Soil Liquefaction

Jonathan D. Bray, Ph.D., P.E.

Faculty Chair in Earthquake Engineering Excellence

University of California, Berkeley

Primary Sponsor: National Science Foundation

SOIL LIQUEFACTION
OUTLINE

Liquefaction Concepts

1999 Kocaeli, Turkey EQ

2010-2011 Canterbury, New

Zealand EQs
Recommendations

LIQUEFACTION

1906 San Francisco EQ (Lawson et al. 1908)

1989 Loma Prieta EQ

1964 Niigata, Japan EQ (from H.B. Seed)

Lower San Fernando Dam- 1971 San Fernando EQ

From H.B. Seed

Lower San Fernando Dam- 1971 San Fernando EQ

From H.B. Seed

LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Flow Liquefaction

(strain-softening

large strain)

Cyclic Mobility

(strain-hardening

limited strain)

LIQUEFACTION Factor of Safety (FS)

CRR

C
S
R

Liquefaction

Effects Observed at
Ground Surface

No Liquefaction
Effects Observed at
Ground Surface

FS =1.2

FS =1.2

Youd et al. 2001 based on Seed et al. 1985

FS = CRR / CSR

LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS
Cyclic Mobility

Flow Liquefaction

Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Post-Liquefaction Residual Strength

15
Idriss & Boulanger 2008

Soil Layering: Human-Made and Geologic

Lower San Fernando Dam: H.B. Seed

Liquefaction-Induced Building Movements

March 11, 2011 Tohoku, Japan Earthquake (Mw = 9.0)

30 cm

70 cm = 30 cm + 40 cm
Tokimatsu et al. & GEER ( Ashford et al.)

Measured Displacements in Model Tests

Large Port Island Event

2 m dense sand

3 m liquefiable layer

21 m dense sand

Structure B during Large Port Island event - Test 3-30

Dashti et al. 2010a & 2010b

Building Settlement in Thick Liquefiable Soil Deposits

- Dashti et al. 2010

Building Settlement is not Proportional to Thickness of Liquefied Layer

Dashti et al. 20100

Bray and Dashti 2010

DISPLACEMENT MECHANISMS
1. Volumetric Deformations
Partial Drainage (p-DR)
Sedimentation (p-SED)
Consolidation (p-CON)

2. Shear-Induced Deformations
Bearing Capacity Failure (q-BC)
SSI-Induced Ratcheting (q-SSI)

3. Ground Loss due to Ejecta

COMMON APPROACH: Estimate LiquefactionInduced Free-Field Settlement of Level Ground

= (v)(h)

Dr = 60% FSl = 0.6

Dr = 40% FSl = 0.4

Estimates 1D settlements
due to post-liquefaction
volumetric reconsolidation

No shear-induced
displacements

Dr = 90% FSl = 2.5

Nonliquefiable

Does not estimate

building movement
Ishihara & Yoshimine 1992

1999 Kocaeli EQ (Mw = 7.5): Adapazari

FIELD OBSERVATIONS OF LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS

Buildings Displace Relative to Surrounding Ground

Fieldwork in Adapazari (Bray et al. 2004)

166 CPT/SCPTu & 61 BORINGS with SPT

< http://peer.berkeley.edu/turkey/adapazari >

Accelerometers

Strain Gages

V (t ) = A(t )dt

F (t ) = E A (t )

t = tf

Measured Force and Velocity

EFV =

F (t ) V (t )dt

t =0

EFV
N 60 = N
60

SPT Short-Rod Correction

Energy Ratio (%)
40

50

60

Energy Ratio (%)

70

80

40

50

60

70

80

0
N-value = 4

N-value = 10

5
Rod Length (m)

Rod Length (m)

10

10
Correction
factors
(Skempton,
1986)

15

Correction
factors
(Skempton,
1986)

15

Sancio & Bray 2005

Building Response in Adapazari - 1999 Kocaeli EQ

SITE C - Generalized Subsurface Profile

Depth (m)

Ground Failure

Photos by Idriss

No Ground Failure

Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils

Chinese Criteria (Seed & Idriss 1982; Youd et al. 2001):
Liquefaction can only occur if:
1) LL < 35 , 2) wc > 0.9 LL, & 3) Material Finer than 5 m < 15%
70
Susceptible if
wc > 0.9LL

Liquid Limit

60

Not
Susceptible

50
40
Susceptible
Moderate Susceptibility
Not Susceptible

30
20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent weight corresponding to 5m

70 CTX Testing by
Bray & Sancio 2006

Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils

PI 12

& wc / LL 0.85

Plasticity Index

Bray & Sanco (2006)

50

Susceptible to Liquefaction
Moderate Susceptibility
Not Susceptible

40
30
20
10
0
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
wc /LL

Idriss & Boulanger (2008)

PI < 7
Ishihara (1996)
PI 10

- CRRs are similar

1.2

1.4

Liquefaction of Fine-Grained Soils

Bray & Sanco (2006)
cyclic response of low plasticity fine-grained soils that
are similar to that of sands are also called liquefaction

Idriss & Boulanger (2008)

the term liquefaction should be used only for soils that
are evaluated through penetration tests

Bray & Sancio (2008) & Boulanger & Idriss (2008)

Perform cyclic tests on slightly plastic soils as
undisturbed samples can be retrieved

Test because empirical field methods have limited data

Undisturbed Soil Sampling & Testing

Thin- Walled Piston Sampler

Careful Handling

Cut

Extrude

Test

D5-P2A
LL = 25

Deviator Stress, q (kPa)

Deviator Stress, q (kPa)

40
30
20
10

30

J5-P3A
LL = 27

Deviator Stress, q (kPa)

Deviator Stress, q (kPa)

cycle 13
20
PI = 0
PI = 7
10
e = 0.83
e = 0.75
0
0
-10
-10
-20
-20
cycle 1
cycle 1
-30
-30
-40
-40
5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
40 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 40
A6-P6A
A6-P10A
Axial Strain,cycle
Axial Strain,cycle
a (%)
a (%)
1
1
30
30
LL = 38
LL = 44
20
20
PI = 11
PI = 18
10
10
e = 0.94
e = 1.09
0
0
-10
-10
cycle 15
cycle 139
-20
-20
-30
-30
-40
-40
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Bray &
Axial Strain, a (%)
Axial Strain, a (%)
Sancio 2006

cycle 11

40

PI = 2

PI = 5

Reconstituted
Soil Specimens

Donahue et al. 2007

CSS Testing:

PI = 11

Soil G has PI = 10

PI = 14

PI = 7

Cyclic Resistances of PI = 2 & PI = 10 Soils

Slurry Deposition CSS Testing

v 137 kPa

Donahue et al. 2007

Evaluation of Ic > 2.6 Criterion

2.6

12

0.85

A liquefaction site in Adapazari (Bray & Sancio 2009)

Canterbury EQs: Widespread Liquefaction

Cubrinovski et al.

Liquefaction Effects in Christchurch

From M.
Cubrinovski

Repeated Liquefaction Events

4 Sept
2010
22 Feb 2011
16 April
2011

(Mark Quigley: Avonside; R. Green)

13 June 2011: Part

1
13 June 2011: Part
2

CTUC Building

Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlement Induces Distress

Ejecta

490

31 20 11

Building Settlement (cm)

Maximum Angular Distortion 1 / 50

GEER: Bray, Cubrinovski et al.

CTUC Building: Christchurch EQ

N
2011 Christchurch EQ: Robertson & Wride (1998)

CTUC Building Settlement

Actual Settlement
~40 cm
~15 cm

~15 cm
~10 cm

Robertson & Wride (1998) & Zhang, Robertson et al. (2002)

~5 cm

SA Building

Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlement Induces Distress

GEER: Bray, Cubrinovski et al.

SA Building: Christchurch EQ

2011 Christchurch EQ: Robertson & Wride (1998)

SA Building: Sensitivity of Results

Observed Settlement
10 cm - 25 cm
0

FSBC 1

Depth (m)

4 SEP 10
26 DEC 10
22 FEB 11
13 JUN 11

7
0

0.5

FS

1.5

CPT Z8-7

15
5
10
Settlement (cm)

7
20

Robertson & Wride (1998) & Zhang, Robertson et al. (2002)

PWC Building

Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlement and Tilt

21 stories on basement mat

GEER: Bray, Cubrinovski et

PWC Building

2011 Christchurch EQ: Robertson & Wride (1998)

Nonlinear Effective Stress Analyses based on Testing

Maximum Shear Strain

FLAC Analyses with UBC-Sand:
Model A in Test T3-50 large P.I. event
Arulmoli CSS Test
UBCSAND1 Calibration

20

Shear
ShearStrain
Strain (%) (%)

Calculated Settlement (mm)

30

10

-10

Nevada Sand CSS tests

Arulmoli et al. 1992
Dr = 63%, CSR = 0.3, K = 0

-20

-30

5
6
Time (sec)

Time (sec)

10

CONCLUSIONS
Liquefaction can severely damaged earth structures
and buildings & utilities
Shallow liquefiable soils can lead to much building
damage, especially when ejecta occurs
Cyclic mobility occurs for PI 12 & wc/LL 0.85 soil
Building settlement is not proportional to the
thickness of the liquefiable layer
Shear-induced deformation is critical mechanism
Simplified procedures do not capture the observed
performance of heavy structures with shallow
foundations

RECOMMENDATIONS
Plasticity Index

Liquefaction triggering
procedures, which have been
developed for sands and
nonplastic silty sands, should
be applied with judgment.

50

Susceptible to Liquefaction
Moderate Susceptibility
Not Susceptible

40
30
20
10
0
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

wc /LL

Bray & Sancio 2006

Perform cyclic testing on fine-grained soils

that can be sampled effectively to assess
their seismic response characteristics.

RECOMMENDATIONS
For level ground conditions with no free-face:
Pile foundation with its neutral plane in firm ground
below the liquefiable layer will not settle significantly
Shallow foundation with deep liquefiable layer will
largely undergo volumetric reconsolidation that can be
estimated using 1D procedures
Shallow foundation with shallow liquefiable layer can
undergo largely shear-induced movements that cannot
be estimated using available 1D procedures
Effective stress analyses based on good earthquake &
soil characterization can provide useful insights

RECOMMENDATIONS
For earth structures and sloping or free-face ground:
Key issue is are there materials that will lose significant
strength as a result of earthquake shaking
Evaluate post-liquefaction residual strength of liquefied
soils and calculate FS to investigate flow slide potential
Assess earth structure and in situ ground as a system
(e.g., void redistribution and thin water films)
Effective stress analyses based on good earthquake &
soil characterization can provide useful insights
Employ effective mitigation measures, if required

References
Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M., Closure to Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays, J. of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 7, July, 2008, pp. 10271028.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils, J. of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9, Sept., 2006, pp. 11651177.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., Closure to Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained
Soils, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 7, July, 2008,
pp. 1031-1034.
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B., Performance of Buildings in Adapazari during the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey
Earthquake, in Earthquake Geotechnical Case Histories for Performance Based Design, Kokusho,
T, Ed., TC4 Committee, ISSMFE, CRC Press/Balkema,The Netherlands, pp. 325-340 & Data on CDROM, 2009.
Donahue, J.L., Bray, J.D., and Reimer, M.F. Liquefaction Testing of Fine-Grained Soil Prepared Using
Slurry Deposition, Proc. 4th Inter. Conf. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Paper No. 1226,
June 25-28, 2007.
Idriss, I.M, and Boulanger, R.S. Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, EERIMNO-12, Oakland, CA, 2008.
Sancio, R.B. and Bray, J.D., An Assessment of the Effect of Rod Length on SPT Energy Calculations
Based on Measured Field Data, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 28(1), Paper GTJ11959,
pp. 1-9, Jan. 2005.
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, Long Beach, Calif., April 30, 2003.