Insight into the effect of fine content on liquefaction behavior of soil

Sufyan Ghani1 and Sunita Kumari2

1
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Patna
Bihar -800005, India, E-mail Id-sufyan04@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Patna
Bihar-800005, India, E-mail Id-sunitafce@gmail.com

Abstract

The present paper presents different approaches which includes plasticity based criteria that
helps in distinguish between liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils deposits having fine content. A
brief review of the previous work has been mentioned to emphasise on the need of new
parameters for liquefaction susceptibility of clayey soils. Clay content, liquid limit and water
content are considered as key parameters that helps in liquefaction assessment. Several
recommendations proposed by prominent researchers are described here to present wide range of
plasticity index, liquid limit and other parameters that affects liquefaction behaviour of clayey
soil significantly.But the differences in the range of plasticity index leads to confusion and
misperception in determination of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil. One of the high
seismic zone site is analyzed using different approach which consider fine content of soil mass. It
is found that for a better and proper segregation of the layers Bray and Sancio criteria may be
adopted which uses plasticity as one of its input parameter and clearly differentiate site in
between liquefiable, non-liquefiable and sites that may liquefy i.e. moderately liquefiable. This
summarizes that plasticity is one of the significant criteria which draws a clear differentiating
line between liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil deposits.

Key Words: Liquefaction, Plasticity Index, Plasticity Limit, Liquid Limit, Fine Content

INTRODUCTION

Liquefaction is one of the most discussed topics in geotechnical engineering associated with the
failure of earth structures. Soil deformation caused by monotonic, transient and repeated
disturbance of saturated soils under undrained condition leads to the generation of excess pore-
water pressure and loss of strength which is major criteria for the occurrence of liquefaction
phenomenon. The failure behaviour is broadly divided into two category; flow liquefaction and
cyclic mobility. Flow liquefaction leads to huge instabilities and deformations which are driven
by cyclic shear stresses. On the other hand, cyclic mobility is another phenomenon that causes
large deformations known as lateral spreading, but in comparison to flow liquefaction
deformation produced by cyclic mobility is driven by both cyclic and static shear stresses.
Accordingly, the available literature is discussed separately in two major approaches in the
subsequent sections. These are further divided into sub-groups on the basis of adopted
methodology.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Liquefaction frequently occurs in saturated loose sand during application of dynamic and seismic
loads. After the occurrence of Alaska and Niigata earthquakes (1964), Seed and Lee (1966),
Seed and Idriss (1971) developed a methodology known as 'Simplified Approach' for assessing
liquefaction potential of cohesionless soil during an earthquake which uses laboratory data of
cyclic triaxial loading tests. This method takes into consideration of soil type, relative density,
initial confining pressure, intensity and duration of ground shaking. This simplified procedure
has been modified and updated by various researchers. Seed (1979) made an attempt to develop
correlations between liquefaction potential and standard penetration resistance (SPT). These
SPT (N values) obtained in the field need to be corrected for accounting the effect of overburden
pressure. Seed et al. (1983) established a criterion for assessing the liquefaction potential of
sandy soils from interpretation of field data for different sites with their known status as liquefied
or not liquefied in respective earthquakes in the different countries. The results of this study are
then extended to other magnitude earthquakes incorporating the magnitude scaling factor in
evaluation for cyclic stress ratio (CSR) induced by an earthquake at a given depth. Later several
researchers proposed different empirical methods based on field tests such as Standard
Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration Test (CPT), Becker Penetration Test (BPT), Shear
wave velocity results.Idriss sand Boulanger (2006) recommended revised semi-empirical
procedures for accessing the liquefaction potential of saturated sands. Revised SPT and CPT
based liquefaction correlations were recommended for use in practice after re-evaluations of key
parameters such as the stress reduction factor (rd), earthquake magnitude scaling factor for cyclic
stress ratios, overburden correction factor for cyclic stress ratios (Ks), and the overburden
correction factor for penetration resistances (CN). Bilsel et. al. (2010) carried out case study for
determination of factor of safety against liquefaction based on CPT, SPT and undrained shear
strength (Su) of alluvial soils of Tuzla. For sandy soils, the procedure was followed using
normalized CPT tip resistance and corrected SPT blow counts, along with the percentage of fine
contents (%). The factor of safety indicates a high potential for liquefaction in the region. In fine-
grained soils, however the factor of safety was determined based on Su values obtained from
unconsolidated undrained triaxial test. The soft clays in the proposed study area have high
sensitivity which concluded that the cyclic disturbance can cause a significant loss in shear
strength for soils with high sensitivity. Lately, it was observed that the addition of fine content in
cohesionless soil will affect the liquefaction behaviour under monotonic as well as cyclic
loading.
Krim et al. (2019) studied the influence of clay content and grading characteristics on the
liquefaction resistance of sand–clay mixtures using triaxial tests performed on reformed sand–
clay mixtures varying clay content. The liquefaction resistance is found to be reduced with
increase in clay content. It was also concluded that liquefaction resistance may be controlled
byvarying percentage of clay fraction as well as grading characteristics of the sample. Dash et al.
(2010) studied the effect of non-plastic fines on the behavior of silty sand subjected to cyclic
loading. The results obtained from experimental investigation concludes that nature of soil
deposits plays an important role in defining the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and pore water
pressure generation which occurs during earthquake. Dash and Sitharam (2010) carried a
detailed study on the effects of non-plastic fines on undrained monotonic behaviour of saturated
and isotopically consolidated sand–silt mixtures prepared at different density through various
approaches namely gross void ratio approach, relative density approach, sand skeleton void ratio
approach, and inter-fine void ratio approach. The results concluded that limiting silt content and
the relative density of a specimen were found to influence the undrained monotonic response of
sand–silt mixtures to a great extent whereas undrained monotonic response was found to be
independent of silt content at very high relative densities; however the presence of fines
significantly influenced this response in case loose and medium dense samples.

Even observations made during numerous earthquakes show proof of liquefaction in silts and
clayey soil of low plasticity as well. These type of soil dilate extensively throughout shearing.
Once liquefaction starts, the soil subjected to cyclic loading may undergo a temporary shear
strength loss instead of a permanent loss i.e., cyclic mobility with limited flow deformation
(Bray and Sancio 2006). Therefore, the response of soil deposit in seismic condition is less likely
to cause large deformations unlike lateral spreading which are mostly found in saturated and
loose sands due to liquefaction.Therefore, liquefaction and cyclic mobility of fine grained soils
must be studied thoroughly. Wang (1979) had discussed Chinese Criteria which was initially
recommended for seismic design of hydraulic structures which directed that liquefaction can
occur during a strong seismic motion in any silty soil. However, this criteria did not include the
soil with low plasticity. Koester(1992) later suggested appropriate changes into this criteria
because liquid limit (LL) determined using the Casagrande's cup (United States Practice) was 4
points less than liquid limit evaluated using Fall cone device (Chinese practice). Seed and Idriss
(1982) re-evaluated Wang (1979) theory and suggested criteria based on liquid limit and water
content. Earthquake occurred during Northridge (1994), Kocaeli (1999) and Chi-Chi (1999)
revealed that fine-grained soil deposits which liquefied under the seismic condition did not
fulfilled the clay-size criterion as stated in Chinese criteria, yet these site underwent liquefaction.
This raised the question on the reliability of Chinese criteria. The reason behind this
contradiction directed to modify the method of determination of soil index such as liquid limit
which is different from American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International’s
procedure. Finn (1991) suggested scaling in Chinese criteria in accordance with United States
(US) practice. It was suggested that fines content should be decrease by 5% whereas liquid limit
and water content should be increased by 1% and 2% respectively. Ishihara (1993) suggested
that cyclic shear strength of the soil will increases if the Plasticity Index (PI) of the fines is
greater than 10. This would lead to increase in factor of safety against liquefaction and thus
decrease the settlement caused during earthquake. Andrews and Martin (2000) reviewed the
empirical approach and suggested a new assessment index. This index transformed the
conventional Chinese Criteria according to US standards which was renamed as Modified
Chinese Criteria. The major difference proposed in this modified criteria as compared to the
original Chinese Criteria was that 0.0002 mm particle size was used as the limit in between clay
and silt particles. Also, Casagrande’s Apparatus should be used for obtaining liquid limit. It was
also concluded that soils of 2 µm size having percentage finer less than 10% and LL< 32%,were
susceptible to liquefaction whereas the soils having ≥10% finer than 2µm and LL≥32% were not
susceptible to liquefaction. Still no reliable and accurate standards are available for consideration
of fine content in evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. Observation made in past earthquake
depicts that the use of clay-size particle percentage for the evaluation of liquefaction
susceptibility is misleading. Even Chinese criteria was found out to be unreliable. The major
shortcoming of the "Chinese Criteria" is that the liquefaction potential is not associated with the
intensity of shaking. Based on "Chinese Criteria", any soil meeting the mentioned criteria should
be considered susceptible to liquefaction, irrespective of the level of shaking, which was later
contradicted by many researchers. Zhou (1987) proposed the relation between intensity of
earthquake and clay percentage causing liquefaction. It was suggested that liquefaction will not
occur if the clay content (Pc) in a soil is more than the critical percentage (Pc*). The relation in
between critical clay percentage (Pc*) and intensity of earthquake (I) are defined in Table 1.

Table 1: Critical clay percentage (Pc*) verses intensity of earthquake (I)

Intensity of Earthquake
Critical clay percentage [Pc*]
(I)
7 10%

8 13%

9 16%

Umar et al. (2018) concluded that earthquake magnitude plays very important role for the
assessment of liquefaction, irrespective of soil type and water table of the site using deterministic
and probabilistic approach.
Studies carried out in early 1980’s at University of Missouri–Rolla (UMR) (now Missouri
University of Science & Technology) also acknowledges the effect of plasticity of soil on the
liquefaction of silts based laboratory test data. It was observed that the cyclic stress ratio(CSR)
causing liquefaction decreases with the increase in plasticity index.
Puri (1984) found that introduction of clay or plasticity to the silt increases the resistance of soil
mass against liquefaction. Ishihara and Koseki (1989) recommended that low plasticity fines
(PI< 4) has no influence the liquefaction potential. However, the effect of the void ratio was not
considered in their analysis. Later, Sandoval (1989), Prakash and Sandoval (1992) demonstrated
that the liquefaction resistance of silt decreases with increase in plasticity when plasticity index
(PI) falls in the range of 2%-4%.Guo and Prakash (2000) also studied liquefaction behavior of
silt-clay mixture based on established liquefaction behavior and it's dependency on Plasticity
index. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that there is a critical value of plasticity index
below which the cyclic stress ratio decreases. As the plasticity index increases, soil becomes less
liquefiable and beyond certain critical value, the cyclic stress ratio increases. In this study, the
critical value of plasticity index was found to be probably in between 4% and 5%.Therefore, it
was concluded that with the increase in plasticity index, the liquefaction resistance of silt-clay
mixtures decreases in the low range of plasticity whereas, in high plasticity range, the
liquefaction resistance increases. Prakash et al. (1998) concluded that void ratio (e) is also a
significant parameter for silty soil whereas fabric and plasticity of fines become important
parameters in case of cohesive soils. Youd (1998) recommended that natural soil deposits which
have a "C" descriptor (e.g. CH, CL, SC, and GC) may be grouped as non-liquefiable. It was also
stated that fine-grained soils which are possibly susceptible to liquefaction should have LL< 35%
and area below the A-line plot or may have PI<7. Ishihara (1996) recommended the cyclic
strength does not change much for low plasticity range i.e. plasticity index (PI = 10), but
increases thereafter with increasing PI. Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of
liquefaction potential of the soil. In his understanding, soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be
considered as non-liquefiable as compared to the deformation and strain caused under flow
liquefaction. Based on series of Cyclic Triaxial Test and considering different geotechnical
properties like plasticity, water content, clay content, mean grain size, relative density and void
ratio, a clear demarcation line was suggested in between flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.
Seed et al. (2001) recommended that soils liquid limit as well as plasticity index differentiates
susceptible soil to those who falling in "uncertain range". Soil samples that lies in uncertain
zones of the plasticity chart should be carried for laboratory testing. Seed et al. (2003) proposed
Zone based liquefaction susceptibility criteria based on the Atterberg’s limits chart. Boulanger
and Idriss (2004) suggested that susceptibility of liquefaction failure of silts and clays should be
separated into two categories. PI was used to distinguish in between these two categories. The
test results indicated that clay-size particles in the soil does not outlines a soil’s susceptibility to
liquefaction rather it was the percent of active clay minerals present in the soils. Also, the use of
liquid limit criteria as an absolute standard is not appropriate, rather the ratio of water content
and liquid limit (wc/LL) criteria seems more reliable. Bray et al. (2004), Bray and Sancio (2006)
performed series of cyclic triaxial test (CTX) and cyclic simple shear test (CSS) on the sample
obtained from the city in Adapazari and concluded that age of the soil and plasticity index are
one of the contributing factors in evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. Non-plastic silt and
clayey silt with low plasticity and high water content were susceptible to liquefaction under
cyclic loading whereas clayey silt and silty clay with medium plasticity are more resistant to
liquefaction i.e. it can liquefy under cyclic loading with high intensity. Clay with PI>18 were
found to be more resistant to liquefaction . Gratchev et al. (2006) inspected the validity of using
PI as screening parameter that was based on the results obtained from undrained cyclic stress-
controlled ring-shear tests. It was concluded that liquefaction potential of soil decreases when PI
of soil specimen is increased whereas liquefaction was not triggered for soil having PI> 15.Park
and Kim (2013) carried out a series of undrained cyclic triaxial tests on loose, medium, and
dense specimens. Plastic silt and clay were mixed with clean sand having grain size which ranges
from 2 mm to 0.075 mm. These fine content have different plasticity index (PI) i.e. silt (PI = 8),
kaolinite (PI = 18), bentonite and silt mixture (PI = 50), bentonite (PI = 377). It was found that
liquefaction resistance tend to decrease when PI of soil having 10% fines used in the specimens
is increased. Resistance to liquefaction of loose specimens were affected with variation in
plasticity of fines. In the case of dense specimens, resistance to liquefaction decreased up to 40%
with increase in PI. It was concluded that even a low fraction of plastic fines had a significant
effect on the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Marto et.al (2015) studied the effect of PI on
liquefaction susceptibility of sand and fine mixtures and suggested that the use of clay fraction as
one of the evaluating criteria for liquefaction susceptibility was questionable and therefore PI
should be used in place of clay fraction as a controlling parameter based on the experimental
studies. It was observed that resistance to liquefaction of the sand-fines mixtures increases as the
PI increases. This concludes that PI is a better indicator for liquefaction susceptibility of sand-
fines mixtures as compared to clay content, plastic limit (PL) and activity of the soil. Prakash and
Puri (2010) reviewed literature which was based on the experimental evidence on liquefaction of
soils with fines and concluded that silts and clays can also liquefy under certain situations. PI
was found better criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of silts and clays. Contrary to the
conclusions made above Wijewickreme and Sanin (2004) and Wijewickreme et al. (2005)
reported that Fraser River Delta silt (PI=5) and fine-grained mine tailings (0<PI>12) underwent
liquefaction even though the criteria stated above directed that the soils tested had low
liquefaction potential.
Paydar and Ahmadi (2016) carried out cyclic triaxial and bender element tests to examine the
effect of fine content and its classification. Cyclic Liquefaction Resistance Ratio (CRR) and
Shear wave velocity (Vs) was evaluated for sand samples containing 5% and 15% fines with
different plasticity. It was observed that small-strain shear modulus (Go) and CRR reduces with
the addition of small amounts of fines to the sand and hence it was concluded that the use of
plasticity index (PI) of the fines fraction is better than the PI of the overall soil, this laid down
the conclusion that fine content and its classification in sand–fines mixture are two important
elements that strongly affect the resistance to liquefaction. Akhila et al. (2019) studied the effect
of cyclic load amplitude levels, over-consolidation, and cycles of preloading of non-plastic fines
on liquefaction resistance of fine sands and recommended that, at constant relative density, the
liquefaction resistance of fine sand decreases with the addition of non-plastic fines up to 40% as
well as the liquefaction resistance of sand was increased significantly with an increase in cycles
of preloading and over-consolidation pressures. Based on the literature, it is found that
interdependency exists in between plasticity and cyclic strength of soil which gives rise to the
use of plasticity index as a key criteria for the evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of soil.
Plasticity of the soil can be computed either in terms of the liquid limit or plasticity index. These
criteria are used to differentiate soils form being non-liquefiable to being susceptible to
liquefaction.
It was generally believed that presence of fine helps in resisting liquefaction susceptibility. But
this believed changed when large scale failure was seen in fine-soil deposits during seismic
excitation (Bhuj earthquake, 2001). Thus, the response of fine-soil deposits under dynamic
loading became an important field of study and research. Therefore a reliable and proper method
for the assessment of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil considering plasticity is
required.

IMPORTANT FINDINGS AND GAPS

Initially liquefaction was analyzed considering cohesionless soil but many incidents indicated
that liquefaction was also observed in silty sand or silty clay type of soil. It was also observed
that based upon the seismic and environmental factors almost all soils including sands, silts,
clays, and gravels and their mixtures can liquefy. From the study, it was observed that soil with
higher level of plasticity were found to undergo different kind of deformation under cyclic
loading as compared to those having lower levels of plasticity. Cyclic mobility form of failure
was observed in soils with higher levels of plasticity and on the other hand soils with lower
levels of plasticity exhibited criteria of flow liquefaction.
Based on the literature review, major criteria which were applied to the study liquefaction
susceptibility considering fine content are Boulanger & Idriss (2006), Chinese Criteria, Andrew
and Martin (2000) criteria, Polito (2001) criteria, Seed et. al (2003) criteria, Bray et al (2004)
criteria and Bray and Sancio (2006). The major highlights and key parameters of these criteria
area as follows:

Boulanger & Idriss (2006)

Boulanger & Idriss classified soils as “sand-like” and “clay-like” based on their plasticity index
(PI), with a transition zone in between these two categories. The primary purpose for this was to
define a classification scheme for determining appropriate testing procedures for evaluating
cyclic strength. It was concluded that simplified procedure are suitable for soils that are
classified as “sand-like,” for evaluating their liquefaction potential whereas soils classified as
“clay-like” should be evaluated using laboratory tests. The simplified procedures for evaluating
the cyclic strength of sandy soil deposit has been used to determine factor of safety and conclude
its liquefaction susceptibility.

Equations used to determine cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and
corresponding factor of safety (FOS) has been listed below:

σ vc
CSR=0 . 65 a max r
σ ' vc d (1)

(CRR ) M  (CRR ) M  7.5 MSF (2)

(CRR ) M
FOS 
(CSR ) M
(3)

In which,
a max = peak ground acceleration
σ VC = total vertical stress

σ 'VC
= effective vertical consolidation stress
 r d=
Stress reduction coefficient

MSF = Magnitude Scaling factor

Chinese Criteria (1979)

Wang (1979) noted the incidence of liquefaction in silty sand to slightly sandy silt soils during
Haicheng earthquake, 1975 and Tangshan earthquake, 1976, and proposed a criteria which was
known as Chinese criteria (1979) which stated that a fine-grained soil is considered to be
susceptible to liquefaction, when all of the following four criteria are satisfied:

 Liquid Limit < 35%

 Liquidity Index > 0.75

 Natural Water Content > 0.9 x Liquid Limit

 Percent Passing 0.005 mm Sieve Size < 15%

The Liquid Limit of a soil is an indirect measure of the water content or void ratio (density) that
corresponds to a specified undrained shear strength of 2 kPa to 2.5 kPa, while the Liquidity
Index is an indirect measure of the sensitivity of the soil. The first three criteria identifies weak
sensitive fine-grained soils whereas fourth criterion, which is a measure of the clay content of the
soil, eradicates the medium to high plastic soils that will not undergo volume change during the
application of cyclic loads. As Chinese criteria is exclusively based on index properties and grain
size data it can be concluded that it is independent of the intensity and duration of the applied
loads.

Andrew and Martin (2000) criteria

Andrew and Martin (2000) studied the criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. They observed that
silty soils are often encountered in engineering practices, and there is plenty of evidence that
shows they can be susceptible to liquefaction. But most of the liquefaction studies have been
focused on clean sands and very little liquefaction research has been commenced on soils that
ranges between silty sand to silt with or without the presence of clay content. So they promoted a
simple criteria based on “key” soil parameters that helps to differentiate between liquefiable and
non-liquefiable silty soils based on extensive literature review. Based on the criteria outlined by
Seed et al. (1983) concluded from case histories in China, served as a base for dividing clayey
soils susceptible to strength loss due earthquake shaking. The properties of this soil are tabulated
in table. 2. In this paper they only considered clay content and liquid limit areas key soil
parameters to differentiate between silty soils susceptible to liquefaction and non-susceptible to
liquefaction. Water content was not considered in the assessment of liquefaction potential due to
its tendency to fluctuate which is mostly caused by environmental dynamics and errors during
soil sampling. A clear discrimination in between Seed et al. (1983) and Andrew and Martin
(2000) criteria is described in table 2.

Table 2- Evaluation criteria as per Seed et al. (1983) versus Andrew and Martin (2000)

Seed et al.(1983) criteria Modified by Andrew and Martin (2000)

Clay Content (defined as % finer than Soils having finer than 2 µm and
0.005mm) <15% LL<32% are susceptible to liquefaction
Liquid Limit <35 Soils having ≥10% finer than 2µm
Water Content >0.9 x Liquid Limit andLL≥32% were not susceptible to
liquefaction.

Polito (2001) criteria

Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of liquefaction potential of the soil. A series
of cyclic triaxial test were carried out in order to understand the effects of the amount and the
plasticity of those fines have upon the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Sixteen
combinations of kaolinite, bentonite and non-plastic silt were mixed with a medium to fine sand,
with fines contents varying from 4% to 37%, and clay contents varying from 2% to 37%. All
soils were tested at relative density of approximately 25%.He studied various geotechnical
properties like plasticity, water content, clay content, mean grain size, relative density and void
ratio and suggested that the implication which can be drawn from the study was that the
parameter which constantly separates soils susceptible to flow liquefaction and soil susceptible to
cyclic mobility is soil plasticity. Whether the plasticity is calculated in terms of plasticity index
or liquid limit, soils that met threshold level of plasticity tend to be safe from flow liquefaction
failure. In his understanding, soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be considered as non-
liquefiable as compared to the deformation and strain caused under flow liquefaction. Based on
his findings a clear demarcation line was suggested in between flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility.
Seed et. al (2003) criteria

Seed et al. (2003) suggested an assessment chart to combine Modified Chinese Criteria with
effects of fines contents. In other words, he proposed Zone based liquefaction susceptibility
criteria based on the Atterberg’s limits chart. The soils positioned in Zone A are susceptible to
liquefaction while soils within Zone B are potentially susceptible to liquefaction. The soils which
falls out of Zone A and Zone B are considered as non-liquefiable. Soils which have PI≤12 and
LL≤37 are potentially susceptible to liquefaction if the water content is greater than 80% of the
LL and were placed in Zone A whereas soils which have PI≤20 and LL≤47 are potentially
liquefiable if the water content is greater than 85% of the LL belonged to Zone B, and soils with
PI>20 and LL>47 are generally non susceptible to liquefaction where represented by Zone C.

Bray et. al (2004) criteria

Bray et al. (2004) carried out a series of 100 cyclic triaxial tests, 19 static strength tests, 24
consolidation tests and several soil index tests such as water content, Atterberg’s limits, and
hydrometer on undisturbed soil specimens which were recovered from 7 different sites
throughout the city. After the liquefaction tests, reconsolidation tests were performed. During the
course of the study, it was observed that the soil’s in situ penetration resistance was a suitable
parameter to determine the condition of the soil. Soil’s normalized Standard Penetration Test
(N1)60 value when combined with its plasticity index proved to be a good indicator of the cyclic
strength of soils. The results obtained from the tests were divided in two categories, one with
soils having PI  12 and the other with soils having 12 <PI< 20. It was concluded that a soil with
wc/LL≥ 0.85 and PI 12 is susceptible to liquefaction. Soils with 12 <PI> 20 and wc/LL 0.8 may
be moderately susceptible to liquefaction. Soils with PI> 20 are considered too clayey to liquefy.
However, structures founded on these soils may undergo significant deformations if the cyclic
load exceeds the dynamic strength of the soil.

Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria

Bray and Sancio (2006) performed 100 cyclic triaxial test (CTX), 10 cyclic simple shear tests
(CSS), 19 anisotropically consolidated monotonic triaxial compression tests, 24 consolidation
tests and various soil index tests such as water content, Atterberg’s limits, sieve and hydrometer
analysis on undisturbed soil specimens which were recovered from seven different sites in
Adapazari. The results obtained from the cyclic testing concluded that age of the soil and
plasticity index are one of the contributing factors in evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility.
Non-plastic silt and clayey silt with low plasticity (PI<12) and high water content (wc/LL>0.85)
are susceptible to liquefaction under cyclic loading. Clayey silt and silty clay with medium
plasticity (12<PI<18) & (wc/LL>0.8) are more resistant to liquefaction i.e. it can liquefy under
cyclic loading with high intensity. Clay with PI >18 looses strength due to earthquake straining,
when tested under low effective confining stress i.e. more resistant to liquefaction.
Table 3 presents most of the significant Plasticity based liquefaction criteria which uses limiting
value for different parameters in evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of soil having fine
content.

Table 3 Plasticity based liquefaction criteria

Author Plasticity based Liquefaction Criteria

Ishihara and Koseki (1989) PI<4% do not influence the liquefaction potential
2 <PI> 4% the liquefaction resistance of silt decreases
Prakash and Sandoval (1992)
with increasing plasticity.
Fine-grained soils with PI< 7, LL< 35 and plot below the
Youd (1998)
A-line are susceptible to liquefaction.
LL<25% and PI< 7% - susceptible to liquefaction
LL> 35% and PI>10% -non-susceptible to liquefaction
Polito (2001)
25% <LL< 35% and 7% <PI< 10% - potentially
liquefiable.
LL< 30 and PI< 10 - susceptible to liquefaction
Seed et al. (2001) 30 <LL< 40 and 10 <PI< 12 -uncertain range of
liquefaction susceptibility.
LL≤37 and PI≤12 -susceptible to liquefaction if the
water content is greater than 80% of the LL.
Seed et al. (2003) LL≤47 and PI≤ 20 - potentially liquefiable if the water
content is greater than 85% of the LL.
LL>47 and PI>20 - non susceptible to liquefaction. 
PI<7 - susceptible to liquefaction
Boulanger and Idriss (2004)
PI⩾7 - undergo cyclic mobility.
Bray et al. (2004) PI≤ 12 and wc/LL> 0.85 - susceptible to liquefaction

Bray and Sancio (2006)
Gratchev et al. (2006)
12 <PI< 20 and wc/LL> 0.8- resistant to liquefaction
PI> 20 are non-liquefiable
PI< 12 – liquefaction will occur
PI>18-resistant to liquefaction
PI> 15- Non liquefiable

Based on the literature reviewed, it was observed that there are numerous gaps in the present
literature and there are no certain guideline available to determine liquefaction potential of fine
soils based on a simple field/laboratory test as available in the case of sands. These
recommendations and gaps are described below:
 The reliability of Chinese criteria has been questioned in the past because many
earthquakes data analysis have proved that the parameters taken into consideration for the
evaluation of liquefaction is not sufficient and reliable.
 The major shortcoming of the "Chinese Criteria" is that the liquefaction potential is not
associated with the intensity of shaking. Based on "Chinese Criteria", any soil meeting
the mentioned criteria should be considered susceptible to liquefaction, irrespective of the
level of shaking.
 Further, the proposal of determining liquefaction susceptibility based on particle size
came into practice [Seed and Idriss (1982) and Andrew and Martin (2000)] but this was
also proved wrong for Kocaeli earthquake, 1999 liquefaction analysis.
 Also, no CPT or SPT based methods are available to estimate ground settlements and
lateral displacements of soils with consideration of fine contents.
 The need of a better and more reliable parameter in the assessment of liquefaction
susceptibility came into light as the conventional methods of liquefaction susceptibility
went unattended after past earthquakes.
 Cyclic failure of fine-grained soils, silts and clays, were also studied based on index-
properties of liquid limit, plasticity index, clay fraction, and natural water content etc. and
amongst all the above mentioned criteria, only soil plasticity is able to satisfy the validity
of Chinese criteria based upon the experimental results.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The data obtained from an investigation site, Darbhanga, Bihar (India) is used to analyze the
liquefaction behavior of soil deposits having clay particles. The selected site lies in seismic Zone
V based on the vulnerability atlas of India, BMTPC (Building Materials and Technology
Promotion Council). Alluvium soil deposits are usually found in this region (Khadar soil) which
are dark brown in color and are very fertile for agriculture. The data obtained were precisely
studied and were analyzed using three criteria’s mainly, Boulanger & Idriss (2006) criteria,
Chinese Criteria and Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria.

Boulanger and Idriss (2006) gave a relation for determining the liquefaction potential of
cohesionless soil on the basis of the value of evaluated factor of safety (FOS). The value of FOS
describes the liquefaction potential of soil deposits. For FOS < 1, soil is termed as liquefiable
whereas for soil deposit having FOS ≥ 1, the soil is said to be non-liquefiable. When the
concerned soil deposit was analyzed using Boulanger and Idriss criteria factor of safety was
observed to be less than 1, which signifies that the proposed soil deposit is liquefiable. Fig. 1
shows the trend of factor of safety verses normalized depth (z/zc), where z is the depth (m) and zc
is the critical depth. The critical depth is taken as zc= 15 m. Generally, it is found that chances of
liquefaction is less beyond 15 m due to existence of overburden pressure.

Boulanger and Idriss criteria indicates that the soil deposit is liquefiable and respective measures
should be adopted for construction on such soils. The input parameters were, bulk density of the
soil, water content, and N value obtained from the SPT test results. There was no provision for
considering plasticity, liquid limit or grain size of the soil deposits in the evaluation of FOS.
Although, these parameters have major contribution in determining liquefaction susceptibility of
any soil deposits which have been discussed above. Fig. 2 describes the estimation of
liquefaction potential based on Wang (1979). The section above the plotted line in Fig. 2
represents non-liquefiable zone whereas section below this line is potentially liquefiable. The
input parameters such as liquid limit (LL) and saturated water content that has been used to
determine the liquefaction potential of the desired soil deposit. Fig. 2 reveals that the soil deposit
considered for this analysis is lying in both the regions. Majorly all the points are very close to
the differentiating line. A totally different indication of liquefaction susceptibility is observed as
compared to Boulanger and Idriss criteria.
 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
0

0.2

0.4
Z\Zc

0.6

0.8

FOS

Fig: 1- Factor of safety verses normalized depth (z/zc),

60

50
Non-Liquefiable Zone
40
Liquid Limit (LL)

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80
Saturated Water Content (%)

Fig: 2- Assessment of liquefaction using Chinese Criteria

It is found that all the layers are liquefiable considering Boulanger and Idriss criteria whereas
Wang criteria indicates that some of the layers are non-liquefiable. Thus, soil plasticity is one of
the major governing criteria which distinguishes liquefiable soil from the non-liquefiable ones.
Also, fig. 3 presents liquefaction susceptibility based on Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria. This
criteria uses plasticity index (PI) and ratio of water content to liquid limit (wc/LL) as input
parameter to distinguish liquefaction susceptibility in three zones, susceptible, non-susceptible
and an intermediate zone i.e. moderately susceptible. Mostly all the point lies in susceptible zone
whereas couple of sites falling in the intermediate zone and only one site clearly depicts that it is
a non-susceptible zone. Fig. 3 clearly distinguishes the soil in the respective three zones as
compared to the above mentioned two criteria. Considering PI as one of the parameters has given
a clear demarcation of the proposed soil deposit for determining their liquefaction potential.
Generally, the presence of plastic fines tend to increase the liquefaction resistance of a soil due to
dilitative nature of clayey soil.

50

40
Plasticity Index

30

20

10

0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
wc/LL

Fig. 3 Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria as per Bray and Sancio (2006)

Table 4 provides the cumulative data obtained from the above three analysis, and clearly
concludes that plasticity is a better governing criteria for evaluation liquefaction potential of soil
deposits having clay content. Table 4 demonstrates that Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria is
showing better presentation because parameters like plasticity index (PI) and wc/LL are better
indicators than the particle size distribution, in assessing liquefaction susceptibility or cyclic
failure of fine-grained soils.
 Table 4 Liquefaction susceptibility based on three approaches
Dept
Plasticity Index Boulanger and Chinese Criteria Bray and Sancio
h
(PI) Idriss (2006) (1979) (2006)
(m)

1.5 10.3 L NL ML
3.0 7.8 L L L
4.5 4.5 L L L
6.0 8.2 L NL L
7.5 13.2 L NL NL
9.0 11.1 L NL ML
10.5 9.6 L NL L
12.0 7 L L L
13.5 4.7 L L L
15.0 6.5 L L L

L: Indicate Liquefiable layer

ML: Indicates moderately liquefiable

NL: Indicates Non-Liquefiable layers

From the above analysis, it can be clearly suggested that without considering plasticity the site
considered for study is completely liquefiable as suggested by Boulanger and Idriss (2006).
Afterwards, Chinese criteria (1979) was introduced and the proposed site tends to show some of
the non-liquefiable layers based on grain size and liquid limit, but still no clear demarcation was
obtained as all the non-liquefiable as well as liquefiable layers lied very close to the boundary
line. So for a better and proper segregation of the layers, Bray and Sancio criteria (2006) was
adopted which uses plasticity as one of its input parameter and clearly differentiate site between
liquefiable, non-liquefiable and sites that may liquefy i.e. moderately liquefiable. This
summarizes that plasticity is one of the significant criteria which draws a clear differentiating
line between liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil deposits.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Plasticity based liquefaction assessment is one of most recent and so far reliable methods
adopted by various researchers for fine grained soil and is a major highlight of this paper.
Plasticity Index plays a key parameter in evaluation of liquefaction of cohesive soil. It was also
suggested that loose and saturated silt and clay are susceptible to liquefaction but the results of
liquefaction may be different from those seen in loose and saturated sand as low plasticity silt
dilates significantly during shear once liquefaction has started, they undergo temporary loss of
shear strength (cyclic mobility with limited flow deformation) hence their behavior during
seismic loading will not cause large (unlimited) deformation as found in saturated loose sand
when liquefied. Evaluation of liquefaction considering cohesionless soil gives a conservative
response of soil profile. Therefore, plasticity based liquefaction criteria will provide a better
means to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility of soils. Based on the above studies, it is also
clear that liquefaction susceptibility is dependent on many factors like earthquake intensity, type
of soil, plastic limit, liquid limit, particle size etc, and therefore it was concluded that, a
combination of liquid limit (LL) along with plasticity index (PI) may be a better indicator than
using clay content.

Different researcher had defined a wide range of plasticity index along with some of the other
soil parameters. It has been observed that if PI is less than 7%, liquefaction can occur whereas
some study suggests that liquefaction can occur even when the PI is less than 12%. Some of the
studies suggest that if PI is greater than 20% liquefaction will not occur while other
recommended that liquefaction will not happen even if the plasticity index is greater than 15%.
But these differences in the range of plasticity index leads to confusion and misperception while
determining the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil.
Therefore, considering existing literature gaps and lack of appropriate reliable methods for the
evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil with fine content and seeing the
devastation caused due to liquefaction during earthquakes in the past, recommendation and
modification and a further study to determine a reliable method is essentially required.
REFERENCES

1. Abdallh K, Ahmed A, Mohamed C et al (2019) Experimental study on the liquefaction

resistance of sand–clay mixtures: Effect of clay content and grading characteristics, J
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37:2, 129-141.

2. Akhila, M., Rangaswamy, K., Sankar, N. (2019) Undrained Response and Liquefaction
Resistance of Sand–Silt Mixtures, J Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
Springer,37(4), 2729–2745.
3. Andrews, D. C. A., and Martin, G. R. (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils Proc.,
12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.

4. Bilsel, H; ErhanG; and Durgunoglu T, Assessment of Liquefaction/Cyclic Failure

Potential of Alluvial Deposits on the Eastern Coast of Cyprus(2010). International
Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics.

5. Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2004) Evaluating the potential for liquefaction or
cyclic failure of silts and clays Rep. UCD/CGM-04/01, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Calif.

6. Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2006) Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts
and Clays, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE,132(11): 1413-1426

7. B.; Durgunoglu T; Onalp A; YoudT. L; Stewart J P.; Seed R. B.; Cetin O K;Bol E;
Baturay M. B.; Christensen C.; and Karadayilar T. (2004) Subsurface Characterization at
Ground Failure Sites in Adapazari, Turkey, International Conference on Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2004, 130(7): 673-685.

8. Bray J. D. and Sancio R. B. (2006) Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine

Grained Soil Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 132 (9), 1165–1177.

9.  Dash H.K. and Sitharam T.G. (2010) Undrained Monotonic Response of Sand-Silt
Mixtures: Effect of Nonplastic Fines, Journal of Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An
International Journal, 6(1), 47 -58.
10. Dash H.K., Sitharam T.G., Baudet A. B (2010) Influence of Non-plastic Fines on the
Response of a Silty Sand to Cyclic Loading, Soils and Foundations 50(5), 695 - 704.
11. Gratchev, I., Sassa K. and Fukuoka H. (2006) How reliable is the plasticity index for
estimating the liquefaction potential of clayey sands? Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (1), 124 127.

12. Idriss, I. M and Boulanger, R.(2006)Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating

liquefaction potential during earthquakes, Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 26(2):115-130

13. Indian Standard code 1893 Part I (2016), “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures".

14. Ishihara, K., and Koseki, J. (1989) Cyclicshear strength of fines-containing sands,
Earthquake and Geotech. Engg. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Tokyo, 101–106.

15. Ishihara, K. (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes, Geotechnique,
43(3), 351–415
16. Ishihara, K. (1996). Soil behavior in earthquake engineering, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
Great Britain, 350 pages.

17. Koester, J. P. (1992) The influence of test procedure on correlation of Atterberg limits
with liquefaction in fine-grained soils,Geotech. Test J., 15(4), 352–361.

18. Marto, A;Tan, C S; Makhtar, A M; Ung S W and Lim, M Y (2015) Effect of Plasticity on
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Sand-Fines Mixtures, Applied Mechanics and Materials,
Vols. 773-774, pp. 1407-1411.

19. Paydar, N.,A., and Ahmadi, M.,M.,(2016) Effect of Fines Type and Content of Sand on
Correlation Between Shear Wave Velocity and Liquefaction Resistance, Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 1857–1876

20. Polito C., (2001) Plasticity based liquefaction criteria, Proc. of the 4th intl. Conf. on recent
advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics.

21. Prakash S. and Puri V. K., (2010) Recent Advances in Liquefaction of Fine Grained
Soils. Fifth International Conference, San Diego, California.
22. Prakash, S., and Sandoval, J. A. (1992). Liquefaction of low plasticity silts, J. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engg, 71(7), 373–397.

23. Prakash, S., Guo, T., and Kumar, S. (1998). Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay mixtures,
Proc. 1998 Spec. Conf. on Geotech. Earthq. Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Seattle,
WA, 1:327-348.

24. Puri, V. K. (1984) Liquefaction behaviour and dynamic properties of loessial (silty) soils,
PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri–Rolla, Mo.

25. Sandoval, J. (1989). Liquefaction and settlement characteristics of silt soils, PhD
Dissertation, University of Missouri–Rolla, Mo.

26. Seed, H. Bolton, and K.L, Lee (1966) "Liquefaction of Saturated Sands during Cyclic
Loading". Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founclations Division, ASCE, Vol, 92,
No. SM6, pp, 105-134,

27. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 97, SM8, pp. 1249-1274.
28. Seed, H. B. (1979). Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground
during earthquakes. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE, 105(GT2), pp. 201-255.

29. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982). Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes, Berkeley,Calif: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

30. Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. (1983). Evaluation of liquefaction potential
using field performance. J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, 109(3), pp. 458-482

31. Seed,R.B, K.O. Cetin, and R.E.S. Moss (2001), Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction
Hazard Assessment, 15th ICSMGEG, TC4 satellite conference on Lessons Learned from
Recent Strong Earthquakes, Istanbul, Turkey.

32. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu J., Pestana J.M., Riemer
M.F., Sancio R.B., Bray J.D., Kayen R.E., Faris A. (2003) Recent advances in soil
liquefaction engineering: A unified and consistent framework, EERC-2003–06,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
33. Sung-Sik Park and Young-Su Kim (2013), Liquefaction Resistance of Sands Containing
Plastic Fines with Different Plasticity, in Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
Engineering” ASCE.

34. T. Guo and S. Prakash (2000), Liquefaction of silt-clay mixtures, Proc. 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand,

35. Umar, S K; Samui, P and Kumari,S (2018), Deterministic and Probabilistic analysis of
liquefaction for different regions of Bihar, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
Springer, Published online, 36(5), 3311–3321.

36. W. D. Finn (1991), Assessment of Liquefaction Potential and Post Liquefaction Behavior
of Earth Structures: Developments 1981-1991, Proc. Second International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2, St
Louis, 1883-1850.

37. W. Wang, (1979) Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction. Report Water Conservancy and
Hydro-electric Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China, 1-17.

38. Wijewickreme, D., and Sanin, M. (2004), Cyclic shear loading response of Fraser River
Delta Silt, Proc., 13th World Conf. on EQ Engineering, Mira Digital Publishing,
Vancouver, Canada, Paper No. 499.

39. Wijewickreme, D., Sanin, M. V., and Greenaway, G. R. (2005), Cyclic shear response of
fine-grained mine tailings, Can. Geotech. J., 42, 1408–1421.

40. YoudT.L (1998), Screening guide for rapid assessment of liquefaction hazard at highway
bridge sites. MCEER-98-0005

41. Zhou, S.G. (1987), Soil Liquefaction during Recent Major Earthquakes in China and
Aseismic Design Method Related to Soil Liquefaction, Proc. 8th Asian Regional
Conference on SM&FE, Vol. II, pp. 249-250.