Journal of JSCE, Vol.

1, 307-321, 2013
Special Topic - 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (Invited Paper)

STUDIES ON SOIL LIQUEFACTION AND

SETTLEMENT IN THE URAYASU DISTRICT
USING EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSES
FOR THE 2011 OFF THE PACIFIC COAST
OF TOHOKU EARTHQUAKE

Kiyoshi FUKUTAKE1 and Jiho JANG2

1Member of JSCE, Institute of Technology, SHIMIZU Corporation
(Etchujima3-4-17, Koutou-ku, Tokyo, 135-8530, Japan)
E-mail: kiyoshi.fukutake@shimz.co.jp
2Material & Energy Research Team, GS E&C Research Institute
(Cheoin-gu, Youngin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 449-831, Korea)
E-mail:jhjang03@gsconst.co.kr

The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake caused soil liquefaction over a wide area. In par-
ticular, severe soil liquefaction was reported in the northern parts of the reclaimed lands around Tokyo Bay,
even though the seismic intensity in this area was only about 5 on the JMA scale with low acceleration. The
authors surveyed the residual settlement in the Urayasu district and then conducted effective stress analyses
of sites affected and not affected by liquefaction. The analyses results were compared with the acceleration
waves monitored with K-NET Urayasu or ground settlements surveyed. They were based on the acceler-
ation observed on the seismic bedrocks in earthquake engineering in some other districts adjacent to
Urayasu. Much of the settlement was due to the long duration of the earthquake, with further settlement
resulting from the aftershocks. The study shows that the effects of aftershocks need to be monitored. The
simplified liquefaction prediction methods using the factor of safety, FL, also need improvement.

Key Words : The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake, liquefaction, settlement, effective
stress analysis, aftershock

1. INTRODUCTION Aerial laser surveying was carried out over Urayasu

The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earth-
quake (hereafter, Earthquake 3.11) caused liquefac-
tion over a wide area. Focusing on the reclaimed land
in the northern part of Tokyo Bay, the seismic in-
tensity was about 5 (ground acceleration of about 100
to 150 Gal), thus the accelerations were not very
high, but the duration of the seismic motions was
long, and this caused liquefaction and settlement seen
in many areas. On the other hand, even though the
ground conditions were similar, some places did not
undergo large settlements. As a result, the Japanese
Geotechnical Society and the Ministry of Land, In-
frastructure, Transport and Tourism Kanto Devel-
opment Bureau jointly summarized the liquefaction
and non-liquefaction areas on a map as shown in
Fig.1.1) However, indices directly related to damage,
such as settlement, etc., were not shown on the maps.
City before and after the earthquake, and the change
in the ground surface was indicated by the difference
in the elevation values.2) The errors, however, were
large and the values did not necessarily correspond to
the actual amount of settlement. Konagai et al.21)
conducted a LiDAR survey and drew subsidence
maps of the Tokyo Bay shore areas, and the measured
results contained the effects of the structures.
The authors measured the amount of settlement in
Urayasu, Shin Kiba, and Tatsumi a few days after the
occurrence of the earthquake, and prepared drawings
of the distribution of the settlement. They then in-
vestigated the causes of the variation in the distribu-
tion of the settlement, the amount of the settlement,
and the difference in settlement.
In addition, focusing on the Urayasu area, typical
ground models were prepared in each area from the
N-values and borehole data of ground that liquefied

307
and ground that did not liquefy. Response analysis by
effective stress analysis was carried out based on the
acceleration records measured at the engineering
bedrock near these areas, including the main shock
(M = 9.0) and the largest aftershock (M = 7.7), which
occurred 29 minutes later.
The results were compared with the K-NET
Urayasu acceleration records and the amount of set-
tlement measured at the locations of liquefaction. In
addition, an improvement to the FL method of de-
termining liquefaction in cases where the duration is
long as in multi-segment earthquakes was proposed.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF SETTLEMENT
IN RECLAIMED GROUND IN THE
NORTHERN PORTION OF TOKYO
BAY
Toky
(1) Characteristics of settlement distribution
Figures 2 and 3 show the amount of horizontal
Tokyo Bay ground surface settlement in the Tatsumi - Shin Kiba
Kanagawa Pref. - Urayasu area located in the northern part of Tokyo
Chiba Pref.
Liquefaction Area Bay shown in Fig.1 within a few days after the
Non-Liquefaction Area earthquake. These values were measured using
bearing pile structure as a benchmark. The numerical
values of the colors are: blue, 0 to 10 cm; orange, 10
to 30 cm; and red, 30 cm or more. Measurement of
the amount of settlement was carried out using points
Shimizu Institute of Technology
that had not moved, such as pile-supported buildings
Tatsum
where no settlement occurred. Settlement of the
whole area did not occur, but places where the set-
tlement was large and places where there was almost
Shin Kiba Urayasu no settlement were mixed.
Figure 4 shows the geological section along the
―Liquefaction survey line and the improved areas by preloading and
Tokyo Bay ―Non-Liquefaction
■Liquefaction Area sand drain17).
■Non-Liquefaction Area

Fig.1 Developmental distribution of liquefaction in Kanto

region and north Tokyo Bay in Earthquake 3.111).

JR Keiyo Line

Metropolitan Expressway

Shin Kiba station

Rinkai Line

400m

Fig.2 Settlement in the Tatsumi - Shin Kiba area (cm).

308
 Figure 5 shows the distribution of settlement along
the survey line indicated in Fig.3. Plots and arrows
mean measured values and their ranges. Hatching
zone covers all measured values. With the Tokyo
Metro Tozai Line as the origin, there is almost no
evidence of settlement up to 2000 m.
However, according to local taxi drivers, the noise
levels are greater when they drive now compared
with before the earthquake; likewise, the vibrations
seen to be greater, thus it is considered that a certain
amount of settlement had occurred. From about

K-net URAYASU JR Keiyo Line Reclaimed land

Phase I

Reclaimed land
Phase II
Shin Urayasu station

Metropolitan Expressway
Old Coastline

Ito- Hinode
Yokado

Takasu Survey Line

Maihama station

Tokyo Disneyland A
Minato

Fig.3 Settlement in the Urayasu area (cm).

Alluvial lowland Reclaimed land (Phase I ) Reclaimed land (Phase II)

Fill preloading (Hb=1.7-4.0m)

Sand drain

Fig.4 Geological section along the survey line in Fig.3 and the improved areas by preloading and sand drain17).

309
 Tozai Line of Tkyo  Metropolitan  JR Keiyo 
Metro Expressway Ito‐Yokado Co., Ltd. Seawall
Line
0

10
Settlement (cm)

20

Old 
30 Coastline

40

50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Distance (m)
Reclamation Phase I Reclamation Phase II
(1971) (1978)
Fig.5 Settlement along the survey line in the Urayasu area (cm).

τ 0.3
0.3
2400 m, the settlement becomes larger, and is largest σ’mo
Silty Sand
at around 4000 m, reaching a maximum of about 50
cm. From that point until the sea wall, the settlement 0.2
0.2
Stress Raio

A
becomes smaller, thus overall, the distribution of Loose Sand Liquefiable
settlement is shaped like a spoon. The settlement B
0.1
0.1
becomes smaller towards the sea wall because the σ’mo=100kPa
ground has been compacted as a mitigation measure Xl =0.1
γDA=5% Not-liquefiable
against liquefaction from about 4500 m to near the 0.0
0.0
sea wall (near point A in Fig.3). In addition, the 11 10
10 100
100 1000
1000
Number of cycles to liquefaction
construction methods taken to promote consolidation
(sand drains + preloading) are considered to have a Fig.6 Liquefaction strength curves and liquefaction
certain effect in reducing liquefaction near the sea strength lower limit value Xl.
wall.17) The effect of construction methods taken to
promote consolidation on reducing liquefaction has
also been reported at Port Island and Rokko Island thick, thus the amount of settlement is comparatively
after the 1995 Kobe earthquake.3), 4) If this type of small. In addition, small differences in the shear
mitigation measure had not been taken, then the stress that acted many times are considered to have
amount of settlement in the area reclaimed between had a major effect on the resulting phenomenon. In
1975 and 1978 would have appeared to be a bit larger other words, once liquefaction has occurred, the soil
compared with the area reclaimed between 1968 to thereafter has been subjected to many repetitions
1971. However, the correlation between the amount resulting in severe liquefaction. The next section
of settlement and the year of reclamation is not very considers the cause of this phenomenon.
clear.
As can be seen from the settlement distribution in (2) Liquefaction characteristics during cyclic
Figs.2, 3 and 5, there is large variation in the amount small amplitude shearing at the element level
of settlement. The amount of settlement varies con- The characteristics of liquefaction in this case
siderably with 100 m separation, and there is large were caused by comparatively small accelerations
variation even within narrow areas. This variation in that had continued for a long period of time, and as a
the amount of settlement is due to whether the ground result, small shear stresses were repeated a large
has been improved or not as described earlier, and number of times.
differences in the surface layer soils and thickness of
the reclaimed ground. If the surface layer is a thick
clay layer, the settlements tend to be small; for ex-
ample, near point B in Fig.3, the surface clay layer is

310

15
10 Loose Sand
5
0
-5
Shear Stress  ( kPa )
-10
-15
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20
15
10 Silty Sand
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20
Fig.7 Stress-strain relationship near the liquefaction strength lower limit value Xl (stress ratio = 0.11).
Therefore, the reason why the small differences in
the acting shear stress could result in an extreme
difference in the phenomenon was investigated from
the behavior of soil elements.
A calculation was carried out for cyclic shearing
with small shear stress amplitudes that were just
sufficient to cause liquefaction. Figure 6 shows the
calculation results for the liquefaction strength curve
(relationship between the shear stress ratio when the
double amplitude shear strain DA reaches 5% and the
number of cycles) of loose sand and silty sand that
contains much fines. The constitutive equation used
in the calculation was the Ramberg-Osgood model
expanded to three-dimensions with a multiple shear
mechanism as the stress-strain relationship5), and the
bowl model used as the strain-dilatancy relation-
ship.6), 7) The difference between sand and silty sand
is expressed by swelling index Cs in the calculation
(sand: Cs/ (1+e0)=0.006, silty sand: Cs/ (1+e0)=
0.010).
Xl is the lower limit of shear stress ratio (lower
bound value of the liquefaction strength)6) that will
not cause liquefaction even with multiple repetitions.
The figure shows the case where Xl = 0.1. If the act-
ing shear stress ratio is Xl or less, liquefaction does
not occur, but if it is greater than Xl, liquefaction will
eventually occur due to multiple repetitions. In
conventional design, the liquefaction strength R15 or
R20 under 15 or 20 cycles, respectively, is used (the
value near A in Fig.6). In the Earthquake 3.11, a
liquefaction strength (for example, R100, in which
liquefaction is reached after 100 cycles, etc.) should
be used, such as near B. In the case of sand, Xl is
62 cycles 68 cycles
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
132 cycles 145 cycles
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Shear Strain 
approached with fewer cycles compared with silty
sand, thus this is still more reason to take this ap-
proach. Incidentally, the following relationship is
shown in Fig.6.
Xl ≒ R100 ≒ 0.8×R20 (1)
Figure 7 shows a stress-strain relationship close to
Xl (for a case where liquefaction just barely occurs).
In the element calculation, the shear stress ratio Xl
was set to 0.11, which is slightly larger than Xl. In the
case of sand, it required 62 cycles for the strain to
start to suddenly increase, but once liquefaction oc-
curred the strain accumulated with few cycles. This
corresponds to severe liquefaction even though the
acting shear stress is small, as in the Earthquake 3.11.
In the silty sand, the number of cycles until the in-
crease in strain is reached is greater, and the rate of
increase in the strain after liquefaction is slower
compared with sand. Therefore, if the acting shear
stress ratio is slightly larger than Xl, there is a possi-
bility of liquefaction occurring accompanied with
large strain, but if the shear strain ratio is smaller than
Xl liquefaction does not occur. In other words, the
subsequent behavior greatly differs depending on
whether the acting shear stress ratio is greater than or
less than Xl. This is considered one reason why the
locations where settlement occurred and the locations
where settlement did not occur were mixed. In other
words, even in a small area, the acting shear stress
ratio fluctuated greatly depending on small variations
in the ground stiffness and the circumstances of the
nearby topography and structures. As a result, at
311
certain locations where the acting amplitude was Table 1 Stratigraphic composition and soil constants at the
smaller than Xl, the settlement was small, and at other two assumed locations.
locations where the acting amplitude was larger than (a) Location-1: non-liquefaction-prone ground based on the
Xl, the settlement was large. Therefore, in addition to boring data of K-NET Urayasu
the differences in the surface soil stratum, the mag- (1st natural period=0.82sec.)
Thickness Fine
nitude of the shear stress was considered one cause of GL γt Vs N
of Strata Soil Profile Content 3
the extremes in the phenomenon of liquefaction and m
m Fc (%) kN/m m/s value

the variation in the settlement. 1.0 1.0 Fill (F) 17.5 140 3
This discussion has been based on a theoretical 2.3 1.3 Silt (Asc) 60 17.5 140 4
model having a lower limit value of liquefaction 4.6 2.3 Sand (As) 10 17.5 140 19
7.9 3.3 Silt (Asc) 40 17.5 140 7
strength at Xl. Therefore, although it cannot be said 20.0 12.1 Clay (Ac) 16.7 125 3
that the model as it is represents the behavior of the 27.0 7.0 Silt (Asc) 17.5 230 3
soil in Urayasu, it can be said to be one explanation 33.0 6.0 Silt (Asc) 18.5 370 30
35.0 2.0 Sand (Ds) 19.0 400 >50
for variations in settlement. In the future it is neces-
sary to verify this experimentally using on-site test
specimens. (b) Location-2: liquefaction-prone ground based on the bor-
ing data of the southeast of the reclaimed area of Urayasu
(1st natural period=2.18sec.)
Thickness Fine γt
3. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF GL Vs N
of Strata Soil Profile Content 3
m kN/m m/s value
LIQUEFACTION BY EFFECTIVE m Fc (%)

STRESS ANALYSIS 0.4 0.4 Fill (F) 16.0 130 3

Silty Sand
1.7 1.3 35 16.0 100 3
(F)
(1) Analysis conditions 3.8 2.1
Silty Sand
35 18.0 110 3
Data were collected from several boreholes in the (F)
10.9 7.1 Sand (As) 10 18.0 120 10
Urayasu area, and two types of FEM ground models 15.6 4.7 Silt (Asc) 60 18.0 140 2
were produced: location-1 where there was no liq- 36.7 21.1 Clay (Ac1) 16.0 140 0
uefaction, and location-2 where there was liquefac- 42.8 6.1 Clay (Ac2) 17.0 170 2
44.8 2.0 Sand (Ds) 19.0 400 >50
tion. Location-1 was the ground at K-NET Urayasu
near the Urayasu City Office. Location-2 was set
based on the data from several boreholes in the
southeast of the reclaimed area (the Takasu area and The constitutive equations used in the analysis
the Hinode area). The settlement at both locations were the R-O model as described in Section 2.(2) in
was 30 to 50 cm. Effective stress analysis was carried combination with a bowl model. Figure 8 shows the
out with the ground models for locations-1 and 2, and results calculated from the constitutive equation for
the acceleration response and the extent of liquefac- the liquefaction strength curve of the strata that have
tion (amount of settlement, etc.) were investigated. the potential for liquefaction as determined from the
Table 1 shows the stratigraphic composition at the N-values and the fine fraction content Fc. The
two assumed locations. The blue portion indicates N-values and Fc values for the borehole data for the
strata that could liquefy. For location-1 ground showed variations with depth, thus there was
(non-liquefaction-prone ground), the K-NET also variation in the liquefaction strength. Therefore,
Urayasu borehole data were used to the depth of for the sand strata at location-2, RL was calculated as
GL-20m, and deeper strata were set by reference to it is with variation based on the Japanese design
nearby borehole in-company data. At location-2 specifications for highway bridges19), and the mini-
(liquefaction-prone ground), an average ground mum value (about 0.2) was taken to be R20. Based on
model was determined based on data from several this, the lower limit value of liquefaction strength, Xl,
boreholes: Chiba prefecture data20) and in-company was set to 0.80.2 = 0.16 in Equation (1), to provide
data. The differences between the ground at the two the curved line of the liquefaction strength in the
locations were as follows: at location-2 the N-values figure. The other strata were also set by the same
of the sand strata were small, the liquefaction-prone method. The difference in liquefaction strength
stratum in the silty sand stratum F was thick, and the curves in Fig.8(a) and (b) are based on Fc and
strata were deep. N-values.
Also, the dynamic deformation properties (the
so-called G/G0 - , h -  relationship) were set to
standard curves for sand, silt and clay based on Ref-
erence 8) approximately.

312
 continuing (after 29 minutes from the main shock),
0.4 the largest aftershock occurred (M = 7.7). Therefore
in the analysis, it was assumed that during the period
from the main shock to the largest aftershock, there
0.3 was no pore water pressure dissipation, and the main
τ shock and the aftershock were input as continuous.
σ’mo
The groundwater level was the same in the main
0.2 shock and the aftershock.
Stress Raio

In this analysis, the vibrations in two directions

Silt (GL-1.0～-2.3m)
0.1
Sand (GL-2.3～-4.6m)
Silt (GL-4.6～-7.9m)
0.0
1 10 100
Number of cycles to DA=5%
(a) Location-1: non-liquefaction-prone ground
were applied simultaneously in a three-dimensional
model. Therefore in addition to the shear strain for
each component, the resultant shear strain  and the
cumulative shear strain G* given by the following
equations were used6), 7).
1000
   zx2 zy2 xy2 ( x  y ) 2  ( y  z ) 2 ( z  x ) 2 (2)

0.4
Silty Sand (GL-0.4～1.7m)
Silty Sand (GL-1.7～3.8m)  G *
G* 

   
Sand (GL-3.8～10.9m)
zy xy( x y) ( y z) ( z x)
2 2 2 2 2 2 (3)
0.3 zx
Silt (GL-10.9～15.6m)
τ
σ’mo

0.2
(2) Analysis results and discussion
Stress Raio

a) Non-liquefied ground (location-1)

0.1
0.0
1 10 100
Number of cycles to DA=5%
(b) Location-2: liquefaction-prone ground
Fig.8 Calculation results for liquefaction strength curves for
liquefaction-prone strata ('m0 = 98kPa, DA = 5%).
The input seismic motion was the acceleration
record for the main shock and aftershock measured at
engineering bedrock (GL-41m, Vs = 430 m/s) at the
Shimizu Institute of Technology. The distance be-
tween the measurement point and Urayasu City of-
fice is 9.4 km. Figure 9 shows the acceleration rec-
ord and the response spectrum measured at engi-
neering bedrock. The NS component and the EW
component of the engineering bedrock wave at the
bottom surface of the analysis were input simulta-
neously as E+F waves. The primary natural period at
the point of measurement was 1.18 seconds, which is
close to the natural period at location-2. (Gal=cm/s2)
While liquefaction caused by the main shock was
Figures 10 and 11 show a comparison of the ef-
fective stress analysis results for the acceleration
wave form and the acceleration response spectrum
for the main shock at K-NET Urayasu measured at
1000
location-1. Liquefaction was not confirmed in the
soils at this location. In the analysis, the excess pore
water pressure in the sand strata increased by about
50%, but did not liquefy. Both wave forms are sim-
ilar, and although in the acceleration response spec-
trum the analysis values become small at a period of
about 2 seconds, there is general agreement. From
this it can be seen that the engineering bedrock wave
from Shimizu Institute of Technology can be applied
to the engineering bedrock wave in the Urayasu area.
b) Liquefaction-prone ground (location-2)
Figures 12 and 13 show the maximum excess pore
water pressure distribution, the maximum resultant
shear strain distribution, the acceleration wave form,
and the excess pore water pressure ratio wave form at
location-2. The liquefied strata were the sand stratum
(As) and the silty sand (reclaimed stratum F). In
stratum F, a  of 9% or greater was produced, and in
the As stratum it was 4 to 6%.

313
 60

Acceleration response spectrum (Gal)

GL-41m Observed（EW） Max.=48.3Gal
EW 本震-EW
30 EW Comp.
本震-NS
NS Comp.
0
Acceleration (Gal)

100
-30
-60
60
GL-41m Observed（NS） Max.=55.1Gal
NS
30
0
-30
-60 10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Time (s) Period (s)
(a) Main shock: MW=9.0 (14:46)
60 100

Acceleration response spectrum (Gal)

GL-41m Observed（EW） Max.=22.9Gal
EW 余震-EW
EW Comp.
30 余震-NS
NS Comp.
0
Acceleration (Gal)

-30
-60
60
30 GL-41m Observed （NS） Max.=23.8Gal
NS

0
-30
-60 10
350
0 400
50 450
100 500
150 550
200 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Time (s) Period (s)
(b) Largest aftershock: MW=7.7 (15:15, after 29 minutes from the main shock)
Fig.9 Measured acceleration wave form and response spectrum at bedrock (Vs = 430 m/s) at
Shimizu Institute of Technology (Gal=cm/s2).

1000 1000
Acceleration response spectrum (Gal)

200 Observed
観測値 Observed
観測値
Observed K-net EW Max.=157Gal 500 500
解析値
Calculated 解析値
Calculated
100
0
Acceleration (Gal)

-100 100 100

-200 50 50
200
Observed K-net NS Max.=125Gal EW Comp. NS Comp.
100
0 10 10
0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
-100 Period (s) Period (s)
-200
0 50 100 150 200
Time (s) Fig.11 Comparison of acceleration response spectra for the main
(a) Observed wave of K-NET Urayasu shock at K-NET Urayasu measured at location-1.
200
Calculated EW Max.=162Gal
100
0
Acceleration (Gal)

-100 Looking at the excess pore water pressure ratio

-200 wave form, it can be seen that the speed of increase in
200
Calculated NS Max.=134Gal the water pressure is slow, and liquefaction occurs
100
after the main seismic motion has passed (in other
0
words, liquefaction did not occur for about 80 se-
-100
conds after the seismic motions). Thereafter the vi-
-200
0 50 100 150 200 bration continued, thus a large shear strain was pro-
Time (s)
duced. This is consistent with the element calculation
(b) Calculated wave by effective stress analysis
results shown in Fig.7. This process towards lique-
Fig.10 Comparison of acceleration wave form of the main shock
at K-NET Urayasu measured at location-1.
faction is different from past records and simulation
results.

314

19.9cm
1.0
Silty Sand (F)
GL-0.4m
GL-1.7m
Silty Sand (F) GL-3.8m
0.8
0.6
Sand (As)
0.4
GL-10.9m
Silt (Asc) 0.2
GL-15.6m
0.0
Pore water
pressure ratio
Clay (Ac1)
GL-36.7m
Clay (Ac2)
GL-42.75m
Sand （Bedrock）(Ds)
EW NS
Ground model Max. water pressure ratio
Fig.12 Distribution of maximum values at location-2
(liquefaction-prone ground).
For example, in the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, which
was an active-fault-type earthquake, the "killer
pulse" of the main motion caused sudden liquefac-
tion, producing the maximum shear strain, and
thereafter the vibration time was short, and there was
not much accumulation of strain after the main mo-
tion (for example, see the analysis results of Refer-
ence 6)).
For unidirectional components (NS or EW com-
ponent only) liquefaction was limited to a part of the
sand stratum, and it was not possible to explain the
severe liquefaction that occurred. In the seismic mo-
tion conditions here, the acceleration amplitude is not
very large, and the phenomenon is close to the lower
limit value for liquefaction, thus the effect of the
bi-directional input on the occurrence of liquefaction
is considered to be particularly large.
(3) Effect of aftershock on the liquefaction and
settlement
In interviews with the local public regarding the
largest aftershock on this occasion (15:15 hours
March 11th, M = 7.7), the following evidence was
obtained. "At Shin Kiba, mainly water was ejected
during the main shock, but sand was also ejected in
the aftershock." "In eastern Kanto (the Tone River
catchment area), sand was ejected in the main shock,
and the ground flowed during the aftershock." "In the
backfilled ground of the old iron sand quarry, sand
was ejected in both the main shock and the after-
shock."
From this, the largest aftershock was considered to
9.1
have contributed to the liquefaction and settlement.
7.3 To verify the effect of the aftershock, the analysis
5.5 results for the main shock and the largest aftershock
3.7
were input continuously at location-2. This was be-
cause 29 minutes after the main shock the excess pore
1.8
water pressure ratio was still close to 100%, thus the
0.0
liquefaction state continued.
Γ max
Generally, the magnitude of the shear strain that is
（％）
produced during an earthquake corresponds to the
extent of liquefaction or the magnitude of the ground
deformation. To check the effect of earthquake du-
ration and the aftershock on the ground deformation,
such as settlement, etc., Fig.14 shows the time his-
tory of the resultant shear strain . Focusing first on
the main shock, the maximum value of , max, is
produced after the maximum value of the input ac-
celeration. As shown in Fig.13, this is due to the
excess pore water pressure ratio reaching 1.0 after
Max. resultant shear maximum acceleration.
strain Γmax
The amplitude of  including the aftershock was
greater in the aftershock than in the main shock for
elements 5, 12, and 16. This is because a small shear
force due to the aftershock acts on a stratum where
the shear stiffness has become very small in the main
shock, and induces a large shear strain; thus in this
type of stratum, the liquefaction and settlement due
to the aftershock are promoted. This is consistent
with the results of the interviews as described above.
In calculating the ground settlement after the
earthquake, a method frequently used is to obtain the
volumetric strain after the earthquake from the
maximum shear strain experienced during the
earthquake, which is then integrated with depth. This
method has been proposed for sand foundations9), 10)
and clay foundations,11) but in each of the proposed
equations, after undrained cyclic shearing test as
element tests, a cock is opened to drain the water, and
the volumetric strain after cyclic shearing is obtained
based on test results.
In the Earthquake 3.11 a large quantity of sand was
ejected, and in some places was deposited 30 to 40
cm deep. If the above empirical equations are applied
to evaluate the settlement at locations like these, the
settlement will be underestimated. This is because in
the element tests, only water is ejected, and the effect
of ejection of soil particles is not included.
315
 120
60 EW Max.=98.4Gal

Acceleration (Gal)
GL-0.4m

Ground Surface
Silty Sand (F) 0
No.5 GL-1.7m -60
Silty Sand (F) -120
No.7 GL-3.8m 120
60 NS Max.=84.2Gal
0
No.13 -60
Sand (As)
-120
0 50 100 150 200
No.18 1
GL-10.9m Element No.5
0.5
Silt (Asc)
0
No.22
1
GL-15.6m Element No.7

Excess pore water pressure ratio

0.5

0
1
Pore water
Element No.13
pressure 0.5
ratio 0
1.0 1
Element No.18
Clay (Ac1) 0.5
0.8 0
1
Element No.22
0.6 0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200
0.4 60
Input Acceleration (Gal)

30 EW Max.=48.3Gal
GL-36.7m 0
0.2 -30
-60
Clay (Ac2) 60
0.0 30 NS Max.=55.1Gal
0
GL-42.75m -30
Sand （Bedrock）(Ds) -60
0 50 100 150 200
EW NS Time (s)

Fig.13 Acceleration wave forms (main shock) for bedrock and the ground surface at location (2),
excess pore water pressure ratio wave forms for sand, silty sand, and silt.

Therefore, in calculating the settlement, the ob- Case-1: Calculation of the settlement using max
jective here was to determine the extent of the main produced by the main shock and the aftershock:
shock and the aftershock, rather than to quantitatively "Stotal". (Using  over the whole time; 0 to 580 se-
evaluate the settlement. The settlement was calcu- conds)
lated by obtaining the volumetric strain from the Case-2: Calculation of the settlement using max
maximum shear strain from the equation of Ishihara produced by the main shock only: "Smain". (Using 
and Yoshimine10) for sandy soils, and the equation of over 0 to 350 seconds)
Shamoto et al.11) for clay soils. Case-3: Calculation of the settlement using max
Figures 15 and 16 show the distribution with produced by the aftershock only: "Safter". (Using 
depth of the amount of settlement S calculated from over 360 to 570 seconds)
the main shock + aftershock continuous analysis Case-4: Calculation of the sum of the settlement in
results, and a comparison of the actual measured the main shock (Case-2) and the settlement in the
ground surface settlement and the analysis values. aftershock (Case-3) separately: Ssum = Smain + Safter
The maximum shear strain during the seismic motion The settlement in the main shock from Case-2 is
used to calculate S was obtained using the maximum 16.6 cm, the settlement in the aftershock from Case-3
value of the resultant shear strain max, and the set- is 11.1 cm, thus the settlement in the main shock +
tlement S of the ground surface was obtained for the aftershock from Case-4 is 27.7 cm.
following four cases.

316
 6
5 要素No.5
4 Element No.5
3
2
1
0
10
8 要素No.6
Element No.6
6
4
2
0
10
8 要素No.7
Element No.7
GL-0.4m 6
Silty Sand (F) 4
No.5 GL-1.7m
No.6 Silty Sand (F) 2
GL-3.8m 0
(%)
No.7
No.12 6
No.13 5 Element No.12
要素No.12
No.14 Sand (As) 4
G

No.15 3
2
Resultant Shear Strain

No.16
GL-10.9m 1
0
9.1 Silt (Asc) 6
5 要素No.13
Element No.13
8.2 4
GL-15.6m
7.3 3
2
6.4 1
0
5.5 6
4.6 5 要素No.14
Element No.14
4
3.7 3
2.8 Clay (Ac1) 2
1
1.8 0
6
0.9 5 要素No.15
Element No.15
0.0 4
3
G (%) 2
1
0
GL-36.7m 6
5 要素No.16
Element No.16
4
Clay (Ac2) 3
2
GL-42.75m 1
0
Sand （Bedrock）(Ds) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s)
EW NS 60
40 EW
20
Input Acceleration (Gal)

0
-20
-40
-60
Main shock Aftershock
60
40 NS
20
0
-20
-40
-60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (s)

Fig.14 Resultant shear strain  time histories for the main shock and the aftershock input continuously.

317
 Tozai Line of Tkyo  Metropolitan  JR Keiyo 
Metro Expressway Ito‐Yokado Co., Ltd. Seawall
Line
0

Main shock
10 60%
Settlement (cm)

20 40%
Aftershock
Old 
30 Coastline
27.7cm

40

Measured values (plots) and calculated values (solid line)

50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Distance (m)
Reclamation Phase I Reclamation Phase II
(1971) (1978)
Fig.16 Comparison of actual measured values (red dots) of ground settlement along the Urayasu survey line and the
analysis results (solid line) for Case-4.

values that are smaller compared with the actual

Distribution of Settlement S （ｃｍ） settlement. The settlement at the location of the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 boreholes based on Table 1(b) was 30 to 50 cm, and
0 Silty Sand the settlement from Case-4 was somewhat smaller
（F)
5 than these values. As stated previously, this could be
Sand （As） because when evaluating the settlement, the quantity
10 of sand and soil ejected was not taken into consider-
Silt （Asc） ation.
15
The amount of settlement obtained in Case-1 was
20
17.0 cm, which was considerably underestimated.
Depth （ｍ）

The reason for this is that amplitudes close to the

25
30
35
40
Case-1:Stotal
Case-2:Smain (Main shock only)
45 Case-3:Safter (Aftershock only)
Case-4:Smain＋Safter
50
Fig.15 Distribution of vertical displacement with depth
according to the analysis at location (2) (liquefac-
tion-prone ground).
If this final settlement is taken to be 100%, then
60% of the settlement was produced by the main
shock, and 40% of the settlement was produced by
the aftershock. The fact that a considerable amount of
the settlement was produced during the aftershock is
consistent with the interview results described earli-
er. Comparing the final settlement with the actual
measured settlement, the calculated results provide
Clay (Ac1) maximum value of  were produced several times
during the main shock and the aftershock, as can be
seen from the time history of . There was only an
interval of 29 minutes between the main shock and
the aftershock, but they were separate earthquakes,
Clay （Ac2） thus rather than calculating the settlement consider-
ing the main shock and the aftershock to be a single
(Bedrock)
earthquake as in Case-1, the settlement should be
calculated separately as in Case-4. This would be the
same even if the interval between the main shock and
the aftershock were, for example, 1 minute. Taking
this idea to its logical conclusion (assuming there is
no time interval between the main shock and the
aftershock), they can be considered to be a single
earthquake. Therefore, in earthquakes for which the
duration time is long, as in multi-segment earth-
quakes, the method of calculating the settlement
should be as follows: divide the total duration of the
earthquake into several time periods, calculate the
settlement in each of the time periods using max, and
add the calculated settlements. This concept is simi-
lar to the cumulative damage theory.

318
 termination results showed weak liquefaction for
FL
0.0
0.0 0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5 2.0
2.0 silty sand (FL = 0.82 to 1.0) and borderline liquefac-
0
tion for sand (FL = 0.96 to 1.06), thus even though the
Water Pressure Raio 液状化
Liquefy シ
(Fig.11)
Silty Sand F acceleration was set on the high side, the extent of
GL-0.4m
2 liquefaction was underestimated compared with the
砂(F) GL-1.7m Silty Sand F
R=R20 シ analysis results. To obtain consistency between the
砂(F)
GL-3.8m R=0.85×R20
two, it is necessary to review the liquefaction
4
) R100=0.85×R20
深度(m)
(m) R20 strength R and the acting shear stress L in the FL
GL-10.9m method, and a proposal for this is shown below.
Depth

ト(Asc) 6

Sand As 砂
(1) Review of liquefaction strength R
R20 8 In earthquakes with long duration, the value of the
R100 liquefaction strength R should be reduced to take into
consideration the effect of the number of cycles.
20 100 10
Instead of the liquefaction strength R20 at 20 cycles, it
Normal
Earthquake Multi-segment Silt Asc シ is possible to consider, for example, the liquefaction
Earthquake 12
strength R100 at 100 cycles (= 0.9 to 0.8R20), or to
Fig.17 Results for application of the liquefaction strength
use the lower limit value Xl of the liquefaction
method (FL method) based on the Japanese design strength (see the following equation).
specifications for highway bridges19) to location
(2) (for acceleration 120 Gal at the ground sur- 　  R20 　　
(  0.9～0.8)
face).
　
R　  (5)
 Xl

Therefore, in earthquakes with long duration,
there is a possibility that calculating the settlement by
obtaining a single max will underestimate the set-
tlement. It is not possible to say that the shear strains
that are smaller than max all contribute to the set-
tlement, but if the concept of "accumulation" of strain
is not introduced, it is possible to underestimate the
settlement. The concepts of accumulation include,
for example, the cumulative shear strain G* as shown
in Equation (3).
The value of  varies with the density and the fine
fraction content Fc. The higher the density and the
higher the fine fraction content Fc, the smaller the
value of . Figure 18 shows the liquefaction strength
curve12) for Sengenyama sand (Fc=2.4%) for various
relative densities Dr, and the coefficient  in the
above equation. The results for Toyoura sand ac-
cording to Toki and others13) are: =0.89 (Dr=80%),
0.94 (Dr=50%). Neglecting the influence of Fc, R100
and Xl are given approximately as follows:

4. DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICABILITY
OF THE METHOD OF DETERMINING
LIQUEFACTION
The results of applying the method of determining
liquefaction (FL method) based on the Specifications
for Highway Bridges Part V Seismic Design by the
Japan Road Association for location-2 in Table 1 are
shown as the blue line in Fig.17. Here the value of FL
is given by the following equation, where R is the
liquefaction resistance value (liquefaction strength),
and L is the acting shear stress ratio.
R
FL 
L earthquake duration (number of cycles) in another
The maximum acceleration amplitude on the
ground surface was set to 120 Gal, which is slightly
larger than the result in Fig.13 (100 Gal). The de-
 D 
 X l  1.0  0.3 r  R20 　
R100 　 (6)
 100 
Based on these results, the liquefaction determi-
nation results using 0.85R20 as R are shown in
Fig.17, corresponding to the analysis results for the
excess pore water pressure ratio. Therefore, when
there is a large number of cycles at small acceleration
(in the case of ground distant from a multi-segment
type earthquake), it is necessary to correct R as in the
equation above.
(2) Review of the acting shear stress L
When the magnitude M is large, it seems to be
(4) necessary to take into consideration the effect of the
way.

319

τ path, and the ground structure, etc., should be taken
σ’m Sengenyama sand (Fc=2.4%)
σ’mo=138kPa
Stress Raio
Extrapolation of measured Values12)
Number of cycles to liquefaction
(a) Liquefaction strength curve
1.00  results, the following can be summarized.
Measured Values (●)
Coefficient α
0.90  Kiba, and Tatsumi areas was measured a few days
0.80  Equation (6)
0.70  greatly from spot to spot, even within the same area.
0.60  differences in the surface thickness of the reclaimed
0 20 40 60 80
Relative density Dr (%)
(b) Coefficient  and relative density Dr
Fig.18 Liquefaction strength curve12) and coefficient 
for Sengenyama sand at various relative densities
Dr.
In the Recommendations for Design of Building
Foundations18), the effective number of cycles of the
envisaged seismic wave form is corrected with a
coefficient rn to take into consideration the ground
density. However, doubts remain whether the rela-
tionship14) between the magnitude M, the number of
cycles, and the correction coefficient rn can be used
up to M9.0.
In a method proposed by the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER)15), the
FL value is obtained with a M7.5 earthquake as cri-
terion, thus the FL value is corrected using a correc-
tion factor MSF. The relationship between the cor-
rection factor MSF for the liquefaction safety factor
and the magnitude M shown in that method goes up
to M8.5, but is not proposed up to M9.0.
If instead of the amplitude of the acceleration, the
Arias intensity is used, which is defined as an energy
based on the two horizontal components of the
seismic motions and has the units of velocity, both
the amplitude of the acceleration and the duration are
evaluated over each frequency range, thus in the
opinion of some this is more logical.16) In any case, in
the current method of determining liquefaction, the
duration and the number of cycles are determined
from M only, and this is not appropriate for giant
earthquakes or multi-segment earthquakes. The fail-
ure mechanism at the epicenter, the transmission
into consideration.
5. SUMMARY
In this paper, liquefaction of the ground mainly in
the Urayasu area in the Earthquake 3.11 was studied.
Effective stress analysis was also carried out for a
location where there was liquefaction and a location
where there was no liquefaction, inputting the main
shock and the aftershock continuously. From the
1) The amount of settlement in the Urayasu, Shin
after the occurrence of the earthquake, and a map of
the distribution of the settlement was produced. The
results showed that the amount of settlement varied
The causes were due to: (1) differences in soil and
100
stratum, and (2) whether the ground had been im-
proved or not. In addition, according to trial calcula-
tions using the constitutive equation (bowl model)
used here, another cause was the small differences in
the acting shear stress due to the large number of
cycles causing extreme phenomena (after liquefying
once, the subsequent large number of cycles resulted
in severe liquefaction).
2) The accelerations were not very high, but the
number of cycles was large, thus the rise in excess
pore water pressure was slow, and slowly increased
after the main seismic motion had passed, resulting in
liquefaction. Thereafter, when the oscillations con-
tinued, severe liquefaction occurred.
3) When the total settlement due to the main shock
and the aftershock was analyzed, based on the as-
sumption that the settlement was the sum of the set-
tlements due to the main shock and the aftershock
separately, it was found that the settlement was 27.7
cm, which was smaller than the values (30 to 50 cm)
found in the site survey. This was because when
evaluating the settlement, the ejection of sand was
not taken into consideration.
4) The aftershock also caused a considerable
amount of the settlement, 40% of the total settlement
being due to the aftershock. This was consistent with
the testimony obtained from site.
5) In earthquakes with extremely long durations
and large number of cycles, by reducing the lique-
faction resistance value to about 0.85, it is possible to
obtain a value of FL that is consistent between the
actual liquefaction phenomena and the analysis re-
sults.
320
 In the Tokyo Bay area including Urayasu, detailed
soil investigations and level survey for long-term
settlement of clay layer are in progress17). In the fu-
ture we intend to confirm the validity of the analysis
parameters, etc., using this type of soil test data, and
carry out estimates of damage in multi-segment
earthquakes that are postulated to occur in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: In this investigation,
we received the cooperation of Hideyuki MANO,
Hiroyuki HOTTA, Yoichi TAJI, Akira ISHIKAWA,
and Tadashi SAKAMOTO of the Shimizu Institute
of Technology in the site investigations/survey. In
addition, we were allowed to use the earthquake
observation records of K-NET of the National Insti-
tute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention. The
authors express their gratitude for these valuable
forms of assistance.
REFERENCES
1) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of
Kanto Region Development Bureau and Japanese Ge-
otechnical Society: Investigation of liquefaction phenom-
ena of Kanto region in Great East Japan Earthquake, 2011.
(in Japanese), http://www.ktr.mlit.go.jp/bousai/bousai
00000061.html
2) Urayasu City: Strategy on how to cope with Great East
Japan Earthquake, Document 1-4, 2011.07.22 (in Japanese),
http://www.city.urayasu.chiba.jp/menu11324.html
3) Yasuda, S., Ishihara, K., Harada, K. and Shinkawa, N.:
Effect of soil improvement on ground subsidence due to
liquefaction, Soils and Foundations, Vol.36, Special Issue,
pp. 99-107, 1996.
4) Tsuboi, H., Takahashi, Y., Harada, K. and Nitao, H.:
Comparing Remedial Measure against Soil Liquefaction on
Reclaimed Lands, Tsuchi to Kiso, Japanese Geotechnical
Society, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 67-69, 1996. (in Japanese)
5) Nishimura, S. and Towhata, I.: A three-dimensional
stress-strain model of sand undergoing cyclic rotation of
principal stress axes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No. 2,
pp. 103-116, 2004.
6) Fukutake, K.: Studies on three-dimensional liquefaction
analyses of soil-structure system considering mul-
ti-directional shearing of soil, doctoral thesis of Nagoya
Institute of Technology, 1997. (in Japanese)
7) Fukutake, K., Mabuchi, S., Yoshida, N. and Shamoto, S.:
Simulation of post cyclic mobility behavior of loose sand,
dense sand & chemical grouting sand (in Japanese), Proc. of
the 43rd Japan National Conference on Geotechnical En-
gineering, pp. 537-538, 2008.
8) Imazu, M. and Fukutake, K.: Dynamic shear modulus and
Damping of Gravel materials (in Japanese), Proc. of the
21st Japan National Conference on Geotechnical Engi-
321
neering, pp. 509-512, 1986.
9) Shamoto, Y. and Zhang, J.-M : Evaluation of Seismic Set-
tlement Potential of Saturated Sandy Ground Based on
Concept of Relative Compression, Soils and Foundations,
Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Vol. 2, pp. 57-68,
1998.
10) Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M.: Evaluation of settlements
in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes,
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 173-188, 1992.
11) Shamoto, Y., Sato, M. and Zhang, J. M.: Simplified esti-
mation of earthquake-induced settlements in saturated sand
deposits, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 39-50,
1996.
12) Tatsuoka, F.: Agendas of soil test and evaluation of test
results, Workshop on Recent Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tion Engineering, Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp.
55-103, 1986. (in Japanese)
13) Toki, S., Tatsuoka, F., Miura, S., Yoshimi, Y., Yamada, S.,
Yasuda, S. and Makihara, Y.: Cyclic Undrained Triaxial
Strength of Sand by a Cooperative Test Program, Soils and
Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 117-128. 1986.
14) Tokimatsu, K.: Seismic design N-Value, Foundation En-
gineering & Equipment, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 61-66, 1997.
(in Japanese)
15) Youd, T. L., Idriss, L. M., Arango, R. D., 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.,
Marcuson, W. F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki,
Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B. and Stokoe,
K. H.: Summary report of the 1996 NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance, Salt Lake City,
Utah, pp. 1-40, 1997.
16) Kayen, R. E. and Mitchell, J. K.: Assessment of liquefaction
potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity, Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123,
No. 12, pp. 1162-1174, 1997.
17) Nigorikawa, N. and Asaka, Y.: Long-term settlement of
holocene, clay ground after The 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake, 10CUEE, Conference Proceedings, pp.
371-378. 2013.
18) Recommendations for Design of Building Foundations,
Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001.
19) Specifications for highway bridges, Part V Seismic design,
Japan Road Association, 2012.
20) Chiba prefecture. Information bank of geological envi-
ronment. (online), available from <http://wwwp.pref.chiba.
lg.jp/pbgeogis/servlet/infobank.index> (accessed 2012-12-
07).
21) Konagai, K., Kiyota, T., Asakura, T., Suyama, S., Kyoka-
wa, H., Shibuya, K. and Eto, C.: Subsidence map of Tokyo
bay area liquefied in the March 11th Great East Japan
Earthquake, Proc. of 15th World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.
(Received June 20, 2013)