National Workshop on Assessment & Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Microzonation

27-28 November, 2015, IIT Roorkee

ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARD

R K Bharti1, Gopal Sharan1, Manish Gupta2, R Chitra3

1
Scientist-B, Central Soil and Materials Research Station, 2Scientist-D, Central Soil and
Materials Research Station, 3Scientist-E, Central Soil and Materials Research Station

ABSTRACT:

Over the past decade, it is observed that dynamic behaviour of soil rarely receives any
attention of structure engineer as compared to dynamic behaviour of structure. Dynamic
properties of soil are as an important part of the design as structure designer considers others
static properties of soil at the time of design. Static is assigned as a definition because the
property exists even when forces are not applied. On the other hand, friction as a physical
force in static does not exist until the soil responds to a force and tends to move. After motion
begins, the size of friction may or may not be static. The concept of static and dynamic
properties must be clearly understood. In soil dynamics, Liquefaction phenomenon is a kind
of dynamics case which is generally ignored by the structure engineer. Therefore, a typical
effort was made to develop spreadsheet software by the scientists of CSMRS, MoWR, RD
&GR, New Delhi for the evaluation of liquefaction potential based on lot of laboratory
testing and the past researches. For the validation of the results of this software lot of tests
have been conducted in the laboratories and it is found that the results obtain from software
are very close and comparable for the same samples. In this paper, a case study of Vasant
Kunj, South-West Delhi has been used to see the results of liquefaction potential through this
software.

KEYWORDS: Liquefaction Potential, CSMRS Software, Standard Penetration Test,

Cyclic Stress Ratio, Cyclic Resistance Ratio.

INTRODUCTION:

A subject of seismic response on the structures like bridges, Dam, high rise buildings,
monuments etc. is of intensive concern for geotechnical engineer. It is seen many times that
dynamic behaviour of soil rarely receives any attention of structure engineer as compared to
dynamic behaviour of structures. An additional concern, which prior to this past decade had
been routinely neglected, is the need to ensure that structures are not unacceptably damaged
due to liquefaction phenomenon during seismic excitation. Since 1964, research has been
carried out to explain and understand soil liquefaction phenomena. The progress of research
on soil liquefaction has been pronounced in detail in a series of state-of-the-art papers (e.g.
Seed and Idriss (1971), Hunt (1884), Finn (1981, 1991), Ishihara (1993), Youd et al. (2001),
and Idriss and Boulanger (2008), etc.).

The word liquefaction phenomenon is very well explained by Sladen et al. (1985)
states that Liquefaction is a phenomena wherein a mass of soil loses a large percentage of its
shear resistance, when subjected to monotonic, cyclic or shocking loading and flows in a
manner of resembling a liquid until the shear stresses acting on the mass are as low as the
 National Workshop on Assessment & Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Microzonation
27-28 November, 2015, IIT Roorkee

reduced shear resistance and Sladen et al. (1985b) also precisely concluded that The
potential for liquefaction is much lower for clean sand than for dirty sand, all else being
equal. They go on to state: a high fines content will also reduce permeability and increase
compressibility making an undrained response to any given loading condition more likely.
From Sladen et al. (1985) in Figure 1 shows schematict (shear) vs s (normal) stress plot.
As indicate in the Table 1, three zones were indicated as A (liquefaction impossible),
B (liquefaction susceptibility under cyclic loading) and C (liquefaction susceptibility
under static loading).

Table 1 Three zones of liquefaction (Sladen et al. (1985))

Zone Liquefaction potential
A Impossible
B Possible under cyclic loading
C Possible under static loading

Figure 1 Effect of State on Liquefaction Susceptibility (Sladen et al. (1985))

This paper summarizes the methods of determining the liquefaction potential through
a series of experiments in Laboratory of CSMRS, MoWR, RD&GR, New Delhi and analysis
in spreadsheet software. The results obtained from software were validated with the results of
a series of Cyclic Triaxial & Cyclic Simple Shear tests on collected samples from Vasant
Kunj, Delhi.

METHODOLOGY & ESTIMATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF SOIL

The series of papers by Youd et al. (2001) to Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedures
are included in the spreadsheet. This selection is based on the assumption that eventually
Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) will be substantially adopted as good practice. And, that is
indeed the claim in the state-of-practice publication on this approach a decade ago (Youd et
al, 2001).

Different kind of soil like saturated loose sands, silty sands, sandy silts, non-plastic
silts and some gravel are susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake cycles. A quantified
measure of seismically induced shaking within a soil profile is termed as the earthquake
demand. The most commonly used measure of demand in current practice is the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR). The soils ability to resist this shaking without liquefaction is determined by one
or more methods, and is indicated by its cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). The safety factor
against liquefaction equals the cyclic stress ratio applied by the design earthquake divided by
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). When liquefaction potential is less than 1.0, liquefaction can
occur. The soil liquefaction depends on various factors such as the magnitude of earthquake,
 National Workshop on Assessment & Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Microzonation
27-28 November, 2015, IIT Roorkee

intensity and duration of ground motion, the distance from the source of the earthquake, site
specific conditions, ground acceleration, type of soil and thickness of the soil deposit, relative
density, grain size distribution, fines content, plasticity of fines, degree of saturation,
confining pressure, permeability characteristics of soil layer, position and fluctuations of the
groundwater table, reduction of effective stress and shear modulus degradation.

This spreadsheet software, model shown in Figure 2, identifies possible zones of

liquefaction in a soil profile. It compares the anticipated cyclic shear stresses induced by an
earthquake to the estimated cyclic strength of the soil. Zones where the induced stress is
greater than the cyclic strength are deemed zones of liquefaction.

Figure 2 Model of Software used in calculation of Liquefaction potential

The liquefaction potential depths of soil within all the boreholes were calculated using
SPT N values, percentage of fines, PGA and depth of ground water value and others
parameters (see Table 2). The PGA values at surface were chosen from Table 3. The
liquefaction was estimated using the software and following parameters of site Vasant Kunj
Delhi (south-west, Delhi), controlled by the combined effect of the Moradabad-Dehradun
fault and nearby Sohna fault as mentioned in the Figure 4.

Table 2 Parameters of site for calculation

Bore hole drilled depth
Percentage fines
Depth of ground water table
SPT N values at respective depths
PGA value
From collected borehole data
method as discussed
From collected borehole data
Reported by M/s Geotest Consultants, New Delhi
Calculated based on the faults by Sharma (2003)

Table 3: Proposed Zones and their equivalence with present zoning map and
corresponding Zone Factor:
Class interval Suggested Zone of
Class Suggested Zone Factor
(PGA) NCT Delhi
Class A Less than 0.18g Zone III 0.16
Class B 0.18 to 0.30g Zone IV 0.24
Class C 0.3 to 0.42g Zone V 0.36
Class D 0.42 to 0.476g More than Zone V 0.44
(based on PGA at two sites, occupying a very small area)

Liquefaction susceptibility analysis based on the average SPT N value profile

reported by M/s Geotest Consultants India, New Delhi (1991) has been made as discussed.
 National Workshop on Assessment & Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Microzonation
27-28 November, 2015, IIT Roorkee

The analysis has been done for an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 and maximum peak ground
acceleration of 0.18g as shown in Table 3. Average bulk density of the soils from different
boreholes in the area was 19.1kN/m3 and average ground water level from different boreholes
in the area was 2.7m as described in Table 4. The plot of factor of safety against
Liquefaction vs Depth is shown in Figure 3.

Table 4 Assessment of liquefaction potential using SPT data:

Depth Wt v v FC
rd MSF (N1)60cs CRR CSR FS
(m) (kNm3) (kNm3) (kNm3) (%)
1.0 19.1 19.2 19.2 0.99 1.14 64 18.70 0.27 0.10 2.70
2.0 19.1 38.4 38.4 0.99 1.14 64 12.91 0.19 0.10 1.87
3.0 19.1 57.6 57.6 0.98 1.14 64 14.49 0.21 0.10 2.07
4.0 19.1 76.8 36.8 0.97 1.14 52 18.13 0.26 0.21 1.27
5.0 19.1 96.0 46.0 0.96 1.14 51 25.07 0.53 0.21 2.58
6.5 19.1 125 59.8 0.95 1.14 48 24.57 0.50 0.20 2.44
Note: Wt: unit weight, v: total vertical stress, v: vertical effective stress, (N1)60cs: Normalized penetration resistance, MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor

Figure 3 Plot of factor of safety against Figure 4 Geology map of Delhi modified after
Liquefaction Vs Depth Dubey et al. (2012) and Bansal et al. (2009)

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:

In this study 20 borehole data in and around South-West, Delhi of Houses (DDA) at
Sector-C, Pocket-5, Vasant Kunj, which lies in Seismic Zone IV were analyzed for estimation
of the liquefiable depth of the soil. The average thickness of soil layer in the region is more
than 6m. To evaluate the depth of liquefiable soil, each and every borehole data has been
calculated by using software which has the capability of calculating the liquefiable depth of
soil with different formulae developed by various scientists of CSMRS, MoWR, RD&GR,
New Delhi and past researchers. The results obtained from software were validated with the
results of a series of Cyclic Triaxial & Cyclic Simple Shear tests on collected samples from
the site. The plot of factor of safety against Liquefaction vs Depth show that soil profile is not
liquefaction susceptible and safe for the structures.
 National Workshop on Assessment & Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Microzonation
27-28 November, 2015, IIT Roorkee

REFERENCES:

1. Bansal, B. K., Singh, S. K., Dharmaraju, R., Pacheco, J. F., Ordaz, M., Dattatrayam, R.
S., Suresh, G. (2009). Source study of two small earthquakes of Delhi, India, and
estimation of ground motion from future moderate, local events. J. Seismol., 13, 89-105.
2. Dubey, C. S., Shukla, D. P., Singh, R. P., Sharma, M., Ningthoujam, P. S. and Bhola, A.
M. (2012). Present activity and seismogenic potential of Himalayan sub-parallel thrust
faults in Delhi: inferences from remote sensing, GPR, gravity data and seismicity. Near
Surface Geophysics, Vol.11, No.5, p.369-380.
3. Finn, W. D. L. (1981). Liquefaction potential development since 1976. Proc. of the Intl.
Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
St. Louis, Missouri, 655-681.
4. Finn, W. D. L. (1991). Assessment of liquefaction potential and post liquefaction
behavior of earth structures: Developments 1981-1991. Proc. Second Intl. Conf. on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis,
March 11-15, Vol. 2, pp. 1883-1850.
5. Hunt, R. E. (1884). Geotechnical engineering investigation manual. McGraw-Hill, New
York, USA.
6. Idriss, I. M. and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. EERI
Publication (2008), 235 pp..
7. Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2004). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating
liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Proc., 11th International Conference on Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, 1, 32-56.
8. Ishihara, K. (1993). Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes: thirty-third
rankine lecture. Geotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 351-415.
9. M/s Geotest Consult. India, N. Delhi (1991). An exploration report on soil investigation
for the proposed construction of houses at Sec.-C, Pkt-5, Vasant Kunj, DDA, N. Delhi..
10. Seed H. B., Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
potential. Soil Mech. Found., ASCE, 97(9):12491273.
11. Sharma, M. L., Wason, H. R., Dimri, R. (2003). Seismic zonation of the Delhi region for
bedrock ground motion. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 160 (12), 2381-2398.
12. Sladen, J. A., DHollander, R. D. and Krahn, J. (1985). The liquefaction of sands, a
collapse surface approach. Canadian Geotechnical J., Vol. 22, pp. 564- 578.
13. Sladen, J. A., D'Hollander, R. D., Krahn, J. & Mitchell D. E. (1985b). Back analysis of
the Nerlerk berm Liquefaction slides. Can. Geotech. J. 22, 579-588.
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., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S. S. C.,
Marcurson, W. F. Iii., Marti, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S.,
Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B. and Stokoe, K. H. Ii. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of
soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng., ASCE, 127:10,
817833.