OBSERVATIONS DURING RECENT EARTHQUAKES AND

DEVELOPMENTS IN LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

Vijay K. Puri1, Shamsher Prakash2, Sanjeev Kumar3 and Prabir K. Kolay4
1
Professor, Civil and Environment Engineering, SIU, Carbondale, IL 62901; puri@engr.siu.edu
2
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla,
Missouri, 65409; prakash@mst.edu
3
Professor and Chair, Civil and Environment Engineering, SIU, Carbondale, IL 62901;
kumars@siu.edu
4
Associate Professor, Civil and Environment Engineering, SIU, Carbondale, IL 62901;
pkolay@siu.edu

ABSTRACT
Liquefaction has occurred during many earthquakes, Alaska 1964, Niigata 1964, Tangshan 1976,
Loma Prieta 1985, Kobe 1995, Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999, Turkey 1999, Haiti 2010, Mexicali 2010
and several others. The extensive liquefaction of loose saturated sands during the Niigata
earthquake provided a field verification of the liquefaction phenomenon and triggered research
investigations on liquefaction. It was mostly believed as a necessary consequence that only
cohesionless soils are prone to liquefaction and silts and clay do not liquefy. The observations
during the Tangshan earthquake and damage during Andaprazi (1999) earthquake and others
later on suggested that silts and low plasticity clays may also liquefy. The observations on
performance of soils during earthquakes has, thus, contributed to better understanding of the
phenomenon of liquefaction in different types of soils and development of methods for
prediction of susceptibility of soils to liquefaction.

INTRODUCTION
The concepts of forensic geotechnical engineering have been practiced all along in geotechnical
area. The observations on performance of geotechnical structures and failures, back analysis to
determine what went wrong and to avoid failure in future have been the back bone of
geotechnical profession. Developments in geotechnical earthquake engineering, especially in the
area of liquefaction present an outstanding example of application of principles of forensics.
Liquefaction has occurred during most earthquakes e.g., Niigata 1964, Tangshan 1976,
Loma Prieta 1985, Kobe 1995, Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999, Turkey 1999, Haiti 2010, Mexicali 2010
and others. Observations on performance of soils and structures during these and other
earthquakes provide a useful tool to evaluate the design and analysis techniques and refine them
for realistic design in future. This is highly relevant in case of developments in the area of
geotechnical earthquake engineering in general and liquefaction phenomenon in particular. The
performance of structures during the Niigata earthquake (1964) in Japan and the nature of
damage suffered by them clearly brought out the fact that soil and soil foundation interaction
play a significant role in controlling their performance. Also, the extensive liquefaction of loose
saturated sands during the Niigata earthquake provided a field verification of the liquefaction
phenomenon. Several other earthquakes in Japan also induced liquefaction. It was mostly
believed as a necessary consequence that only cohesionless soils are prone to liquefaction and
silts and clay do not liquefy. The Tangshan earthquake (1976) in China provided evidence of
liquefaction in low plasticity silts. The authors of this paper had conducted laboratory
investigations on undisturbed and reconstituted samples of silts and observed that silts meeting
certain criteria can liquefy and develop high pore water pressures and undergo large
deformations. Several other investigators also conducted research on liquefaction aspects of fine-
grained soils and proposed criteria for liquefaction, some of which were quite confusing. Thus
the controversy continued. Some people suggested criteria based on percent of fines in soil and
others based on plasticity of soil. It was observed in Aadapazri during the Koceli (1999)
earthquake that soils with PI < 12 underwent liquefaction, soils with PI between 12 and 18 were
moderately prone to liquefaction and soils with PI > 18 were not prone to liquefaction. An
intense earthquake (M 6.4) in western Iran, about 225 km west of Tehran (2002) with soil mostly
clay, showed clear traces of sand boiling, softening of soil, and consequent deformations were
observed particularly at certain locations. The soil had a liquid limit of 38%, a plasticity index of
18%, and fine fraction of 44%. These properties would indicate a non-liquefiable soil according
to the commonly used criteria. Analysis of cyclic triaxial test data suggested that the clayey sand
deposit likely developed high residual excess pore pressures and significant shear strains during
the earthquake and thus likely contributed to the observed lateral deformations.
Based on these observations and more recent studies, it is believed that soils may be
classified into those that will exhibit sand-like behavior and are likely to liquefy or into soils that
exhibit clay-like behavior and are not likely to liquefy. Special investigations may be needed in
other cases. Thus the observations during the earthquakes, coupled with laboratory data have
resulted in a better understanding of liquefaction of fine-grained soils.

RESEARCH ON LIQUEFACTION
The research on liquefaction following the damage caused by the Alaska (1964) and the Niigata (1964)
earthquakes was devoted to sands and included the following:
(a) Investigation of sites damaged by earthquakes.
(b) Laboratory tests using undrained 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.

LIQUEFACTION OF SANDS
The laboratory studies helped identify the factors governing liquefaction of soils. Seed and Lee
(1966) reported the first comprehensive data on liquefaction of sand using the cyclic triaxial test.
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 reproduced in cyclic simple shear tests 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 showed a 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 found that the natural undisturbed samples were more resistant to
liquefaction compared to laboratory made samples at the same relative density due to aging
effects 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 the 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. As more data
became available, the charts for cyclic stress ratio vs (N1)60 were updated to account for cases
clean sands (<5% fines) and for sands with 10.5 or 35 % fines. The cyclic stress ratio charts vs
(N1)60 are for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. For earthquakes with other magnitudes, the use of
magnitude scaling factor (MSF) proposed by Seed et al., (1985). Also, liquefaction potential is
seen to decrease with an increase in the fine content in sand, 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 60  N1 60

In which N1  60 = Observed SPT value, N1 60eff = Effective standard penetration resistance or
equivalent clean sand penetration resistance and N1  60 = Correction for silt content.
Another approach known as the „cyclic strain approach‟ has also been proposed to
determine the likelihood 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, 2010). The tip resistance from cone
penetration tests (CPT) can also be used as a riteria for liquefaction (Mitchell and Tseng, 1990).
CPT has the advantage over SPT in its ability to detect thin seams of loose soil. Shear wave
velocity has been as a useful indicator for liquefaction. Stokoe 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 occur. 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.
Remarkable progress has been made in the ability to estimate liquefaction potential of a site
having sand deposits by using laboratory investigations or from simple in-situ tests such as
standard penetration values (N1 or (N1)60), cone penetration data, shear wave velocity
measurements and the experience during the past earthquakes. If a proposed site is found prone
to liquefaction, remedial measures can be taken at the design stage resulting in mitigation of the
geo-hazard.

LIQUEFACTION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Fine soils such as silts, clayey silts and sands with fines and silty soils were generally considered
non-liquefiable till the early eighties. This concept, however, changed after observations
following the Haicheng (1975) and Tangshan (1976) earthquakes. The soils that liquefied during
Tangshan earthquake had clay fraction less than 20%, liquid limit between 21-35%, 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 Oshima-
Kinkai earthquake in Japan (Ishihara, 1993). These tailings had silt sized particles and liquid
limit of 31%, plasticity index of 10% and water content of 37%.
Seed et al. (1983) suggested 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%
The authors conducted studies on liquefaction of low plasticity silts using naturally
occurring and laboratory prepared soils and conducting dynamic triaxial tests. Most significant
results of these studies were that the nature of fines rather than their percentage has a significant
influence in determining the susceptibility of silts to liquefaction (Puri,1984). The effect of
nature of fines can be best defined in terms of plasticity index of the soil rather than their
percentage. It was observed that the cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction in a given number of
cycles increases with the increase in plasticity index. It was also observed that the cyclic loading
of plastic silts can result in pore pressure build up which may become equal to the initial
effective confining pressure resulting in development of the initial state of liquefaction for PI <
10.

MORE RESEARCH ON EFFECT OF FINES ON LIQEFACTION

There are several research findings worth mentioning on the effect of fines on liquefaction
potential of soils some of which appear to be somewhat conflicting.
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. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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
and skeleton” as the criteria, then there is no effect on the cyclic strength provided the fines
can be accommodated within the sand voids.

4. 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.

5. 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.
6. Andrews and Martin (2000) have provided general criteria about liquefaction susceptibility
of soils with fines which use clay content and liquid limit of soil.

7. Bray et al. (2004) and Boulanger and Idriss (2005) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008) have
suggested that soils with more than 50% fines may show sand like or clay like behavior
under cyclic loading. Clay like behavior should be expected for silts (ML and MH) and for
clays (CL and CH) if their PI ≥ 7. Sand like behavior should be expected if their PI is < 7.

8. 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.

9. 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 with PI 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.

10. Wang et al. (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.

11. 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.

12. Ghalandarzadeh et al. (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 deposit likely developed high residual excess pore water
pressures and significant shear strains during the earthquake and experienced liquefaction.

13. Thevanaygam (2010) has observed that at the same void ratio, the cyclic resistance of sand
decreases with an increase in silt (non-plastic) content upto a certain threshold value of fines
content (fcth); thereafter the cyclic resistance increases with further increase in silt content.
Silt content affects the inter-grain contact density of soil compared to that of sand at the same
void ratio. When this is taken into account, sand and silty sand show similar liquefaction
resistance at same equivalent void ratio (ec)eq. Result shows that at the same equivalent void
ratio, the number of cycles inducing 5% strain is almost the same for clean sand (OS-00),
sand with 15% silt (OS-15) and sand with 25% silt (OS-25).

The liquefaction of fine grained soils has certainly received the attention of researchers
and progress has been made in this direction in the last 30 years and substantial progress has
been made in this decade. The laboratory studies have attempted to verify or provide explanation
of the behavior observed during earthquakes in silty or clayey soils. Presently in 2016 there is no
well-defined index to ascertain the liquefaction potential of fine grained soils like SPT or CPT as
in case of sands. From geo-hazard mitigation point of view lot more needs to be done. At a site
in a seismic zone where silts and clays with low plasticity (PI < about 7-10) exist, careful
investigations should conducted ascertain the likely hood of liquefaction.
Recently, Boulanger and Idriss (2012) have provided probability based equations for estimation
of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and (N1)60 or standardized CPT values.

CONCLUSIONS
Progress in liquefaction research and procedures of analysis has been strongly influenced by the
observations on liquefaction related damage following the major earthquakes. These
observations also provided a field verification of this hazardous phenomenon of liquefaction.
Most of the efforts were devoted to liquefaction of sands since major earthquakes occurred in
alluvial deposits. When evidence became available about liquefaction of fine plastic soils in
(1976) research to determine liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils started in early
eighties. There are many conflicting opinions still there about liquefaction of fine grained soils. 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. For
mitigating liquefaction related geo-hazard during future earthquakes it is of utmost importance
that a geotechnical engineer should be able to ascertain the likelihood of a site for liquefaction
susceptibility be it sands, silts or clays of low plasticity.

REFERENCES
Andrews, D. C. A. and Martin G. R. (2000), “Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils”, Proc. 12th
WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand.
Boulanger, R. 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.
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2012), “Probabilistic Standard Penetration Based
Liquefaction Triggering Procedures”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 138, No. 10, pp. 1185-1195.
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.
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 engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego,
CA, USA.
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. (1972), “Soil-Dynamics-liquefaction of Sands”, Proc. First International
Conference on Microzonation, Vol. 1, pp. 87-111, Seattle.
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, March 25-28, CD-ROM,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
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, pp. 101-106.
Kishida, H. (1969), “Characteristics of Liquefied Sands during Mino-Owari, Tohnankai, and
Fukui Earthquakes”. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 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, Editor: J. M. Duncan, Vol. 2, pp. 335-350.
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.
Plito, C. (2001), “Plasticity Based Liquefaction Criteria”, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in
Geotech. Earth. Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, USA.
Puri, V. K. (1984), “Liquefaction Behavior and Dynamic Properties of Loessial (Silty) Soils”,
PhD Dissertation, UMR (Now MST), Rolla, USA.
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, Vol. 111,
No.12, pp. 861-878.
Seed, H. B. (1987), “Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction”, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 827-845.
Seed, H. B., and Lee, K. L. (1966), “Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic loading”
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 105-134.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I. (1983), “Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential using Field
Performance Data” Journal of Geotechnical Engg, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3, pp. 458-482.
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, USA.
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.
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, May 24-29, CD Rom, San Diego.
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, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 357-354.
Towhata, I. (2008), “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering”, Springer Series in Geomechanics
and Geoengineering.
Wang, J., Yuan, Z. and Li, L. (2007), “Study on Liquefaction of Loess Site”, 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, CD-ROM, March 25-28,
Thessaloniki, Greece,