Evaluation of liquefaction potential

CONTENT OF PRESENTATION

1. Mechanical behavior of granular soils: basic concepts

2. What is liquefaction?

3. Evaluation of liquefaction potential and risk

4. Do we have a risk even without full liquefaction?

5. Mitigation actions?
1. Mechanical behavior of granular soils: basic concepts
MECHANICAL RESPONSE OF SOILS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS

before during

Experimental evidences during the single cycle

Observed behaviour
1. Non linearity
2. Non reversibility


3. Dissipation of energy
4. Residual deformations
 MECHANICAL RESPONSE OF SOILS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS
Dependency on strain level
1 25
As g increases:
- Shear stiffness G decreases 0,8 20
- Damping D increases gl

G/G0 D u/s '0

0,6 15

D (%)
There are two “threshold”
deformations: gl
0,4 10
- Linear threshold, gl
- Volumetric threshold, gv gv
0,2 5

0 0
0,0001 0,001 0,01 0,1 1
Shear strain,
deformazione g (%) g (%)
tangenziale,

Free drainage or Undrained conditions and

saturated soils
For g>gv:
unsaturated soils

Volumetric deformation ev Pore pressure build up Du

Cyclic degradation[G(g), D(g) = f(Ncycles)]

VOLUMETRIC - DISTORSIONAL COUPLING
In both monotonic and cyclic conditions….

Drained conditions
Under shear stresses soils exhibit
volumetric deformations

The volumetric deformations may be

positive (contraction) or negative
(dilation), depending on soil state (void
ratio, confining stress)

1 Loose sand
2 Dense sand
3 Very dense sand
 VOLUMETRIC - DISTORSIONAL COUPLING
In both monotonic and cyclic conditions….

Unrained conditions
In undrained conditions (i.e. at constant volume, in saturated soils), the volumetric-
distorsional coupling leads to the generation of pore pressure increments Du

The sign of Du depends on soil state:

• if the behaviour is contractive, Du will
be positive
• If it is dilatant, Du will be initially
positive tending to become negative at
large strains

The principle of effective stresses states that: Ds '  Ds  Du

If soil distortion is taking place at constant total stress (Ds=0): Ds’=-Du

 EFFECTS OF VOLUMETRIC - DISTORSIONAL COUPLING

During sesimic shaking, the total vertical stress sv

keeps a constant value. Δsv=0 Dσv’=-Δu
Therefore, on any horizontal section of the soil:
Void ratio, e

Normal compression line

Du = pore pressure increment caused by seismic action

(TU) (S)
e0
De = post cyclic recompression

Du dissipation (T')

(S) Soil initial state (before earthquake)

(TU) Soil state immediately after earthquake
(T') Soil final state (after consolidation)

s'v0 Effective stress, s'v

2. What is liquefaction?
 LIQUEFACTION

If the number of «undrained» cycles is

large enough, pore pressure increments
may lead effective stresses to zero
(transient state).
In this state, if the soil is not cemented (i.e.
if c’=0), shear strength and stiffness are nil.
This condition is defined as LIQUEFACTION

Definition in terms of stresses

Du f  s tan   (so  Du) tan   0

Ru= 1
so
G  G ( p' )  0

Definition in terms of strains

g  g lim (p.es. 5%)

 LIQUEFACTION

It is a temporary loss of shear strength clay

s’v
and stiffness of a saturated loose sandy s’h sand

soil in response to an applied stress,
clay
usually earthquake shaking.
a
t
τ
• Undrained (DV=0)
• Constant vertical total stresses (Dsv=0)
τ • Loose (contractive) sand (Du>0)

The consequences on the built environment can be catastrophic

Christchurch,
New Zeland 2011

Kocaeli, Turkey 1999

 PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION

(1) (2) (3)

Sand particles interact Loss of intergranular Post liquefaction
(s > 0) contact because of Du consolidation
increase until s  0
PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION
 PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION

Niigata, Giappone 1964 Kocaeli, Turchia 1999

Kobe, Giappone 1995 Christchurch, New Zeland 2011

PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION

Taiwan, 06/02/2018
 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
The steps to evaluate liquefaction potential and (if needed!) to mitigate the related
risk are:

a. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
• Definition of the seismic event and variables to be considered
• Knowledge of ground water conditions (table and regime)
• Detailed knowledge of stratigraphy
• Knowledge of the mechanical and physical properties of the soils

b. EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION
• Evaluation of liquefaction potential
• Evaluation of risk

c. DEFINITION OF RISK MITIGATION STRATEGY

If risk (risk = hazard  vulnerability  exposition) is high for the structures to be
protected, one of the following mitigation approaches may be followed:
• Do not use the site (minimize exposition)
• Improve soil properties (reduce hazard)
• Retrofit existing foundations and structures (reduce vulnerability)
3. Evaluation of liquefaction potential and risk
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

METHODS TO ASSESS THE RISK OF LIQUEFACTION

Qualitative Empirical methods Advanced

criteria FS=CRR/CSR methods

historic

geological Total stress

analyses
Composition of soils effective stress
analyses
Physical state of soils Lab testing
CRR=f(Nliq)
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
METHODS OF REFERENCE INPUT CONSTITUTIVE INVESTIGATION AND
MOTION MODEL TYPICAL OUTPUT
ANALYSIS TESTS
Maximum
Qualitative acceleration, Liquefaction

Refinement and degree of detail of the results

amax - -
criteria Magnitude and yes/no
Experimental and analytical resources

distance
Conventional
Maximum investigation
Safety factor, SF
acceleration, Basic (penetration tests)
Empirical Liquefaction
amax (rigid-plastic) Shear wave
potential indexes
Magnitude, M velocity
measurement, VS
Simplified
Simplified (visco-elastic, Stress, strain,
elasto- acceleration
dynamic plastic)
As above plus As above plus
Accelerogram, cyclic and excess pore
Advanced dynamic pressure,
a(t)
Advanced (multi-, two- laboratory tests Effective stress
phase and residual
dynamic medium) displacements.
Evaluation of
failure
mechanism
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Qualitative criteria

There are cases in which there is no need to check liquefaction potential either
because of the design earthquake characteristics or because of soil properties:

1. Mw <5
2. ag<0.1 g.
3. ag < 0.15 g and, at the same time, soils belong to one of the following
categories:
• fine content FC* higher than 20% and Ip > 10;
• fine content FC higher than 35% and N1(60)** > 20
• fine content FC lower than 5% but N1(60) > 25

* The so called fine content FC is the part of soil passing at sieve 200 ASTM (hole 0.074
mm), but can be estimated based on CPT results (shown in the following)
** N1(60) is the NSPT, normalized for the stress state, and calculated assuming an energetic
efficiency of the SPT machine equal to 0.6.
0.5
p 
( N1 ) 60 C N N 60 C N   a 

 s' v 
EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Qualitative criteria
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS

Ground Sand ejecta

water level 

Fine soil
s’v
 s’h
Loose sand u = u0 + Du u0 s’v

Fine soil

eq lim
rock z

a Check not
satisfied if
t eq > lim
in the loose sand
Seismic action
layer
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS

The factor of safety is defined as:

CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio lim /s’

FSliq=
CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio eq /s’

Steps of the empirical procedure based on the use of charts:

action
 step 1: evaluate seismic action (CSR) liquefaction
CSR
 step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties
(normalized soil property, R1, like CPT or SPT results)
CRR no
 step 3: use of empirical charts liquection
(cyclic resistance ratio, CRR = f(R1)
R1 soil property

if CSR > CRR (FS<1)  liquefaction is assumed to take place
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)

 if possible, calculate CSR from (z) obtained with Seismic Site Response Analysis (SSRL)
 alternatively, use the empirical relation (Seed & Idriss, 1971):
eq a s
CSR   0.65 max v 0 rd (1)
sv 0 g sv 0
amax = peak acceleration at ground level
sv0 = total vertical stress
s’v0 = effective vertical stress
rd = depth reducing factor

rigid

deformable
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR) amax
eq. (1) (with β=0.65)
Seismic response of a soil column for vertically
propagating shear (S) waves eq
a(z) \ amax szv 0
CSR   0.65 rd
sv 0 g sv 0
Pseudo-static analysis:
Equilibrium to horizontal translation at any depth z 

z z
a (z)
Shear stress = inertial force    a (z)dz   g dz
0 0
g

Homogeneous, rigid soil column  a(z) = constant = amax a max

 max, r  gz
g
a
Deformable columns  a(z) = variable  reducing coefficient rd (z) max, d  rd max gz
g

a
Irregular action  Equivalent uniform stress ( (<1)) eq  max    rd max s v
g
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
stress reduction coefficient, rd
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
0
Iwasaki et al. (1978)
Liao & Whitman (1986)
5 Blake (1996)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=5.5
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=6.5
10
Idriss & Boulanger (2004) Mw=7.5
depth, z (m)

15

rd
20

25

30

Iwasaki et al. (1978)  rd = 1 - 0.015z (z in m)

Liao e Whitman (1986)  rd = 1 - 0.00765z (z < 9.15 m); rd = 1.174 - 0.0267z (9.15 m < z < 23 m)
  z    z  
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)  rd  exp  1.012  1.126sin   5.133     0.106  0.118sin   5.142   M 
  11.73    11.28  
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
CSR from eq. (1) (which refers to a generic magnitude M) must be modified:
1) to take into account duration effects (i.e. number and relative amplitude of
loading cycles), referring it to the reference magnitude M=7.5;
2) to take into account possible effects of depth (stress correction).

The MSF (Magnitude Scaling Factor) is given by:

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 1: evaluation of the seismic action (CSR)
CSR from eq. (1) (which refers to a generic magnitude M) must be modified:
1) to take into account duration effects (i.e. number and relative amplitude of
loading cycles) and referred to the reference magnitude M=7.5;
2) to take into account possible effects of depth (stress correction).

Ks (overburden correction factor) is:

Only for qc1Ncs≤ 211 and (N1)60cs≤ 37

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties SPT
For clean sand (cs) Boulanger and Idriss (2014) suggest the following equation:
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties SPT

Correction for Fines Content (FC)

LIQUEFACTION

The normalized blow count must be NO LIQUEFACTION

determined iteratively (usually 2-3
iterations sufficient to reach
convergency)
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties CPT
For clean sand (cs) Boulanger and Idriss (2014) suggest the following equation:
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties CPT

Correction for Fines Content (FC)

LIQUEFACTION

NO LIQUEFACTION
Again, few iterations needed for
convergence
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties
Fines Content (FC) can be estimated on CPT results using the «soil behaviour type Index» IC

Roberston and Wride (1997)

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS
Step 2: correction and normalization of in-situ properties

Tipically, it is assumed that for Ic>2.6

(transition from zone 4 to zone 5 in the chart
on the left) there is no liquefaction. This
assumption is based on experimental
evidences, as shown on the bottom.
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
EMPIRICAL METHODS FROM LAB TESTS
150 0.40 3.0
CSR

q (kPa)
0.30 eps (%) ea(%)
100 CSR 2.0
0.20
1.0
50 0.10

0.00 0.0
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.10 eDA>2.5%
ea (%) -1.0
-50
-0.20
-2.0
-100 -0.30

-0.40 -3.0
-150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
300 FL
0.40 1.0
PT
q (kPa)

250
0.30 0.8
200 CSR 0.6 Ru
150 0.20
0.4
100 0.10 0.2
50 0.00 0.0
0 -0.2
-0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250
-50 p'(kPa) -0.4
-0.20 CSR
-100 -0.6
-0.30 Ru
-150 Ru=0.9 -0.8
PT
FL -0.40 -1.0
-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
0.189583 0.800

eq Cyclic resistance curve, CRR Castro (1975)

so SIMPLE SHEAR CONDITIONS
F(Dr, s’)
(eq/s’0)1 CRRss=crCRRtx
where:
cr = 2(1+2 K0)/(3√3)
Nliq,1 N K0=coefficient of earth pressure at rest
 50 0.10

0.00 0.0

EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
-50
0
0 0.5
ea (%)
1 -0.10 eDA>2.5%
-1.0
-0.20

EMPIRICAL METHODS FROM LAB TESTS -100 -0.30

-2.0

-0.40 -3.0
-150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

300 FL
Lab testing Ncyc

150 0.400.40 1.03.0

PT CSR

q (kPa)
q (kPa)
0.8 ea(%)
250
0.300.30 eps (%)
200 100 CSR
CSR 2.0
0.6 Ru
150 0.200.20
0.41.0
50
100 0.100.10 0.2
50 0.00 0.0
0 0.00 0.0
-2
0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.10 eDA>2.5%
-0.2
ea (%) -0.10 -1.0
0 50 100 150
-50 200 250
-50 p'(kPa) -0.20 -0.4
-0.20 CSR
-100 -2.0
-0.6
-100 -0.30 Ru
-0.30 -0.8
-150 Ru=0.9
PT -0.40 -3.0
FL -150 -0.40 -1.0


-200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

a s
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc

CSR  eq  0.65 max v 0 rd

Ncyc
300 0.189583 FL 0.800
0.40 1.0

sv 0 g sv 0
PT

q (kPa)
250
0.8

eq
0.30
200 CSR 0.6 Ru
150 0.20
0.4

so 100

50
Liq 0.10

0.00
0.2
0.0
0 -0.2
-0.10
0 50 100 150 200 250
-0.4
-50
Cyclic resistance
p'(kPa)
-0.20 curve
CSR -0.6
CRR(M) -100
-0.30 Ru
-150

-200 No Liq FL
PT CRR=f(N) -0.40
Ru=0.9 -0.8
-1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ncyc
0.189583 0.800

NC

N eq  f (M , etc.)
CRR
FSliq=
CSR
Evaluation of equivalent number of constant amplitude cycles, Neq
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK

Once we have calculated a distribution FS(z), how do we assess if there is a risk for the
site? How do we decide if mitigation actions are needed?

Liquefaction potential index IL

20
I L   FL ( z )w( z )dz
0

where:

FL  1  FS se FS  1.0 EVALUATION OF RISK

FL  0 se FS  1.0 IL Overall risk
=0 Nil
 CRR 
 FS   0 < IL  5 Moderate
 CSR 
5 < IL  15 High
 10 per z  0
w( z )  10  0.5 z   IL > 15 Extremely high
0 per z  20m
(Iwasaki et al. 1982)
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK
Liquefaction severity index Ls

Average weighed value of ‘liquefaction probability’ in the first 20 m of depth

 10 per z  0
w( z )  10  0.5 z  
0 per z  20m

(Sonmez & Gokceoglu, 2005)

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK

Liquefaction Severity Number LSN

It is related to post-liquefaction volumetric deformations ev . The depth weight function is

hyperbolic

Volumetric deformations estimated from the

chart by Zhang et al. (2002) as a function of
FS and of (qc1N)cs

Where (qc1N)cs is the tip resistance normalized

to take into account the stress state and
modified in that of an equivalent clean sand

(Van Ballegooy et al. 2014)

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK

Indicator Pros Cons

Liquefaction • Very popular (the first • Calculated only for FS<1 (full liquefaction).
potential index proposed one) Damage can be caused even in non liquefied
IL • Easy to calculate soils

Liquefaction • Modification of IL • The limit value of FS for which no pore

severity index introducing probability pressure build up is generated is set to
LS (calculated also for FS>1) FS=1.411 without any clear physical reason

• Related to settlement • Estimate of volumetric strains from charts

Liquefaction • The hyperbolic weight
severity number function (1/z) makes more
LSN critical (as it must be) the
liquefaction of shallow soils
obtained on a single Japanese sand (Ishihara
& Yoshimine, 1992)
• There are no reference values directly related
to risk. Evaluation of risk is left to the
engineer
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK
Example of use of IL as risk indicator
Napoli - Italy

110 CPT + some geophysical tests

20
IL   1  FSliq (z) w(z)dz
0 Map ofi IL
 10 per z  0
w(z)  10  0.5z  
0 per z  20m

Indice IL Potenziale di rottura

=0 nil

0 < IL  5 moderate

5 < IL  15 high

IL > 15 Extremely high

 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK
Example of use of LSN as risk indicator
WP7 PROGRESS IN REPORTING PERIOD 2
Christchurch – New Zealand
(February 2011 earthquake Mw 6.2)
Ordinary LSN

Map of liquefaction fields observations (NZGD)

LSN from Equivalent Soil
Profile
 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION RISK
Example of use of LSN as risk indicator
WP7 PROGRESS IN REPORTING PERIOD 2
863 profiles

Terre del Reno – Italy

(May 2012 earthquake Mw.5.9)

San Carlo Emilia

Ordinary LSN and land damage
4. Do we have a risk even without full liquefaction?
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
What do practictioners typically do?

CRRM=7.5,s’v=1 atm
qc1Ncs ; s’v
CSRM=7.5,s’v=1= CSRM,s’v /(MSFKs)

FS=CRR/CSR

MSFKsCRRM=7.5,s’v=1 atm
FS =
CSRM,s’v
This is a free field calculation (geotechnical limit
state) and says nothing on pore pressure build
up and its implications.

Is it enough?
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS

Du, Ru
liquefaction Bearing capacity failure

attainment of a
critical mechanism

During seismic shaking, ultimate limit states

may be activated before liquefaction,
or even in non liquefiable soils
We have analytical tools to predict the
behaviour of structures as a function of the
Du(t) vaused by liquefaction

Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

qc1Ncs ; s’v CRR = MSF  Ks  CRRM=7.5,s’v=1

CRR

CRRM=7.5
Ks  CRRM=7.5,s’v=1atm

NM=7.5 N
M=7.5

From a conceptual point of view, one cyclic resistance curve can be

plotted in the CRR-N plane for any value qciNcs
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

FS=CRR/CSR
CSR

a, b = f(qc1Ncs , s’v0 )
FS > 1 FS < 1

NL

b = f(qc1Ncs , s’v0 )
NL
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

 
eq = 0.65 max eq

t t
Ru Ru

t
N/NL

Consistently with current practice assumptions in the calculation of CSR, it is

possible to assume in design calculation that the pore pressure build up is
related to a sequence of constant amplitude stress cycles
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

1 N/NL

Ru
Ru

1 1 f(b, )

1
1
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

The coefficients b and  may be estimated

for soil typologies.

The chart below is an example

1,2
FC =0

Ru
1
qc1Ncs
30
0,8
60 1 f(b, )
90
Ru

0,6
120
150
0,4
180

0,2 200

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
FS 1
 ISSUES RELATED TO SAFETY CHECKS
Need to link Du (or Ru) to FS

Ru(FSliq) Ru=?

Ru
1 f(b, )

The proposed procedure is

simplified (Ru refers to free field
conditions) but conservative
1
5. Mitigation actions?
 POSSIBLE GOALS OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT

a) To increase the safety factor free field check

to liquefaction (we worry about the soil)
Geotechnical risk

b) To limit to a tolerable value

the reduction of bearing
capacity
Check of effects on structures
(we worry about buildings)
Structural risk
c) Reduce settlements

Risk=Hazard Vulnerability  Exposure H

R
Damage V E
 MITIGATION OF THE RISK OF LIQUEFACTION
Mitigation solutions (reduction of risk R=HVE) against liquefaction risk for structures
and infrastructures can reduce:

the probability of diffused vulnerability (V) in the

liquefaction (hazard H) event of liquefaction

ground improvement structural retrofit

The choice between the two completely different mitigation approaches has to be
made considering:
• If we are working on new or existing structures;
• The environmental constraints;
• Possible extra constraints (e.g. integrity of a valuable historic structure).

… to be continued in Paipa!