314

PAST AND FUTURE OF LIQUEFACTION

Shamsher Prakash,

Keynote

Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, prakash@mst.edu

Vijay K. Puri
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois, puri@engr.siu.edu

ABSTRACT: Several developments have taken in the research on liquefaction in past three decades which has resulted in
better understanding the phenomenon of liquefaction. Liquefaction, in the past, was primarily associated with medium to fine grained saturated cohesionless soils and soils with fines were considered non-liquefiable. The authors investigated the liquefaction behavior of silts and silt clay mixers over a range of plasticity values of interest by conducting cyclic triaxial tests on undisturbed as well as reconstituted samples and their behavior was compared with that of sand. Saturated silts with plastic fines were found to behave differently from sands both with respect to rate of development of pore water pressure and axial deformations. Later on it was found by several investigators that certain soils with fines may be susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction was observed in silt deposits in China and some clayey deposits in Taiwan and in Iran. Some recent investigations have resulted in development of criteria that have tried to define the liquefaction of silts and clays in more rational manner. There is still confusion about the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils which, hopefully will be resolved in near future. INTRODUCTION The failure of ground structure due to earthquake can lead to major destruction. The ground may fail due to loss of strength which in saturated soils may be occasioned by increase in pore water pressure. This phenomenon, termed liquefaction, can occur in soils, especially loose saturated sands. The increase in pore pressure causes a reduction in shear strength, which may even be lost completely. Soil that has lost all shear strength and behave like viscous fluid. One of the evidences of liquefaction is the formation of sand fountains and sand boils which have been observed following several earthquakes. PAST CONCEPTS OF LIQUEFACTION Serious studies on liquefaction of sands started in the sixties following the Niigata (1964) and Alaska (1964) earthquakes even though evidence of liquefaction was observed during the Bihar earthquake of 1934 ( Housner, 1958: Dunn et al., 1939) and concepts about liquefaction existed even before that and criteria were suggested for liquefaction based on simple physical properties of soil. For example, Cassagrande (1936) proposed the critical void ratio as a possible criterion for deciding if sand will liquefy or not. If the sand has void ratio larger than the critical void ratio, sand will liquefy if sheared under undrained loading. The critical void ratio is not a unique property of sand and this criterion did not find favor for long. Maslov (1957) proposed the concept of critical acceleration. Ground acceleration larger than the critical acceleration was expected to trigger liquefaction in saturated sands. The critical acceleration also was not found to be a unique property. Florin and Ivanov (1961) suggested that criterion for liquefaction should include intensity of ground disturbance, stress condition of soil and hydraulic gradient 1 of water. A field criterion (Maslov,1957) based on settlement of saturated sand deposit due to a 5 kg explosive fired at a depth of 4.5 m was also proposed. These criteria did not include the several significant factors which affect the liquefaction susceptibility of a soil as established by subsequent research by several investigators (Prakash, 1981). Liquefaction Studies As the problem of liquefaction became important in the sixties, research was vigorously taken up and included (a) Investigation of sites damaged by earthquakes (b) Laboratory tests using undarined cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear devices. (c) Vibration or shake table tests (d) Field tests such Standard Penetration tests (SPT) and Cone Penetration tests (CPT) and Shear Wave Velocity test. (e) Numerical analysis. Studies on Sand Most of these studies were devoted to liquefaction of saturated cohesionless soils under seismic loading conditions. Comprehensive laboratory investigation program on liquefaction on sands was initiated at University of California Berkely in 1960 by Seed and his group. Seed and Lee (1966) reported the first comprehensive data on liquefaction of sand. They advocated that a major part of soil deformation in many earthquakes occurs due to upward propagation of shear waves from underlying layers. During an earthquake, the soil is subjected to a series of cyclic shear strains that reverse direction several times. If the ground surface is horizontal, then there is no initial shear stress on a

Keynote

horizontal plane. The normal stress on the plane remains constant and cyclic stresses are induced during the earthquake. These deformation conditions are best reproduced in cyclic simple shear test. They can also be approximately reproduced in cyclic loading triaxial compression test. Using the cyclic triaxial compression test procedures studies were made to determine the various factors affecting liquefaction of sand samples. Peacock and Seed (1968) used oscillatory shear device to study liquefaction in sand and a comparison was made of the shear stresses causing liquefaction in sand in the cyclic triaxial and the cyclic simple shear tests. It was observed that cyclic stresses causing liquefaction in loose saturated sands under cyclic simple shear conditions were only about 35 % of the cyclic stresses required to cause liquefaction under cyclic triaxial conditions. Since field conditions are more realistically duplicated in cyclic simple shear test but the cyclic triaxial tests are relatively easier to perform, therefore correction factors were proposed to correlate the cyclic triaxial data with the cyclic simple shear data. This resulted in the well known simplified procedures for liquefaction analysis of sand deposits. The sample size used in the cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear device being small, it was pointed out by Finn (1972) that testing large samples using shake table may better represent the liquefaction of field deposits. The results of the shake table studies were in general qualitative agreement with data obtained from cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear tests. Limited studies on liquefaction of undisturbed samples of sand were also attempted and it was observed that natural undisturbed samples were somewhat more resistant to liquefaction compared to laboratory made samples at the same relative density due to aging effect and strength increase in sand due to development of bond between sand particles. Because of difficulty in procuring undisturbed sand samples and the associated cost of performing such tests, they cannot be routinely used for liquefaction analysis. The same argument applies to shake table tests. This lead to search for a field test which could be used for ascertaining liquefaction susceptibility at a site. The standard penetration test which is routinely used for sub-soil exploration showed promise for estimating the liquefaction also. Standard penetration data was collected for sites which had experienced major earthquakes and where liquefaction had or had not occurred (Seed et al, 1985). The SPT value (N1)60 has been adopted by the profession as an index for liquefaction of saturated sand deposits. The plot in Fig. 1 (Seed et al.; 1985) has been commonly used for this purpose. The plot (Fig. 1) with fines content of less than 5% is typical for the case of sands. The relationship between the cyclic stress ratios and (N1)60 in Fig. 1 is for an 2

earthquake of magnitude 7.5. For an earthquake of magnitude different from 7.5, the cyclic stress ratio obtained from Fig. 1, should be modified by multiplying with the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) proposed by Seed et.al; 1975).

Figure 1. Relationship between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction and (N1)60 values for Silty Sand for M = 7.5 (after Seed et al. 1985) Liquefaction potential is seen to decrease with an increase in the fine content in sand (Fig.1). Seed (1987) suggested the use of effective SPT value to account for the effect of fines in sand. The effective SPT value modifies the observed penetration resistance to equivalent clean sand penetration resistance and may be obtained as follows:

N1 60eff =

N1 60eff

N1 60 N1 60

(1)

Effective standard penetration resistance or

equivalent clean sand penetration resistance N1 60 = Correction for silt content and,

N1 60 = observed SPT value for the silty sand.

The values of N1 60 given below (Seed, 1987): Fines content (%)

N1 60
1 2 4 5

10 25 50 75

Keynote

The tip resistance from cone penetration test (CPT) can also be used as acriteria for liquefaction (Mitchell and Tseng (1990)). CPT has the advantage over SPT in its ability to detect thin seams of loose soil. The cyclic strain approach determines the susceptibility of liquefaction by estimating the shear strain induced in the soil due to seismic loading and comparing it with the threshold strain required to develop liquefaction. The typical value the threshold strain is about 0.01 % (Dobry et al.; 1982). Shear velocity has also been recognized as a useful indicator for liquefaction. Stokeo et., al. (1988) have used the cyclic strain approach and equivalent linear ground response analysis to investigate the relationship between peak ground acceleration for stiff soil site and shear wave velocity and correlated the data with conditions under which liquefaction may or may not develop. Tokimatsu et. al. (1991) used laboratory tests to develop plots correlating the cyclic stress ratios required to produce cyclic strain amplitude of 2.5 % in given number of cycles as a function of shear wave velocity. Neemat-Nasser and Sokooh (1979) and Berril and Davis (1985) proposed an energy based empirical criteria for liquefaction. Trifunac (1995) investigated the energy based criteria and investigated the sites where liquefaction had or had not occurred. He proposed empirical models to compute the corrected SPT values (N) which separate the observed cases where liquefaction had or had not occurred. Todorovoska (1996) further developed this methodology. SUMMARY OF STUDIES ON LIQUEFACTION OF SANDS Remarkable developments have taken place in liquefaction analysis of saturated sands. The state of the art on liquefaction behavior of cohesionless soils has progressed to a stage that reasonable estimates of liquefaction potential can be made based on laboratory investigations or on simple in-situ test data such as standard penetration values ( N1 or (N1)60) or on cone penetration data, and the experience during the past earthquakes, (Mitchell and Tseng, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Robertson and Campnella , 1985; Prakash,1981; Seed and Idriss, 1981; Seed and DeAlba, 1986; Seed , Idriss and Arango , 1983; Seed and Lee, 1966; Seed and Harder, 1990; Seed et al , 1985,1988; Idriss1991;Youd and Idriss ,2001;Idriss et al,2001). The cyclic stress approach (Seed and Idriss ,1981) and the cyclic strain approach (Dobry et al, 1982) are commonly used for evaluation of liquefaction potential of sands. The cyclic stress approach involves determination of cyclic shear stresses induced by the earthquake at various depths and comparing them with the cyclic shear stresses inducing the liquefaction and identifying zones of potential liquefaction if any. The cyclic strain approach , on the other hand involves the calculation of shear strains induced at various depths in a sand deposit due the earthquake and comparing 3

these strains with the threshold shear strains and identifying the Potential zones in deposit which are likely to liquefy. Studies on Fine Grained Soils The above discussion applies to cohesionless soils. Fine soils such as silts, clayey silts and sands with fines and silty soils were considered non-liquefiable. The nature of fines in Fig. 1 has not been defined. The observations following the Haicheng (1975) and Tangshan (1976) earthquakes indicate that many cohesive soils had liquefied. These cohesive soils had clay fraction less than 20%, liquid limit between 2135%, plasticity index between 4% and 14% and water content more than 90% of their liquid limit. Kishida (1969) reported liquefaction of soils with upto 70% fines and 10% clay fraction during Mino-Owar, Tohankai and Fukui earthquakes. Tohno and Yasuda (1981) reported that soils with fines up to 90% and clay content of 18 % exhibited liquefaction during Tokachi Oki earthquake of 1968. Soils with up to 48 % fines and 18 % clay content were found to have liquefied during the Hokkaido Nansai Oki earthquake of 1993. Gold mine tailings liquefied during the OshimaKinkai earthquake in Japan (Ishihara, 1984). These tailings had silt sized particles and liquid limit of 31%, plasticity index of 10 % and water content of 37 %. Seed et al (1983) found that some soils with fines may be susceptible to liquefaction. Such soils (based on Chinese criteria) appear to have the following characteristics: Percent finer than 0.005 mm (5 microns) 15% Liquid limit 35 % Water content 90 % of liquid limit The Chinese criteria have been considered inadequate as discussed later in the paper. Seed et al. (1985) suggested that if the fines in sand are less than 5%, their effect on liquefaction susceptibility may be neglected and suggested use of charts in Fig. 1 for sands as well for soils with fines. It may be worthwhile to elaborate on the Chinese criteria for liquefaction of fine grained soils here. According to Wang (1979), the following criteria are recommended by the Chinese Code for Aseismic Design of Hydraulic Structures. According to these criteria, any silty soil which contains less than 15 % to 20% clay particles (smaller than 5 m size) and has plasticity index of more than 3%, can liquefy during a strong seismic motion if its water content is greater than 90 % of its liquid limit . The Chinese practice of determining the liquid and plastic limits, water content and clay fraction differs somewhat from the ASTM procedures followed in USA and some other countries. Finn (1991,and Finn et al. (1993) and Perlea et al. (1999) suggested the following adjustments of the index properties as determined using the US standards, prior to applying the Chinese criteria:

Keynote

1. 2. 3.

Decrease the fines content by 5% Increase the liquid limit by 1% and Increase the water content by 2

Studies undertaken at UMR (now MST) in the early 1980s also identified the effect of plasticity of soil on the liquefaction of silts. Dynamic triaxial tests were conducted on 73.65 mm (diameter) and 147.3 mm (high) samples of two different silts (A and B) to determine the effect of plasticity index on susceptibility to liquefaction. The index properties of these silts are given below:

Figure 3 shows the effect of plasticity index on cyclic stress ratio inducing 5% DA strain in a given number of load cycles. An increase in PI value is seen to increase the cyclic stress ratio inducing 5% DA strain in any given number of cycles. The trend of the data from other tests was similar with the exception that for the case of PI=20, the condition u= 3 did not develop within the range of cyclic load applications used in this study.

0.6

Cyclic Stress Ratioi (d/23)

Percent finer than 75 (0.075 mm) Natural water Content Liquid limit Plasticity Index Clay Content <2 m Specific Gravity of Soil Particles Particle size D50 mm

Soil A 93-98 18-26 32-36 9-14 (mostly 10) 2.0-7.2% 2.71 0.06

Soil B 96-98 -----24.2-26.6 1.6-1.8

0.5

Failuire Condition 5% D.A. Axial Strain PI = 10 PI = 15

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

2.725
0

0.022

10 Number of Cycles

100

1000

Soil A is a naturally occurring silt. The PI of this silt was altered by adding the clay fraction obtained from this soil itself (Puri, 1984). The tests on Silt A were conducted at PI = 10, 15 and 20. The PI of Silt B was varied in the low plasticity range by adding kaolinite. The tests on silt B were conducted at PI = 1.7, 2.6 and 3.4 (Sandoval 1989). A typical data for the tests on silt A is shown in Fig: 2. It is seen form this figure that for the case of silt samples tested the failure defined by 5 % or 10 % double amplitude axial strains occurs before the condition of initial liquefaction defined by u = 3 occurs.

Figure 3. Cyclic Stress Ratio versus number of Cycles for Reconstituted Saturated Samples ,Silt A, =10 psi Typical results of the investigation on samples of silt B showing the effect of plasticity index (PI = 1.7%, 2.6% and 3.4%) on the cyclic stress ratio causing initial liquefaction in any given number of cycles are shown in Fig. 4.

0.6

Failure condition

Cyclic Stress Ratio(d/23)

0.5

5% D.A. Axial Strain 10% D.A. Axial Strain

0.4

u = 3
0.3

20% D.A. Axial Strain

0.2

OCR = 1 PI = 10

0.1

0 1 10 100 1000

Number of Cycles

Figure 2. cyclic Stress ratio Versus number of Cycles for Undisturbed Saturated Samples for 3 = 10.0 psi (Puri, 1984) 4

Fig:4 Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Number of Cycles for Low Plasticity Silts for Inducing Initial Liquefaction Condition at 15 psi Effective Confining Pressure; PI = 1.7, 2.6, and 3.4, for Density 97.2-99.8 pcf, and w = 8% (Sandoval 1989; Prakash and Sandoval 1992)

Keynote

It is clear from Figure 4, that the cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction in a given number of cycles decreases with the increase in plasticity index. It was observed during the testing phase that cyclic loading of plastic silts results in pore pressure build up which becomes equal to the initial effective confining pressure resulting in development of the initial liquefaction. This is just opposite the case when PI is 10% or greater (Silt A). Combining results for silts A and B with CSR normalized at void ratio of 0.74, (Prakash and Guo, 1998) leads to results as shown in Fig. 5. It is observed from this figure that for PI values of less than about 4% the cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction in any given number of cycles decreases with an increase in PI values. For PI values beyond about 4%, the cyclic stress ratio causing initial liquefaction in any given number of cycles increases with an increase in the PI values.

1.

Seed et al. (1985) have recommended that for sands containing less than 5% fines, the effect of fines may be neglected. For sands containing more than 5% fines, the liquefaction potential decreases as shown in Fig. 1. Neglecting the effect of fines should therefore be expected to lead to conservative estimates of liquefaction potential. However this suggestion is not based on experimental or field data.

0.6 N=5

Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.4 N = 10

0.2 N = 50

0 1 10 Plasticity Index (%, log scale) 100

Fig: 6. Normalized cyclic Stress Ratio versus plasticity Index on Undisturbed samples (After El Hosri et al 1984 and Prakash and Guo 1998) 2. Zhou (1981) made an interesting observation based on CPT tests on silty sands at one site and clean sands at another site that an increase in the fines content in sand decreases the CPT resistance but increases the cyclic resistance of the soil. No explanation is given for this peculiar behavior. Zhou (1987) observed that if the clay content Pc in a soil is more than the critical percentage Pc , the soil will not liquefy. The value of
*

Fig: 5 Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Plasticity Index for SiltClay Mixtures (CSR Normalized to initial Void Ration e 0 = 0.74) Based on these results, it may be inferred that there is a critical value of PI at which saturated samples of siltclay mixtures have a minimum resistance to cyclic loading or highest susceptibility to liquefaction.. It is worth mentioning here that data of El Hosri et al., (1984) on undisturbed sample (Fig.6) also suggests a similar effect of PI on cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction as observed during the present investigation. CONFLICTING OPINIONS ABOUT EFFECT OF FINES ON LIQUEFACTION AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS There are several research findings worth mentioning on the effect of fines on liquefaction potential of soils. Some of these opinions are conflicting and some may even be confusing. Specifically:

3.

Pc* are related to the intensity of earthquake

7 10 8 13 9 16

Intensity, (I ), as follows: Intensity (I)

P (%)
4.

* c

Ishihara and Koseki (1989) had suggested that low plasticity fines (PI 4) do not influence the liquefaction potential. However, they did not consider the effect of the void ratio in their analysis.

Keynote

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

Finn (1991) made an observation about the effect of fines in sand in developing equivalent clean sand behavior. If the void ratio of silty sand and clean sand is the same the liquefaction resistance decreases. If the comparison is made at the same (N1)60, the effect of fines is to increase the liquefaction resistance. If comparison is made using the the same void ratio in sand skeleton as the criteria, then there is no effect on the cyclic strength provided the fines can be accommodated within the sand voids. Ishihara (1993) mentioned that in soils in which the fines content is sufficient to separate the coarser particles, the nature of the fines controls the behavior. Low plasticity or non-plastic silts and silty sands may be highly susceptible to liquefaction. This will be the case when PI is less than about 10. For soils with moderately plastic fines ( fines content more than about 15 % and 8 PI 15 ), the liquefaction behavior may be uncertain and may need further investigation. It is obvious that it is still not possible to evaluate the likelihood of liquefaction of silts or silty clays with the same confidence as for clean sands without additional investigations. It is thus seen that there are different conclusions about the effect of fines on liquefaction resistance. Seed et al., (2001) observed that there is significant controversy and confusion regarding the liquefaction potential of silty soils (and silty /clayey soils), and also coarser, gravelly soils and rockfills. Finn et al., (1994), Perlea et al., (1999) and Andrews and Martin (2000) have provided general criteria about liquefaction susceptibility of soils with fines. The findings of Andrews and Martin (2000) are summarized in Table1. For use of Table 1 clay refers to fraction finer than 0.002 mm and liquid limit should be determined using Casagrande type equipment.

11.

12.

13.

Table1. Liquefaction susceptibility of silty and clayey sands (Andrew and Martins, 2000) 14. Clay Content <10% Clay Content >10% Liquid Limit < 32 Susceptible Liquid Limit 32 Further studies required (Considering plastic non-clay sized grains such as Mica) Not susceptible 15.

Further studies required (Considering non-plastic clay sized grains such as mine and quarry tailings

10. Bray et al. (2004) and Boulanger and Idriss (2005) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) have investigated the liquefaction of soils with fines and shown that fine grained soils with more than 50 % passing US sieve # 6

200 can be reasonably grouped either into soils that exhibit sand-like stress-strain behavior or soils that exhibit clay-like stress-strain behavior during monotonic and cyclic undrained shear loading. They observed that clay- like behavior should be expected for silts (ML and MH) that have PI 7 and for clays (CL and CH). Sand-like behavior should be expected if their PI is < 7. For sand like materials, field test data such as N-values or CPT data may be used for determination of liquefaction potential. For clay like materials, laboratory testing may be necessary for ascertaining their behavior during cyclic loading. They also suggested that both sand-like and clay-like soils can develop excess pore water pressures and significant strains during undrained cyclic loading. Bray et al. (2004) and Plito (2001) have suggested that the plasticity index rather than percent of clay size particles as a criterion for assessing the susceptibility of fine grained soils to liquefaction. Bray et al. (2004) found that soils that were observed to have liquefied in Aadapazari during the Koceli (1999) earthquake did not typically meet the Chinese criteria for liquefaction susceptible fine grained soils. During their investigation they found that soils with PI < 12 underwent liquefaction, soils between 12 and 18 were moderately prone to liquefaction and soils with PI > 18 were not prone to liquefaction at the effective confining pressures used in the experiments. The authors in their earlier investigation (Puri, 1984) had also observed that Soil A had developed pore water pressure equal to the initial effective confining pressure and the peak to peak axial strain at this stage was in excess of 5 %. Wang, Yuan and LI (2007) investigated the liquefaction susceptibility of saturated loess (silty soil) and fine sand obtained from an airport site near Lanzhou, China. This loess had PI varying from 7.2 to 9. Their studies indicated that this loess was more susceptible to liquefaction than fine sand. Towhata (2008) has mentioned that it was previously thought that soils with fines are more resistant to liquefaction. However, he has also mentioned that the fines employed in those studies meant silts and clays that were cohesive in nature and fine materials without cohesion may still be vulnerable. It is the opinion of the authors based on the data presented here that the soils with low plasticity (PI < about 7) may liquefy or develop large deformations under cyclic loading. Ghalandarzadeh, Ghahremani and Konagai (2007) investigated liquefaction behavior of clayey sand from a site where large sand boiling, softening and large deformations had been observed in Iran due to an earthquake of magnitude 6.4. The soil had a liquid limit of 38 %, PI=18 %, and fine fraction (finer than 75 microns) of 44%. They performed cyclic triaxial tests. The analysis of data indicated that the clayey sand

Keynote

(ec)eq

deposit likely developed high residual excess pore FUTURE OF LIQUEFACTION AND DISCUSSION water pressures and significant shear strains during the earthquake and experienced liquefaction. The studies on liquefaction of saturated sand started in early 16. Thevanaygam (2010) has observed that at the same void sixties and progressed gradually and by mid-eighties to early ratio, the cyclic resistance of sand decreases with an nineties SPT value (N1)60 became the accepted index for increase in silt content upto a certain threshold value of liquefaction. The liquefaction susceptibility of saturated fines content (fcth); thereafter the cyclic resistance sands can now be easily predicted with confidence from increases with further increase in silt content. Silt subsurface exploration data. The cone penetration test data content affects the inter-grain contact density of soil can also be used for liquefaction analysis and has some compared to that of sand at the same void ratio. When advantages. The reason why the use of CPT is less common this is taken into account, sand and silty sand show is because the number of sites where liquefaction has or has similar liquefaction resistance at same equivalent void not occurred and for which the CPT data is also available ratio (ec)eq. Figure 7 shows that at the same equivalent are small. This gap may be covered up in near future. void ratio , the number of cycles inducing 5 % strain is almost the same for clean sand (OS-00), sand with 15 % Wave propagation provides a rapid method of soil silt (OS-15) and sand with 25 % silt (OS-25). exploration for vast areas and upto significant depths. The correlation between the shear wave velocity and the cyclic stress causing liquefaction has been attempted and appears 1.1 promising. Recently, Dobry (2010) presented a comparison OS-00 of liquefaction charts for clean sand based on normalized OS-15 cone penetration resistance and those on measured shear 0.9 OS-25 wave velocity. It appears that in-situ shear wave velocities may become the index for liquefaction potential for sands as 0.7 more research data becomes available.

0.5 0.3

b=0.40

FC<FCth

CSR=0.2 & 'vo=100kPa

0.1

10

100

Number of Cycles,NL (5.0% strain)

Fig.7. Equivalent Void ratio vs Number of Cycles for 5% Strain (Thevanaygam, 2010)

The case of soils having plastic fines is, however, quite different. Evidence of liquefaction of Silty soils was found following the Tangshen earthquake in China. The effort continued on liquefaction potential of sands with non-plastic fines. Later on, it was observed that soils with plastic fines may also liquefy if they have certain characteristics. The cohesive soils were thus divided into two categories based on plasticity index. The work of Andrew and martin (2000), Bray et al. (2004) and Plito (2001) has been discussed earlier in the paper. The clay behavior is to expected (implying no Liquefaction) if PI 7 and sand like behavior if PI <7. The experience during Aadapazari and the Koceli (1999) earthquakes indicates that soils with PI more than 7 may also be prone to liquefaction. The soils with PI=18 have been found susceptible to liquefaction during the 2007 earthquake in Iran. Thus, there is no definite criterion to ascertain the liquefaction susceptibility of cohesive soils and soils with plastic fines. More work is needed in this direction. It may take another 2 decades before rational approach for analysis of liquefaction of silty and clayey soils matures. CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY ON LIQUEFACTION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS The liquefaction of fine grained soils has certainly received the attention of researchers and progress is being made in this direction. In the early eighties, the soils with fines were considered less prone to liquefaction. The role of the nature of fines was not given the required importance. The authors work highlighted the role of plasticity of fines on their susceptibility to liquefaction. Other have recently pointed out that based on fines content and the characteristics of fines, the soils may be expected to show sand like or clay like behavior. Presently (2010) there is no well defined index to ascertain the liquefaction potential of fine grained soils like SPT or CPT in case of sands. 7

It may be concluded that: (1) The silts and siltclay mixtures behave differently from sands, both with respect to development and build up of pore water pressures, and deformations under cyclic loading.

Keynote

(2) The silts and clays can be prone to liquefaction under certain conditions. (3) The plasticity index, the liquid limit, the natural water content and its relation with the liquid limit and not the percentage of fines can serve as better criteria for liquefaction susceptibility of silts and clays. (4) There are several gaps in the existing literature and no definite guidelines are available to ascertain liquefaction susceptibility of fine soils based on a simple test, as for the case of sands. This is not surprising since it took more than 4 -5 decades to have acceptable criteria for liquefaction of sands as we see today (2010 ).. So more work is needed and probably in few decades we will have a better understanding of the liquefaction behavior of fine grained soils. (5) Cone penetration data and shear wave velocities may be more commonly used in future as the index for liquefaction. REFERENCES Andrews, D.C.A. and Martin G.R. (2000) Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils, Proc. 12th WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand. Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H.II, 2000. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. Journal of Geotechnicaland Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 126(11): Boulanger, Ross W. and Idriss, I.M. (2005 ), New Criteria for Distinguishing between Silts and Clays that are Susceptible to Liquefaction versus Cyclic Failure, 25th. Annual USSD Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 6-10, pp 357-366. Bray, J.D., Sancio, R.B., Reimer, M.F. and Durgunoglu,,T. (2004), Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-grained Soils, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotech. Engrg., Berkeley, CA, Jan. 7-9, Vol. 1, pp. 655-662. Berril, J.B. and Davis,R.O. (1985),Energy Dissipation and Seismic Liquefaction of Sands , Revised Model, Soils and Foundations, Japanese society of Soil mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 25, No 2, pp. 106118. Casagrande, A.,(1936), Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the Stability of Earth Fills, Journal Boston society of Civil Engineers, January, reprinted in Contributions to Soil Mechanics 1925-1960, Boston Society of Civil Engineers. Casagrande, A.,(1976), Liquefaction and Cyclic deformation of Sands- A Critical Review, Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. 88, Harvard university, Cambridge, MA. Dobry, R.(2010), Comparison Between Clean Sand Liquefaction Charts Based on Penetration Resistance and Shear Wave Velocity, 5th International Conference on Recent Developments in Geotechnical Earthquake 8

engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA. Dunn, J.A., Auden, J.B. and Gosh, A.M.N.,(1939), The Bihar-Nepal Earthquake of 1934, Memoirs of Geological Survey of India, Vol. 73, p.32. El Hosri, M.S., J. Biarez, J. and. Hicher, P.Y. (1984) Liquefaction Characteristics of Silty Clay, 8th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Prentice-Hall Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J., 3. 277-284. Finn, W.D.L. (19720, Soil-Dynamics-liquefaction of Sands, Proc. First International Conference on Microzonation, Vol. 1, pp. 87-111, Seattle. Finn, W.D.L. (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, St. Louis, March 11-15, Vol. 2, pp. 1883-1850. Finn W. D. L. ( 1993). Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential. Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Seco e Pinto (ed.), Balkema 127-157. Finn, W.D.L., Ledbetter, R. H., R.L. Fleming, R.L., Jr., Templeton, A.E., Forrest, T.W., and Stacy, S.T. (1994) Dam on Liquefiable Foundation: Safety Assessment and Remediation Proc. 17th International Congress on Large Dams, Vienna, pp. 531-553. Florin, V.A. and Ivanov, P.L., (1961), Liquefaction of Saturated Sandy Soils, Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.107-111, Paris. Ghalandarzadeh, A., Ghahremani, M. and Konagai, K. (2007), Investigation on the Liquefaction of a Clayey -Sandy Soil during Changureh Earthquake, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, CD-ROM, Thessaloniki, Greece, March 25-28. Housner, G. W. (1958), Mechanics of Sand Blows, Bull. Seismological Society of America, Vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 155-168. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008) Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, EERI, MNO-12. Ishihara, K. (1993) Liquefaction of natural deposits during earthquakes, Proc. 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco, 1, 321-376 Vol. 2, pp. 683-692. Ishihara, K., and Koseki, J. (1989) Cyclic Shear Strength of Fines-Containing Sands. Earthquake and Geotechnical. Engrg., Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 101106. Kishida, H. (1969) Characteristics of Liquefied Sands during Mino-Owari, Tohnankai, and Fukui Earthquakes. Soils and Foundations, 9(1): 75-92. Mitchell, J. K. and Tseng, D. J. (1990), Assessment of Liquefaction Potential by Cone Penetration Resistance, Proceeding, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, Berkeley , CA, Vol. 2, pp. 335-350, J.M.

Keynote

Duncan Editor. Maslov, N.N., (1957), Question of Seismic Stability of Submerged Sandy Foundations and Structures, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.368-372, London. Neemat-Nasser, S. (1980), Liquefaction of Soil During Earthquakes , Proceedings of the ASCE-EMD Second Speciality Conference , Atlanta, Georgia. Neemat-Nasser, S. and Sokooh, A. (1979), A Unified Approach to Densification and Liquefaction of Cohesionless Sands in Cyclic Shearing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp.659-678. Neemat-Nasser, S. (1980), Liquefaction of Soil During Earthquakes , Proceedings of the ASCE-EMD Second Specialty Conference , Atlanta, Georgia. Neemat-Nasser, S. and Sokooh, A. (1979), A Unified Approach to Densification and Liquefaction of Cohesionless Sands in Cyclic Shearing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp.659-678. Peacock, W.H. and Seed, H.B. (1968), Sand Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading Simple Shear Conditions, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 689-708. Perlea, V.G., Koester, J.P. and Prakash, S. (1999) How Liquefiable are Cohesive Soils? Proc. Second Int Conf on Earthquake Geotechnical Engg., Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 2, 611-618. Plato, C. (2001) Plasticity Based Liquefaction Criteria, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earth. Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, San Diego. Prakash, S. (1981), Soil Dynamics, McGraw Hill Prakash, S., and Guo, T. (1998) Liquefaction of silts with clay content, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, Seattle, WA, Vol. I, pp 337-348. Prakash, S., and Sandoval, J.A. (1992) Liquefaction of Low plasticity Silts J. Soil Dyn, and Earthquake Engg., 71(7), 373-397. Puri, V.K. (1984) Liquefaction Behavior and Dynamic Properties of Loessial (silty) Soils Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri Rolla, Missouri. Robertson, P.K. (1990). Cone Penetration Testing for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential Proc., Symp. On Recent Advances in Earthquake Des. Using Lab. And In Situ Tests, ConeTec Investigations Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada. Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. (1985). Liquefaction Potential of Sands using the CPT J. Geotechnical Engg., ASCE, 111(3), 384-403 Sandoval, J.A. (1989) Liquefaction and Settlement Characteristics of Silt Soils PhD thesis, University of Missouri Rolla, MO. Seed, H.B. (1987), Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No 8, , pp. 827-845. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. and Arango, I. (1983) Evaluation 9

of Liquefaction Potential using Field Performance Data. Journal of Geotechnical Engg, ASCE, 109(3); 458-482. Seed, H.B. and Lee, K.L. (1966), Liquefaction of saturated Sands During Cyclic loading, Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM6, pp. 105-134. Seed H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R. (1985) Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations J. Geotechnical Engg., ASCE, 111(12), 861-878. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M. and Riemer, M.F. (2001) Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering and Seismic Site Response Evaluation, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earth. Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, San Diego. Stokoe. K.H., Roesset, J.M. Bierschwale, J.G. and Aouad, M. (1988) Liquefaction Potential of sand from Shear Wave Velocity, Proceedings, 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 3, pp. 213-218, Tokyo. Todorovska, M.I. (1996), Liquefaction Hazard Assessment via Seismic wave Energy and SPT Values. Earthquake Engineering, Vol. X, No 2, pp. 24-37. Tokimatsu, K., Kuwayama, S. and Tamura, S.,(1991), Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Based on Rayleigh Wave Investigation and Comparison With Field Behavior, Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 1, pp. 357 -354, Saint Louis, Missouri. Thevanayagam, S. (2010). Liquefaction, Screeng and remediation of Silty Soils, Fifth International Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium Honoring professor I.M. Idriss, San Diego, May 24-29, CD Rom. Towhata, I. (2008),Goetechnical Earthquake Engineering, Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering. Trifunac, M. (1995), Empirical Criteria for Liquefaction in Sands via Standard Penetration Tests and Seismic Wave Energy:, Journal Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, , Vol. 44, No 4, pp.419-426. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Haymes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcusson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y, Power, M.C., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B. and Stokoe, K.H. (2001) Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical & Geo-environmental Engineering,

Keynote

ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp 817-833. Wang, W. (1979) Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction Report Water Conservancy and Hydro-electric Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China, 1-17. Wang, J., Yuan, Z. and Li, L. (2007) Study on Liquefaction of Loess Site, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, CD-ROM, Thessaloniki, Greece, March 25-28. Zhu, S.G. (1981) Influence of Fines on Evaluating Liquefaction of Sand by CPT. Proc. Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Engg., St. Louis, Missouri, 1: 167-172. 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.

10