NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 1

Module 6
LIQUEFACTION
(Lectures 27 to 32)

Topics
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 LIQUEFACTION-RELATED PHENOMENA
6.2.1 Flow Liquefaction
6.2.2 Cyclic Mobility
6.3 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS
6.4 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY
6.4.1 Historical Criteria
6.4.2 Geologic Criteria
6.4.3 Compositional Criteria
6.4.4 State Criteria
6.4.5 Critical void ratio
6.4.6 Steady State of Deformation
6.4.7 State Parameter
6.5 INITATION OF LIQUEFACTION
6.5.1 Flow Liquefaction Surface
6.5.2 Monotonic Loading
6.5.3 Cyclic Loading
6.5.4 Development of Flow Liquefaction
6.5.5 Influence of excess pore pressure
6.5.6 Flow Liquefaction
6.5.7 Cyclic Mobility
6.5.8 Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction
6.5.9 Cyclic-Stress Approach
6.5.10 Characterization of Earthquake Loading
6.5.11 Characterization of Liquefaction
Resistance
6.5.12 Characterization Based on Laboratory
Tests
6.5.13 Characterization Based on In Situ Tests
6.5.14 Evaluation of Initiation of Liquefaction
6.5.15 Cyclic Strain Approach
6.5.16 Characterization of Loading Conditions
NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 2
6.5.17 Characterization of Liquefaction
Resistance
6.5.18 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
6.5.19 Other Approaches to the Initiation of
liquefaction
6.5.20 Energy Dissipation Approach
6.5.21 Effective Stress-Based Response Analysis
Approach
6.5.22 Probabilistic Approach
6.6 EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION
6.6.1 Alteration of Ground Motion
6.6.2 Development of Sand Boils
6.6.3 Settlement
6.6.4 Settlement of Dry Sands
6.6.5 Settlement of Saturated Sands
6.6.6 Instability
6.6.7 Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil
6.6.8 Laboratory Testing Approach: Steady- State
Strength
6.6.9 In Situ Testing Approach: Residual Strength
6.6.10 Normalized Strength Approach: Residual
Strength Ratio
6.6.11 Flow Failure
6.6.12 Flow Liquefaction Failures (NRC Mechanism A)
6.6.13 Local Loosening Flow Failures(NRC
Mechanism B)
6.6.14 Global Loosening Flow Failures(NRC
Mechanism C)
6.6.15 Interface Flow Failures(NRC Mechanism D)
6.6.16 Deformation Failures
Summary







NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 3

Lecture 27
Liquefaction

Topics

6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 LIQUEFACTION-RELATED PHENOMENA
6.2.1 Flow Liquefaction
6.2.2 Cyclic Mobility
6.3 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS



6.1 INTRODUCTION
Liquefaction is one of the most important, interesting, complex and
controversial topics in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Its
devastating effects sprang to the attention of geotechnical engineers in a
three-month period in 1964 when the Good Friday earthquake

) in Alaska was followed by the Niigata earthquake

in
Japan. Both earthquakes produced spectacular examples of liquefaction-
induced damage, including slope failures, bridge and building foundation
failures, and flotation of buried structures. In the 30 years since these
earthquakes, liquefaction has been studied extensively by hundreds of
researchers around the world. Much has been learned, but the road has
not been smooth. Different terminologies, procedures, and methods of
analysis have been proposed, and a prevailing approach has been slow to
emerge.
In recent years, many of these differences have been reconciled by the
realization that their causes were due, in large part, to semantics. The
term liquefaction has been used to describe a number of different, though
related phenomena. Rather than try to trace the convoluted development
of the current state of knowledge regarding liquefaction, this chapter will
present a basic framework for the conceptual understanding of
liquefaction-related soil behavior and use it to describe the various
methods by which liquefaction hazards can be evaluated. To do this, the
chapter introduces some new terminology to distinguish between
phenomena that have frequently been lumped together under the heading
of liquefaction. The new terminology allows these phenomena to be
illustrated in a way that simplifies understanding of their mechanics and
the manner in which they contribute to earthquake damage.

NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 4
6.2 LIQUEFACTION-RELATED PHENOMENA
The term liquefaction, originally coined by Mogamin and Kubo (1953), has
historically been used in conjunction with a variety of phenomena that involve soil
deformation caused by monotonic, transient, or repeated disturbance of saturated
cohesion-less soils under un-drained conditions. The generation of excess pore
pressure under un-drained loading conditions is a hallmark of all liquefaction
phenomena. The tendency for dry cohesion-less soils to density under both static
and cyclic loading is well known. When cohesion-less soils are saturated, however,
rapid loading occurs under un-drained conditions, so the tendency for densification
causes excess pore pressure to increase and effective stresses to decrease.
Liquefaction phenomena that result from this process can be divided into two main
groups: flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.
Both flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility are very important, and any evaluation
of liquefaction hazards should carefully consider both. In the field, flow
liquefaction occurs much less frequently than cyclic mobility but its effects are
usually far more severe. Cyclic mobility, on the other hand, can occur under a much
broader range of soil and site conditions than flow liquefaction; its effects can range
from insignificant to highly damaging. The term of liquefaction will be taken to
include both flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility will be identified individually when necessary.

6.2.1 Flow Liquefaction
Flow liquefaction produces the most dramatic effects of all the liquefaction-related
phenomena-tremendous instabilities known as flow failures. Flow liquefaction can
occur when the shear stress required for static equilibrium of a soil mass (the static
shear stress) is greater than the shear strength of the soil in its liquefied state. Once
triggered the large deformation produced by flow liquefaction are actually driven
by static shear stresses. The cyclic stresses may simply brig the soil to an unstable
state at which its strength drops sufficiently to allow the static stresses to produce
the flow failure. Flow liquefaction failures are characterized by the sudden nature of
their origin, the speed with which they develop, and the large distance over which
the liquefied material soften move. The flow slide failures of Sheffield Dam (figure
1.5 from module1) and Lower San Fernando Dam (figure 1.7 from module1) are
examples of flow liquefaction. The fluid nature of liquefied soil is illustrated in
(figure 6.1).
NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 5


Figure 6.1: A small flow slide along the shore of Lake Merced in San Francisco in
1957 (photo by M. Bonilla; courtesy of USGS)


6.2.2 Cyclic Mobility
Cyclic mobility is another phenomenon that can also produce unacceptably large
permanent deformations during earthquake shaking. In contrast to flow
liquefaction cyclic mobility occurs when the static shear stress is less than the
shear strength of the liquefied soil. The deformation produced by cyclic mobility
failures develop incrementally during earthquake shaking. In contrast to flow
liquefaction, the deformation produced by cyclic mobility are driven by both
cyclic and static shear stresses. These deformations, termed lateral spreading, can
occur on very gently sloping ground or on virtually flat ground adjacent to bodies
of water (figure 6.2). When structures are present, lateral spreading can cause
significant damage (figure 1.8 and 1.9 from module 1).


Figure 6.2: Lateral spreading of very flat ground toward the Motagua River
following the 1976 Guatemala earthquake. Note orientation of ground surface
cracks parallel to river bank (phot by G. Plafker, courtesy of USGS)
NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 6
A special case of cyclic mobility is level-ground liquefaction. Because static
horizontal shear stresses that could drive lateral deformations do not exist, level-
ground liquefaction can produce large, chaotic movement knows as ground
oscillation during earthquake shaking, but produces little permanent laterally soil
movement. Level-ground liquefaction failures are caused by the upward flow of
water that occurs when seismically induced excess pore pressures dissipate.
Depending on the length of time required to reach hydraulic equilibrium, level-
ground liquefaction failure may occur well after ground shaking has ceased.
Excessive vertical settlement and consequent flooding of low-lying land and the
development of sand boils (figure 6.3) are characteristics of level-ground
liquefaction failure.


Figure 6.3: Sand boils near Niigata, Japan following the 1964 Niigata earthquake.
Sand boils are often aligned along cracks in the ground (photo by K. Steinbrugge;
courtesy of Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California

6.3 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS
Both flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility can produce damage at a particular
site, and a complete evaluation of liquefaction hazards requires that the potential
for each be addressed. When faced with such a problem, the geotechnical
earthquake engineers can systematically evaluate potential liquefaction hazards
by addressing the following questions.
NPTEL- GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Dept. of Civil Engg. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 7
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?

If the answer to the first question is no, the liquefaction hazard evaluation can be
terminated with the conclusion that liquefaction hazards do not exist. If the answer
is yes, the next question must be addressed. In some cases it may be more efficient
to reverse the order of the second and third questions, particularly when damage
appears unlikely. If the answers to all three are yes, a problem exists; if the
anticipated level of damage is unacceptable, the site must be abandoned or
improved or on-site structures strengthened. These questions pertain to the three
most critical aspects of liquefaction hazard evaluation; susceptibility, initiation,
and effects. All three must be considered in a considered in a comprehensive
evaluation of liquefaction hazards.