Assignment

Homework 6

Kurt Walter Soncco Sinchi

A CEE275 Homework Assignment

November 19, 2023

November 19, 2023

The hydraulic fill shown in Fig. 1 is contained by three sets of rockfill dikes and consists
primarily of sands and silty sands dredged from the bottom of the adjacent bay. As a result
of the hydraulic fill process, the fill consists of interlayered sands and silty sands. Fines
contents of these materials vary significantly, but a representative average fines content is
on the order of 20 to 30 percent. They are generally nonplastic. The perimeter dikes have
crest elevations of +12 ft (mean sea level, MSL), and the fill surface elevation is +9 ft MSL.
The water table is at 0 ft MSL. The fill depth is as much as 45 feet in the northeast corner of
the island. Borings have been performed around the perimeter of the island, and SPTs have
been performed in these borings within the hydraulic fill. After suitable corrections of the
resulting SPT N-values for both equipment and procedural effects and effective overburden
stress, it has been found that there is no apparent systematic variation in fill density (i.e.,
the average penetration resistance is fairly constant with depth, though there are significant
local variations at all depths). Corrected and normalized (N1)60 values are within the range
from 4 to 20 blows/foot. Ignoring extreme values, a representative average blow count of
(N1)60 = 8 blows/foot characterizes the fill.

Figure 1: Fill diagram

1
November 19, 2023

Problem 1

For the design earthquake (Mw = 7, R = 13 km, PGAsite = 0.35 g, Tm = 0.5 s, and
D5-95 = 15 s), evaluate the post-liquefaction residual undrained strength (Sur) of the
submerged (saturated) hydraulic fill at depths of 20 ft and 40 ft (i.e., at elevations -11
ft and -31 ft MSL). Assume that the saturated unit weight of the fill is 115 pcf. Use
two or three procedures to develop a robust mean estimate of 𝑆𝑢𝑟 .

Solution. The following methods are presented:

Olson and Stark (2001) [1]

𝑆𝑢 (𝐿𝐼𝑄)
= 0.03 + 0.0075[(𝑁1 )60 ] ± 0.03
𝜎′𝑣𝑜

Seed (1982) [2, 3]

(𝑁1 )60,𝐶𝑆−𝑆𝑟 = (𝑁1 )60 + 𝛥(𝑁1 )60−𝑆𝑟

where, according to Idriss [3], 𝛥(𝑁1 )60−𝑆𝑟 = 2 for 𝐹𝐶 = 25%. So, (𝑁1 )60,𝐶𝑆−𝑆𝑟 = 10
Then, we calculate the relation 𝑆𝑟 /𝜎′𝑣𝑜 by the following graph:

Figure 2: Residual shear strength ratio, 𝑆𝑟 /𝜎′𝑣𝑜 , of liquefied soil versus equivalent clean-sand,
SPT corrected blow count for 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 less than 400 kPa. [3]

2
November 19, 2023

Kramer (2015) [4]

ln(𝑆̄ 𝑟 ) = −8.444 + 0.109𝑁 + 5.379𝑆 0.1

where, N is 𝑁1,60 and S is 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 . For calculating 𝑆𝑟 :

𝑆𝑟 (𝑃) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝[ln(𝑆̄ 𝑟 ) + 𝛷−1 (𝑃)𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑆𝑟 ]

where, 𝜎𝑙𝑛𝑆𝑟 is the standard deviation, as a function of 𝑆 and 𝑃 is the probability of residual.
Based on both three methods the results are shown below:
Olson and Stark Seed Kramer
Mean
Depth (ft) 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 𝑁1,60 𝑆𝑢 /𝜎 Sr (psf) 𝑆𝑢 /𝜎 Sr lnSr Sr (atm) Sr (psf)
20 1613.6 8 0.09 145.224 0.09069 146.3376 -2.30325 0.099934 199.868 122.8574
40 2665.6 8 0.09 239.904 0.09069 241.7437 -2.03223 0.131043 262.086 185.9334

Table 1: Residual strength calculated from approaches above

Some remarks:
a) Kramer [4] approach will always calculated higher values in comparison with other
methods, since it considers flow slides and lateral spreads together.

Problem 2

Estimate the amount of horizontal displacement for the assumed potential failure sur-
face using the Youd et al. (2002) procedure for estimating lateral spread displacements.

Solution. According to Youd et al. [5], for a free-face surface without gently slope
ground (assuming the fill is horizontal), the horizontal displacement can be calculated as:

log 𝐷𝐻 = − 16.713 + 1.532𝑀 − 0.406 log(𝑅∗) − 0.012𝑅+

0.592 log(𝑊 ) + 0.540 ∗ log(𝑇15 )+ (1)
3.413 ∗ log(100 − 𝐹15 ) − 0.795 ∗ log(𝐷50 + 0.1)
The variables used are:
Variable Value
M 7
R (km) 13
R* 16.8905
W (%) 20 (Capped)
𝐹15 (ft) 25
𝐷50 (mm) 0.2
𝑇15 (m) 10.9728

Table 2: Variables used for Horizontal Displacement

The W value was calculated by using the scale presented:

However, the value obtained was higher than 20%. Therefore, according to Youd [6, 5],
W has a limit value of 20.

3
November 19, 2023

The 𝐷50 value was calculated by using the following graph obtained from the paper. As
we can observe in the following graph.

The final value calculated is 1.888 m.

4
November 19, 2023

Problem 3

How much vertical settlement due to 1D seismic volumetric reconsolidation and sed-
imentation of the liquefied material would you estimate at locations that are away
from the slope face using the Ishihara & Yoshimine (1992) procedure (ignore seismic
volumetric compression of the unsaturated fill above the water table)?

Solution. According to Ishihara and Yoshimine [7], the vertical volumetric strain is a
factor of the Factor of safety of liquefaction and the relative densitive of the layers. Therefore,
we require to compute the factor of safety of liquefaction of our fill, which we separate at
layers of 5 feet.

Liquefaction triggering
Using the Cetin et al. [8] the following table are shown:

Depth ini (ft) Depth final (ft) Median (ft) 𝜎 (psf) u 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎′ 𝑁1,60 FC 𝐶𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑁1,60𝐶𝑆 CRR*
0 5 2.5 287.5 0 287.5 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.267822
5 10 7.5 862.5 0 862.5 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.197385
10 15 12.5 1437.5 218.4 1219.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.179295
15 20 17.5 2012.5 530.4 1482.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.169825
20 25 22.5 2587.5 842.4 1745.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.162292
25 30 27.5 3162.5 1154.4 2008.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.156085
30 35 32.5 3737.5 1466.4 2271.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.150839
35 40 37.5 4312.5 1778.4 2534.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.146317
40 45 42.5 4887.5 2090.4 2797.1 8 25 1.25625 10.05 0.142358

Table 3: Calculation of CRR

Median (ft) Median (m) Num Den rd 𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑒 𝑞 DWF 𝐾𝜎 CSR* CRR* FS
2.5 0.762 0.962 0.970 0.992 0.226 1.171 0.350 0.550 0.268 0.487
7.5 2.286 0.939 0.970 0.968 0.220 1.171 0.226 0.833 0.197 0.237
12.5 3.81 0.906 0.970 0.934 0.250 1.171 0.197 1.088 0.179 0.165
17.5 5.334 0.860 0.970 0.887 0.274 1.171 0.182 1.287 0.170 0.132
22.5 6.858 0.803 0.970 0.828 0.279 1.171 0.170 1.401 0.162 0.116
27.5 8.382 0.741 0.970 0.764 0.274 1.171 0.161 1.452 0.156 0.107
32.5 9.906 0.681 0.970 0.702 0.263 1.171 0.153 1.465 0.151 0.103
37.5 11.43 0.630 0.970 0.649 0.251 1.171 0.147 1.464 0.146 0.100
42.5 12.954 0.591 0.970 0.609 0.242 1.171 0.141 1.467 0.142 0.097

Table 4: Calculation of CSR and FS

Calculation of volumetric strain

Based on our calculations, most FS are between 0.4 to 0.09 values, therefore, if we check
the graph provided by Ishihara, most of the points will follow the purple line:
Only considering the layers under the water table (at a depth of 11 ft), we can calculate
the settlement using the following table 5:
Therefore, the total settlement would be 1.366 ft.

5
November 19, 2023

Figure 3: Volumetric strain calculation

Depth (ft) 𝜖𝑣 (%) Thickness Settlement (ft) Settlement cum (ft)

11 4.018225157 4 0.160729006 0.160729006
15 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 0.361640264
20 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 0.562551522
25 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 0.76346278
30 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 0.964374038
35 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 1.165285295
40 4.018225157 5 0.200911258 1.366196553

Table 5: Calculation of vertical settlement

Problem 4

Would you expect to see surface manifestations of liquefaction at sites far away from
the slope face?

6
November 19, 2023

Solution. To compute the probability of surface effects, we’ll consider three approaches:

Juan et al. (2009) [9]

1
𝑃𝐺 =
1 + 𝑒6.75−0.57𝐿𝑃𝐼
20
𝐿𝑃𝐼 = ∫ 𝐹𝑤(𝑧)𝑑𝑧
0

where:
𝐹 = 1 − 𝐹𝑠 , for 𝐹𝑠 < 1
0, otherwise

where 𝐹𝑠 is the factor of safety of liquefaction triggering. 𝑤(𝑧) = 10−0.5𝑧 as a fitting function,
and 𝑧 as Depth.
Therefore, using the following table we can calculate the integral:

Depth (m) F w F*w

0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000
0.762 0.000 9.619 0.000
2.286 0.000 8.857 0.000
3.810 0.835 8.095 6.762
5.334 0.868 7.333 6.365
6.858 0.884 6.571 5.810
8.382 0.893 5.809 5.185
9.906 0.897 5.047 4.527
11.430 0.900 4.285 3.857
12.954 0.903 3.523 3.181
20.000 0.903 0.000 0.000

Table 6: Calculation of F and w

Using numerical integration, we get a number of LPI equal to 65.065. This gives us a
PG number of 0.999. Therefore, the probability of surface effects is almost certain.

Rateria and Maurer (2022) [10]

Rateria and Maurer has updated the Ishihara method [11] (also called H1-H2 method).
Assuming a 𝐻1 (non liquefable layer) of 9 ft (2.7432 m), and the 𝐻2 as 36 ft/10.97 m (soil
below water table).
Since our point is at the left side of the line of 0.35g PGA, the surface effects will happen.

7
November 19, 2023

Figure 4: Updated Ishihara’s H1-H2 model

Problem 5

What would be the most effective liquefaction mitigation techniques if one-to-two story
residential structures on shallow foundations were to be built at this site for two these
two cases: sites far away from the slope face, or sites close to the edge of the slope?

Solution.
For sites far away from the slopes, the mitigation techniques suggested are:

a) Densification by dynamic techniques, in order to increase the SPT number (improve-

ment of the ground)

For the surface close to the edge:

a) Create a deep foundation wall to avoid or resist the lateral displacement due to lique-
faction (minimization of consequences)

Also, in both cases, improve the permeability by including wicked drains, so pore pressure
generation can be reduced.

8
November 19, 2023

References
[1] Scott M. Olson and Timothy D. Stark. “Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction
flow failure case histories”. In: Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39.3 (2002), pp. 629–
647. issn: 00083674. doi: 10.1139/t02-001.
[2] H. Bolton Seed. “Design problems in Soil liquefaction”. In: Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 113.8 (1987), pp. 827–845.
[3] I. M. Idriss and Ross W. Boulanger. “2nd Ishihara Lecture: SPT- and CPT-based
relationships for the residual shear strength of liquefied soils”. In: Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 68 (Jan. 2015), pp. 57–68. issn: 02677261. doi: 10.1016/j.
soildyn.2014.09.010.
[4] Steven L. Kramer and Chwen-Huan Wang. “Empirical Model for Estimation of the
Residual Strength of Liquefied Soil”. In: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 141.9 (Sept. 2015). issn: 1090-0241. doi: 10 . 1061 / (asce ) gt . 1943 -
5606.0001317.
[5] T Leslie Youd, M. Hansen Corbett, and Steven F Bartlett. “Revised Multilinear Re-
gression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement”. In: Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128.12 (2002), pp. 1007–1017. doi:
10.1061/ASCE1090-02412002128:121007.
[6] T Leslie Youd et al. “Zero-Displacement Lateral Spreads, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earth-
quake”. In: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering 135.1 (2009),
pp. 46–61. doi: 10.1061/ASCE1090-02412009135:146.
[7] Kenji Ishihara and Mitsutoshi Yoshimine. “EVALUATION OF SETTLEMENTS IN
SAND DEPOSITS FOLLOWING LIQUEFACTION DURING EARTHQUAKES”. In:
SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS 32.1 (1992), pp. 173–188.
[8] K. Onder Cetin et al. “Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Determinis-
tic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential”. In: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 130.12 (Dec. 2004), pp. 1314–1340. issn: 1090-0241.
doi: 10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314).
[9] C. Hsein Juang, Chih Chieh Lu, and Jin Hung Hwang. “Assessing probability of surface
manifestation of liquefaction at a given site in a given exposure time using CPTU”.
In: Engineering Geology 104.3-4 (Mar. 2009), pp. 223–231. issn: 00137952. doi: 10.
1016/j.enggeo.2008.10.011.
[10] G. Rateria and B. W. Maurer. “Evaluation and updating of Ishihara’s (1985) model
for liquefaction surface expression, with insights from machine and deep learning”. In:
Soils and Foundations 62.3 (June 2022). issn: 00380806. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . sandf .
2022.101131.
[11] Kenji Ishihara. “Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes”. In: Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
San Francisco, 1985, pp. 321–376. url: https://www.issmge.org/publications/
online-library.