Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

INITIATION OF LIQUEFACTION IN SAND UNDER DIFFERENT SURCHARGE

AND OVERBURDEN STRESSES

Renjitha Mary Varghese, Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Science, renjitha@civil.iisc.ernet.in

Gali Madhavi Latha, Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, madhavi@civil.iisc.ernet.in

ABSTRACT: This paper represents the liquefaction behaviour of saturated loose sands under various dynamic as
well as different static stress conditions. A uniaxial shaking table is used in this 1g model studies. The initial
studies were carried out to conclude the free field response of the given sand layer at different dynamic input
acceleration levels. It is observed that the liquefaction potential of the sand layer increases with the acceleration
amplitude and complete flow liquefaction was observed at 0.15g acceleration and 1Hz frequency. Further the
studies were extended to various overburden pressures. A dry soil layer was used to give the over burden stress and
it is found that as the overburden stress increases the liquefaction resistance of the soil also increases. Liquefaction
potential of saturated sand bed with different surcharge pressures is also studied in the model tests. These tests
demonstrated the effect of overburden and surcharge pressure on the initiation of liquefaction in sands.

INTRODUCTION concentrated close to structures. Rollins et al. [13]

Loose saturated cohesionless soils under undrained addressed the effect of soil structure interaction on
loading conditions undergo liquefaction when liquefaction during earthquakes through shaking
subjected to dynamic shaking. Though the physical table and centrifuge model tests to justify the
concepts of liquefaction were understood, research liquefaction response of soil under building loads.
on the effect of surcharge pressure and overburden
stress on the point of initiation of liquefaction and EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
the pore pressures developed during liquefaction is
limited. Series of tests are done using poorly graded sand
Kokusho et al. [1-2] suggested that the reason for with grain distribution falling in the distribution
variation in liquefaction response of different soils range given by [16]. Fig. 1 shows the grain size
is the difference in development of water film distribution of the test material and Table 1 gives
between the layers because of the variations in the other properties of soil. As per IS classification
their permeability, which makes the prediction of the test material is grouped in Sand Poorly graded
post liquefaction effects very difficult. Many (SP).
researchers have investigated the mechanism of
liquefaction in layered or stratified deposits of sand
through experiments [3-5].
Niigata earthquake of 1964 demonstrated the
importance of liquefaction studies near to the
existing buildings. Influence of buildings on the
liquefaction behavior was studied by several
researchers [6-11]. Watanabe [12] reported the
field study during Niigata earthquake of 1964,
where oil storage tanks experienced less damage
while the loose sand in free field experienced
severe liquefaction. On the contrary, Huishan et al.
[5] presented a case study of Tangshan earthquake Fig. 1 Grain size distribution of sand
of 1976, where the effects of liquefaction were

Page 1 of 6
Renjitha Mary Varghese & Gali Madhavi Latha

Table 1 Properties of sand used for shaking table Series Acceleration Overb Surch Test Code
tests amplitude(g) urden arge
Property Value height press
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 17.67 ratio ure
3
Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m ) 14.23 (h/H) kPa
Specific gravity 2.65 Series 1 0.10 0 0 S1A10
Maximum void ratio 0.862 Series 1 0.12 0 0 S1A12
Minimum void ratio 0.5 Series 1 0.13 0 0 S1A13
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 3.47 Series 1 0.14 0 0 S1A14
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.869 Series 1 0.15 0 0 S1A15
D10 (mm) 0.23 Series 2 0.15 0.05 0 S2O05
Series 2 0.15 0.10 0 S2O10
Perspex box of size 1200mm × 500mm × 800mm Series 2 0.15 0.15 0 S2O15
(length × width ×height) was used to make the soil Series 3 0.10 0 1.1 S3A10
layer of thickness 600mm. It was prepared using Series 3 0.12 0 1.1 S3A12
wet pluviation technique and the miniature pore Series 3 0.13 0 1.1 S3A13
water pressure sensor was kept at exactly middle of Series 3 0.14 0 1.1 S3A14
the soil layer. The pore water pressure senor was Series 3 0.15 0 1.1 S3A15
able to monitor a very small change in pore water Series 3 0.15 0 2.2 S3A15-2
pressures with respect to time. The relative density
of the soil was kept 43% by using by pouring dry RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
sand in to water using solid cone arrangement with
particular height of fall. The prepared sand bed was Series 1: Free field liquefaction studies
subjected to different dynamic and in-situ First series of tests (S1A10-S1A15) consist of
conditions to find out the response. Initiation of model studies to understand free field liquefaction.
liquefaction was identified in terms of pore water The objective of this series is to obtain the ground
pressure ratio. It is defined as the ratio between the motion parameters that initiate liquefaction in the
excess pore water pressure development during sand bed. The sand bed was prepared using wet
loading and the initial vertical effective stress. The pluviation technique (Fig. 2) and the model was
sand bed is named as liquefied when the pore water subjected to base shaking with acceleration ranging
pressure ratio becomes equal to one. Liquefaction from 0.1g to 0.15g.
behaviour is identified by measuring the number of
cycles to make pore water pressure ratio equal to
one. Over burden pressure was applied as dry soil
layer above the saturated soil layer. The ratio
between the heights of dry soil layer to saturated
soil layer was varied to understand the effect of
over burden pressure. Surcharge load was applied
over a saturated soil layer by a concrete slab of size
300mm × 250mm ×50mm (length ×width ×
thickness). A contact pressure of 1.1 kPa and 2.2
kPa was applied to find the effect of surcharge
pressure on liquefaction behaviour of saturated
sand bed. Table 2 shows the test matrix. All tests
are done at 43% relative density and 1Hz
frequency. Fig. 2 Test set-up for free field liquefaction
analysis
Table 2 Test Matrix

Page 2 of 6
 Initiation of liquefaction in sand under different surcharge and over burden stress
A miniature pore pressure sensor was used for
monitoring the pore water pressure development
during dynamic loading conditions. Fig. 3
represents the development of pore water pressure
and reduction of effective stress in the models. It is
very clear that for 0.15g acceleration and 1Hz
frequency, the sand bed got liquefied within 6
cycles. But for other accelerations, liquefaction
was not observed even after 50 cycles.
Fig. 3 Development of pore water pressure and
reduction of effective stress for different input
accelerations
It is understood that the shaking acceleration is the
most influencing parameter that control the
initiation of liquefaction in sands. Even small
change in the acceleration has significant influence
on the pore water pressures, as observed from Fig.
3.
Series 2: Liquefaction studies with overburden
pressure
The effect of over burden pressure on the
liquefaction response of saturated sand bed was
studied in this series of tests S2A05-S2A15. The
thickness of the dry sand layer was varied from
30mm to 90mm to vary the amount of over burden
pressure. The ratio between the dry sand layer
thicknesses to the total sand layer thickness (h/H)
was in the range of 0.05 to 0.15. Fig. 4 gives the
schematic representation of the experimental set-up
for this series of tests. Input acceleration amplitude
of 0.15g and 1Hz frequency was selected for this
series because liquefaction was initiated in sand
bed with these ground motion parameters, as
observed in free field liquefaction studies.
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of the shaking table test
set-up with overlaying dry sand
Fig. 5 shows the reduction in liquefaction potential
of the soil layer with increase in the overburden
pressure. Fig. 5 also demonstrates the importance
of considering the overburden pressure while
calculating the liquefaction resistance of a given
soil. It is evident that with small change in over
burden pressure, there is a drastic reduction in the
liquefaction potential of the sand.
These findings have direct implications for
calculating the cyclic resistance ratio of the
liquefiable sand layers in field. Presence of dry
sand layers above the saturated sand beds reduce
the possibility of liquefaction by a greater extent,
which should be reflected in terms of the increase
in cyclic resistance ratio of the layered soil deposit.
Page 3 of 6
Renjitha Mary Varghese & Gali Madhavi Latha

Fig. 6 Variations in pore water pressure and

Fig. 5 Variations in pore water pressure and
effective stress under surcharge load
effective stress with respect to overburden stress
Yoshimi et al. [11] and Huishan et al. [5] suggested
Series 3: Liquefaction analysis with surcharge
that for soil with surcharge, 60% pore water
pressure
pressure ratio can be taken as the critical condition
where the liquefaction failure is imminent. Beyond
The effect of building load over saturated sand bed
60% pore pressure ratio, the pore pressures and
was studied in this series of model tests S3A10-
shear strains were observed to increase drastically.
S3A15 and S3A15-2. The surcharge load was
Karamitros et al. [6] presented a simple equation to
applied by placing concrete slab over the saturated
calculate the maximum pore water pressure ratio
soil layer without any eccentricity. The input
under shallow foundations as
acceleration was varied from 0.1g to 0.15g. Fig. 6
1
shows the variations in pore water pressure and
 v , foot
effective stress at different acceleration values. It is
ru , foot ,max 1
clear that the sand bed liquefied for 0.15g  'v ,o , ff
= (1)
acceleration and 1Hz frequency with pore water
pressure ratio as one. But the number of cycles to ru , foot ,max
= maximum pore pressure ratio
reach liquefaction was increased to 10 cycles. This
gives a clear indication regarding the increment in
liquefaction resistance with surcharge load.

Page 4 of 6
 Initiation of liquefaction in sand under different surcharge and over burden stress
 v , foot
= additional vertical stress applied by the
footing
 v' ,o, ff
= effective vertical stress in free field
conditions.
As per Eq. 1, the maximum pore water pressure
ratio under the surcharge pressure of 1.1 kPa for
the present model sand bed is estimated to be
0.7210. At present study the pore water pressure
ratio became one with surcharge load. The tests are
extended to increased surcharge pressure of 2.2kPa
to identify the effect of surcharge pressure on
liquefaction response. Fig. 7 shows the pore water
pressure ratios at different conditions.
Fig. 7 Variations in pore water pressure ratio with
surcharge load
Pore pressure ratio for the test with contact
pressure of 2.2 kPa is estimated using Eq. 1 as
0.56, which is closely matching with the measured
pore water pressure for this test. This indicates that
at very high surcharge pressures, the presence of
building helps in increasing the liquefaction
resistance of the sand bed. However, intensity of
dynamic shaking also plays important role in the
development of pore water pressures as observed
from the model tests.
CONCLUSIONS
 Acceleration of shaking has major
influence on the initiation of liquefaction in
saturated sand beds. Slight change in the
acceleration could lead to significant
variations in the pore pressures developed.
 Presence of dry over burden restricts the
development of pore water pressure during
dynamic loading conditions. The drastic
reduction in excess pore water pressure
development causes a nonlinear reduction
in the liquefaction potential of sand bed
during earthquakes.
 Liquefaction potential of sand under
surcharge pressure depends not only on
input acceleration but also on the amount of
surcharge pressure. At very high surcharge
pressures, the presence of building helps in
increasing the liquefaction resistance of the
sand bed.
REFERENCES
1. Kokusho, T. (1999), Water film in liquefied
sand and its effect on lateral spread, Jl. of
Geotech. and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE,
125(10), 817-826.
2. Kokusho, T. and Kojima, T. (2002),
Mechanism for postliquefaction water film
generation in layered sand, Jl. of Geotech.
and Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE, 129-137.
3. Elgamal, A.-W., Dobry, R., and Adalier,
K.(1989), Study of effects of clay layers on
liquefaction of sand deposits using small-
scale models, Proc., 2nd US–Japan
Workshop on Liquefaction, Large Ground
Deformation and their Effects on Lifelines.
National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo,New York:
T. D. O’Rourke and M. Hamada, eds.
4. Gregg L. Fiegel and Kutter, B.L. (1994),
Liquefaction mechanism for layered soils,
Jl. of Geotech. Engineering, 120(4),737-
755.
5. Huishan, L., and Taiping, Q. (1984),
Liquefaction potential of saturated sand
deposits underlying foundation of structure,
in Proc., 8th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. III, Prentice–Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 199–206
Page 5 of 6
Renjitha Mary Varghese & Gali Madhavi Latha

6. Karamitros, D., Bouckovalas, G., and

Chaloulos, Y. (2013), Insight into the
seismic liquefaction performance of
shallow foundations. Jl. of Geotech. and
Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE, 139(4), 599-
607.

8. Liu, L. and Dobry, R. (1997), Seismic

response of shallow foundation on
liquefiable sand. Jl. of Geotech. and
Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE, 123(6), 557-
567.
9. Vaid, Y.P., Stedman, J.D. and
Sivathayalan, S. (2001), Confining stress
and static shear effects in cyclic
liquefaction. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 38(3), 580-591.
10. Yoshimi, Y.K. and Oh-Oka, H. (1975),
Influence of degree of shear stress
reversal on the liquefaction potential of
saturated sand. Soils and Foundations,
15(SM3), 27-40.
11. Yoshimi, Y.K. and Tokimatsu, K. (1977),
Settlement of buildings on saturated
sand during earthquakes. Soils and
Foundations, 17(SM1), 23-38.
12. Watanabe, T. (1966), Damage to oil
refinery plants and a building on
compacted ground by the Niigata
earthquake and their restoration. Soils and
Foundations, 6(SM2), 86-99.
13. Rollins, K.M. and Seed, H.B. (1990),
Influence of buildings on potential
liquefaction damage. Jl. of Geotech.
Engineering,ASCE, 116(2),165-185
14. Xenaki, V. C., and Athanasopoulos, G. A.
(2003), Liquefaction resistance of sand-silt
mixtures: an experimental investigation of
the effect of fines, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 23, 183-194.

Page 6 of 6