Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
There are basically two methods available for evaluating the cyclic liq-
uefaction potential to a deposit of saturated sand subjected to earth-
quake shaking:
458
These are usually considered quite different approaches, since the first
method is based on empirical correlations of some in situ characteristic
and observed performance, while the second method is based entirely
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CTCI Corporation Library on 01/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
459
It was not until the Alaska and Niigata earthquakes of 1964 that geo-
technical engineers took serious interest in the general phenomenon of
earthquake-induced liquefaction or cyclic mobility or the conditions re-
sponsible for causing them to occur in the field. Following the Niigata
earthquake, a number of Japanese engineers (12,13,19) studied the areas
in Niigata where liquefaction had and had not occurred and developed
criteria, based primarily on the standard penetration resistance of the
sand deposits, for differentiating between liquefiable and nonliquefiable
conditions in that city. The results of these studies for Niigata are shown
in Fig. 1. It should be recognized, however, that these results are not
likely to be applicable to other areas where shaking intensities may be
stronger or water tables may be at different depths than that in the Nii-
gata area.
Subsequently, a more comprehensive collection of site conditions at
various locations where some evidence of liquefaction or no liquefaction
was known to have taken place was presented by Seed and Peacock (30)
and used as a basis to determine the relationship between field values
of cyclic stress ratio ^/(T'O (in which ih = the average horizontal shear
stress induced by an earthquake; and u'0 = the initial effective overbur-
den pressure on the soil layer involved), and the relative density of the
sand, as determined from the standard penetration resistance and its
461
\ !
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CTCI Corporation Library on 01/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
\
>
Heavy damage
and liquefaction
To-*
I N.
10 20 30 40
Standard Penetration Resistance, N - blows/foot
correlation with relative density proposed by Gibbs and Holtz (9). This
collection of field cases, shown in Fig. 2, has subsequently been used
by others, often supplemented by a few additional site studies (3,4) to
determine other correlations between liquefaction-producing parameters
and penetration resistance. The most recently published form of this field
data collection is shown in Fig. 3(a) (after Seed, Mori, and Chan (29)).
Values of stress ratio known to be associated with some evidence of
• •
*
O
frljo.
«
© q.
>
• ©
« 0
G
ill " o O
• • ^ *
FIG. 2.—Relationship between (Thv)„J<j'0 and Relative Density for Known Cases
of Liquefaction and Nonllquefaction
462
—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CTCI Corporation Library on 01/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a /
;f §
e
» / -
® /
J ©
- s • y -
o
"0 °/ •
o 0.1
• f
1 1' l I i i i
20 30
Ni - blows per foot
(")
05 -
1.0
ft.
** 1.5 -
ons
*"
Pressure
- -
ro
1"
o 35
/
1u
» an
/
s" 1
45
1 l
(W
FIG. 3.—(a) Correlation between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction in the Field
and Penetration Resistance of Sand; (b) Relationship between C, and Effective
Overburden Pressure
463
Ni = C N 'N (2)
in which CN = a function of the effective overburden pressure at the
depth where the penetration test was conducted. In early studies, values
of CN were read from the chart shown in Fig. 3(b), but more represent-
ative values are now determined from the chart shown in Fig. 4, which
is based on recent studies conducted at the Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion (2,17).
Thus, for any given site and a given value of maximum ground surface
acceleration, the possibility of cyclic mobility or liquefaction can be eval-
uated readily on an empirical basis with the aid of this chart by deter-
mining the appropriate values of N1 for the sand layers involved, read-
ing off a lower bound value of Tave/ai for sites where some evidence of
liquefaction is known to have occurred (such as the line shown in Fig.
3(a)), and comparing this value with that induced by the design earth-
quake for the site under investigation (computed from Eq. 1). One of
the greatest limitations of this plot at the time it was presented was the
limited number of reliable data points available to define the boundary
separating liquefiable from nonliquefiable sites. However, in the past six
qc-volues by CPT-
(Dr = 40to 8 0 %
lines to those developed in the United States, have also led to a corre-
lation between earthquake shaking conditions causing cyclic mobility or
liquefaction and the standard penetration resistance of sands (8). In this
correlation, the critical value of the standard penetration resistance, N crit ,
separating liquefiable from nonliquefiable conditions to a depth of ap-
prox 50 ft (15 m) is determined by
Ncrit = N[l + 0.125 (ds - 3) - 0.05 (dw - 2)] (3)
in which ds = depth to sand layer under consideration, in meters; dw =
depth of water below ground surface, in meters; and N = a function of
the shaking intensity as follows:
0.4 & -
*/
#y
- /
J!
/ — - Relationship proposed by —
Seedetal.{B75)-no Chinese data
® Relationship proposed in
1974 Chinese code based
on Chinese data
i i i
10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N( - blows/ft
tween the critical boundary determined in this way with that shown in
Fig. 3(a). It is significant and remarkable that such a great similarity both
in procedures and criteria should have evolved in countries with so little
technical communication at the time the individual plots were developed.
Data from the Haicheng and Tangshan Earthquakes in China.—More
recent data for nine sites known to have liquefied and five for which
there was no apparent liquefaction in the Haicheng (1974) and Tangshan
(1976) earthquakes in China (Magnitudes 7.3 and 7.8, respectively) have
been presented by Xie (36). These data, reduced to the form shown in
Fig. 3 with the aid of the Trifunac and Brady correlation between inten-
sity and peak ground acceleration are shown in Fig. 6, together with the
boundary line from Fig. 3(a).
Data from the Guatemala Earthquake of 1976.—During the Guate-
mala earthquake of 1976 (Magnitude 7.6) extensive liquefaction occurred
in the area of La Playa on the edge of Lake Amatitlan. A detailed report
of field and laboratory studies of the soil conditions in the area affected,
in the adjacent area where no liquefaction occurred, and just beyond the
boundary of the liquefaction zone has been presented by Seed, et al.
(26). The correlation between induced stress ratio Tave/ff^ and the nor-
malized SPT values for the different zones are shown in Fig. 7 where
they are again compared with the boundary line separating sites known
to have liquefied or not liquefied taken from Fig. 3(a).
Data from the Argentina Earthquake of 1977.—In November, 1977, a
major earthquake with Magnitude 7.4 occurred in San Juan Province,
Argentina, and relationships between induced stress ratio determined
from ground acceleration and standard penetration test data for 11 sites
where liquefaction occurred and nine sites where liquefaction did not
occur have been presented by Idriss (10). Penetration data for the liq-
uefied sites was taken in adjacent areas where liquefaction was not ap-
parent. The results of these studies are presented in Fig. 8.
Data from Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake, Japan of 1978.—An abundant
series of new data points, obtained primarily as a result of studies fol-
lowing the Miyagiken-Oki earthquake in Japan in June, 1978 (Magnitude
7.4), were presented by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (32). The data are pre-
sented in a slightly different form from that used in the plots shown in
Figs. 3-8, but they can readily be converted to the same form on the
basis of the information provided in the report.
For sands with a mean grain diameter, D50 > 0.25 mm, the corrected
data from this study are shown in Fig. 9 where they are compared with
the boundary line determined in Fig. 3. It may be seen that there is
generally good agreement although some sites where liquefaction ap-
parently did not occur are found to plot above the boundary line. It is
appropriate that this may occur since sites where liquefaction is not re-
ported cannot be considered with the same degree of confidence as sites
where evidence of liquefaction is clearly apparent. This is due to the fact
466
0 10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N| -blows/ft
FIG. 6.—Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Haicheng and Tangshan Earthquakes
1 1 I
Conditions cousin 3 liquefaction Guatemala Eq,,
o Conditions with no apparent liquefaction 1976 ,
o
/
o
•XZ
*-' /
ex
s.
w
V
0.4 /
\L
a. V
8
</i £
a)
£ «
£
t V 0.3 Liquefac ion f
£
Di
s °
%O I-
O
1
V•£
- -
®
1 i
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetrdtion Resistance, N| - blows/ft.
FIG. 7.—Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Guatemala Earthquake, 1976
467
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N|-biows/ft.
FIG. 8.—Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Argentina Earthquake, 1977
@ Liquefaction
© No apparent liquefoction
t 0.4
b-
p
I 0.2
ft O.I
10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, Ni -blows/ft.
FIG. 9.-~Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Sands (D50 > 0.25
mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance
468
The reliable field data from Fig. 3, together with the supplementary
data shown in Figs. 5-9, are plotted together in Fig. 10 where they pro-
vide a significantly greater data base from which to determine a bound-
ary line (or zone) separating sites known to have liquefied from sites
which have apparently not liquefied in a series of earthquakes, all of
which have magnitudes of about 7-1/2. The data for Niigata and Lake
Amatitlan are known to be at the boundary for such a line, and the
Chinese code results are also intended to define limiting conditions. Thus,
a revised position for the boundary line for sands can now be estab-
lished. Fortunately, this boundary is very close to that shown in Fig. 3,
but it is supported by a significantly greater data base and, thus, can be
drawn with a far greater degree of confidence than heretofore.
9 0
9
e 0 0
0
9 o G
_ e 9
9 G /
_
e 0 fO
9 00 / £ oo
o
G 0
O /
GT 0
O &> o o
e
e 0 O /OOO 0 0
0 08 9 0 0
0 0 9 O / O
90 t a GB-Z °
- 9 S 0 % BQ J.6P .... . 0 0 o -
9 0o 0rJT'*~ Niigaio 0 G
a ft Z ° oo
00 o
0 • O/ A> G 0 0
0 G o
0 ©j&to 9o o o
if 0 0 OD
. 8 BBO O 0
OG^I ?OGDO G O 0u 0 0
03G
O 0
1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N. -blows/ft.
FIG. 10.—Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Sands (D5I1 > 0.25
mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance (All
Data)
I I 1
0 Site with liquefaction E
1
o Site with no apparent liquefaction !2
I AT/
3/
e
00 /// /
//
0 / o
00/
0 0 0
° /// 0 o
/ G
.8 o
© OO ©3/ 0 / O ,
0 0OO / O O OO
//
0 0 / 0
0
o so o
%/
/
00/
o
0 0
/ o
/
•'
/ / ° -
o ©co'0 y
J*L «* o
/
/ • /z/ o o
o o ^
_
•
I I 1
0 10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N| - blows/ft.
FIG. 11.—Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Silty Sands (D50 <
0.15 mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance
(Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (33))
470
respond approximately to soils with D50 < 0.15 mm, the desirable in-
crease in static cone resistance was found to be about 27 kg/cm 2 , which
corresponds, for the site conditions involved, to an increase in an N1
value of about 6. This is in remarkably good agreement with the value
of 7.5 indicated by the results presented previously.
TABLE 2.—Ratios of the Ordinates of the Curve in Fig. 12, Relative to the Ordinate
Corresponding to 15 Cycles
Earthquake Number of representative
magnitude, M cycles at 0.65, Tmax L 'ave
471
6 10 15 26 100
Number of Cycles to Couse ru = 1 0 0 % and ± 5 % Strain
ratios of the ordinates of the curve in Fig. 12, relative to the ordinate
corresponding to 15 cycles. These ratios are shown directly on the plot
and summarized in Table 2. Thus, by multiplying the boundary curves
in Fig. 11 by the scaling factors shown in Col. 3 of Table 2, boundary
curves separating sites where liquefaction is likely to occur or unlikely
to occur may be determined for earthquakes with different magnitudes.
I I
I I
J> -
j_
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N( -blows/ft.
i :—i i i i
0 600 800 D00 1200
Average Shear Wave Velocity in Top 50 ft. - fps (Approximate)
472
Both laboratory tests and field performance data have shown that the
great majority of clayey soils will not liquefy during earthquakes. How-
ever, recent studies in China (35) have shown that certain types of clayey
materials may be vulnerable to severe strength loss as a result of earth-
quake shaking. These soils appear to have the following characteristics:
Percent finer than 0.005 mm <15%
Liquid Limit <35
Water Content >0.9 x Liquid Limit
If soils with these characteristics plot above the A-line on the plasticity
chart, the best means of determining their cyclic loading characteristics
is by test. Otherwise clayey soils may be considered nonvulnerable to
liquefaction.
FIG. 14.—Rate of Pore Water Pressure Build Up in Cyclic Simple Shear Tests
(DeAlba, et al. (5))
473
While the standard penetration test (SPT) has been widely used for
many years, in many cases it may be more expedient to explore the
variability of conditions within an extensive sand deposit using the static
cone penetration test (CPT). In this test, a cone with a diameter of about
1.4 in. (35.6 mm) is pushed into the ground, and the resistance to pen-
etration of the conical tip is measured in units of kilograms per square
centimeter.
The main advantages of this procedure are that it provides data much
more rapidly than does the SPT, it provides a continuous record of pen-
etration resistance in any bore hole, and it is less vulnerable to operator
error than the SPT.
The main disadvantage of the test, from the point of view of predict-
ing the liquefaction resistance of a site, is that it has a very limited data
base to provide a correlation between soil liquefaction characteristics and
CPT values. This data base may remain meager for some time pending
the generation of new data from new earthquakes. In the meantime,
however, the test can be used in conjunction with the extensive data
base for the standard penetration test by either:
Using such relationships the data obtained from CPT test programs can
readily be converted to equivalent N values for the sand and then used
in conjunction with the charts in Figs. 10-13 to evaluate liquefaction re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CTCI Corporation Library on 01/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J- (Based on q c /N =
4 lo 5 kg/cm 2 )
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction No Liquefaction
o OJ
0 1 1 1
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150
Modified Cone Penetration Resistance, o^i kg/cm2 Modified Cone Penetration Resistance, q c( kg/cm2
U i It 90 90
for values of Ni up to about 30.
CN-N-a'0
Thus (Tave)« = — (6)
cr0 X C>/
6 x 10',6 • (10)
in which cr'0 is in pounds per square foot units. From the chart shown
in Fig. 4, it may be shown readily that in the upper 50 ft (1,270 m) of a
soil deposit where liquefaction is most likely to occur, the product a'0 x
CN at any depth is equal to 1,800 psf (8.6 kPa) ± 30%.
1,800 ± 30%
Thus (7ave)t , w 6
6 x 106
= 0.03% ±30% ; (11)
This is the approximate strain level at which liquefaction can be expected
to occur in a Magnitude 7-1/2 earthquake. Earthquakes with lower mag-
nitudes would require greater induced strains to cause liquefaction.
If the factor of safety against liquefaction is about 1.5 for earthquakes
with magnitude 6-1/2 or greater, the pore pressures developed by the
shaking will be negligible. Thus, the average strain level at which pore
pressures will just begin to develop (termed the threshold strain by Dobry,
et al. (6)) will be about
0.03% ± 30%
(7ave)threshold = ~ - 0.015%-0.025% (12)
i.i>
It may be noted that threshold strains of these magnitudes are very
similar to those discussed by Dobry, et al. (6) based on experimental
evidence from laboratory tests. However, the aforementioned values are
based only on the field data presented in this paper, providing good
confirmation that the laboratory test results are of the right order of
magnitude.
As in the case of CPT data, it is not difficult to extend the correlation
between field Kquefaction characteristics and SPT results to include shear
wave velocity data. Eq. 7 provides a correlation between Gmax and N
which, since
v
s= J— (13«)
leads to the result that
/l3N X 104 x 32 2\
vs = I 1 = 185 VNfps (56 VNm/s) (13b)
477
185 VNi ,—
vs = 200 VJVi
0.9
for depths up to about 50 ft (15 m). This approximate relationship can
be plotted along the abscissa of Fig. 13, to provide an approximate cor-
relation between values of stress ratio causing liquefaction in the field
and the average shear wave velocity of the upper 50 ft (15 m) of soil.
It may be noted that Fig. 13 indicates that liquefaction will never occur
in any earthquake if the shear wave velocity in the upper 50 ft (15 m)
of soil exceeds about 1,200 fps (366 m/s). This is in excellent agreement
with the finding of Youd and Hoose (37) that Holocene sand deposits,
typically having vs s 700 fps (214 m/s) have been more disturbed by
liquefaction than Pleistocene deposits for which vs £ 1,100 fps (336 m/s).
It would appear from the aforementioned analysis that liquefaction
resistance could be predicted equally well by stress ratio vs. Ni corre-
lations or by evaluations of average strain developed by earthquake mo-
tions. However there are several reasons why the stress ratio approach
might be more appealing than the strain approach:
1. It is based only on field testing and field case histories, and requires
no laboratory investigations.
2. The testing to determine penetration resistance is considerably sim-
pler and less expensive than shear wave velocity measurements in the
field.
3. The stress induced in a sand deposit by a given earthquake motion
can be computed with greater accuracy than the strains.
4. The critical yield strain is likely to vary with earthquake magnitude
and other parameters.
5. Cross-hole shear wave measurements are normally made in se-
lected portions of a site, whereas CPT or SPT investigations can cover
large areas of a site and, thus, be more indicative or the variability of
soil characteristics.
6. It is not easy to identify thin layers of loose sand using cross-hole
wave velocity measurements.
On the other hand, it should be noted that CPT and SPT studies can-
not be made in soils containing gravels, cobbles, or boulders, and a strain
approach to liquefaction evaluation offers a potential method for eval-
uating the liquefaction characteristics of such deposits—an option not
offered by CPT, SPT, or other methods of in situ testing. For this reason
alone, it is desirable to develop the correlation of liquefaction resistance
of soils with induced strains, though care will be required to determine
the critical yield strains in these deposits.
CONCLUSION
It should be noted that, in using this approach with the charts pre-
sented, the SPT should be determined in the standard method using a
rope and pulley system to lift the falling weight, as described previously.
If a free-falling weight is used or if there are other deviations from the
test procedure used in determining the Nt values used in the charts
shown, judgment must be exercised to evaluate an appropriate JVj value
for the soil before using the charts.
It may also be noted that the chart shown in Fig. 11 is based entirely
on field performance of deposits during actual earthquakes and is, thus,
based on a large number of field case studies. Its extension to silty sands
is similarly well-supported by field case data. Extension of the chart to
earthquakes with magnitudes other than M = 7-1/2 is based on a sta-
tistical analysis of many earthquake records and the characteristic shape
of a liquefaction curve determined by very large-scale cyclic simple shear
tests. As such, it is not believed that the use of the scaling factors in-
dicated by this curve will introduce any serious error in the positions of
the family of curves shown in Fig. 14.
Because this empirical approach is founded on such a large body of
field data, it is believed by the writers to provide the most useful em-
pirical approach available at the present time. However, it should be
noted that the standard penetration test cannot be performed conve-
niently at all depths (say deeper than 100 ft (30.5 m) or through large
depths of water) or in all soils (such as those containing a significant
479
APPENDIX.—REFERENCES
480
13. Koizumi, Y., " C h a n g e in Density of Sand Subsoil Caused by the Niigata
Earthquake," Soil and Foundation, Vol. VIII, N o . 2, Tokyo, Japan, 1966, p p .
38-44.
14. Kovacs, W. D., Velocity Measurement of a Free-Fail Hammer, 1978.
15. Kovacs, W. D., Evans, J. C , and Griffith, A. H., "Towards a More Stan-
dardized SPT," Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1977.
16. Lee, K. L., and Albeisa, A., "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated
Sands," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 100,
No. GT4, Proc. Paper 10496, Apr., 1974, p p . 387-406.
17. Marcuson, W. F., Ill, and Bieganousky, W. A., "Laboratory Standard Pen-
etration Tests on Fine S a n d s , " Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, N o . GT6, June, 1976, p p . 565-588.
18. Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. K., and Seed, H. Bolton, "Fundamentals of Liq-
uefaction u n d e r Cyclic Loading," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, Vol. 101, N o . GT5, May, 1975, p p . 423-438.
19. Ohsaki, Y., "Niigata Earthquakes, 1964 Building D a m a g e and Soil Condi-
tions," Soils and Foundations, Vol. VI, N o . 2, p p . 14-37.
20. Ohsaki, Y., a n d Iwasaki, R., " O n Dynamic Shear Moduli a n d Poisson's Ratio ,,
of Soil Deposits," Soils and Foundation, Vol. 13, N o . 4, Tokyo, Japan, 1973, i
p p . 61-73.
21. Palacios, A., "The Theory a n d Measurement of Energy Transfer During SPT
Test Sampling," thesis, presented to the University of Florida, at Gainesville, I. i
Fla., in 1977, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doc- 11,
tor of Philosophy. 11,
22. Peck, Ralph B., "Liquefaction Potential: Science Versus Practice," Journal of ,i
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, N o . GT3, Mar., 1979, ,,'
p . 393. ;;;
23. Schmertmann, J. H., "Predicting the qc/N Ratio—Interpreting the Dynamics '
of the Standard Penetration Test," University of Florida, Report to the De-
partment of Transportation, Fla., Oct., 1976.
24. Schmertmann, J. H . , "Use the SPT to Measure Dynamic Properties?—Yes, ,!,!
But . . .!" Proceedings of the American Society for Testing and Materials Sympo- ]],
slum on Dynamic Field and Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock, June 29, 1977. [ [j
25. Schmertmann, J. H., "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance a n d J ]}
Design," Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal H i g h w a y Administration, Washington, D.C., July, 1978. 'V
26. Seed, H . Bolton, Arango, Igancio, Chan, Clarence K., Gomez-Masso, Al- 'I'1
berto, and Ascoli, Rebecca Grant, "Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Near 'tjjj
Lake Amatitlan, Guatemala," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT4, Proc. Paper 16212, Apr., 1981, p p . 501-518. ul[
27. Seed, H. Bolton, and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil ;JI
Liquefaction Potential," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, n,'
ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, Sept., 1971, p . 1249. {jf1
28. Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Makdisi, F. a n d Benerjee, N . , "Representation of Jj|i
Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liq- ni
uefaction Analyses," Report No. EERC 75-29, Earthquake Engineering Re- '
search Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., 1975.
29. Seed, H. Bolton, Mori, Kenji, and Chan, Clarence K., "Influence of Seismic
History on the Liquefaction Characteristics of S a n d s , " Report No. EERC 75-
25, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berke- j
ley, Calif., Aug., 1975.
30. Seed, H. B., a n d Peacock, W. H., "Test Procedures for Measuring Soil Liq-
481
482