Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

Module 5: Liquefaction

Niigata EQ (1964 )
Dr. Shiv Shankar Kumar
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
NIT Patna, Bihar – 800005
 Liquefaction
 Liquefaction in Assam (Dekajuli) earthquake_28th April 2021

1
 Liquefaction
• Introduction
 Reduction in the strength and stiffness of saturated cohesionless
soils due to earthquake shaking or dynamic loading.

Sand
Liquefaction during 2011 boiling near
Christchurch Christchurch (2011 Christchurch earthquake)
earthquake 2
 Liquefaction
• Introduction
 In cohensionless soils, due to increase in excess pore pressures the
effective stress decreases (σ' = σ0 – u)
 this occurs rapid loading under under undrained conditions
» soil particles loses contact with each other.
» resulting reduction of soil strength and bearing capacity.

Generation of excess pore pressure under undrained

loading conditions is a hallmark of all liquefaction
phenomena.

3
 Liquefaction
• History
 Liquefaction originally coined by Mogami and Kubo (1953)
 Introduced by Arthur Casagrande (1935-8)
 Serious attention because of Japan,
Alaska and Niigata earthquake in 1964
 Evidence of liquefaction found in prior
earthquakes

4
 Liquefaction
• Failure/liquefaction of ground during earthquake
• Where it happened?
 New Sand deposit
 Saturated granular sand
 Close to
 Dams
 Lakes
 Bays
 where water table is high

5
 Liquefaction
 Based on the result of liquefaction, the liquefaction phenomena can
be divided into two main groups:
 Flow liquefaction
» occurs when the static shear stress (i.e., shear stress required for
static equilibrium of a soil mass) is greater than the shear strength
of the soil in its liquefied state.

 Cyclic mobility
» occurs when the static shear stress is less than the shear strength
of the liquefied soil.
• the deformations produced by cyclic mobility are driven by
both cyclic and static shear stresses.
• these deformations, also called lateral spreading.

6
 Liquefaction
• Evaluation of Liquefaction Hazards
 Both flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility can produce damage at
a particular site.
 therefore,the geotechnical earthquake engineers must have to
evaluate potential liquefaction.
» Considering the following questions:
• 1. Is the soil susceptible to liquefaction?

• 2. If the soil is susceptible, will liquefaction be triggered?

• 3. If liquefaction is triggered, will damage occur?

7
 Liquefaction
• Liquefaction susceptibility
 If soil site is not susceptible to liquefaction
 then liquefaction hazards do not exist and therefore, no need of
liquefaction evaluation.
 If soil site susceptible to liquefaction
 then must go for liquefaction evaluation by addressing
» historical
Kramer, (1996)
• Post-earthquake site investigations
• groundwater conditions
» geologic
• Site geology
» compositional
• Soil compositions
» state criteria of the soil site
• stress and density characteristics at the time of the earthquake
 Liquefaction
• State criteria
 Critical Void Ratio
 Void ratio (e) corresponding to the constant density is called as
critical void ratio, (ec).

In conventional triaxial test

Figure. (a) Stress-strain and (b) stress-void ratio curves for loose and dense sands at the
same effective confining pressure. Loose sand exhibits contractive behavior (decreasing
void ratio) and dense sand exhibits dilative behavior (increasing void ratio) during
shearing. By the time large strains have developed, both specimens have reached the
critical void ratio and mobilize the same large-strain shearing resistance. 9
 Liquefaction
 Critical Void Ratio
 Casagrande (1936) found that when specimens sheared to
large strains at the same effective confining pressure, all
specimens approached the same density.
» Critical Void Ratio (CVR) was uniquely related to the effective
confining pressure, and called the locus CVR line.
• CVR line is the boundary between loose (contractive) and dense
(dilative) states as well as the susceptibility of liquefaction of soil .

Figure. Use of the CVR line as a Figure. Use of CVR line as a boundary
boundary between loose contractive between initial states that are and are not
states and dense dilative states. susceptible to flow liquefaction.
 Liquefaction
 Critical Void Ratio
 In strain-controlled undrained triaxial testing, positive excess
pore pressure develop (due to the tendency for contraction) in
loose specimens, and negative excess pore pressure (due to
the tendency for dilation) in dense specimens until the CVR
line was reached

Figure. Behavior of initially loose and dense specimens under drained and
undrained conditions for (a) arithmetic and (b) logarithmic effective confining
pressure scales. 11
 Liquefaction
 Steady State of Deformation
A state in which the soil flowed continuously under constant
shear stress and constant effective confining pressure at
constant volume and constant velocity is defined as the steady
state of deformation.

Figure. Liquefaction, limited liquefaction,

and dilation in monotonic triaxial tests on
isotropically & anisotropically
consolidated specimens
12
 Liquefaction
 Steady-state line (SSL)
 the locus of points which describes a relationship between void
ratio and effective confining pressure in the steady state of
deformation is called the steady-state line (SSL).

Figure. Three-dimensional steady

state line showing projections on e-τ
plane, e-σ' plane, and τ-σ' plane. A
similar plot can be developed using
the stress path parameters q and p'
instead of τ and σ'.

13
 Liquefaction
 SSL is useful to identify the susceptibility of flow liquefaction
conditions.
Figure. State criteria for flow
liquefaction susceptibility. Soils with
combinations of initial density and
stress conditions that plot above SSL
are susceptible to flow liquefaction
when the static shear strength is greater
than the steady-state strength. Initial
conditions that plot below SSL are not
susceptible to flow liquefaction.

Cyclic mobility can occur in soils whose state plot above or below
the SSL.

Cyclic mobility can occur in both loose and dense soils.

14
 Liquefaction
 State parameter (Been and Jeffries, 1985)

State parameter,   e  ess

where, ess = void ratio of the steady-
state line at the effective confining
pressure of interest

 Sate parameter concept is very useful in liquefaction study and

it can be determine from In-situ tests.
» which can be related to friction angle, dilation angle, CPT
resistance, PMT results, and DMT results.
 Ifstate parameter is positive, the soil exhibits contractive
behavior and may be susceptible to flow liquefaction.
 Ifstate parameter is negative, dilative behavior will occur and
15
the soil is not susceptible to flow liquefaction.
 Liquefaction
• Initiation of Liquefaction
 Soil deposits, which is susceptible to liquefaction does not mean
that liquefaction will necessarily occur in a given earthquake.
Based on Monotonic Loading:

Figure. Response of isotropically consolidated specimen of loose saturated sand:

(a) stress-strain curve; (b) effective stress path; (c) excess pore pressure;
(d) effective confining pressure 16
 Liquefaction
Flow liquefaction
surface (Vaid and
Chern, 1985)
L Pore pressure ratio,
uexcess
ru 
 '3c

Figure. Response of five specimens

isotropically consolidated to the
same initial void ratio at different
initial effective confining pressures.
Flow liquefaction in specimens C,
D, and E is initiated at the points
marked with an x. The dotted line
passing through these points is a line
of constant principal effective stress
ratio, KL·
17
 Liquefaction
Based on Cyclic Loading:

Monotonic Loading

Cyclic Loading

Figure. Initiation of flow liquefaction by cyclic and monotonic loading. Although the
stress conditions at the initiation of liquefaction are different for the two types of
loading (points B and D), both lie on the FLS (Vaid and Chern, 1983)
 Response of anisotropically consolidated triaxial specimens of
loose saturated sand
 At point A; Static shear stress (τstatic) > Steady-state strength (Ssu)
18
 Liquefaction
• Influence of Excess Pore Pressure
 Generation of excess pore pressure is the key to the initiation of
liquefaction.
Flow liquefaction
Initiated by cyclic loading only when the shear stress required for
static equilibrium is greater than the steady-state strength.
 In the field, these shear stresses are caused by gravity and remain
essentially constant until large deformations develop.
Figure. Zone of susceptibility to
flow liquefaction. If initial
conditions fall within the shaded
zone, flow liquefaction will
occur if an undrained disturbance
brings the effective stress path
from the point describing the
initial conditions to the FLS
19
 Liquefaction
Cyclic Mobility
can be develop when the static shear stress is smaller than the steady-
state shear strength.

Figure. Zone of susceptibility to cyclic mobility.

If initial conditions plot within shaded zone,
cyclic mobility can occur.

Development of permanent Development of permanent

strains strains Initiation of liquefaction
 static   cyc  0  static   cyc  0  static   cyc  0
 static   cyc  S su  static   cyc  S su  static   cyc  S su

Figure. Three cases of cyclic mobility: (a) no stress reversal and no exceedance of the steady-state
strength; (b) no stress reversal with momentary periods of steady-state strength exceedance; (c) stress
reversal with no exceedance of steady-state strength.
 Liquefaction
• Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction
 Cyclic stress approach
 In this approach, loading is described in terms of cyclic shear
stresses, and liquefaction potential is evaluated based on the
amplitude and number of cycles of earthquake-induced shear
stress.
» and initial of liquefaction is defined as the point at which uexcess =
σ'3c or when ru = 100% (Seed and Lee, 1966) .

 Cyclic strain approach

 In this approach, earthquake-induced loading is expressed in
terms of cyclic strains.

21
 Liquefaction
 Cyclic stress approach
Seed and Idriss (1971) proposed  acc. (g ) 
 cyc = 0.65   × v 0 × rd 
a simplified procedure to  g 
estimate uniform cyclic shear  cyc acc. (g )  v 0
stress amplitude for level (or CSR  = 0.65  × × rd
gently sloping) site:  'v 0 g  'v 0
acc. (g )
 max = × v 0 × rd
g
 cyc = 0.65  max
acc. (g )
 f (M, distancefrom site, site effects)
g
where, amax is peak ground surface
acceleration
g is acceleration of gravity
σv0 is total vertical stress
σ'v0 is effective vertical stress
rd is the value of a stress Figure. Number of equivalent uniform stress cycles,
reduction factor at the depth Neq for earthquakes of different magnitude (After
of interest. Seed et al., 1975)
 Liquefaction
 Estimation of reduction factor
Youd et. al., (2001)
rd 1.0  0.00765 z ; for z  9.15 m
rd 1.174  0.0267 z ; for 9.15  z  23 m where, z is depth

Seed and Idriss (1971)

Figure. Reduction factor to estimate

the variation of cyclic shear stress
with depth below level or gently
sloping ground surfaces (source:
Kramer, 1996).
 Liquefaction

Figure. rd versus depth

curves developed by Seed
and Idriss (1971) with added
mean-value lines potted from
Youd et al., (2001) equation

 For ease of computation, Blake (1996) approximated the mean

curve plotted in Figure by the following equation:

24
 Liquefaction
• Characterization of Liquefaction Resistance
 Based on Laboratory Tests
 Cyclic simple shear test
 CSR ss   cyc  'v 0
 Cyclic triaxial test

 CSR tx   dc 2 '3c

Correlation between the results of both laboratory test:
 CSR ss  cr  CSR tx where, c (see
= correction factor
r
Table)
 Liquefaction
 Liquefaction resistance of an element of soil in the field can be
calculated by cyclic stress ratio from simple shear or triaxial test.

Pore pressure ratio (ru) with number of loading cycles obtained

from stress-controlled cyclic tests (Lee & Albaisa, 1974 and
DeAlba et al. (1975):

where, NL is the number of cycles

required to produce initial liquefaction
ru = 1.00) and α is a function of the soil
properties and test conditions

Figure. Rate of pore pressure generation in cyclic simple shear tests. The dashed
line was generated from equation with α = 0.7 (after De Alba et. al., 1975). 26
 Liquefaction
 Based on in-situ Tests
 Estimation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
Standard Penetration Test
( N1 )60  NmCN CECBCRCS
where Nm = measured standard
penetration resistance; CN =factor to
normalize Nm to a common reference
effective overburden stress; CE =
correction for hammer energy ratio (ER);
CB = correction factor for borehole
diameter; CR = correction factor for rod
length; and CS = correction for samplers
with or without liners

Figure. Relationship between cyclic stress ratios

causing liquefaction and (N1)60 values for clean
sands in Mw = 7.5 earthquakes (after Seed et al.,
1975). 27
 Liquefaction

 Overburden stress
correction factor is applied
(Seed and Idriss, 1982):
0.5
 Pa 
CN    ; for CN  1.7
  'vo 
2.2
CN  ; for CN  1.7
  'vo 
1.2  
 Pa 

Figure (A). Relationship between

cyclic stress ratios causing
liquefaction and (N1)60 values for
silty sands in Mw = 7.5 earthquakes
(after Seed et al., 1975) (Source:
Youd et. al., 2001) 28
 Liquefaction
Corrections to SPT (Modified from Skempton 1986) as listed by
Robertson and Wride (1998) (source: Youd et al., 2001)

29
 Liquefaction

 At the University of Texas, A. F. Rauch (personal communication,

1998), approximated the clean-sand base curve plotted in previous
Figure by the following equation (source: Youd et. al., 2001):

 Valid for (N1)60 < 30, and

 For (N1)60 ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense
to liquefy and are classed as non-liquefiable.

30
 Liquefaction
 Idriss and Seed proposed a correction of (N1)60 to an equivalent
clean-sand value, (N1)60cs considering influence of fines content
(source: Youd et. al., 2001):
( N1 )60 cs     ( N1 )60
where,
  0; for FC  5%
  exp 1.76  190 FC 2   ; for 5%  FC < 35%
  5.0; for FC  35%
 =1.0; for FC  5%
  0.99   FC1.5 1000   ; for 5%  FC < 35%
 1.2; for FC  35%
31
 Liquefaction
 Idriss and Boulanger (2006) recommended the following
expression to be used for determining the CRR, for a cohesionless
soil with any fines content.

32
 Liquefaction
Cone Penetration Test

Figure. CPT-based liquefaction curves: (a) based on correlations with SPT data;
(b) based on theoretical/experimental results. (After Mitchell and Tseng, 1990) 33
 Liquefaction

Figure (B). Curve Recommended for Calculation of CRR from CPT Data along with
Empirical Liquefaction Data from Compiled Case Histories (Reproduced from Robertson
and Wride 1998) (source: Youd et. al., 2001) 34
 Liquefaction
 Clean-sand base curve in previous figure may be approximated by
the following equation (Robertson and Wride, 1998):
If (qc1N )cs  50; CRR 7.5  0.833( qc1N )cs 1000  0.05
If 50  (qc1N )cs 160; CRR 7.5  93 ( qc1N )cs 1000  0.08
3

where, (qc1N )cs = clean-sand cone penetration resistance

normalized to approximately 100 kPa (1 atm).

 Normalization of Cone Penetration Resistance (Youd et al., 2001):

where,
where, qc1N = dimensionless cone penetration resistance; CQ = normalizing factor
for cone penetration resistance (≤ 1.7); Pa = 1 atm of pressure in same units used
for σ'vo ; n = exponent that varies with soil type (0.5 ≤ n ≤ 1.0); and qc = field cone
penetration resistance measured at the tip. 35
 Liquefaction
 Correction for fine content in CPT
 Normalized penetration resistance (qc1N) for silty-sands should
be corrected to an equivalent clean-and value (qc1N)cs, if fine
contents are more than 5%, then use following relationship;

(qc1N )cs  Kc qc1N

where, Kc = correction factor for grain characteristics

 Kc can be defined by the equation (Robertson and Wride, 1998):

for I c  1.64; Kc 1.0
for I c  1.64;
K c   0.403I c 4  5.581I c 3  21.63I c 2  33.75I c  17.88

36
 Liquefaction
For Ic > 2.6, the curve in dashed line, indicating the soils in this range
of Ic are most likely too clay-rich or plastic to liquefy.

Figure. Grain-Characteristic Correction Factor Kc for determination of Clean-Sand

equivalent CPT Resistance (Reproduced from Robertson and Wride 1998) 37
 Liquefaction
 Correction of CPT resistance for Thin Soil Layers
 CPT tip resistance is influenced by softer soil layers above or
below the cone tip.

» therefore, the measured CPT tip resistance is smaller in thin

layers of granular soils sandwiched between softer layers than in
thicker layers of the same granular soil.

» The amount of reduction of penetration resistance in soft layers is

a function of thickness of the softer layer and the stiffness of the
stiffer layers.
• therefore, a correction should be applied only to thin stiff layers
embedded within thick soft layers (Vreugdenhil et al., 1994).

35
 Liquefaction

Figure. Thin-Layer Correction Factor KH for determination of equivalent Thick-Layer CPT

Resistance (Modified from Robertson and Fear, 1995) (source: Youd et al., 2001)

where, H = thickness of the interbedded layer in mm;

qcA and qcB = cone resistances of the stiff and soft layers, respectively; and
dc = diameter of the cone in mm 39
 Liquefaction
• CPT-based Soil Behaviour Chart
 Proposed by Robertson (1990)

40
 Liquefaction
• Vs criteria for Evaluating Liquefaction Resistance

Figure (C).
Liquefaction
relationship
recommended for
Clean, Uncemented
soils with liquefaction
data from compiled case
histories (reproduced
from Andrus and
Stokoe, 2000)
(source: Youd et al.,
2001)

41
 Liquefaction

 Andrus and Stokoe (1997) proposed the following relationship

between CRR and Vs1 (source: Youd et al., 2001):

 1 
2
 Vs1  1
CRR = a    b   
 100   Vs1  Vs1 Vs1 
where Vs1* = limiting upper value of Vs1 for liquefaction
occurrence; and a and b are curve fitting parameters.

0.25
 pa 
Vs1  Vs  
  'vo 
where, Vs1 = overburden-stress corrected shear wave velocity;
Pa = atmospheric pressure approximated by 100 kPa
σ'vo = initial effective vertical stress in the same units as Pa .
42
 Liquefaction
• Liquefaction evaluation chart based on Shear Wave
Velocity:
 Stokoe et al. (1988) used cyclic strain approach and equivalent-
linear ground response analyses to explore this relationship
between peak ground surface acceleration (for stiff soil site
conditions) and shear wave velocity.

Figure. Chart for the evaluation of liquefaction

potential from shear wave velocity and peak
ground acceleration (10 cycles); after Stokoe et
al., 1988 (source: Kramer, 1996)
 Liquefaction
Becker Penetration Test
 Liquefaction resistance of
non-gravelly soils can be
estimated through CPT and
SPT, with occasional Vs
measurements.
 whereas, CPT and SPT are
not reliable in gravelly soils.
 there, BPT can be used.
Figure. Correlation between corrected
Becker Penetration Resistance NBC and
corrected SPT resistance N60: (a)
Harder and Seed (1986); (b) Data from
additional sites (Reproduced from
Harder 1997) (Source: Youd et al.,
2001)
44
 Liquefaction
 Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of various field
tests for assessment of liquefaction resistance (source: Youd et
al., 2001)

45
 Liquefaction
• Corrections to CRR
 Regardless of the investigated methods, three corrections should be
applied to the CRR
 Magnitude correction, KM
 Overburden correction, Kσ
 Sloping ground (deriving static shear stress) correction, Kα
CRR 7.5 CRR K M K K
FS1  
CSR CSR
where, CSR = calculated cyclic stress ratio generated by the earthquake
shaking; and
CRR7.5 = cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes.
Note: CRR7.5 is determined from Fig. (A) for SPT data, Fig. (B) for
CPT data, or Fig. (C) for Vs1 data.
46
 Liquefaction
• Magnitude correction factor, Km

2.24
10
MSF  2.56
Mw

Figure. Magnitude scaling factors derived by various

investigators (reproduced from Youd and Noble, 1997)
(source: Youd et al., 2001)
47
 Liquefaction
• Overburden corrections factor, Kσ
 Laboratory test results indicate that the liquefaction resistance
increases nonlinearly with increasing confining stress.
 To account for the nonlinearity between CRR and effective
overburden pressure, Seed (1983) introduced the correction
factor Kσ to extrapolate the simplified procedure to soil layers
with overburden pressures >100 kPa.
 f 1
  'vo  Figure. Recommended curves to Estimate Kσ for
K    engineering practice (Youd. et. al., 2001)

 Pa 
where, σ'vo = effective overburden
pressure; and Pa = atmospheric pressure,
are measured in the same units
f is an exponent that is a function of site
conditions, including relative density,
stress history, aging, and
48
overconsolidation ratio.
 Liquefaction

Figure. Variation of correction factor, Kσ, with effective overburden pressure.

(After Marcuson et al., 1990) (Source: Kramer, 1996) 49
 Liquefaction
• Sloping ground correction factor, Kα

Figure. Variation of correction factor, Kα with initial shear/normal stress

50
ratio. (After Seed and Harder, 1990) (Source: Kramer, 1996)
 Liquefaction
• Different scales of earthquake magnitude

Figure. Relationship between Moment Magbitude, Mw, and other

Magnitude scales (source: Youd et al., 2001) 51
 Liquefaction
• Cyclic Strain Approach
 Characterization of Loading Conditions
 timehistory of cyclic shear strain may be evaluated from
ground response analysis.
» Dobry et al., (1982) proposed a simplified method for estimating
the amplitude of uniform cyclic strain from the amplitude of the
uniform cyclic stress using the following equation:

where, G(γcyc) is shear modulus of the soil at γ = γcyc.

» Since γcyc influences both sides of equation, the value of G(γcyc)
must be obtained iteratively from a measured Gmax profile and
appropriate modulus reduction curves.
» The equivalent number of strain cycles (Neq) depends on the
52
earthquake magnitude.
 Liquefaction
 Characterization of Liquefaction Resistance

Figure. Measured pore pressure ratio after 10 cycles of loading in strain-

controlled cyclic triaxial tests, after Dobry and Ladd, (1980). 53
 Liquefaction
• Pore pressure variations in stress-controlled cyclic
triaxial test

Figure. Pore pressure models (relationship between ru Figure. Relationship between ru and γ based on the
and N/NL) proposed from present study in comparison stress-controlled approach obtained from the present
to the existing literature study and that reported by Cetin and Bilge (2012)

54
 Liquefaction
• Pore pressure variations in strain-controlled cyclic
triaxial test 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

Excess PWP ratio

(a) (b)
 
0.6 0.6 Dr=30%

'c=100 kPa f=1Hz

Dr=30% 'c=50kPa
0.4 0.4
f=1Hz 'c=100kPa
'c=150kPa

0.2 0.2
0.045% 0.075% 0.15% 0.30%
0.45% 0.6% 0.75%
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Number of cycles Number of cycles

1.0

Figure. Variation of ru with N at different

(a) shear strain (b) effective confining
Excess PWP ratio

0.8
(c)
stress and (c) relative density 0.6
 
'c=50kPa
f=1Hz

Dr=30%
0.4
Dr=60%
Dr=90%
0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
55
Number of cycles
 Liquefaction
• Identification of liquefaction zone
 Liquefaction is expected at depth where the loading exceeds the
resistance or when FOS against liquefaction is less than 1.
cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction  cyc , L
Factor of safety  FOS  
equivalent cyclic shear stress induced by earthquake  cyc
cyclic resistance ratio  CRR  CRR
 
cyclic stress ratio  CSR  induced by earthquake CSR
 CSR determined from
empirical chart based
on SPT or CPT data.
 CSR determined from
design peak ground

Depth
accelerations.
Depth

Figure. Zone of liquefaction by Figure. Zone of liquefaction by

cyclic stress approach. cyclic strain approach.
 Liquefaction
• Other approaches to the Initiation of Liquefaction
 Energy dissipation approach

 Effective stress-based response analysis approach

 Probabilistic approach

57
 Liquefaction
• Effects of Liquefaction
 Alteration of ground motion
 Development of sand boils
 Settlement
 Settlement of dry sands
 Settlement of saturated sands
 Instability
 Shear strength of liquefied soil
 Flow failures
 Deformation failures
58
 Liquefaction
• Factor Affecting Liquefaction
 Soil type
 Soil structure
 Particle size and its gradation
 Initial relative density
 Length of drainage path
 Surcharge loads
 Characteristics of vibrations
 Age of soil deposits
 Trapped air
 Soil deformation

59
 Liquefaction
• Preventive Measure of Liquefaction
 Providing deep foundation
 Compaction of soil
 Replacing liquefiable soil
 Grouting of soil
 Ground water pumping
 Drainage of soils
 Providing stone column
 Application of surcharge

Reference Book:
1. Kramer, S.L. (1996) “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering” Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey 60
Thank you
61