Determination of Liquefaction Potential

of Soil Using (N1)60 by Numerical

Modeling Method
Gholam Moradi
Assistant professor
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: gmoradi@tabrizu.ac.ir

Behnam Rahro Khatibi, Mehdi Hosseinzade Sutubadi

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
Email: behnam.rahro@gmail.com
mhsc60@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
One of the important design considerations for structures situated on sand deposits is the
potential for instability caused by the development of excess pore pressure as a result of
earthquake loading. A build-up of excess pore pressure may lead to initial liquefaction. In the
present study, an alluvium with saturated sand was simulated in FLAC software. Three types
of soil mass with various primary condensation (loose, medium dense and dense) were used.
Parameter (N1)60 was defined to the software as a main soil property to calculate the other soil
parameters such as internal friction angle, relative density, etc. As dynamic loading,
acceleration time histories of three earthquakes with various magnitudes (low, medium and
high) were applied to the model. To examine pore water pressure variation in the soil mass
during the earthquake loading, the parameter ru was defined for the software by a Fish
function. ru is the pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure increment
divided by the primary effective stress in soil. The results showed that FLAC can identify the
regions with liquefaction potential by calculation of generated excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading. Time histories of ru showed that liquefaction potential in the soil mass
changes with depth variations.

KEYWORDS:

Liquefaction Potential, FLAC, Standard Penetration Test, Pore Water

Pressure Ratio, Dynamic Loading.

INTRODUCTION
When earthquake loading is applied to saturated sand deposits, pore water pressure in the soil
starts to increase leading that the soil strength is lost. Liquefaction is the ultimate appearance of
this phenomenon (Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G. 2002). At the initiation of soil
- 407 -

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

408

liquefaction, the effective stress in the soil becomes zero and pore pressure in the soil becomes
equal to the initial confining pressure of the soil mass. During past earthquakes, liquefaction
induced displacements have caused serious damages to marine structures (such as quay walls,
piers, breakwater, etc.). Therefore, the prediction of liquefaction is the main concern for
structures located in medium to high seismicity regions (Jafarian et al. 2010). Field experience
during past earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001) shows that liquefaction has generally occurred at
depths less than 15 m, and recently, some dynamic centrifuge model testing (Steedman et al.
2000) proposes a depth on the occurrence of liquefaction.
Although simplified methods (Seed and Idriss, 1971) are available in calculating the
liquefaction potential of a soil mass, these methods cant be applied to all earthquakes with the
same accuracy. In addition, they cant predict the pore pressure developed in the soil due to
earthquake loading. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a numerical simulation to obtain pore
water pressures and shear stresses in the soil due to earthquake loading. The numerical simulation
of liquefaction is essential in understanding the liquefaction mechanism. To perform the
simulation, an applicable constitutive model of saturated soils and a suitable formulation of
numerical method for the two-phase coupled problem are required.
Numerical simulation performed by Shun-gun Li et al. (2010) shows that the cusp
catastrophe model can simulate increment of excess pore water pressure and occurrence of
liquefaction due to earthquake loading. This model can predict pore water pressure increment and
liquefaction potential. Presented results by Jafarian et al. (2010) show that numerical simulation
of liquefaction can predict both excess pore water pressure and displacements of marine
structures. Therefore, implementation of numerical simulation is necessary for examination of
liquefaction potential. Their numerical analysis was performed by FLAC software.
In this paper liquefaction potential of saturated sandy soil is studied. For this purpose, an
alluvium with saturated sand is simulated in FLAC software using Finn constitutive model. The
effect of soil densification and magnitude of earthquake loading (as a dynamic loading) in
liquefaction potential of the soil and level (or depth) of liquefied regions in the soil mass is
considered. Furthermore, the effect of depth variation on liquefaction potential is studied by
definition of time histories of ru in various points of the soil mass. Generally, it is tried to simulate
liquefaction phenomenon in FLAC using parameter (N1)60 as a main factor for soil parameters
required to the software and identifying liquefiable regions in the soil mass.

THEORY AND PROCEDURE OF NUMERICAL

MODELING
For modeling the soil mass with liquefaction potential, the FLAC software is used. The finite
difference method for analysis of soil mass is used in FLAC. Finn constitutive model is
considered as default in FLAC that facilitates the ability of soil modeling in liquefaction states.
Also, equivalent linear method (Seed and Idriss 1969) and Finn constitutive method are used.
With FLAC, the effects of pore water pressure with or without loss of pore water pressure can
be obtained. Also, the generation of pore water pressure can be calculated by considering the
irrecoverable volumetric strain on basic model Finn with dynamic option. In Finn constitutive
model, it is assumed that void ratio is constant, also it can be calculate as a function of volumetric
strain and other parameters can be defined by void ratio.

V
Vol.
16 [2011], Bund.. D

409

F
Finn
Constitutive Model
M
Martin
et al. (1975) propossed an effective stress anallysis approacch. Their propposed model is
an equuation linking
g the incremeent of the volumetric strainn per cycle off loading to the
t shear straiin
occurrred during th
hat particular cycle. They supply the following
fo
emppirical equatiion that relatees
the inncrement of volume decrrease, vd, to
t the cyclicc shear-strainn amplitude, , where is
presum
med to be thee engineeringg shear strainn:

= (
)+

(1
1)

w
where
C1, C2, C3 and C4 aree constants.
B
Byrne
(1991) proposed
p
a modified
m
and simpler volum
me change moodel with two parameters:

= exp

2)
(2

w
where
C1 and C2 are constaants with diff
fferent interprretations from
m those of Eqq. (1). In manny
cases,, C2 = 0.4/C1, so Eq. (2) innvolves only one
o independent constant.
= 7600(

(3
3)

U
Using
an empirical relationn between Dr and the norm
malized standdard penetratiion test valuees
(Boullanger 2004), (N1)60:
= 15( )

(4
4)

T
Then:
= 8.7( )

(5
5)

C2 is then calcculated from C2 = 0.4/C1 in this case. Parameter (N

( 1)60 is the main
m
factor of
o
numerical simulatiion in Finn Coonstitutive moodel in FLAC
C.

Definition
D
n of Soil Mass an
nd Mesh Model
A soil mass with
w
30 meteers height annd 400 meterrs length is assumed
a
for the numericaal
simulation. In Figu
ure (1), the mesh
m
model iss shown. It is assumed thatt the bed of thhe soil mass is
rock and both leftt and right boundaries of the model have
h
free-fieldd condition (Cundall
(
et al.
a
1980)).

Figure 1: The soil masss mesh

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

410

Then, the values of bulk modulus and water density and gravity are given to the program.
Next, the parameters of Finn model are defined by introducing (N1)60 for all the regions of soil
mass. The software calculates the values of C1 and C2 for all the regions of soil mass.
Also the quantity of (N1)60 is used to calculate the other soil parameters such as internal
friction angle, relative density and also the required parameters for the model to calculate
volumetric strains such as shear modulus and initial bulk modulus. The relationship between
these parameters with (N1)60 is defined to the software by a Fish function. For example, for
determining the relative density (Dr) with (N1)60, the Boulanger formula (2004) is used.
Also, internal friction angle is defined by Eq. (6):
=

15.4 ( )

+ 18

(6)

Finally, Rayleigh damping is used for the model and relevant coefficients are given to the
software.
For observation of effective stress and pore water pressure variations, special time histories
are defined in some points of the mesh. These time histories are defined to the software by a Fish
function.
For observation of the earthquake magnitude, acceleration time history of three earthquakes
with low magnitude (Karebass earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.2g), average magnitude
(San Fernando earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.29g) and high magnitude (Bam
earthquake with maximum acceleration 0.42g) are used as dynamic loading for the soil mass.

EXAMINATION OF THE RESULTS

To distinguish between liquefiable and non-liquefiable areas, parameter ru is defined. ru is the
pore water pressure ratio, which equals the pore water pressure increment divided by the primary
effective stress in soil. It is defined to the software by a Fish function.
Theoretically, if ru inclines to 1, effective stress inclines to zero and liquefaction should
occur. But ru=1 is only theoretic definition for liquefaction occurrence. Previously, it is
experienced that liquefaction phenomenon occurred at ru=0.93. Therefore in this research, if ru
reaches a value greater than 0.9 liquefaction happens.

Examination of Liquefaction Potential of Soil Mass with

Various Condensations by Applying Karebass Earthquake
As previously described, to introduce the soil condensation, parameter (N1)60 is used.
According to Table (1) which is presented by Clayton et.al (1993), classification of soil regarding
(Dr) and (N1)60 is denoted. By use of this table, values of (N1)60 equal to 8,15 and 25 are chosen.

V
Vol.
16 [2011], Bund.. D

411

Table 1: Rellationship bettween (N1)60 and

a soil conddensation
Cllassification
Very
V
loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very
V
dense

Dr (%)
0 15
15 35
35 65
65 85
85 - 100

(N1)60 (blows/300mm
m)
03
38
8 25
25 42
42 - 58

Figure (2) sh
hows the maaximum valuees of ru in soil mass innduced by loow magnitudde
bass) (A-loosee sand, B-meddium dense saand, C-dense sand).
earthqquake (Kareb

Figure 2: Maximum
m values of ru in
i different densities of thee soil inducedd by
Karebbass earthquakke
Inn Figure (2-A
A), the soil maass in two vaarious depths have experieenced maximuum increase in
i
pore water pressu
ure. Accordinng to this figgure, the soil around the regions markked in blue is
liqueffied and aroun
nd the regionns marked in pink
p
is on thee boundary beetween liqueffiable and nonnliqueffiable areas. Furthermore,
F
this figure shhows that loose sand is liqquefied in botth approximatte
depthhs 12 and 30m
m.
Figure (2-B) obviously
o
shoows that liqueefied area in depth of 30m
m reduces andd only a smaall
part of
o it in that depth reaches thhe liquefactioon boundary. But in depth of 12m in thee soil mass, thhe
maxim
mum value off ru is more thhan 0.9 and thherefore the sooil mass is liqquefied. Figurre (2-C) show
ws
that reegion with liq
quefaction pootential is only in depth off 12m from thhe surface andd the soil masss
in deppth of 30m is not liqueffied at all. Also
A
it showss that, in thee regions neaar the surface,
maxim
mum values of
o ru become smaller
s
(yelloow color).
G
Generally,
Fig
gure (2) show
ws that increase of soil dennsity leads too decrease off liquefied areea
and decrease of liq
quefaction pottential in deepp area of the soil
s mass.

V
Vol.
16 [2011], Bund.. D

412

Examina
ation of Liquefact
L
tion Pote
ential of Soil
S
Mass
s with
Variou
us Conde
ensations
s by App
plying Sa
an Fernan
ndo
Earrthquake
e
Figure (3) sho
ows the maximum valuess of ru in soiil mass inducced by mediuum magnitudde
earthqquake (San Feernando) (A-lloose sand, B-medium
B
dennse sand, C-ddense sand). On
O the contrarry
to Figgure (2), Figu
ure (3-A) show
ws that liqueffied area in depth of 30m is larger thann liquefied areea
in deppth of 12m. On the otherr hand, by appplying the medium
m
magnnitude earthqquake on loosse
sand, a deep areaa of soil masss has more liquefaction potential. In Figure (3-B
B), the area of
o
liqueffied region in
n depth of 30m reduces annd liquefied region
r
obviouusly is seen. On
O contrary to
t
Figuree (3-B), the soil mass havee liquefactionn potential in both
b
depth off 12 and 30m.

s induced by
b San
Figure 3: Maximum values of ru in different dennsities of the soil
Fernanndo earthquakke
Inn Figure (3-C
C) the area with liquefaction potential in depth of 30m
3
reduces and maximum
m
liqueffaction potenttial is approxiimately in deppth of 12m.

Examina
ation of Liquefact
L
tion Pote
ential of Soil
S
Mass
s with
Various
s Conden
nsations by Apply
ying Bam
m Earthquake
Figure (4) show
ws the maxim
mum values of
o ru in soil mass
m
induced by
b medium hiigh earthquakke
m) (A-loose san
nd, B-medium
m dense sand, C-dense sannd).
(Bam

Figgure 4: Maxim
mum values of
o ru in differeent densities of
o the soil indduced by Bam
m earthquake

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

413

According to Figure (4-A), approximately all the regions of the soil mass by applying high
magnitude earthquake is liquefied and on the contrary to Figure (2-A) and Figure (3-A), a specific
region cannot be distinguished as an area with liquefaction potential.
From Figure (4-B) it is seen that by increasing the soil density, liquefaction potential
decreases from bottom to top of the soil mass. In this figure on the contrary to previous figures,
only one liquefied region is seen. On the other hand, shallow regions of the soil mass have
maximum liquefaction potential.
In Figure (4-C) it is obviously seen that in depth of 12m there is maximum liquefaction
potential. However, by comparison with previous corresponding figures, larger area of the soil
mass is in the liquefaction boundaries.

General Results From Above Figures

- In Figure (2) and Figure (3) which are related to low and medium magnitude earthquakes
respectively, the soil mass has maximum potential of liquefaction in two separated regions.
According to these figures, when soil densification increases, the area of liquefied region
decreases in depth of 30m.
- According to Figure (4), on the contrary to Figure (2) and Figure (3) in the soil mass with
applied high magnitude earthquake, only one specific region with liquefaction potential is seen.
- Comparing Figure (2) and Figure (3), shows no particular difference between liquefied
region area. It is due to the small difference between maximum accelerations of two earthquakes,
which are applied.
-All figures show that maximum potential of liquefaction in the soil mass is between depths
of 10 and 15m. This range of depth is similar to results of Seed and Idriss method (1971).

The Effect of Depth Variations on Liquefaction Potential of

Soil Mass
To examine the modeling exactness, several time histories are defined in various points of the
model mesh to score variations of soil parameters during earthquake loading (such as ru, effective
stress and pore water pressure). For example in this section, time history of ru in middle region of
the soil mass in depth of 10 and 20m is studied.

V
Vol.
16 [2011], Bund.. D

414

F
Figure
5: Tim
me history of ru in depth of 10m related to
t dense soil induced by hiigh magnitudde
earthhquake loadingg

F
Figure
6: Tim
me history of ru in depth of 20m related to
t dense soil induced by hiigh magnitudde
earthhquake loadingg

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

415

Both of two figures show that the soil mass has experienced maximum value of ru in tenth
second of earthquake loading. Maximum value and variations slope of ru in Figure (5) are more
than corresponding values in figure (6). It shows that liquefaction potential in low depth is more
than liquefaction potential in high depth. The maximum value of ru in Figure (5) is 0.93, it means
that soil mass in that point is liquefied, while maximum value of ru in figure (6) is 0.87 and the
soil mass is not liquefied in that point.
At both states, the final value of ru is 0.83 after peak point. In Figure (5), value of ru after tenth
second suddenly falls and it inclines to 0.83 with a lightly ascending slope. In figure (6), value of
ru after tenth second inclines to 0.83 with lightly descending slope.
Generally, if depth increases, less reduction occurs in effective stress and there will be less
increase in ru as well. On the other hand, minimum effective stress in depth of 20m is more than
corresponding value in depth of 10m. It shows that when depth increases, liquefaction potential
decreases.

CONCLUSION
Based on numerical results the following conclusion can be obtained.
1. Results show that Finn constitutive model can calculate excess pore pressure during
earthquake loading by measurement of irrecoverable volumetric strain. By introducing ru as a
liquefaction potential index, the liquefied regions are specified.
2. In the loose and medium dense sand with applied low and medium magnitude earthquake
loading, two separated regions with liquefaction potential are seen in depth of 12 and 30m. The
volume of liquefied region located in approximate depth of 30m is less than volume of liquefied
region in approximate depth of 12m.
3. In all types of soils (with various densities) by applying high magnitude earthquake
loading, only one area with liquefaction potential is seen. When soil condensation becomes high,
the liquefied region moves to the surface. This result shows that the effect of high magnitude
earthquake shows its effect in low depth of the soil mass.
4. During earthquake loading, in all types of the soils with various densities, liquefaction
potential in low depth is more than liquefaction potential in high depth.
5. Results show that variations slope of ru (or pore water pressure) in lower depth (10m) is
more than variation slope of ru in higher depth (20m). On the other hand, the soil mass near the
surface reaches sooner to the liquefaction state.
6. Schema of variations of ru in depth of 10m is different from variations of ru in depth of
20m. In depth of 10m, the value of ru after tenth second suddenly falls and it inclines to constant
value (0.83) with lightly ascending slope. In depth of 20m, value of ru after tenth second inclines
to constant value (0.83) with lightly descending slope.

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

416

REFERENCES
1. Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M (2004) State normalization of penetration resistances and
the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction resistance, Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 2, 484-491.
2. Byrne, P (1991) A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and Pore-Pressure Model for Sand,
Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics (St. Louis, Missouri, March, 1991), No. 1.24, 47-55.
3. Cundall, P. A., H. Hansteen, S. Lacasse and P. B. Selnes (1980) NESSI Soil Structure
Interaction. Program for Dynamic and Static Problems, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
Report 51508-9.
4. Clayton, C. R. I., Milititsky, J and Woods, R. T (1993) Earth Pressure and Earth-Retaining
Structures, London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
5. Idriss, M., Boulanger, R. W (2004) Semi-Empirical Procedures For Evaluating Liquefaction
Potential During Earthquakes, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA 95616-5924, 11th International Conference on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, (ICSDEE), and The 3rd International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (ICEGE), Berkeley, California, USA.
6. Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2000) FLAC, version 4.0. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minn.
7. Jafarian, Y., Alielahi, H., Sadeghi, A. A. and Vakili, R (2010) "Seismic Numerical
Simulation of Breakwater on a Liquefiable Layer: IRAN LNG Port," Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15.
8. Li, S.g., Chai, S.x., Ren, Q.x and Wang, Y.h (2010) "Prediction of Liquefaction Potential and
Pore Water Pressure due to Earthquake," Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 15.
9. Liyanathirana D.S. and Poulos H.G (2002) Numerical simulation of soil liquefaction due to
earthquake loading, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22, 511523
10. Martin, GR, WDL. Finn and HB. Seed (1975) Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic
Loading, J. Geotech. Div. ASCE, 101(GT5), 423-438.
11. Seed, H. B., and I. Idriss (1969) Influence of Soil Conditions on Ground Motion During
Earthquakes, J. Soil Mech. Found., Div. ASCE, 95, 99-137.
12. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential, Jnl GED, ASCE, 97(9), 1249-1273.

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. D

417

13. Steedman, R.S., Ledbetter, R.H., and Hynes, M.E (2000) The influence of high confining
stress on the cyclic behavior of saturated sand, In Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000:
Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colo., 58 Aug. 2000. Edited by
R.Y.S. Pak and J. Yamamuro. American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special
Publication 107, pp. 3557.
14. 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., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson,
W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, R.K., Seed,
H.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 and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817
833.

2011 ejge