Department of CE

Soil Mechanics-I
Topic : Liquefaction Analysis
Presented by: Coarse Teacher:
Mohammed Shakib Rahman (20115002) Dr. Sarah Tahsin Noor
Md. Ekramul Hoque (20115003) Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Asia Pacific.

24th September, 2020

Page: 1
Contents
❑ Introduction
❑ Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
❑ Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
❑ Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Technology
❑ Some effects of liquefaction
❑ Conclusion
❑ References

Page: 2
Introduction
❑ The concept of liquefaction was first introduced by Casagrande.
❑ Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a
solid to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore-water
pressure and reduced effective stress. (Marcuson, 1978)
❑ Liquefaction takes place when seismic shear waves pass through a
saturated granular soil layer which distort soils granular structure. The
collapse of the granular structure increases pore space water pressure
which results the decrease of shear strength that makes the soil
susceptible to liquefaction . (Kumar. K. 2008)
❑ As a consequence of liquefaction, soft, young, saturated, well sorted, fine
grain sands and silts behave as viscous fluids. (Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 3
Introduction
For 𝑐−𝜑 soil the shear strength equation is: 𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝜎 ′ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
Here,
c Cohesion of Soil
𝜑 Soil angle of internal friction

Overburden pressure expression is: 𝜎 ′ = 𝜎 − 𝑢

Where,
𝜎′ Soil Effective overburden pressure
𝜎 Soil overburden pressure
u Soil pore water pressure

Page: 4
Introduction
For cohesionless soil: 𝐶 = 0, 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑛, 𝜏 = 𝜎 ′ 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜑
And for saturated soil: 𝜎′ = 𝜎 − 𝑢 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦, 𝜏 0
𝜎′ 0
That means soil behaves like liquid

For cohesive soil: 𝜑 = 0, 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑛, 𝜏 = 𝑐

That means shear strength of soil develops.

Page: 5
Introduction Source: YouTube (Ram Teerath, Apr 4, 2020)

Page: 6
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
1. Earthquake intensity and duration: Potential for liquefaction increases with
increase in earthquake shaking. It also increases due to duration of shaking.
Liquefaction analysis is needed
❖ 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 0.1𝑔
❖ 𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 5
2. Soil relative density:
❑ Cohesionless soils in loose relative density state are susceptible to
liquefaction.
❑ Dense sands, initial liquefaction does not produce large deformations due
to dilation tendency.
➢ Dilative soils need not be evaluated for liquefaction because their
undrained shear strength is more than their drained shear strength.
(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 7
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
3. Soil type:
❑ All the soils susceptible to liquefaction are cohesionless soils.
❑ Cohesionless soils from least to most resistant to liquefaction is clean
sands, nonplastic silty sands, nonplastic silt and gravels.
❑ Deposit consisting of fine to medium sand.
❑ Sometimes gravelly soils as well (Kuwabara and Yoshumi, 1973).
❑ Although cohesive soil may not liquefy, there could be significant
undrained shear strength loss due to seismic shaking during earthquakes.

(Kumar. K. 2008, Seed et. al. 2003)

Page: 8
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
❑ For cohesive soil to liquefy it must have

❖ Percent Finer than 0.005mm ≤ 15%

❖ Liquid Limit (LL) ≤ 35%
❖ Water Content (W) ≤ 0.9 x LL

***Based on the Chinese definition of “clay”

sizes as less than 0.005 mm

Figure: Modified Chinese Criteria (Wang, 1979 and

Seed and Idriss,1982)

(Kumar. K. 2008, Seed et. al. 2003)

Page: 9
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
Andrews and Martin (2000) re-evaluated the liquefaction field case histories
from the database of Wang (1979)
Liquid Limit1 < 32 Liquid Limit2 ≥32
Further Studies Required
Clay Content2
Susceptible (Considering plastic non-clay sized
< 10%
grains – such as Mica)
Further Studies Required (Considering
Clay Content2
non plastic clay sized grains – such as Not Susceptible
≥10%
mine and quarry tailings)
Notes:
1. Liquid limit determined by Casagrande-type percussion apparatus.
2. Clay defined as grains finer than 0.002 mm. (U.S. conventions)
(Seed et. al. 2003)

Page: 10
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility

Figure: Recommendations Regarding Assessment of “Liquefiable” Soil Types

(Seed et. al. 2003)

Page: 11
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
4. Depositional environment:
New soil deposits are more susceptible to liquefaction than old deposits.
Subjected to long time confining pressure.
Old soil

Compression of soil particles into more stable arrangements.

Development of bonds due to cementation at particle bonds with time.
5. Historical liquefaction:
❑ Historical environment of soil can affect its liquefaction potential.
❑ Older soil deposits that have already been subjected to seismic shaking
have increased liquefaction resistance.
❑ Liquefaction resistance also increases, with increase in over consolidation
ratio (OCR).
(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 12
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
6. Particle size:
❑ Rounded soil particles is more susceptible to liquefaction than soil
containing angular soil particles during earthquake.
❑ Uniformly graded nonplastic soils form more unstable particle
arrangements. They are more susceptible to liquefaction than well graded
soils.
7. Ground water table location: The condition most conducive to liquefaction
is near surface ground water table location. If groundwater table at a
particular site fluctuates significantly, liquefaction potential also fluctuates.

(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 13
Factors Influencing Liquefaction Susceptibility
8. Hydraulic conductivity:
❑ If excess pore pressure can quickly dissipate, soil is less susceptible to
liquefaction.
❑ Highly permeable gravel drains can reduce liquefaction potential of
adjacent soil as they will help in dissipating pore pressure rapidly.
9. Overburden pressure:
❑ Greater the confining pressure, lesser the soil has tendency to liquefy.
❑ It has been reported that possible zone of liquefaction extends from
ground surface to a maximum depth of 15 m.
❑ If the structural load increases chances of liquefaction increase as
overburden pressure consequently increases.
(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 14
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
❑ The first step in liquefaction analysis is to determine whether soil has
ability to liquefy during earthquake.
❑ Most common type of analysis to determine liquefaction potential is the
use of standard penetration test (Seed and Idriss, 1971).
❑ Another widely used technique of liquefaction analysis. This is called
simplified procedure.

(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 15
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒑𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆

𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑛𝑜𝑡

𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 (𝐶𝑆𝑅)

Determination of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)

Determination of the Factor of safety against liquefaction,

FS = CRR/CSR

Page: 16
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
𝑪𝒚𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝑺𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 (𝑪𝑺𝑹) 𝑪𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝑬𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒉𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒌𝒆
The seismic demand of soil layer, express in terms of CSR
𝑤 𝛾𝑡 𝑧 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎 = 𝑎= 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜎𝑣𝑜 (Day. R. W. 2002)
𝑔 𝑔 𝑔
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐹 = 𝜎𝑣𝑜 (Day. R. W. 2002)
𝑔
Seed and Idriss (1971) incorporated a depth reduction factor rd ,
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
′ = 𝑟𝑑 ′
𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑔

Seed et al. (1975) converted the typical irregular earthquake

record to an equivalent series of uniform stress cycles
𝜏𝑐𝑦𝑐 = 0.65 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥
(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 17
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
𝜏𝑐𝑦𝑐 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥
CSR = ′ = 0.65𝑟𝑑 ′ Seed et al. (1975)
𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝜎𝑣𝑜 𝑔

Where,
F = horizontal earthquake force acting on soil column that has a unit width and length
m = w/g= total mass of soil column
w = 𝛾𝑡 𝑧= total weight of soil column
𝛾𝑡 =Total unit weight of soil
z = depth below ground surface of soil column
a= acceleration of gravity
amax = maximum horizontal acceleration at ground surface that is induced by the earthquake
′ = total vertical stress at bottom of soil column
𝜎𝑣𝑜

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 18
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
rd=1 0.012z (Kayen et al. 1992)
rd=1.0 - 0.00765z for z ≤ 9.15m
rd=1.174 - 0.0267z for 9.15m<z≤23m
(Liao and Whitman1986)

Average values of rd by
Seed & Idriss (1971)
Figure : Reduction factor rd versus depth
below level or gently sloping ground surfaces.
(Andrus and Stokoe 2000)
(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 19
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
𝑪𝒚𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒄 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐 (𝑪𝑹𝑹)
The capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction, expressed in terms of CRR.
Several field tests for evaluation of liquefaction resistance.
❑ The standard penetration test(SPT),
❑ The cone penetration test(CPT),
❑ Shear-wave velocity measurements (Vs), and
❑ The Becker penetration test (BPT).

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 20
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) from SPT

It has been reported that for standard penetration value

between 0 and 20, soil is highly susceptible to
liquefaction. For standard penetration value larger than
30, there is no significant damage due to liquefaction.

Figure: Plot used to determine the cyclic resistance

ratio for clean and silty sands for M=7.5 earthquakes.
(Seed et al. 1985)

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 21
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) from the CPT

As an alternative to using the standard penetration test,

the cone penetration test can be used to determine the
cyclic resistance ratio of the in situ soil.

Figure: Relationship between cyclic resistance ratio

(CRR) and corrected CPT tip resistance values for clean
sand, silty sand, and sandy silt form=7.5 earthquakes.
(Stark and Olson 1995)

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001, Robertson et. al. 1998)
Page: 22
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis

Figure: Relationship between cyclic

resistance ratio and corrected CPT tip
resistance values for clean gravel and
silty gravel form=7.5 earthquakes.
(Stark and Olson 1995)

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 23
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
For earthquake magnitudes other than 7.5, the CRR obtained is multiplied by
magnitude scaling factor
Magnitude Scaling Factors by Seed et al. (1985).
Anticipated earthquake Magnitude scaling factor
magnitude (MSF)
8.5 0.89
7.5 1.00
6.75 1.13
6 1.32
5.25 1.5

Figure: Magnitude scaling factors derived by various

investigators. (Andrus and Stokoe 2000)
(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 24
Liquefaction Susceptibility Analysis
Factor of safety against liquefaction
The final step in the liquefaction analysis is to calculate the factor of safety (FS)
against liquefaction. If the cyclic stress ratio caused by the anticipated
earthquake (CSR) is greater than the cyclic resistance ratio of the in situ soil
(CRR), then liquefaction could occur during the earthquake, and vice versa. The
higher the factor of safety, the more resistant the soil is to liquefaction.
FS = CRR/CSR

(Kumar. K. 2008, Day. R. W. 2002, Seed et. al. 2003, Youd et. al. 2001)
Page: 25
Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Technology
Comprehensive study is required to find out various measures to prevent liquefaction.
Based on these studies certain methods have been suggested (Lew, 1984 ).

Compaction of Loose Sands

❑ Rolling loose sand with rubber tyre rollers. While using rubber tyres, lifts are
usually 150mm to 200 mm. This method cannot be used for compacting deep sand
deposits.
❑ Compaction by using vibratory plates or vibratory rollers. Lift depths upto about
1.5 m to 2 m. Only small thickness of soils can be compacted by these methods.
❑ Pile driving. This technique is utilized in compacting sites having loose sand
deposits.

(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 26
Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Technology
❑ Vibrofloatation technique used in
cohesionless deposits of sand and
gravel having not more than 20%
silt or 10% clay. Vibrofloatation
utilizes a cylindrical penetrator
which is about 4 m long and 400
mm in diameter.

Source: www.geoengineer.org

(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 27
Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Technology
❑ Blasting is another compaction technique is followed by escape of excess pore
water pressure. This acts as lubricant and facilitates re-arrangement of sand
particles. There is no apparent limit of depth that can be compacted by means of
explosive (Lyman, 1942).

Grouting and Chemical Stabilization

In grouting, some kind of stabilizing agent is inserted into the soil mass. The most
common type of stabilizing agent is a mixture of cement and water. Generally grout
can be used if the permeability of the deposit is greater than 10–5 m/s. In chemical
stabilization, lime, cement, flyash or their combination is used as stabilizing agent.

(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 28
Liquefaction Resistance Improvement Technology
Application of Surcharge
Application of surcharge over the deposit liable to liquefy can also be used as an
effective measure against liquefaction. Overburden pressure higher than the value
corresponding to maximum pore pressure will make the deposit safe against
liquefaction.
Drainage Using Coarse Material Blanket and Drains
Blankets and drains of material with higher permeability reduce the length of
drainage path. Furthermore, due to higher coefficient of permeability it also speeds
up the drainage process. These activities help to make soil deposit safe against
liquefaction (Katsumi et al, 1988 and Susumu et al, 1988).
(Kumar. K. 2008)
Page: 29
Some effects of liquefaction

Collapsed bridge section on Highway 1

Niigata Earthquake, 1964
at Struve Slough Watsonville, CA, US
(Source: en.wikipedia.org)
(Kumar. K. 2008)

Page: 30
Conclusion
It can clearly be concluded that the liquefaction has devastating effects to all type of
structure built on the liquefied soil. There are various methods through which the
severity of damage can be reduced. Special attention should be taken during design
period of a structure for liquefaction analysis. Therefore, for liquefaction
interpretation the database study should be expanded to a wider range for earthquake
and soil characteristics.

Page: 31
References
1. Andrews, D. C. A. and Martin, G. R., “Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils.” 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.
2. Day. R. W., “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook” Mcgraw-hill, 2002.
3. Goharzay M., Noorzad A., Ardakani A. M., Jalal M., “A Worldwide Spt-based Soil Liquefaction
Triggering Analysis Utilizing Gene Expression Programming and Bayesian Probabilistic
Method” Journal Of Rock Mechanics And Geotechnical Engineering, 13 March 2017.
4. Kuwabara F. and Yoshumi Y., “Effect of subsurface liquefaction on strength of surface soil”
ASCE, JGE, Vol. 19, No. 2., 1973.
5. Katsumi, Maraya M.M. and Miteuru T., “Analysis of gravel drain against liquefaction and its
application to design” IXth WCEE, Tokyo, Vol. III, pp 249-254, 1988.
6. Kayan, R. E., Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B., Lodge, A., Nishio, S., and Coutinho, R., “Evaluation of
SPT-, CPT-, and Shear Wave-Based Methods for Liquefaction Potential Assessments Using
Loma Prieta Data.” Proceedings, 4th Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design
of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, NCEER-92-0019. National
Center for Earthquake Engineering, Buffalo, NY, pp. 177–192, 1992.

Page: 32
References
7. Kumar. K., “Basic Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering” New Age International (P) Ltd.
2008.
8. Lyman A.R.N., “Compaction of cohesionless foundation soil by explosive” ASCE Trans.,
Vol. 107, 1942.
9. Liao, S. S. C., and Whitman, R. V., "Overburden Correction Factor for SPT in Sand." Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 3, March 1986, pp. 373-377, 1986.
10. Marcuson,W.F.,III.,‘‘Definitionoftermsrelatedtoliquefaction.’’J.Geotech.Engrg.Div.,ASCE,10
4(9),1197–1200, 1978.
11. Robertson P.K. And Wride C.E. (Fear), “Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using The
Cone Penetration Test” Can. Geotech. J. 35: 442–459, 1998.
12. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No SM9,
Proc. Paper 8371, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273, 1971.

Page: 33
References
13. Seed, H. B., Mori, K., and Chan, C. K., “Influence of Seismic History on the Liquefaction
Characteristics of Sands.” Report EERC 75-25. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
14. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., “Ground motion and soil liquefaction during earthquakes”,
Monograph, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Ca, 1982.
15. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M., "Influence of SPT Procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
111(12), 1425-1445, 1985.
16. Susumu I., Koizimi K., Node S. and Ysuchia H., “Large scale model tests and analysis of
gravel drains” IXth WCEE, Tokyo, Vol. III, pp 261-266, 1988.
17. Stark, T. D., and Olson, S. M., “Liquefaction Resistance Using CPT and Field Case
Histories.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, vol. 121, no. 12, pp. 856–869,
1995.

Page: 34
References
18. 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. , And Faris A., “Recent Advances In Soil Liquefaction
Engineering: A Unified And Consistent Framework” 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles
Geotechnical Spring Seminar, Keynote Presentation, H.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach,
California, April 30, 2003.
19. Wang, W., “Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction”, Research Report, Water Conservancy and
Hydroelectric Power Scientiific Research Institute, Beijing, August, 1979.
20. Youd T.L., Idriss I.M., “Iquefaction 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, Vol.127, No.4, April,
2001.

Page: 35
Thank You

Page: 36