015–1025.
Arulmoli, K., Arulanandan, K., & Seed, H. B. (1985). New method for evaluating liquefaction
potential. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(1), 95–114.
Banton, O., Cimon, M. A., & Seguin, M. K. (1997). Mapping field-scale physical properties of soil
with electrical resistivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61(4), 1010–1017.
Bennett, M. J., Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., & Wieczorek, G. F. (1981). Subsurface investigation of
liquefaction, Imperial Valley Earthquake, California, October 15, 1979 (No. 81–502). US
Geological Survey.
Bol, E., Önalp, A., Arel, E., et al. (2010). Liquefaction of silts: The Adapazari criteria. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 8(4), 859–873.
Boulanger, R. W., & Idriss, I. M. (2012). Probabilistic standard penetration test-based
liquefaction–triggering procedure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 138(10), 1185–1195.
Boulanger, R. W., Mejia, L. H., & Idriss, I. M. (1997). Liquefaction at moss landing during Loma
Prieta earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(5),
453–467.
Bray, J. D., & Sancio, R. B. (2006). Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained
soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(9), 1165–1177.
Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., & Yuan, X. (2012). Chinese dynamic penetration test for liquefaction
evaluation in gravelly soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139
(8), 1320–1333.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Jr., Kayen, R. E., et al.
(2004). Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic
soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
130(12), 1314–1340.
Cetin, K. O., Bilge, H. T., Wu, J., et al. (2009). Probabilistic model for the assessment of cyclically
induced reconsolidation (volumetric) settlements. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(3), 387–398.
Faris, A.T., Seed, R.B., Kayen, R.E., & Wu, J. (2006). A semi-empirical model for the estimation
of maximum horizontal displacement due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. In
Proceedings of the 8th US national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA,
USA, Paper No. 1323.
Harder, L. F., & Seed, H. B. (1986). Determination of penetration resistance for coarse-grained
soils using the Becker hammer drill. University of California, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center.
Harder, L. F., & Idriss, I. M. (1997). Application of the Becker penetration test for evaluating the
liquefaction potential of gravelly soils. In Technical Report NCEER (Vol. 97, pp. 129–48). US
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER).
Hamada, M., Yasuda, S., Isoyama, R., et al. (1986). Study on liquefaction induced permanent
ground displacement. Japan: Report for the Association for the Development of Earthquake
Prediction.
Holzer, T. L., Jayko, A. S., & Hauksson, E., etc. (2010). Liquefaction caused by the 2009 Olancha,
California (USA), M5.2 earthquake. Engineering Geology, 116(1), 184–188.
Huang, Y., & Yu, M. (2013). Review of soil liquefaction characteristics during major earthquakes
of the twenty-first century. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2375–2384.
Hwang, J. H., & Yang, C. W. (2001). Verification of critical cyclic strength curve by Taiwan
Chi-Chi earthquake data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21(3), 237–257.
Ishihara, K., Muroi, T., & Towhata, I. (1989). In-situ pore water pressures and ground motions
during the 1987 Chiba-Toho-Oki Earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 29(4), 75–90.
Japan Road Association. (2002). Specifications for highway bridges-part V: Seismic design
maruzen. Japan: Tokyo.
58 3 Liquefaction Potential Evaluation …
Kalantary, F., Ardalan, H., & Nariman-Zadeh, N. (2009). An investigation on the Su–NSPT
correlation using GMDH type neural networks and genetic algorithms. Engineering Geology,
104(1), 144–155.
Kishida, H. (1969). Charateristics of liquefied sands during Mino-Owari, Tohnankai and Fukui
Earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 9(1), 75–92.
Ministry of Construction of China. (2009). Code for investigation of geotechnical engineering (GB
50021–2001). Beijing: China Building Industry Press. (in Chinese).
Ministry of Construction of China. (2010). Code for seismic design of buildings (GB 50011–
2010). Beijing: China Building Industry Press. (in Chinese).
Ministry of Water Resources of China. (1999). Code for water resources and hydropower
engineering geological investigation (GB 50287–1999). Beijing: China Water Power Press. (in
Chinese).
Ministry of Water Resources of China. (2008). Code for engineering geological investigation of
water resources and hydropower (GB 50487–2008). Beijing: China Water Power Press. (in
Chinese).
Miura, S., Kawamura, S., & Yagi, K. (1995). Liquefaction damage of sandy and volcanic grounds
in the 1993 Hokkaido Nansei-Oki earthquake. In Proceeding 3rd international conference on
recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, MO
(Vol. 1, pp. 193–196).
Robertson, P. K. (1990). Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 27(1), 151–158.
Robertson, P. K., & Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(3), 442–459.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.
Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 97, 1249–1273.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1982). Seed H B, Idriss I M. Ground motions and soil liquefaction
during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Seed, H. B., Seed, R. B., Harder, L. F., & Jong, H. L. (1989). Re-Evaluation of the lower San
Fernando Dam, Report 2. Examination of the Post-Earthquake Slide of February 9, 1971.
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J.M., & Tokimatsu, K. (1998). Methods for evaluating residual
post-liquefaction ground settlement and horizontal displacement. Special Issue on the
Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, No. 2, pp 69–83
Tan, C. S., Marto, A., Leong, T. K., & Teng, L. S. (2013). The role of fines in liquefaction
susceptibility of sand matrix soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 18,
2355–2368.
Tohno, I., & Yasuda, S. (1981). Liquefaction of the ground during the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki
earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 21(3), 18–34.
Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H. B. (1987). Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake
shaking. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861–878.
Tokimatsu, K., & Yoshimi, Y. (1983). Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT
N-value and fines content. Soils and Foundations, 23(4), 56–74.
Wang, W. (1979). Some findings in soil liquefaction. Research Report, Water conservancy and
hydroelectric power scientific research Institute, Beijing, China
Wang, W. S. (1980). Some findings in soil liquefaction. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 3, 007. (in Chinese).
Ward, S. D., Brown, M. K. H., Brown, I. R., & Larkin, T. J. (2010). Geological engineering study
of liquefaction after the 2010 Darfield earthquake in an area of complex fluvial geology. In
Proceedings of the ninth pacific conference on earthquake engineering building an
earthquake-resilient society, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 053.
Yalcin, A., Gokceoglu, C., & Sönmez, H. (2008). Liquefaction severity map for Aksaray city
center (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 8(4), 641–649.
Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., Keefer, D. K., & Wilson, R. C. (1985). The Borah peak, Idaho
earthquake of October 28, 1983-liquefaction. Earthquake Spectra, 2(1), 71–89.
References 59
Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., et al. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10),
817–833.
Yuan, X., & Cao, Z. (2011a). Fundamental method and formula for evaluation of liquefaction of
gravel soil. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 33(4), 509. (in Chinese).
Yuan, X., & Cao, Z. (2011b). Features and new aspects of liquefaction in the Wenchuan
Earthquake. World Earthquake Engineering, 27(1), 1–8. (in Chinese).
Chapter 4
Laboratory Experimental Study
on Dynamic Characteristics
of Liquefiable Soil
4.1 Introduction
to which different forms and strengths of dynamic loading are applied. Stress and
strain of the soil samples are then measured under the loadings, resulting in qual-
itative and quantitative determination of soil dynamic properties and related change
rules. The laboratory soil dynamic experiments include the dynamic triaxial, res-
onant column, simple shear, torsion shear and shaking table tests, as shown in
Table 4.1. Among these, the dynamic triaxial and resonant column tests are the two
main laboratory methods. The former is applied in the large strain scope range
(>10−4) and the latter in the small strain scope range (10−6–10−4).
Fig. 4.1 Stress change of dynamic triaxial specimen at under isobaric consolidation conditions
(Modified on Seed and Lee 1966)
64 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Fig. 4.2 Stress changes of dynamic triaxial specimen under anisobaric consolidation conditions
(Modified on Seed and Lee 1966)
Fig. 4.3 Dynamic triaxial stress path diagram under cycle loading
only bears the horizontal shear stress from back and forth. Under the action of
cyclic shear stress, the direction of main stress changes continuously between
a+ and a−, and the normal stress of the horizontal plane is constant during the
earthquake.
The advantages of the dynamic triaxial test are as follows.
1. The test principle is clear and maneuverability is strong. The stress, strain and
pore water pressure change states can be synchronously measured.
2. Under the isobaric consolidation condition, the soil specimen plane in the 45°
direction can simulate actual natural soil during the earthquake.
Despite the many advantages of the test, it still has some limitations:
1. The dynamic triaxial test under cycle loading cannot treat the K0 consolidation
state of natural soil.
2. The principal stress axis of the specimen during vibration cannot rotate in accord
with the actual soil situation under vibration.
3. Necking in lateral or bulge phenomena always takes place when the soil sample
approaches damage. This can redistribute the density, which affects the preci-
sion of the strain measurement.
4. The stress state of the entire unit is simulated by the stress state of the sample in
the 45° direction simulation.
5. The rubber membrane’s influence on test results is not considered.
The soil sample size in the triaxial experiment was 39.1 mm in diameter and
80 mm in height. First, we removed the undisturbed soil samples gently from the
soil sampler after cutting packing tape with scissors or knives and opening
wax-sealed lids at both ends and placing on a glass pane. According to the required
numbers of sample preparation, we carefully cut undisturbed soil into corre-
sponding segments. Then we put the cut undisturbed soil sample carefully into the
soil cutter and extracted the uneven portion of the sample by observing the
up-and-down level and layer state of the sample. The next step was to cut the
sample into a desired size using soil-fixed knives and fretsaw. During this proce-
dure, we maintained a cutting direction perpendicular to the natural soil layer.
Finally, we put the correct-size sample into a half-open mold immediately after
4.2 Dynamic Triaxial Tests of Soil Dynamic Properties for Large Strain Range 67
weighing, recording and placing corresponding sample labels. We also weighed and
dried residual soil to measure sample moisture content and made corresponding
records.
Reconstituted soil sample preparation
The main instruments used for reconstituted soil sample preparation were a rubber
hammer, sieve, mortar, oven, compaction device, vernier caliper, electronic scales,
and half-open mold (Figs. 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14).
First, we dried a certain amount of soil in a drying oven for more than 10 h
(Fig. 4.15). We then ground the dried soil with a mortar and sieved it with a
corresponding aperture sieve, given its grain size distribution (Fig. 4.16). We then
weighed a certain quality of sifted soil using electronic scales controlling for dry
density, and allocated a certain quantity of water to soil in order to revert the soil
sample to its natural water content. The water quantity was evenly sprayed on the
surface of the soil and the water–soil mixture was stirred adequately, and then left to
stand for a period of time to reach uniform moisture content. Four equal-quantity
68 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
then covered by a very thin membrane. O-rings under tension were used to seal the
membrane to the pedestal and top cap (Craig 1983). A set of the samples tested in
one liquefaction resistance experiment had the same skeletal relative density, and
density differences were <0.02 g/cm3.
(3) Experimental procedures
The consolidation undrained test is commonly used in the dynamic triaxial test to
evaluate the dynamic characteristics of typical liquefiable soil. Specimens were
saturated by vacuum pumping equipment. All samples were immersed in deionized
de-aired water and air was exhausted continuously for 2 h, and let it sit in a vacuum
status for 10 h. Skempton’s pore pressure parameter (B parameter) was then
checked before testing. If this parameter was found to be less than the desired value
(0.95), back pressure was applied to saturate the sample. The B parameter was
checked in several stages during saturation. In all cases, a parameter 0.95 was
achieved, indicating satisfactory saturation (Hong and Ting 1991).
After ensuring saturation, the specimens were consolidated to the expected
effective consolidation stress by being isotropically consolidated at an effective
confining stress, which corresponds to the normally consolidated state of soil in the
field. The complete consolidation standard was such that for sand samples under an
isotropic consolidation state, the pore pressure did not increase for 5 min after
4.2 Dynamic Triaxial Tests of Soil Dynamic Properties for Large Strain Range 71
closing the drain valve; under an anisotropic consolidation state, the axial defor-
mation was not >0.005 mm within 5 min.
Undrained conditions were chosen because they are closer to the actual situation
in which the pore water cannot drain in time under dynamic earthquake loading.
A sinusoidal wave was selected with frequency 0.1 Hz in all tests and the applied
stress was reversed, starting with compression loading. Pore pressure generation
was monitored continuously by a transducer at the base of the soil specimen. Test
procedures were based on the industrial standard of China Specification of Soil Test
(SL237-1999). Different criteria were used to identify the number of cycles to
liquefaction, mainly including porewater pressure-related and strain-related criteria.
The various criteria affected the liquefaction analysis, and specific differences are
discussed in Sect. 4.2.3.
sam [ sd ð4:3Þ
savi and sdi are equivalent cycle shear stress (kPa) and liquefaction resistance,
respectively. Their ratio is 1 when the liquefaction resistance is greater than
equivalent cycle shear stress.
di is soil layer thickness (m) at point i, using half of the depth differences
between adjacent upper and lower sampled layers. The upper bound is not higher
than the depth of the underground water level and the lower bound is not deeper
than the depth of liquefiable soil.
Table 4.2 Determination of liquefaction index and liquefaction level (code for Seismic Design of
Buildings (DGJ08-9-2013))
Liquefaction level Slight Medium Severe
Liquefaction index of 20-m depth liquefiable soil 0 < Ile 6 6 < Ile 18 Ile > 18
4.2 Dynamic Triaxial Tests of Soil Dynamic Properties for Large Strain Range 73
Fig. 4.17 Time series data of pure silty sand sample for varying CSR
amplitude was small at the initial stage, and dynamic stress had a constant
amplitude until pore pressure rose to near or equal to the confining pressure after a
certain cycle. Then, the amplitude of axial strain sharply amplified, but that of
dynamic stress began to weaken.
The number of cycles to liquefaction determined according to the strain standard
was greater than that determined by the stress standard (Table 4.3). However, the
evaluation standard of strain failure was related to the evaluation standard of pore
pressure. Because when pore pressure was reached after initial liquefaction of the soil
mass, the stiffness decreased and dynamic stress weakened. Therefore, the strain could
not continue increasing and entered the shear stage, and the amplitude of the strain
time history curve no longer extended to both sides, but developed in one direction.
4.2 Dynamic Triaxial Tests of Soil Dynamic Properties for Large Strain Range 75
The smaller the dynamic stress was, the smaller the increase in strain; according
to dynamic stress from strong to weak, the corresponding strain was 4.5, 2 and
1.5%. Liquefaction strength increases in accord with the standard strain from the
liquefaction strength curve and pore pressure in accord with the standard from that
curve. However, this increase is not great and, in terms of safety, the failure time of
the vibration pore pressure standard according to the initial liquefaction discrimi-
nation standard was adopted in this study (Fig. 4.18).
The dynamic modulus and damping ratio of soil are two major parameters. In
soil seismic response analysis, the dynamic characteristics, dynamic shear modulus
and damping ratio make up a parameter and two curves. The latter are curves
G/Gmax-c and D-c, which are used in the equivalent linearization method to con-
sider nonlinear soil properties. The dynamic characteristics of soil, including the
initial shear modulus and soil nonlinear attenuation relationship, must be considered
in nonlinear soil analysis. The analysis of soil dynamics parameter effects on soil
dynamic response uses data from standard and experimental results of dynamic
shear modulus ratio and damping ratio in Yuan et al. (2000). They stated that a
different soil dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio affected seismic response
analysis results, especially for strong earthquakes.
The dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio of soil are essential parameters
for seismic safety evaluation and seismic response analysis for engineering sites
(Huang et al. 2002, 2005). Whether the choices of these two parameters conform to
an actual situation is important with respect to the reliability of calculation results.
In China, the seismic design of major projects is based on site design ground
motion parameters. As these parameters are obtained from seismic response anal-
ysis, the validity of analysis results directly affects the safety and economic effi-
ciency of engineering structures (Chen et al. 1995).
(2) Advantages and limitations
Laboratory experiments measuring the soil dynamic modulus and damping ratio
generally include four main instruments, namely, resonant column, torsional shear,
shear and triaxial shear apparatus. The resonant column has advantages and limi-
tations compared with other instruments.
The advantages of a resonant column test can be summarized as follows.
The test based on one-dimensional wave theory is relatively ideal for measuring
soil dynamic characteristic parameters under the condition of small strain. Its
experimental results have small discreteness and operation is easy.
Limitations of the test are as follows.
1. The resonant column apparatus is suitable for measuring the dynamic shear
modulus and damping ratio within a small strain scope (10−6–10−4), but the
other experimental apparatuses, such as dynamic triaxial test, simple shear test
and torsion shear test, can measure parameters from medium to large defor-
mation strain scope.
2. The test cannot treat the K0 consolidation state of natural soil.
resonant column test has a diameter of 35.7 mm and a height of 71.2 mm. The
measurable parameters include dynamic shear modulus Gd and damping ratio D
(Fig. 4.19).
(2) Sample preparation
There are also two types of soil sample tested by resonant column—undisturbed
and reconstituted. The sample is 35.7 mm in diameter and 70 mm in height. The
sand specimen preparation method follows national standard procedures
(GB/T50123-1999). Specific steps are similar to the dynamic triaxial test.
(3) Experimental procedures
The consolidation undrained test is commonly used in the dynamic triaxial test to
evaluate the dynamic characteristics of typical liquefiable soil. The specimens are
saturated by vacuum pumping equipment. All samples in this experiment were
immersed in deionized, de-aired water, air was exhausted continuously for 2 h, and
they were kept in a vacuum state for 10 h. After full saturation, the specimens were
consolidated to the desired effective consolidation stress. This was done by iso-
tropic consolidation at an effective confining stress representing soil field condi-
tions. We used the steady forced vibration method (Fig. 4.20). Specific test
procedures were based on the industrial standard of China Specification of Soil Test
(SL237-1999).
78 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
In general, the in situ tests in Chap. 3 and laboratory tests in Chap. 4 are used
together to evaluate liquefaction potential. Next, we propose a case study in which
in situ and laboratory experimental methods including the standard penetration,
dynamic triaxial and resonant column tests are used to comprehensively analyze
liquefaction potential and dynamic characteristics.
Fig. 4.21 Map showing the location of the project in Tianjin (reprinted from Huang et al. 2012
with permission from Springer)
Fig. 4.22 Typical dam and soil layer distribution under a dam body (reprinted from Huang et al.
2012 with permission from Springer)
The onsite liquefaction evaluation was done using the standard penetration test
based on the precise test procedures described in Sect. 3.2.1. A total of 115 SPT
tests were conducted at 14 boreholes. The number of blows (N-value) were mea-
sured to estimate liquefaction resistance, using a 63.5-kg hammer. Figure 4.23
shows five typical boreholes around the dam that were chosen to assess the liq-
uefaction potential of the dam foundation.
80 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Table 4.4 Liquefaction evaluation results for selected boreholes by SPT (seismic intensity VII)
(reprinted from Huang et al. 2012 with permission from Springer)
No. Type of ds (m) qc (%) 0
N63:5 Liquefaction LPI Liquefaction
soil evaluation potential
H1 Loam 4 11.4 17 Possible 5.4 Moderate
and silt
H2 Silt 3 5.8 14 Possible 12.7 Moderate
H3 Loam 3 6.5 28 Possible 3.5 Low
and silt
H4 Silt 3 3.9 17 Possible 9.6 Moderate
H5 Silt 2 6.4 5 Possible 10.1 Moderate
The liquefaction assessment compared the equivalent N-value (N63:5 ) and the
critical N-value Ncr for each soil layer. If Ncr > N63:5 , soil liquefaction is likely. Ncr ,
N63:5 , and liquefaction potential index (LPI) are calculated in Eqs. 3.26–3.28 and
3.42, respectively. The groundwater level is assumed to be 0 m and the seismic
fortification intensity is VII. The test points are at depths from 1.15 to 4.15 m.
Table 4.4 shows specific SPT results for the five typical holes. Nearly all of the
boreholes have the potential for liquefaction, but this potential is moderate, or even
low.
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 81
Table 4.5 Results of liquefaction evaluation by Seed’s simplified method (seismic intensity VII)
(reprinted from Huang et al. 2012 with permission from Springer)
No. d Type of soil rd sd Liquefaction LPI Liquefaction
2rc N
(m) f (kPa) evaluation potential
F-H1 4 Loam and 0.3 5.1 Possible 5.4 Moderate
silt
F-H2 2 Silt 0.2 1.4 Possible 6.1 Moderate
F-H3 2 Loam and 0.3 2.7 Possible 1.9 Low
silt
F-H4 2 Silt 0.2 1.7 Possible 10.0 Moderate
F-H5 2 Silt 0.3 2.5 Possible 5.8 Moderate
Groundwater table was at 0 m relative to ground surface
F-Hi means that soil sample was from Hi borehole (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)
82 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Fig. 4.24 Time series data for dynamic stress = 90 kPa (reprinted from Huang et al. 2012 with
permission from Springer)
Fig. 4.25 Time series data for dynamic stress = 65 kPa (reprinted from Huang et al. 2012 with
permission from Springer)
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 83
Fig. 4.26 Dynamic stress change with consolidation pressure (reprinted from Huang et al. 2012
with permission from Springer)
84 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Fig. 4.27 CSR versus number of cycles to liquefaction change with consolidation pressure
(reprinted from Huang et al. 2012 with permission from Springer)
pressure rises slowly under cycle shear stress. Although soil produces some
deformation, liquefaction does not take place.
Because silt is a special soil between cohesive and sandy soils, it has a unique
nature. It has crumb structure characteristics and a structural strength greater than
sand, and thus tends to have greater liquefaction resistance than sandy soil.
However, the permeability of silt is weak, preventing pore water from draining over
time. Therefore, pore water pressure increases continuously and the shear resistance
of silt grains is thereby lost. When that pressure increases until the shear strength
becomes zero, the silt reaches the liquefaction state. In this process, clay particles in
the silt may mainly act as lubrication and reduce liquefaction resistance.
Test results show that the deformation of saturated silt samples under cycle shear
stress has two stages. Figure 4.28 shows dynamic triaxial experimental results
under isobaric consolidation conditions. From time series data of the strain, in the
first stage, the deformation amplitude is small and basically remains constant. After
reaching a certain number of cycles, this amplitude increases and enters the second
stage. In that stage, porewater pressure accumulates under cycle shear stress and
shear strength and shear deformation resistance gradually decline until that pressure
equals the consolidation pressure. In this state, liquefaction occurs and there is
complete loss of shear strength and shear deformation resistance.
After applying cyclic stress, the pore water pressure rises sharply in the initial
stage, but the growth rate slows in the later stage and tends toward final stability.
This is because the permeability coefficient of silt is generally small compared with
fine sand. Therefore, the pore water pressure is not readily dissipated at the
beginning of the vibration. The generated large volume change potential causes a
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 85
Fig. 4.28 Time series data of stress, strain, and porewater pressure (isobaric consolidation)
sharp rise in initial pore water pressure, leading to rapid structural destruction of the
soil sample. However, as silt has a small amount of clay particles, it has a certain
structural strength and cohesive force that limits the increase of volume change
potential. This causes pore water pressure to increase slowly until reaching stabi-
lization (Huang et al. 2010), as shown in Fig. 4.28.
Initial shear stress
When there is initial shear stress, strain develops along the direction of that stress
under cycle shear stress. The pore water pressure continues rising until reaching a
certain number of cycles, and then this growth slows and tends to be steady;
however, the deformation continues to increase. When pore water pressure equals
the consolidation pressure, liquefaction occurs and there is complete loss of shear
strength and shear deformation resistance. Influenced by the initial shear stress,
deformation properties and pore pressure growth under cycle shear stress are shown
in Fig. 4.29.
(5) Influence of density
Experimental results show that liquefaction CSR increases with dry density,
because the greater that density, the denser the silt is. As a result, silt with high dry
density is not easily liquefied (Fig. 4.30).
(6) Influence of soil structure
The effect of soil structure on silt liquefaction resistance cannot be ignored.
Xenakia and Athanasopoulos (2008) discussed structural property influences on
86 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Fig. 4.29 Time series data of stress, strain, and porewater pressure (anisobaric consolidation)
Fig. 4.30 Liquefaction resistance of silts with three different dry densities (owing to the loss of
clay content during sample preparation, there is error of 15%)
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 87
contents, the silt has some aspects of a granular structure and behaves differently
from sand. Moreover, owing to physical and chemical effects, porewater bonding,
soil structural strength and other factors, silt is more difficult to liquefy than sand.
Figure 4.32 shows the relationship between dynamic modulus Gd and shear strain c
(Gd-c curve) of silt in the western Tianjin region under different confining pres-
sures. It is seen that the curve shapes of silt are very similar under different pres-
sures. Gd is a function of c. In the elastic deformation stage (c < l0−6), their
relationship is linear. Thus, the deformation is recoverable and Gd is constant.
However, in the elastoplastic deformation stage (l0−6 < c < l0−4), the relationship
between Gd and c is no longer linear. Gd decreases with the increase of c. In the
plastic deformation stage (l0−4 < c ), Gd decreases with a larger gradient. These
trends reflect the general rule of the dynamic stress–strain relationship, such as
nonlinearity and hysteresis.
For a constant c, Gd increases with increased effective consolidation stress
(Fig. 4.32). This is because the void ratio of soil decreases with the increase of that
stress and the relative density rises, increasing soil particle contact. Therefore, the
stress wave propagation is faster in soil and Gd increases.
The initial dynamic shear modulus G0 increases with confining pressure r3. For
the same soil samples, the higher the consolidation pressure, the larger the G0.
Different soil samples have different G0 under certain confining pressure conditions.
However, for the same stratum and soil property, G0 changed little for a given
pressure condition.
Gd of soil with the same property in each layer is normalized by G0, and the
results are shown in Fig. 4.33. Points under different initial confining pressure are
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 89
Fig. 4.32 Relationship between dynamic shear modulus Gd and shear strain c (Gd-c curve) of silt
in the west of Tianjin
Fig. 4.33 Relationship between shear modulus ratio Gd/G0 and shear strain c (Gd/G0 − c curve)
of silt in western Tianjin
90 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Fig. 4.34 Relationship between damping ratio D and shear strain c (D-c curve) of silt in western
Tianjin
concentrated within a very narrow strip and their discreteness is small, but the
confining pressure has a impact on the Gd/G0-c curve. Gd/G0 decreases with the
increase of c. Overall, Gd has a good normalization to its G0.
Figure 4.34 shows the relationship between D and c (D-c curve) of silt in
western Tianjin under different confining pressures. It is seen that the curve shapes
and trends of both sandy silt and silt are very similar under varying pressure.
D increased with c. In the elastic deformation and elastoplastic deformation stage
(c < l0−4), the change of D was slight. However, in the plastic deformation stage
(l0−4 < c ), D rapidly increased with c. Although there was some discreteness, the
effect of confining pressure on the D-c curve is still evident.
For constant c, D decreased with increased effective consolidation stress
(Fig. 4.34). This is because the void ratio of soil decreases with increasing effective
consolidation stress and the relative density increases, enhancing soil particle
contact. Thus, the dissipation of energy during propagation in soil is small and D
declines. However, as c increased, the effect of confining pressure on the D-c curve
was not obvious.
According to the above results based on resonance column tests, the dynamic
characteristics (D-c curve) of silt in western Tianjin were analyzed. These char-
acteristics conform to the general rule of nonlinearity and hysteresis. With the
increase of c, Gd decreased nonlinearly. The Gd/G0-c curve has good normalization.
Under small amplitude strain, D did not change much. However, under large
amplitude strain, D increased with c, and D results were discrete. However, the
4.4 Comprehensive Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis … 91
variation range of D was smaller than that of Gd. It should be noted that the resonant
column tests do not consider the natural soil K0 consolidation state.
4.5 Summary
Based on the dynamic triaxial and resonant column tests, the dynamic character-
istics of liquefiable soils were comprehensively analyzed for both large and small
strain. Major conclusions are as follows.
(1) Soil shear strain amplitude and its dynamic characteristics are closely related:
when c amplitude of the soil is in the 10−6–10−4 range, it is in the elastic stage;
when the amplitude is 10−4–10−2, it is in the elastic-plastic stage; when the
amplitude is >10−2, the soil enters a state damage stage. A c amplitude of 10−4
is used as the threshold of large and small strain.
(2) For large strain, dynamic triaxial tests were conducted to study the liquefaction
mechanism of saturated liquefiable soil under dynamic loading. The Seed–
Idriss simplified method was used to obtain the liquefaction resistance of such
soil and assess the liquefaction potential.
(3) Numerous factors affecting the liquefaction susceptibility of liquefiable sands,
including dynamic force, consolidation pressure, initial shear stress, density and
soil structure were discussed.
(4) For small strain, resonant column tests were conducted to study the relationship
between dynamic stress and dynamic strain of liquefiable soil under undrained
conditions. In addition, damping characteristics were analyzed.
References
Amini, F., & Sama, K. M. (1999). Behavior of stratified sand–silt–gravel composites under seismic
liquefaction conditions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 18, 445–455.
Baziar, M. H., & Sharafi, H. (2011). Assessment of silty sand liquefaction potential using hollow
torsional tests—An energy approach. Soil Dynamic sand Earthquake Engineering, 31,
857–865.
Castro, G. (1975). Liquefaction and cyclic mobility of saturated sands. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 101(6), 551–569.
Chen, G. X., Xie, J. F., & Zhang, K. X. (1995). Empirical estimation of dynamic shear modulus
ratio and damping ratio of soils. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(1),
73–84. (in Chinese).
Clayton, C. R. I., & Heymann, G. (2001). Stiffness of geomaterials at very small strains.
Géotechnique, 51(3), 245–255.
Construction, Shanghai, Committee, Traffic, & University, Tongji. (2013). Code for seismic design
of buildings (DGJ08-9-2013). Shanghai: China Architecture & Building Press. (in Chinese).
Craig, R. F. (1983). Soil mechanics (3rd ed.). Wokingham, Berkshire, England: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., Ltd.
Dimitrova, R. S., & Yanful, E. K. (2012). Factors affecting the shear strength of mine tailings/clay
mixtures with varying clay content and clay mineralogy. Engineering Geology, 125, 11–25.
92 4 Laboratory Experimental Study …
Georgiannou, V. N., Rampello, S., & Silvestri, F. (1991). Static and dynamic measurement of
undrained stiffness of natural overconsolidated clays. In Proceedings of 10th European
conference on soil mechanics, Florence, pp. 91–96.
Hong, X., & Ting, H. (1991). Effects of saturation and back pressure on sand liquefaction.
Geotechnical Engineering, 117, 1347–1362.
Huang, Y., Jin, C., Zhuang, Z. J., et al. (2010). Experimental research on liquefaction
characteristics of sandy silt layer ⑤2. Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 38(1),
45–49. (in Chinese).
Huang, Y., Ye, W. M., Tang, Y. Q., et al. (2005). Characteristic analysis for seismic ground
response of soft soils in Shanghai. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering,
1(5), 774–778. (in Chinese).
Huang, Y., YE, W. M., & Tang, Y. Q., et al. (2002). Coupled seismic response analysis of deep
saturated soil covering layers in Shanghai. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 23(4), 412–416 (in
Chinese).
Huang, Y., Zheng, H., & Zhuang, Z. J. (2012). Seismic liquefaction analysis of a reservoir dam
foundation in the South-North water diversion project in China. Part I: Liquefaction potential
assessment. Natural Hazards, 60, 1299–1311.
Ministry of Construction of China, & National Quality Technical Supervise Department. (1999).
Standard for soil test method (GB/T50123-1999). Beijing: China Planning Press. (in Chinese).
Ministry of Water Resources of China. (1999). Specification of soil test (SL237-1999). Beijing:
China Water Power Press. (in Chinese).
Seed, H.B., & Lee, K.L. (1966). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading. Journal of
Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 92(ASCE# 4972 Proceeding), 105–134.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., & Arango, I. (1983). Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field
performance data. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division., 109(3), 458–482.
Stamatopoulos, C. A. (2010). An experimental study of the liquefaction strength of silty sands in
terms of the state parameter. Soil Dynamic sand Earthquake Engineering, 30, 662–678.
Sun, J., & Yuan, X. M. (2003). A state- of- art of research on dynamic modulus and damping ratio
of soils. World Earthquake Engineering, 19(1), 88–95. (in Chinese).
Xenakia, V. C., & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2003). Liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures:
An xperimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
23, 183–194.
Xenakia, V. C., & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2008). Dynamic properties and liquefaction resistance
of two soil materials in an earthfill dam—Laboratory test results. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 28, 605–620.
Xu, Y. Q., Tang, Y. Q., Chen, X. W., et al. (2012). Experimental study on dynamic elastic
modulus of reinforced soft clay around subway tunnel under vibration loading. Engineering
Mechanics, 29(7), 250–269. (in Chinese).
Yuan, X., Sun, R., Sun, J., et al. (2000). Laboratory experimental study on dynamic shear modulus
ratio and damping ratio of soils. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 20(4),
133–139. (in Chinese).
Zhou, J., Chen, X. L., Yang, Y. X., et al. (2011). Study of liquefaction characteristics of saturated
stratified sands by dynamic triaxial test. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 32(4), 967–978.
Zhuang, Z. J. (2008). Numerical simulation and laboratory research of liquefiable soils
deformations during the earthquake. Shanghai: Civil Engineering, Tongji University. (in
Chinese).
Chapter 5
Physical Model Testing for Dynamic
Characteristics of Seismic Soil
Liquefaction
5.1 Introduction
Because of the difference of centrifugal force exerted on the scale model, the
stress level is slightly different between scale model and prototype. The centrifugal
acceleration is
Ng ¼ x2 re ; ð5:1Þ
where ɷ is the angular acceleration of the rotation arm and re is the effective radius
of the centrifuge.
Vertical stress of the prototype is
where q is soil density, and hp and hm is depth in the prototype and scale model,
respectively.
Vertical stress of the scale model is
Zz z
rmm ¼ qx2 ðrt þ zÞdz ¼ qx2 z rt þ ; ð5:3Þ
2
0
where rt is distance from the model surface to the rotation axis and z is height of the
model from the model surface.
We assume that the vertical stress level of the prototype is equal to that of the
scale model at depth hi (i.e., z = hi). We obtain from Eqs. (5.1)–(5.3) that
re ¼ rt þ 0:5hi ð5:4Þ
When z < hi, rmp [ rmm , while z [ hi ,rmp \rmm . We assume that
ru ¼ max rmp rmm =rmp ð5:5Þ
ro ¼ max rmm rmp =rmp ð5:6Þ
2
hi ¼ hm ð5:7Þ
3
hm
ro ¼ ru ¼ ð5:8Þ
6Re
hm
re ¼ rt þ ð5:9Þ
3
To minimize the error of stress, the effective radius should be set as the distance
from the rotation axis to 1/3 the height of the scale model. The actual stress
relationship between prototype and scale model is presented in Fig. 5.4.
We take the TJL-150 centrifuge as an example to calculate stress error. The
radius of this centrifuge is 3 m and height of the laminar model box is 0.55 m. The
stress error of the centrifuge is
hm 0:55
maxðr0 Þ ¼ maxðru Þ ¼ maxð Þ¼ 3:49% ð5:10Þ
6re 6 ð3:0 0:37Þ
Hence, stress error of the TJL-150 is very small, and thus this centrifuge can
accurately recreate the actual stress level of the prototype.
5.2 Principles and Scaling Relationships in Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling 97
During centrifuge model tests, it is important to develop a set of suitable scale rules
between prototype and scale model to ensure that the mechanical behavior of the
two are the same and that the experimental data can be used to predict the dynamic
response of the prototype.
When a physical process contains p variables, among which r variables are basic,
there are a total of (p–r) independent dimensionless parameter combinations; this is
referred to as the p constant. If we assume that a physical process has p variables
(X1, X2, X3,… Xp), then
Assuming r basic variables, Eq. (5.11) can be changed to Eq. (5.12), which
contains p–r p constants:
u p1 ; p2 ; . . .; ppr ¼ 0 ð5:12Þ
Thus, any physical process that can be expressed as an equation can be defined
by dimensionless variable p. Similar physical processes have the same p constants.
Hence, similar rules can be determined from the above law, which is referred to as
98 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
the Bockingham p theory. Similar laws of quality that ignore gravity based on the
Bockingham p theory are widely used in seismic model tests.
The design of scaling rules is a process to determine similar constants between
prototype and scale model, based on similar conditions. Scaling rules can be
determined through equation or dimensional analyses. We know only the variables
and their dimensions in the investigated physical process when in dimensional
analysis. However, it is complicated to perform equation analysis to calculate
scaling rules in dynamic centrifuge model tests. We must know the functional
relationship of different physical variables involved in such tests. A scaling rule
designed by equation analysis is more credible than that from dimensional analysis.
Hence, the former analysis is presented as follows.
For seismic dynamic centrifuge modeling, the scale rule can be determined by
analyzing dynamic functions. The dynamic function of the prototype can be
expressed as
up ¼ Ap sinð2pfp tp Þ; ð5:13Þ
dup
mp ¼ ¼ 2pfp Ap cosð2pfp tp Þ ð5:14Þ
dtp
d 2 up
ap ¼ ¼ ð2pfp Þ2 Ap sinð2pfp tp Þ ð5:15Þ
dtp2
In centrifuge model tests, the scale rule of length and acceleration between proto-
type and scale model is 1:N and N:1, respectively. The frequency relationship is
fm ¼ Nfp ð5:16Þ
fm
mp ¼ 2pfp Ap ¼ 2p NAm ¼ 2pfm Am ¼ mm ð5:18Þ
N
5.2 Principles and Scaling Relationships in Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling 99
fm ð2pfm Þ2 am
ap ¼ ð2pfp Þ2 Ap ¼ ð2p Þ2 NAm ¼ ¼ ; ð5:19Þ
N N N
where d is a relevant dimension and cv.m and cv.p are consolidation coefficients of
the model and prototype. The time-scale conflict can be addressed by reducing the
permeability of soil, either using smaller particles in the test model or viscous liquid
as a substitute pore fluid (Dewoolkar et al. 1999). The first method is seldom used,
because it is difficult to ensure that mechanical properties are unchanged.
The prototype reservoir is the first erected in the middle of a tidal estuary in China
and the largest one for retaining freshwater while preventing saltwater in the world
(Huang et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2014). The reservoir is at the mouth of the Yangtze
River in Shanghai. The reservoir supplies nearly half the raw water for the Shanghai
urban area. Hence, it is a major infrastructure for the development and social
stability of that city. Unfortunately, backfill of the embankment and two saturated
soil layers (① silty sand and ② sandy silt in Fig. 5.5) under the reservoir
embankment are prone to liquefaction. It is important to evaluate the seismic
response of this dam to maintain reservoir safety. The width of the embankment
is *64 m. It is impossible to construct a model of the entire embankment in a
laminar box, owing to the size of the box and the centrifuge capacity under dynamic
conditions. Krinitzsky and Hynes (2002) investigated damage to the Tapar,
Fatehgadh and Kaswati dams, finding that the Bhuj earthquake triggered shallow
sliding and lateral spread, especially around the bottom part of upstream slopes.
Localized liquefaction around the toes of the dams caused this damage (Singh et al.
2005). Therefore, seismic response of the toe area should be addressed. Attention
Fig. 5.5 Cross-section diagram of embankment foundation (reprinted from Huang and Zhu
(2017) with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 101
should also be paid to the body area, which is not as reinforced as the toe area. In
this chapter, dynamic response of a dam foundation is studied using two separate
physical model tests, one for the body area and the other for the toe area.
Fig. 5.6 Overview of the TJL-150 geotechnical centrifuge (reprinted from Huang and Zhu (2017)
with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
102 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
of the box was wrapped in high-strength flexible latex film to provide an imper-
vious boundary condition.
(2) Model test materials
It is essential to substitute prototype materials according to scaling factors in the
dynamic centrifuge model test. As mentioned above, a viscous liquid is needed to
address the conflict of time scale. The substitute pore fluid should behave like
water, with very similar density and mechanical properties. Moreover, the substitute
liquid should have operational qualities such as easy acquisition and preparation,
relatively stable properties, and environmental safety (Dewoolkar et al. 1999).
Silicon oil has often been used in model tests (Ko 1994; Madabhushi 1994). The
density of silicon is similar to that of water. However, it is difficult to clean up and
deal with saturated soil samples, because silicon oil is hazardous (Kutter 1995). The
solution of glycerin has also been used in centrifuge experiments. Unfortunately,
the density of glycerin is much lower than that of water (Kutter 1995). In the
present work, the solution of carboxyl methyl cellulose (CMC) was used as model
fluid to conduct dynamic centrifuge tests. The fine white powder of CMC is
tasteless, non-toxic and environment-friendly. CMC can be mixed easily with water
to produce needed viscosities with small amounts of powder. Hence, density of the
CMC solution is very similar to that of water. Moreover, CMC is inexpensive and
readily available. The viscosities of CMC solutions are determined using a rota-
tional viscometer, which is shown in Fig. 5.9.
The relationship between CMC concentration and viscosity under indoor tem-
peratures is shown in Fig. 5.10. Before model preparation, a 60 cSt CMC solution
was prepared with *0.78% concentration by weight. The solution can be diluted to
45 cSt by adding distilled, de-aired water.
At a scaling factor of 45, it is difficult to simulate the flexural rigidity of a
three-axis, cement mixing pile diaphragm wall in a prototype using original
material, considering wall thickness. Hence, an aluminum plate is often used to
model concrete-face slabs and the diaphragm wall in dynamic centrifuge tests (Hou
et al. 2004; Bolton and Powrie 1987). Thickness of the substitute material was
calculated as
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 Ep tp
tm ¼ ð5:22Þ
Em N
90
test data
linear fitting
80
Kinematic viscosity(cSt) at 15 C
°
70
60
50
y = 114.93*x - 28.96
R2 = 0.9963
40
30
20
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
CMC concentration(%)
Fig. 5.10 Relationship between concentration of CMC and viscosity (at indoor temperature)
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 105
The relationship used herein between shear modulus ratio G/Gmax and shear
strain cn, and that between damping ratio D and cn for sand and clay (Fig. 5.12), are
empirical equations that are widely used for Shanghai (Huang and Zhu 2016).
The numerical and compounded ground accelerations agree relatively well in
tendency and quantity (Fig. 5.13), which indicates that the simulation was effective
and accurate. The input earthquake wave is presented in Fig. 5.14. Considering that
the seismic wave value after 15 s is near zero, only 15 s of records were inputted in
dynamic centrifuge model tests.
(4) Instrumentation and test procedures
Three pore pressure transducers were placed in the middle of each liquefiable soil
layer. Four horizontal accelerometers were installed at the surface of each soil layer.
Settlement was measured by a laser displacement sensor. All transducers used in
1 1
Shear module ratio G/Gmax
0.8 0.8
Δαμπινγ ρατιο λ
0.2 0.2
0 0
3.16E-6 1.00E-5 3.16E-5 1.00E-4 3.16E-4 1.00E-3 3.16E-3 1.00E-2
Shear strain γ n
Fig. 5.12 Relationship of shear modulus ratio and damping ratio with shear strain for Shanghai
soil (reprinted from Huang and Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil
Engineers)
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 107
0.15
The Offical Data
SHAKE Simulated
0.10
0.05
Acceleration(g)
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time(s)
Fig. 5.13 Comparison of ground acceleration between official data and SHAKE91 simulated
result (reprinted from Huang and Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil
Engineers)
0.15
0.10
0.05
Acceleration(g)
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time(s)
Fig. 5.14 Input earthquake wave of dynamic centrifuge model tests (reprinted from Huang and
Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
these tests were carefully calibrated before testing. The instrumentation layout is
presented in Fig. 5.15. A saturated sample was prepared layer-by-layer using a
vacuum mixer and centrifuge. Masses of de-aired water and stoving soil were
calculated according to prototype soils. Soil and water were blended sufficiently
using the vacuum mixer. Saturated soil was poured into the model box and
transducers were installed at specific locations. The saturated soil was consolidated
108 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
(1) Accelerations
The time history of acceleration at different nodes of the embankment body is
shown in Fig. 5.16. Although the figures are simplified because of limitations of
sample frequency in this model test, we still obtained useful information. The
experimental and calculated ground horizontal accelerations were *0.1 g, which
indicates that the input seismic wave from the SHAKE91 code was adequate.
Attenuation of the earthquake wave from the bottom to surface was not obvious,
especially in the numerical results. This illustrates that the liquefiable soil layers did
not sufficiently liquefy.
Acceleration records at the embankment toe are presented in Fig. 5.17. The
tendency is similar to seismic response of the embankment body, which indicates
that it is suitable to study the large embankment foundation using two separate
Backfill
g2
k2 Diaphragm wall
1 Silty sand
g3
k3
2 Sandy silt
g4
k4
3 Silty clay
J4
G1
Reinforced area K1
G2 Backfill
1 Silty sand
K2
G3
2 Sandy silt
K3
G4
3 Silty clay
typical positions. Acceleration was magnified from the ground surface to the top of
the dam toe.
(2) Excess pore water pressures
The time history of excess pore pressure at the specific locations of liquefiable soil
in the body and toe model is presented in Figs. 5.18 and 5.19, respectively. The
excess pore pressure ratio remained near zero before seismic excitation and began
to rise when the shake table started to move. That pressure maximized at the end of
the earthquake and remained stable for a period of time. With rotation of the
centrifuge, the excess pore water pressure declined slowly by transferring the
seismic load to the soil skeleton via the drainage of pore water. The physical
simulations captured the tendency in the time history of excess pore pressure ratio.
Therefore, it is appropriate to claim that the CMC solution is a suitable substitute in
the dynamic centrifuge tests and can reproduce the full evolution of excess pore
pressure ratio. There was insufficient liquefaction (i.e., excess pore pressure was
equal to 1.0) in both models. The maximum excess pore water ratio was *0.6–0.7.
However, the peak value of k1 was lower than expected. The location of the k1
transducer may have been responsible for this. It was installed too close to the
110 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
Acceleration(g)
from Huang and Zhu (2017) 0.05
with permission from 0
American Society of Civil
Engineers) -0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(a) g1
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(b) g2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(c) g3
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(d) g4
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 111
Acceleration(g)
Huang and Zhu (2017) with 0.05
permission from American 0
Society of Civil Engineers)
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(a) g1
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(b) g2
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(c) g3
0.15
0.1
Acceleration(g)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 3 6 9 12 15
Time(s)
(d) g4
112 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
0.7
0.6
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(a) k1
0.7
0.6
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(b) k2
0.5
0.4
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(c) k3
Fig. 5.18 Time history of excess pore pressure ratio in embankment body model test (reprinted
from Huang and Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 113
0.4
0.2
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(a) k1
0.8
0.7
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(b) k2
0.5
0.4
Excess pore pressure ratio
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Time(s)
(c) k3
Fig. 5.19 Time history of excess pore pressure ratio in embankment toe model test (reprinted
from Huang and Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
114 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
diaphragm wall. Hence, the small k1 value may have been caused by boundary
effects. The generation of excess pore pressure was found to have started from the
ground to the base, while the dissipation of that pressure proceeded from the base to
the surface. This is reasonable, because the effective stress increases with depth.
The excess pore pressure in the upper soil layer reaches the effective stress quickly.
The excess pore pressure is continuously higher in the deep soil layers than in the
upper layers, although the excess pore pressure ratio may be smaller. Therefore, the
dissipation initiated from the deep soil layer toward the upper layer, according to
the second law of thermodynamics.
(3) Displacements
The experimental time history of vertical displacement of the embankment body
and toe after excitation are shown in Figs. 5.20 and 5.21, respectively.
From dynamic centrifuge model tests, the final vertical displacement was *24 cm
-50
Displacement(mm)
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time(s) x 10
5
Fig. 5.20 Time history of vertical displacement in embankment body model test
-50
Displacement(mm)
-100
-150
-200
-250
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
T ime(s) 5
x 10
Fig. 5.21 Time history of vertical displacement in embankment toe model test (reprinted from
Huang and Zhu (2017) with permission from American Society of Civil Engineers)
5.3 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics … 115
in the body model and *17.6 cm in the toe model. Settlement in the body model
was greater than that in the toe model, because the settlement of backfill was
considered in the former model test. The deformation belongs to the pattern of
settlement without slip failure. The settlement is acceptable and the embankment is
safe, because of no overtopping. Consequently, the reservoir can fulfill its expected
design function under seismic intensity VII.
5.3.4 Discussion
in which c is the unit weight of soil, z is depth from the ground surface, rd ¼
1 0:0133 z is the stress reduction factor, amax represents maximum horizontal
acceleration, and g is gravity.
The liquefaction resistance shear stress based on the dynamic triaxial tests is
rd
sd ¼ Cr ð Þ r0 ; ð5:24Þ
2rc Nf m
rd
where Cr is a correction coefficient, ð2r Þ is the ratio of shear stress, and r0m is
c Nf
effective vertical stress.
From Eqs. (5.3) and (5.4), the liquefaction resistance factor FL is defined by
sd
FL ¼ ð5:25Þ
sam
If FL is <1, the soil may liquefy during shaking. When FL is >1, soil may not
liquefy. However, the excess pore pressure ratio will still increase to some extent. The
greater the FL, the smaller the excess pore pressure ratio during an earthquake
(Tokimatsu and Seed 1984). Table 5.3 presents results of the liquefaction evaluation
based on triaxial tests under seismic intensity VII. From the triaxial tests, only the
backfill layer may liquefy during an earthquake. However, the excess pore pressure
ratio of backfill reached only 0.51 and 0.27 in the body and toe models, respectively.
In the body model, pore transducer k1 was placed too close to the diaphragm wall.
The boundary effects produced this result. In the toe model, k1 was put in the
116 5 Physical Model Testing for Dynamic Characteristics …
Table 5.3 Evaluation of liquefaction potential based on dynamic triaxial tests (seismic intensity
VII)
rd
Soil layer Soil type d(m) Cr ð2r Þ
c Nf
r0m (kPa) sav sd FL
(kP) (kP)
① Backfill 4 0.57 0.16 42 4.43 3.83 0.86
② Silty sand 11 0.57 0.27 98 10.99 15.08 1.37
③ Sandy silt 19 0.57 0.29 162 16.61 26.78 1.61
geotextile, which accelerated the dissipation of excess pore pressure. Thus, excess
pore water pressure did not accumulate because of the geotextile, which caused the
small excess pore pressure ratio. The triaxial tests cannot take into consideration
geotextile effects. Hence, the difference of backfill liquefaction between the triaxial
and centrifuge model tests is reasonable. Soil layer ② and ③ will not liquefy from
the standpoint of either model test. Moreover, soil layer ② will have more serious
liquefaction than layer ③. It is reasonable that the excess pore pressure ratio of the toe
model is larger than that of the body model, given the existence of initial deviatoric
stress around the toe area. However, the triaxial test cannot consider the effect of that
stress and geotextiles. Hence, the discrepancy is acceptable.
Although further calibration and validation are needed for the dynamic response
of embankment liquefaction, current model tests are capable of providing prelim-
inary assessments of embankment safety.
5.4 Summary
References
Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute. (2012). Specification for test and measurement of
geosynthetics (SL235-2012). Beijing: China Water Power Press. (in Chinese).
Phillips, R., Guo, P. J., & Popescu, R. (2002). Physical modeling in geotechnics: ICPMG’02.
Proceedings of the International Conference, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 10–12 July
2002. In Physical modeling in geotechnics: ICPMG’02. Proceedings of the International
Conference, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 10–12 July 2002. AA Balkema.
Saleh, S., & Madabhushi, S. P. G. (2010). An investigation into the seismic behaviour of dams
using dynamic centrifuge modeling. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8(6), 1479–1495.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., & Arango, I. (1983). Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field
performance data. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 109(3), 458–482.
Singh, R., Roy, D., & Jain, S. K. (2005). Analysis of earth dams affected by the 2001 Bhuj
Earthquake. Engineering Geology, 80(3), 282–291.
Stewart, D. P., Chen, Y. R., & Kutter, B. L. (1998). Experience with the use of methylcellulose as
a viscous pore fluid in centrifuge models. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 21(4),
365–369.
Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H. B. (1984). Simplified procedures for the evaluation of settlements in
clean sands. College of Engineering, University of California.
Wang, K. L., & Lin, M. L. (2011). Initiation and displacement of landslide induced by
earthquake-A study of shaking table model slope test. Engineering Geology, 122(1), 106–114.
Chapter 6
Numerical Simulation for Deformation
of Liquefiable Soils
Since Biot (1956) put forward the theory of elastic wave propagation through a
saturated fluid porous medium, a variety of analyses using finite element methods in
the time domain have been established, such as the formations us-uw-pw, us-uw,
us-ww, and us-pw (us is displacement of the solid phase, uw is absolute displacement
of the liquid phase, pw is pore-water pressure, and ww is speed of the liquid phase
relative to the solid phase). Xie and Zhang (1995) and Huang et al. (2002, 2004)
have incisively summarized these methods.
As is well known, liquefied sand is a type of saturated fluid–solid coupling
medium. Therefore, it is more reasonable and practical to use effective stress
numerical analysis of a two-phase porous media model than the total stress method
of a one-phase solid medium. Owing to the low frequency of earthquake load, we
chose the dynamic coupling equation, whose formation is us-pw (Biot 1956). In the
numerical method, solid displacement and pore-water pressure are the basic vari-
ables. The motion equation and continuity equation are described in the following
forms.
where q is soil density, q f is water density, l €i is soil acceleration, rij is total stress,
bi is the body force, p is pore pressure, n is soil porosity, cw is the unit weight of
water, e_ ii is the volumetric strain of soil, and k and K f are the permeability coef-
ficient and the volumetric compressibility of water, respectively.
To overcome the incompressibility problem that may arise in numerical solution,
the FEM-FDM (Akai and Tamura, 1978) is used to solve the governing equations
described previously. The liquid and solid are discretized by the finite difference
and finite element methods, respectively. That is, the finite element method is used
to spatially discretize pore-water pressure in the continuity equation and the finite
difference method to discretize displacement in the motion equation. The
Newmark-b method is adopted as the time integration program. It effectively avoids
the difficulty caused by inconsistency of the shape function between displacement
and pore pressure. The validity of the method in numerical analysis of soil
dynamics problems was verified by Oka et al. (1994). They compared analytical
and numerical solutions of transient dynamic response of a saturated two-phase
medium.
The constitutive model can be divided into two categories, an equivalent linear
method (e.g., Schnabel et al. 1972) based on an equivalent viscoelastic model, and a
nonlinear method (e.g., Lee and Finn 1978) based on an elastoplastic or viscoelastic
model. The equivalent linear analysis model has been widely used in the dynamic
analysis of soil. The same modulus was used for the processes of loading and
unloading. Thus, it only describes the nonlinear and hysteresis quality of the
dynamic stress–strain relation and cannot consider the cumulative deformation
characteristics of soil under dynamic loads. The elastoplastic model is more
appropriate to characterize soil dynamic response. It can not only fully describe the
dynamic stress–strain relationship but also calculate residual and permanent
deformation. The model is more complex, and accurate parameters are not easily
obtained.
To effectively describe the dynamic evaluation of liquefiable soil, we introduce
two main models in this chapter—nonlinear constitutive and cycle elastoplastic
constitutive.
The successful simulation of soil dynamic response in Shanghai proves the effec-
tiveness of the nonlinear constitutive model. The results were given in Huang et al.
(2009b).
Data analysis of the numerous experimental findings showed that soils in
Shanghai have nonlinear and hysteretic characteristics. Based on a series of non-
linear viscoelastic concepts, the stress–strain relationship of the soil is deduced
(Seed and Idriss 1969). All parameters used in the constitutive model are obtained
from representative experiments. Here, parameters of the soil dynamic model are
analyzed according to existing data of soil dynamic tests in Shanghai, as follows
(Huang 1999).
6.2 Constitutive Models for Liquefiable Soils 121
G G
¼ 1 HðcÞ ¼ 1 HðcÞ ð6:4Þ
Gmax Gmax
ðjcj=cr Þ2B
HðcÞ ¼ ½ A ; ð6:5Þ
1 þ ðjcj=cr Þ2B
where cr is the reference or yield strain and A and B are two dimensionless
parameters. The values of cr for the Shanghai saturated soils may be determined by
the following empirical relationship:
qffiffiffiffiffi
cr ¼ C 3
r00 ; ð6:6Þ
where r00 is effective mean principal stress in kPa and C is an empirical parameter.
Table 6.1 lists experimental numerical values for parameters A, B, and C, obtained
for Shanghai saturated soft soil. The curve of the shear modulus ratio G/Gmax of the
Shanghai clay with c is compared with the experimental data in Fig. 6.1.
For the Shanghai saturated soil, variation of the damping ratio D with strain level
is estimated from a Hardin–Drnevich type equation (Hardin and Drnevich 1972):
122 6 Numerical Simulation for Deformation of Liquefiable Soils
G/Gmax
et al. (2009b) with permission
of Springer) 0.4
0.2
0.0
1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01
D G
¼1 ; ð6:7Þ
Dmax Gmax
where Dmax = 0.30 for the clay and 0.25 for the silty clay and sand. A comparison
between the proposed model and experimental data is shown in Fig. 6.2.
(3) Pore-water pressure buildup
On the basis of results from undrained cyclic-triaxial test data, the excess
pore-water pressure buildup of the Shanghai clay and silty clay may be expressed as
p
0 ¼ aN ; ð6:8Þ
b
r0
Springer) 0.10
0.05
0.00
1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01
6.2 Constitutive Models for Liquefiable Soils 123
0.3 r=0.16
r=0.20
0.2
r=0.23
0.1 r=0.25
r=0.354
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Cyclic number N
For the Shanghai sand, the development of excess pore-water pressures in cyclic
loading is of the following form (Seed et al. 1976):
p 2 N 1
0 ¼ ð1 ms1 Þ arcsinð Þ2h ; ð6:9Þ
r0 p Nf
where s1 is the static stress level, m and h are two experimental parameters (for the
Shanghai sand m = 1.1 and h = 0.7), and Nf is the accumulative number of cycles at
the same stress level required to produce a peak cyclic pore-water pressure ratio of
100% under undrained conditions.
Based on the work of Oka et al. (1999), liquefiable saturated sand was represented
by a cyclic elastoplastic constitutive model, which was mainly composed of an
overconsolidation boundary surface, Armstrong–Frederick-type nonlinear kinematic
hardening rule, and non-associated flow rule. The nonlinear expression of stress
dilatancy characteristic relationships and cumulative strain-dependent characteristics
of the plastic shear model were also considered. All related parameters were defined
by considering typical experimental values or in situ tests (Table 6.3). Under seismic
loading, it has been proven that the constitutive law could well describe the
responses of features such as cyclic mobility, liquefaction strength, effective stress
path, and the stress–strain relationship (Sugito et al. 2000; Huang et al. 2004, 2005).
124
In the above model, the nonlinear kinematic hardening rule can reveal the
nonlinear characteristics of the stress–strain process. The overconsolidation
boundary was used to describe expansion under alternating loads. The constitutive
model can simulate the simple shear response of soil in the state of initial anisotropy
and initial stress and strain.
Figure 6.4 shows the performance of the constitutive model in undrained tor-
sional shear tests of Toyoura standard sand under the condition of vertical strain
constraint (Matsuo et al. 2000). The simulated shear stress–shear strain relationship
and effective stress path are show to coincide well with the experimental results.
(1) Overconsolidation boundary surface
The overconsolidation boundary surface fb is used to depict the stress history state
of the soil. When fb 0, soil is in a state of normal consolidation. If fb < 0, soil is in
a state of overconsolidation. Similar to the general boundary models, the purpose of
the overconsolidation boundary surface is to describe plastic deformation of the
yield surface under cyclic loading, which is defined as
r0m
fb ¼ g0 þ Mm ln ¼0 ð6:10Þ
r0mb
1
g0 ¼ fðgij gijð0Þ Þðgij gijð0Þ Þg2 ð6:11Þ
1
g ¼ ðgij gij Þ2 ; ð6:12Þ
where ηij is the stress ratio, gij ¼ sij r0m ; ηij(0) is the initial value of ηij; r0m is the
mean effective stress, r0m ¼ 13 dij r0ij ; dij is the Kronecker sign; r0ij is the effective
stress; sij is the deviatoric stress, sij ¼ r0ij dij r0m ; Mm is the phase transformation
126 6 Numerical Simulation for Deformation of Liquefiable Soils
stress ratio; r0mb is the value of r0m at the intersection of the ηij(0) line and over-
consolidation boundary surface.
1þe P
r0mb ¼ r0mbi expð t Þ; ð6:13Þ
kj
where r0mbi is the initial value of r0mb , known as the mean value of the initial
consolidation effective stress; e is the void ratio; k is the compression index; j is the
swell index; tP is the plastic volumetric strain.
(2) Yield surface
The yield surface is composed of two functions, fy1 and fy2. fy1 reflects the change
of stress ratio and fy2 describes the change of mean effective stress. fy1 is defined as
where k is a numerical parameter that controls the size of the elastic region and vij
is the kinematic hardening parameter, known as the back stress parameter.
Regarding the translation of the yield surface, in classical plasticity, it is common to
use linear kinematic hardening rules, such as the models of Prager and Ziegler.
Here, for more accurate prediction of the multiaxial Bauschinger effect, a modified
Armstrong and Frederick nonlinear kinematic hardening rule was adopted, as fol-
lows (Lemaitre and Chaboche 1990):
where Mf is the failure ratio; dePij is the deviatoric plastic strain increment; dcP is the
second invariant of dePij ; cpn is accumulated value of cP between two sequential stress
reversal points in a previous cycle; B0, B1 and Cf are material parameters.
Therefore, this rule generalizes the Prager linear hardening rule by adding an
evanescent strain-memory term (dynamic recovery term) to overcome the short-
coming of linear proportion between dvij and dePij in the Prager model. This shows
excellent correlation with experimental results for monotonic and cyclic loading.
The other yield function fy2 is defined as
r0m
fy2 ¼ Mm lnð 0 ym Þ Rd ¼ 0;
ð6:18Þ
r m0
where ym is the scalar kinematic hardening parameter; r0m0 is the unit value of mean
effective stress; Rd is the scalar parameter. Because the effective stress in soils
6.2 Constitutive Models for Liquefiable Soils 127
decreases gradually during liquefaction in earthquakes, the yield state of fy2 could
not be reached in the present work.
(3) Plastic potential function
Using the non-associated flow rule, the plastic potential function g is defined as
~ lnð r0m
g ¼ fðgðijÞ vij ÞðgðijÞ vij Þg1=2 þ M Þ ¼ 0; ð6:19Þ
r0ma
~ is calculated by
where r0ma is a constant and M
8 g
< fb \0
~ ¼
M ln ðr0m r0mc Þ ð6:20Þ
:
Mm fb 0
gð0Þ
r0mc ¼ r0mb expð Þ ð6:21Þ
Mm
385.547
C
3.75 B 5.00
S1a D B
0.00
-2.85 S1b
C1
-8.60
C2 Y
-13.40
-16.00 S2
S3 X
-20.00
Unit: m
Fig. 6.5 Configuration of earth embankment (unit: m) (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with
permission of Springer)
saturation affects the earthquake response of soil layers related to liquefaction and
softening. The finite element model was composed of 2848 nodes and 2732
four-node quadrilateral elements.
The following constitutive models were used for plane strain elements in the
analysis.
(1) Shallow sand layers B, S1a and S1b were modeled by the elastoplastic consti-
tutive law for sand, which was mentioned previously. Shallow sand layers were
in the upper part of the site and comprised of recent fill and alluvia soils with
thickness *9 m. As the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu earthquake revealed, these
soils were prone to liquefy. Fill material of the embankment consisted of sand B.
(2) Under the aforementioned sand layers were alluvial clays C1 and C2. They
belong to a homogeneous group, for which they were modeled by a similar
cyclic elasto-viscoplastic constitutive law for clay (Oka et al. 2004). The clay
and sand models had a similar frame. However, the clay model was distin-
guished from the sand model by the viscous effect of clays.
(3) The lower underlying geology of the site was composed of over 6 m of dense
sand layers, S2 and S3. They were considered stable bearing layers during
earthquakes, and were modeled by the Ramberg-Osgood model.
Tables 6.4 and 6.5 list material parameters used in the analysis. Figure 6.6
shows the simulated liquefaction strength curves of liquefiable sand layers (B, S1a
and S1b) with 5% double-amplitude of axial strain in the triaxial test. All of these
soil parameters were defined by considering typical experimental values for liq-
uefiable sand, based on the results of geotechnical investigations. The procedures of
parameter selection for soils are found in Oka et al. (1999).
A horizontal earthquake time history with maximum acceleration 1.5 m/s2 was
used as excitation in the analysis (Fig. 6.7), and a severe earthquake corresponding
to the ultimate limit state of a collapse event specified for the river embankment is
6.3 Simulation and Analysis of Various Engineering Problems 129
Table 6.4 Parameters used for sands and clays (elastoplastic model) (reprinted from Huang et al.
(2009a) with permission of Springer)
Soil layer B S1a S1b C1 C2
Density q (t/m3) 1.83 1.74 1.82 1.68 1.78
Coefficient of permeability k (um/s) 20 10 10 18 45
Initial void ratio e0 0.808 1.089 0.728 1.410 1.170
Poisson ratio m 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Compression index k 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.25 0.34
Swelling index k 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0500 0.0600
Quasi-overconsolidation ratio OCR* 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0
Initial shear modulus ratio G 0 rm 700 550 600 300 350
Phasetransformation stress ratio M*m 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.30 1.35
Failure stress ratio M*f 1.25 1.25 1.30 1.30 1.35
Hardening parameters B*0 2500 2800 3000 – –
B*1 30 30 30 – –
Reference strain parameters cP
ref 0.005 0.005 0.005 – –
cE
ref 0.010 0.010 0.010 – –
Disappearance of anisotropy Cd 2000 2000 2000 – –
Dilatancy parameters D*0 1.0 1.0 1.0 – –
n 4.0 4.0 4.0 – –
Viscoplastic parameters m′0 – – – 17 17
C01/10−7 s−1 – – – 3.0 3.0
C02/10−8 s−1 – – – 7.5 7.5
Table 6.5 Parameters used for sands (Ramberg-Osgood model) (reprinted from Huang et al.
(2009a) with permission of Springer)
Soil layer S2 S3
Density q (t/m3) 1.97 2.00
Coefficient of permeability k (um/s) 10 20
Initial void ratio e0 0.643 0.600
Compression index m 0.30 0.30
Shear modulus parameters a 7000 8000
b 0.50 0.50
Cohesion C (kPa) 0 0
Angle of internal friction /(°) 38 45
a 3 3
r 2 2
130 6 Numerical Simulation for Deformation of Liquefiable Soils
0.10
DA=5%
0.00
1 10 100
Number of cycles
3.00 3.00
2.00 2.00
Acceleration (m/s )
Acceleration (m/s)
2 A B
2
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
-1.00 -1.00
-2.00 -2.00
-3.00 -3.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
3.00 3.00
2.00
Acceleration (m/s)
2.00
Acceleration (m/s)
C D
2
2
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
-1.00 -1.00
-2.00 -2.00
-3.00 -3.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 6.8 Accelerations at points A through D (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with
permission of Springer)
is *1.0 m of lateral spread of foundation soil toward the free field at the toe. Upper
soils have larger displacements compared with lower ones during excitation.
Moreover, seismic displacements of embankment soils are much larger than those
of free-field soils. The crest undergoes large settlement >60 cm because of the
combined action of migration of the underlying foundation soil and deformation of
the embankment itself. This agrees satisfactorily with conclusions based on
observations in earthquake case histories. Total deformation increases continuously
until the full dissipation of excess pore-water pressure.
The time histories of excess pore-water pressure ratios (ηEPWPR) at points B and
D are shown in Fig. 6.11. The final distribution of ηEPWPR in the earth embankment
is shown in Fig. 6.12. During the earthquake, in the shallow sand layers, ηEPWPR
approached 1.0 after *30 s and remained large thereafter. The maximum ηEPWPR
was equal to or near 1.0 at the end of earthquake. In the portion beneath the
embankment, owing to the initial stress state, seismic pore-water pressure ratios
were less than those of the free field at the same depths.
1.50
1.00 C 1.00 D
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
-0.50 -0.50
-1.00 -1.00
-1.50 -1.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
Vertical Displacement (m)
1.00 1.00
A B
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
-0.50 -0.50
-1.00 -1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
Vertical Displacement (m)
Vertical Displacement (m)
1.00 1.00
C D
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
-0.50 -0.50
-1.00 -1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 6.9 Horizontal and vertical displacement at points A through D (reprinted from Huang et al.
(2009a) with permission of Springer)
Fig. 6.10 Configuration of earth embankment at end of earthquake (reprinted from Huang et al.
(2009a) with permission of Springer)
6.3 Simulation and Analysis of Various Engineering Problems 133
1.00 1.00
0.80 B 0.80 D
Pressure Ratio
Pressure Ratio 0.60
0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20 -0.20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 6.11 Time histories of excess pore-water pressure ratios (ηEPWPR) at points B and
D (reprinted from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of Springer)
Fig. 6.12 Excess pore-water pressure ratio of earth embankment at end of earthquake (reprinted
from Huang et al. (2009a) with permission of Springer)
As Sand N=5
7.71 m
6.64
7.50 Av Volcanic N=22
ash
2.00 m
Cement grouting
Ac Clay N=3
14.35
Ag Gravel N=14
16.85
18.00 WCg
Rock N=50
The constitutive relation of the liquefiable soil layer (As) was simulated using
the aforementioned cyclic elastoplastic model, with parameters indicated in
Table 6.6. All of these parameters were defined by considering typical experimental
values for liquefiable sand. Figure 6.14 shows the simulated undrained response of
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
Fig. 6.14 Numerical simulation of undrained response of foundation soil, As (reprinted from
Huang et al. (2008b) with permission of Springer)
approaching 1.0 after *9 s and remaining large thereafter. The response of EPWP
in the foundation soil still reaches the liquefaction state even after the ground
improvement by cement grouting. This result is in keeping with the mechanisms of
the liquefaction mitigation method as mentioned in previous sections, i.e., not
preventing EPWP generation but reducing liquefaction-induced deformations.
6.4 Summary
References
Oka, F., Yashima, A., Shibata, T., et al. (1994). FEM-FDM coupled liquefaction analysis of a
porous soil using an elasto-plastic model. Applied Scientific Research, 52(3), 209–245.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., & Seed, H. B. (1972). SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake
response analysis of horizontally layered sites. In Tech Rep UCB/EERC-71/12, University of
California, Berkeley.
Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1969). Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during
earthquakes. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 95(1), 99–138.
Seed, H. B., Martin, P. P., & Lysmer, J. (1976). Pore-water pressure changes during soil
liquefaction. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 102. (Proc. Paper#
12074).
Sugito, M., Oka, F., Yashima, A., et al. (2000). Time-dependent ground motion amplification
characteristics at reclaimed land after the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu Earthquake. Engineering
Geology, 56(1), 137–150.
Xie, D. Y., & Zhang, J. M. (1995). Transient dynamic characteristics and mechanism analysis of
saturated sand. Xian: Shanxi Science and Technology Press. (in Chinese).
Ye, G. L., Miyaguchi, H., Huang, Y., et al. (2004). Dynamic behavior of group-pile foundation
evaluated by simplified model and sophisticated model. In 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (pp. 28). Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Chapter 7
Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction
Damage During Earthquakes
7.1 Introduction
Based on the preceding chapters, in the soft soil engineering field, it is necessary to
evaluate the damage to engineering structures after field liquefaction during an
earthquake. Therefore, this chapter is based on the previous chapters and investi-
gates the evaluation of seismic liquefaction security in geotechnical problems.
Comprehensive evaluation methods for liquefaction damage during earthquakes
include field tests, a laboratory dynamic test, a dynamic centrifugal model test, and
a performance-based seismic design evaluation method.
Multilevel seismic design principles are used in traditional seismic theories in
countries worldwide, including China (e.g., the Chinese seismic code). Properly
engineered structures cannot be ruined in small earthquakes, can be repaired in
moderate earthquakes, and do not collapse in strong earthquakes. When structures
designed according to the aforementioned seismic concepts experience a devas-
tating earthquake, damage will be allowed to disappear, but the major structure will
not collapse, ensuring the safety of people. This seismic design theory does not
ensure that the structures (and especially non-structural elements) will avoid
destruction in moderate or minor earthquakes, and does not consider how to reduce
pecuniary loss or social effects of earthquake disasters. We can say that this design
method has the single seismic fortification goal of protecting human life to the
extent possible. However, recently, experiences of seismic damage in cities during
numerous earthquakes give us new clarification and recognition. That is, although
engineered structures do not collapse and guarantee the basic security of life, and
are designed and constructed in light of current seismic design methods with the
global aim of protecting human life, earthquake damage causes huge economic
losses. What, therefore, are the main reasons for such losses under the situation of
light seismic damage? These are largely because every required function of the
building structure is affected by its destruction; other engineered structures have
similar problems. Technically, current seismic design cannot determine the non-
linear dynamic behavior of structures well during strong earthquakes. It is also
unclear regarding the mechanism of the influence of nonlinear properties on
structural function. Therefore, the single seismic performance design standard
based solely on security of human life obviously cannot satisfy structural seismic
performance demands of society. Seismic design should also ensure that the
function of engineering structures is somewhat protected during strong earthquakes.
In other words, seismic resistance design must be sufficiently economical and
credible to assure that the structure function can survive an earthquake.
In light of the above understanding, the new seismic resistance concept of
performance-based seismic design (PBSD) philosophy was proposed by American
scientists and engineers in the early 1990s. This chapter mainly addresses lique-
faction damage evaluation of engineering structures based on PBSD criteria.
In the research field of seismic liquefaction, it is widely accepted that
geotechnical materials and seismic ground motions have enormous variability.
Moreover, the interaction of stochasticity and nonlinearity make the responses of
geotechnical engineering structures random. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate
the seismic liquefaction performance of geotechnical projects from the stochastic
point of view. For this reason, this chapter addresses seismic liquefaction perfor-
mance problems in the geotechnical engineering field with the PBSD criteria and
reliability analysis. To treat the stochastic seismic response of engineered structures,
a newly developed stochastic dynamic response analysis method, the probability
density evaluation method (PDEM) (Li and Chen 2009), is introduced to investigate
stochastic seismic liquefaction performance and dynamic reliability in geotechnical
engineering.
On the whole, this chapter mainly addresses a seismic liquefaction performance
evaluation of geotechnical engineering at a soft soil site.
Field test methods of the mechanical properties of soils include the SPT, CPT, and
wave velocity test.
According to the Chinese code (Code for Engineering Geological Investigation
of Water Resources and Hydropower GB50487-2008), it is unnecessary to consider
the liquefaction of field soil, or the soil does not liquefy when saturated sand or silt
meet one of the following conditions.
(i) The geologic age of saturated sand is the late Pleistocene (Q3) period or
before.
(ii) When the grain content of soil particle size >5 mm is 70%, it will not
liquefy. If this content is <70% and there is no other full discriminant
method, one may evaluate liquefaction performance according to soil particle
size <5 mm.
(iii) When the grain content of soil particle size <5 mm is >30%, among which if
the content of soil particle size <0.005 mm corresponding to seismic forti-
fication intensities VII, VIII and IX is not >16, 18 and 20%, respectively,
liquefaction cannot be determined.
(iv) After operation of the project, unsaturated soil above the groundwater level
will not liquefy.
(v) When the ground soil layer shear wave velocity is not greater than the upper
limit shear wave velocity, the ground soil will not liquefy.
(1) SPT test
SPT technology was a 1950s development, and it is convenient and widely used in
the United States and Japan. In China, it was implemented in the Huaihe River
recovery project by the Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute in the 1950s, and
considerable experience has been accumulated. It was popularized in the 1960s. For
liquefaction performance assessment, the SPT test can obtain the following infor-
mation on liquefiable sites.
(i) Evaluation of the physical conditions of foundation soil (e.g., stratigraphic
section and weak intercalated layer)
(ii) Evaluation of mechanical property parameters of foundation soil (e.g.,
deformation modulus and physical and mechanical parameters)
(iii) Calculation of the bearing capacity of natural foundations
(iv) Calculation of the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile and selection of
the bearing layer of pile tips
(v) Assessment of the liquefaction potential and grade of sandy and silty soils in
the field
(2) CPT test
CPT test technology originated in Sweden in 1917. Recently, this measuring and
testing technique has been listed as a state technological criterion in most design
144 7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction Damage …
codes, and it is widely used worldwide. The CPT test is mainly suitable for con-
ditions of cohesive soil, silt soil, and sandy soil with moderate density. For liq-
uefaction performance evaluation, the CPT can obtain the following information of
engineering fields.
(i)Classification of soil layers
(ii)Evaluation of the bearing capacity of foundation soil
(iii)Estimation of the physical and mechanical parameters of foundation soil
(iv) Selection of bearing strata of piles, estimation of bearing capacity of a single
pile, and determination of the possibility of pile sinking
(v) Evaluation of the liquefaction potential of engineering sites
(3) Wave velocity test
The wave velocity test is an in situ test method for determining the physical and
mechanical properties of soil and engineering indexes in light of the wave test,
which can indirectly determine the dynamic modulus and other parameters of rock
and soil mass under small strain according to the velocity of elastic waves in rock
and soil mass. The propagation velocity of a wave is an engineering character of
foundation soil under dynamic load, and is the main seismic parameter of engi-
neering structures. For liquefaction performance evaluation, the wave velocity test
can attain the following engineering field information.
(i) Classification of site category and calculation of the fundamental period at an
engineering site
(ii) Provision of the dynamic parameters of foundation soil for seismic response
analysis (e.g., dynamic shear modulus, damping ratio, and dynamic shear
stiffness)
(iii) Provision of the dynamic parameters of foundation soil for dynamic machine
foundation design (e.g., parameters of compression, shear, anti-torque,
damping and stiffness)
(iv) Determination of the liquefaction performance of foundation soil
(v) Classification of soil category and evaluation of the reinforcement effect of
the foundation soil.
As all the field test methods are described in detail in Chap. 3, this content will
not be presented in this chapter.
The dynamic triaxial test is the most common means for saturated sand soil seismic
liquefaction evaluation in the laboratory. It can determine cyclic liquefaction
resistance curves and time-history curves of stress, strain, and vibration pore water
pressure.
7.2 Comprehensive Evaluation Methods of Seismic Liquefaction Performance 145
Under earthquake action, periodic change shear stress appears in soil layers, i.e.,
earthquake shear stress. In sand or silt layers, the soil mass will undergo lique-
faction failure when the seismic shear stress exceeds the con-liquefaction shear
stress of the sand or silt soil. The seismic shear stress can be represented as the
equivalent average shear stress during the earthquake. Thus, the liquefaction
potential of the soil layers can be distinguished by the Seed–Idriss simplified
method based on the laboratory dynamic test.
The liquefaction evaluation method uses the comparison between the seismic
site shear stress and con-liquefaction shear stress as tested in a laboratory. During
an earthquake, the saturated sand or silt loses shear strength and the foundation
loses bearing capacity, resulting in saturated sand liquefaction. Comparison
between shear stress of the dynamic triaxial test and equivalent average shear stress
may be used for the evaluation of sand liquefaction potential. This method is
rigorous in theory and has several parameters with definite physical meaning.
Moreover, it has become the most common method for saturated sand in North
America and many countries.
The equivalent average shear stress and liquefaction shear stress equations are
respectively
P
ci h i
sc ¼ 0:65dz amax ð7:1Þ
g
rd
sd ¼ C r r0 ; ð7:2Þ
2rc Nf m
faction shear stress ratio of the soil layer as determined by the dynamic triaxial test;
Cr is a correction factor of the soil layer liquefaction shear stress; r0m is the effective
stress of overlying soil layer.
The saturated sand soil may be classified as liquefaction soil when it satisfies the
following condition:
sc [ sd ð7:3Þ
where M and C are the mass and damp matrices, respectively; f ðXÞ is the nonlinear
€ X_ and X are acceleration, velocity and displacement
restoring force vector; X,
vectors, respectively; I is the unit vector; €xg is the earthquake ground motion
process; H is a random vector. Obviously, only the randomness of seismic ground
motion is considered in this chapter.
The vector is composed by relevant physical quantities, which can be repre-
sented by
Z ¼ ðZ1 ; Z2 ; . . .; Zm ÞT ð7:5Þ
@pZH ðz; h; tÞ X m
@p ðz; h; tÞ
þ Z_ j ðh; tÞ ZH ¼0 ð7:6Þ
@t j¼1
@zj
in which z0 is the initial value of ZðtÞ and dðÞ is the Dirac function. The probability
density function pZ ðz; tÞ of ZðtÞ is given by
Z
pZ ðz; tÞ ¼ pZH ðz; h; tÞdh ð7:8Þ
XH
where UðtÞ is the zero-mean real stationary stochastic process and SU ðxÞ is its
power spectrum density function (PSDF). AðtÞ is a deterministic intensity envelope
function, written as
ht t id
AðtÞ ¼ exp 1 ; ð7:10Þ
c c
where c is the average time instant of the intensity decay of peak ground acceler-
ation (PGA), and d is the shape control parameter of AðtÞ. Here, c = 4 s and d = 1.
We used the Clough and Penzien acceleration power spectrum density:
where in the general soft soil engineering location (e.g., Shanghai), xg ¼ 3prad=s
and ng ¼ 0:9 are the site circle frequency and damping ratio. The secondary fil-
tering frequency parameter and damping ratio (xf ¼ 3prad=s and nf ¼ 0:9,
respectively) are used to simulate the low-frequency energy of earthquake ground
motion (Code for Seismic Design of Buildings 2010).
150 7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction Damage …
In Eq. (7.11), the perturbation factor of the bedrock white noise can be calcu-
lated according to
a2max
S0 ¼ ; ð7:13Þ
f 2 xe
where amax is the mean PGA of the seismic ground motion. According to
Eq. (7.11), the spectrum area xe ¼ 49:26rad/s is calculated when the perturbation
factor of the bedrock white noise S0 ¼ 1 and the peak factor f ¼ 3:1.
We now examine the validity of the above-proposed stochastic seismic ground
motion and seismic acceleration time history generation method. In the Shanghai
area, the duration of a strong earthquake T = 30 s was selected, based on seismic
design experience in choosing design seismic ground motion parameters at soft soil
sites. This duration is not fully established in the above process of artificially
generated ground motion; it can be altered based on different engineering structures
and seismic zoning requirements. With the same interval time, the number of
sampling points varies for different earthquake durations. This means that too long a
duration of ground motion will increase the calculation time of the dynamic time
history analysis. The intensity of non-stationary seismic ground motion proposed
was selected as an example for demonstration. In the first step, the standard
orthonormal basis function and autocorrelation function expressions were simul-
taneously used to calculate the autocorrelation matrix, and eigenvalues and corre-
sponding feature vectors were obtained. In the second step, the dispersed typical
sample point set fhn ¼ 0:025n 3:1625; n ¼ 1; 2; ; 987g of the random variable
H in domain [−1,1] was obtained along with the preset probability Pn ðn ¼
1; 2; ; 987Þ of every dispersed representative point hn . According to Eq. (7.11),
certain representative sample point sets of the normal orthogonal random variables
nj ð1; 2; ; NÞ were then obtained. Finally, a series of seismic ground motion time
history acceleration samples with corresponding probabilities were generated.
Typical acceleration samples are shown in Fig. 7.1.
Figure 7.2 shows a comparison of mean and standard deviation between
non-stationary intensity earthquake acceleration samples with a target power den-
sity spectrum.
There were 987 seismic acceleration time history samples obtained, and
ensemble-average second-order characteristics (mean and standard deviation) of the
representative samples and targets were virtually identical. This demonstrates the
validity and excellent performance of the orthogonal expansion method used to
generate the intensity of non-stationary seismic ground motion.
7.2 Comprehensive Evaluation Methods of Seismic Liquefaction Performance 151
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration(m/s 2)
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Combined with the PDEM and construction of equivalent extreme value event,
we determined the seismic dynamic reliability of the engineering structures.
0.5
Samples
0.25
Mean(m/s2)
Target
0
-0.25
-0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
0.8
Samples
0.6
Std.D(m/s )
Target
2
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Fig. 7.2 Characteristics of typical non-stationary seismic accelerations for sample ensembles and
targets
Performance verification
Assessment principles for performance:
Response value should not be higher than limit value
Res ≤ Lim
Res: response value
Lim: limit value Res Lim Value
Performance description
Principle: describing the performance of the earth and rockfill dam according to
the each performance assessment item. For example, the earth and rockfill dam
doesn't appear the phenomenon of water storage overflow and dam break, and the
dam keeps the function of float downstream.
Drainage wall
Silty clay 11.40m
Clay 9.00m
Fig. 7.4 Main cross section of earthen dam (reprinted from Huang and Xiong (2016) with
permission from John Wiley and Sons)
(1) Security evaluation of earthen dam seismic liquefaction based on PBSD criteria
with deterministic seismic ground motions
Based on the PBSD concept, the first step is to determine seismic fortification
levels. According to ICOLD Bulletin 72 (1989) and Specifications for Seismic
Design of Hydraulic Structures, the security evaluation of the earthen dam involves
two seismic design levels:
(I) Operation basic earthquake (OBE) with the following criteria
The OBE indicates that an earthquake is likely during the operational period, with a
return period of *145 years. The OBE is not related to dam safety but represents a
serviceability limit state and is basically an economic criterion, which is of major
interest to the dam owner. The performance requirement of the earthen dam is no
structural damage or only light earthquake damage, and if the dam meets the
requirement, it can continue normal operation. According to the performance
objective of Chinese design earthquakes, earthquake damage to the dam can be
repaired and water retention and storage are not limited.
The acceleration-time history of the OBE for the earthen dam is shown in
Fig. 7.5, according to Chinese seismic code (GB50011-2010) and field seismic risk
analysis. Based on PBSD, performance of the earthen dam during OBE loading is
quantified as dam crest permanent settlement. Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984)
7.3 Case Study 155
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
Acceleration(g)
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
0 5 10 15
Time(s)
indicated that earthen dams did not sustain damage (with respect to water tightness)
when this settlement was <1% of the maximum embankment height. This value can
be used as a plausible limit threshold to assess dam performance. Since 2004,
seismic evaluation standards have been implemented coercively in Switzerland,
where the allowable permanent deformation is 20 cm for shallow sliding and 50 cm
for deep sliding. In China, Shen et al. (1984) proposed a seismic permanent
deformation of 2% of the maximum height for 100-meter-tall earthen dams in the
8th Five-Year Plan. For seismic performance evaluation of the targeted earthen
dam, an allowable dam crest permanent settlement of 35 cm was chosen.
Seismic response of the earthen dam under the OBE was analyzed by FEM
software FLIP (Iai and Ichii 2010; Iai et al. 1990; Huang et al. 2015). The vertical
displacement time history of the dam crest is shown in Fig. 7.6. The maximum
seismic permanent settlement was 0.1730 m, less than the allowable limit dam crest
permanent settlement. Therefore, the dam satisfied the seismic performance target
of the OBE.
156 7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction Damage …
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
Displacement(m)
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
-0.18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Fig. 7.6 Vertical displacement time history of dam crest under OBE
0.15
0.1
0.05
Acceleration(g)
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 5 10 15
Time(s)
1x
Fs ¼ 100%; ð7:14Þ
x
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
Displacement(m)
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
-0.35
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Fig. 7.8 The vertical displacement-time history of the dam crest under the SEE
Seismic response of the earthen dam under the SEE was analyzed using the FLIP
software. The vertical displacement time history of the dam crest is shown in
Fig. 7.8. Maximum permanent settlement was 0.3997 m, less than the allowable
limit dam crest permanent settlement. Therefore, the dam satisfied the seismic
performance of the SEE. Moreover, according to the security grade classification of
the SEE, the dam is comparatively safe.
(2) Security evaluation of earthen dam seismic liquefaction based on PBSD and
reliability criteria
It is well known that earthquake ground motions have remarkable randomness, and
thus it is necessary to investigate the seismic performance of earthen and rockfill
dams from a stochastic perspective. Therefore, this section reports on a new attempt
to assess such performance based on PBSD and reliability criteria. The seismic
response analysis is based on the following two earthquake types.
7.3 Case Study 159
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Acceleration(m/s 2)
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
60
50
40
30
PDF
20
10
-10
0.1
6.5
6.4
0.05 6.3
S et 6.2
tlem
en t 6.1
( m) 0 6 s)
Tim e(
Fig. 7.10 Probability density evolution surface for settlement of earthen dam under OBE
It demonstrates that the PDF of settlement evolved with time and the settlement had
remarkable variability. The probability density evolution surface also shows that it
is necessary to analyze seismic response of the earthen dam.
Combined with the PDEM and equivalent extreme event, the cumulative dis-
tribution function (CDF) of permanent settlement is illustrated in Fig. 7.11.
According to the allowable limit permanent settlement of the OBE, the reliability of
the earthen dam is 0.9827. This clearly shows that the dam satisfies the seismic
performance for the OBE.
(II) SEE with following criteria
The stochastic seismic ground motion of the SEE was also generated by the
stochastic function. There were 987 acceleration time history samples in the
stochastic ground motion set of the SEE. A typical acceleration time history sample
curve is shown in Fig. 7.12.
7.3 Case Study 161
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Settlement(m)
Fig. 7.11 CDF for permanent settlement of earthen dam under OBE (reprinted from Huang and
Xiong (2016) with permission from John Wiley and Sons)
As above, deterministic responses were obtained by the FEM, and we let the
seismic motion be introduced in the PDEM equation as the velocity. By solving the
PDEM equation, the stochastic seismic response of the earthen dam under the SEE
was determined. The probability density function evolution surface is illustrated in
Fig. 7.13. It also shows the variability of seismic response of the dam under the
SEE. By constructing the equivalent extreme event with maximum permanent
settlement, the CDF is shown in Fig. 7.14. Thus, the reliability of the earthen dam
was determined. The reliability is 1.0 when the threshold of permanent settlement is
1 m, which is the height difference between the dam crest and normal pool level.
Therefore, per the safety grade, the dam is safe under the SEE.
162 7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction Damage …
1
Acceleration(m/s 2)
-1
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(s)
Fig. 7.12 The typical sample curve of the seismic ground motion of the SEE
7.4 Summary
25
20
15
PDF
10
0.2 6.5
0.15 6.4
0.1 6.3
Set 6.2
tlem 0.05
ent 6.1
(m) 0 6 s)
Tim e(
Fig. 7.13 The probability density evolution surface of the settlement of the earth dam under the
SEE
seismic performance of the dam under two design earthquake levels (OBE and
SEE) was determined. The stochastic dynamic method was also presented, and
seismic evaluation of the earthen dam was analyzed by PBSD and reliability
methods.
(3) In geotechnical problems, because of intrinsic and very complicated variabili-
ties of rock and soil material properties, earthquake ground motion appears
random. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze these problems based on
stochastic criteria. The stochastic seismic response and reliability analyses may
be regarded as a new approach to earthquake liquefaction damage evaluation.
164 7 Comprehensive Evaluation of Liquefaction Damage …
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Settlement(m)
Fig. 7.14 CDF of permanent settlement of earthen dam under SEE (reprinted from Huang and
Xiong (2016) with permission from John Wiley and Sons)
References
Huang, Y., Xiong, M., & Zhou, H. B. (2015). Ground seismic response analysis based on the
probability density evolution method. Engineering Geology, 198, 30–39.
Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., & Kameoka, T. (1990). Parameter identification for a cyclic mobility
model. Report of the Port and harbour Research Institute, 29(4), 57–83.
Iai, S., & Ichii, K. (2010). Soils and foundations during earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 50(6),
937–953.
Li, J., & Chen, J. B. (2008). The principle of preservation of probability and the generalized
density evolution equation. Structural Safety, 30(1), 65–77.
Li, J., & Chen, J. B. (2009). Stochastic dynamics of structures. Singapore: Wiley.
Liu, Z. J., Liu, W., & Peng, Y. B. (2016). Random function based spectral representation of
stationary and non-stationary stochastic processes. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 45,
115–126.
Liu, Z. J., & Zeng, B. (2014). Aseismatic design code of hydraulic structures-based probabilistic
model for non-stationary ground motion. China Civil Engineering Journal, S1 (in Chinese).
Priestley, M. J. N. (2000). Performance based seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering, 33(3), 325–346.
Shen, Z. J., Huang J. D., & Wang, Z. N. (1984). Analysis of liquefaction and deformation of
double earth dam during Tangshan Earthquake. Hydro-Science and Engineering, 1, 52–61.
Standard, C. (2001). Specifications for seismic design of hydraulic structures. Beijing: Chinese
Electric Power Press.
Seismic ground motion parameter zonation map of China. (GB18306-2001). General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic
of China (in Chinese).
Wieland, M., & Brenner, R. P. (2008). Current seismic safety requirements for large dams and
their implication on existing dams. Proceedings International Symposium on Operation,
Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Dams, 76th Annual ICOLD Meeting (pp. 1–10). Bulgaria:
Sofia.