INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS, CHENNAI

Department of Civil Engineering

CE 6310 Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

Assignment # 6: Seismic Geotechnical Risk Analysis: Liquefaction, Subsidence

and Lateral Spreading
Note: Make suitable assumptions wherever necessary.

1. (a) A clean sand deposit has a level ground surface, with a total unit weight γ b above
groundwater table of 18.9 kN/m3 and a submerged unit weight γ′ of 9.84 kN/m3.
The water table is located 1.5 m below ground surface. Standard penetration tests
(SPTs) were performed in a 100 mm diameter borehole. At a depth of 3 m below
the ground surface, a SPT was performed using a doughnut hammer with a blow
count of 3 blows for the first 150 mm, 4 blows for the second 150 mm, 5 blows for
the third 150 mm of penetration. Assuming hydrostatic porewater pressures,
determine the vertical effective stress (σ′ vo ) at a depth of 3 m and the corrected N
value.
(b) Using the above data, determine the N value corrected for both field testing and
overburden pressure, and indicate the in situ conditions of the sand.

2. (a) What are the conditions necessary for liquefaction to occur?

(b) Is it true that cohesive soils do not liquefy? How to qualitatively evaluate the
liquefaction potential of cohesive soils?

3. It is proposed to build a new bridge across a river. The construction site contains
poorly graded sandy soil with fines content of 18%. The soil deposit of the riverbed
is fully saturated with 𝛾𝛾 sat = 19.5 kN/m3. The nearby Foot Hill fault-system could
generate a peak (horizontal) ground acceleration, a max , of 0.25g at this construction
site. Caissons are used as the bridge foundation. The bottom of the caissons is at a
depth of 5 m below the riverbed. The SPTs were performed in a 10.2 cm (4 inch)
diameter borehole using a safety trip hammer with a blow count of 6 for the first 15
cm (6 inches), 7 blows for the second 15 cm (6 inches), and 9 blows for the third 15
cm (6 inches) of driving penetration. During the design earthquake of magnitude 6.0,
will the saturated sand located at the bottom of the caisson liquefy?

4. The liquefaction potential is evaluated for the same project at the same site as in
Problem 3, using the CPT method. The site condition is the same, but the subsoil

6.1
 characteristics are initially unknown. At the depth of 5 m, which is the depth of the
caisson bottom, the penetration resistances at the cone tip and the sleeve were
measured to be 5 MPa and 100 kPa, respectively. During the design earthquake of
magnitude 6.0, will the saturated sand located at the bottom of the caisson liquefy?

5. The following problem illustrates the procedure that is used to determine the factor of
safety (FS) against liquefaction: It is planned to construct a building on sand
deposit (fines < 5%). There is a nearby major active fault, and the engineering
geologist has determined that for the anticipated earthquake, the peak ground
acceleration, a max , will be equal to 0.40g.

Fig. 1 Plot used to determine Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) for clean and silty sands
for M W = 7.5 earthquakes

Assume the site conditions are same as stated in Problem 1, that is, a level ground
surface with the groundwater table located at a depth of 1.5 m below the ground
surface and the SPT performed at a depth of 3 m. Assuming an anticipated
6.2
 earthquake magnitude of 7.5, calculate the FS against liquefaction for the saturated
clean sand located at a depth of 3 m below the ground surface. Use Fig. 1 for the
analysis.

6. Figure 2 shows the subsoil profile at Kawagishi-cho in Niigata. Assume a level

ground surface with the groundwater table at a depth of 1.5 m below the ground
surface; the medium sand and medium-fine sand have less than 5% fines; the total
unit weight γ b of the soil above the groundwater table is 18.3 kN/m3; and the
buoyant unit weight γ′ of the soil below the groundwater table is 9.7 kN/m3.

Fig. 2 Subsoil profile, Kawagishi-cho, Niigata (Ishihara, 1985)

The SPT data shown in the figure are uncorrected N values. Assume a hammer
efficiency E m of 0.6 and a boring diameter of 100 mm, and the length of drill rods is
equal to the depth of the SPT below ground surface. The earthquake conditions are:

6.3
 a peak ground acceleration a max of 0.16g and a magnitude of 7.5. Using the SPT
data, determine the FS against liquefaction versus depth.

7. In Fig. 2, assume the cyclic resistance ratio for the soil was determined by
modelling the earthquake conditions in the laboratory (i.e., the amplitude and number
of cycles of the sinusoidal load are equivalent to a max = 0.16g and magnitude = 7.5).
Using the laboratory cyclic strength tests performed on large-diameter samples,
determine the FS against liquefaction versus depth.

8. A multistory building is to be built on a level ground at a seismically active site. The

SPT is performed during the subsoil exploration phase. A safety hammer is used,
and the outside diameter of the modified California sampler used is 3 inches. The
peak ground horizontal acceleration that was recorded in the seismic history in this
area is 0.2g, and the design earthquake magnitude is 6.5. The mat foundation is
designed to be 8 m below ground where the fine content is 15%. At 8 m depth, the
soil sample is retrieved by the sampler. The blow counts at the first, second, and
third six-inch penetrations are 8, 9, and 8, respectively. The boring log indicates the
following subsurface profile. Assess the liquefaction hazard at the footing of the
building at this site (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Subsoil profile of the site for liquefaction evaluation

9. (a)

6.4
 (b)

(c)

10.

11. A hospital is built in an earthquake-prone region. To mitigate the liquefaction

hazard, dynamic compaction is performed that also improves the soil. Then the CPT
is conducted to evaluate the mitigation effort. The peak ground horizontal
acceleration is 0.35g and the design earthquake magnitude is 8.0. The design depth
of the hospital’s foundation is at 6 m; at this depth, the cone penetration resistance
at the tip is 11 MPa and the sleeve resistance is measured to be 200 kPa. Assume

6.5
 the groundwater table is at the ground surface, and saturated unit weight is 19.6
kN/m3. Calculate the factor of safety against liquefaction.

12. Properly understand the following three points related to liquefaction:

• Cyclic triaxial tests of isotropically consolidated soil specimens are often

implemented to evaluate liquefaction resistance of K 0 -consolidated in situ soils.
The cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) thus obtained in the laboratory test may be
essentially applicable to in situ CRR if the isotropic confining stress is equalized
to the in situ effective mean stress. The CRR-value is not the same for the same
sand, however, but subject to changing effective confining stress or soil depth.

• The in situ CRR is strongly dependent not only on the relative density but also on
soil fabric which reflects how to deposit, stress/strain histories and aging effects.
The aging effect is particularly important which is not fully comprehended in the
present liquefaction evaluation criteria. In situ soil fabric is difficult to preserve in
normal soil sampling and handling for laboratory soil liquefaction tests.
Laboratory tests for in situ CRR should be carried out on samples as intact as
possible under in situ confining stress.

• Liquefaction mitigation measures may be opted from countermeasures in

superstructure-design and soil improvements. Soil improvements are
categorized into densifications, solidifications, pore-pressure dissipations and
dewatering/desaturation, all of that have further detailed options. One has to be
aware of fast technological advances in soil improvements associated with
remediation works after recent earthquakes in Japan (the 1995 Kobe and 2011
Tohoku earthquakes), in India (the 2001 Bhuj earthquake) and in New Zealand
(the 2010 Darfield and other earthquakes).
13. A rounded sand subjected to a series of monotonic triaxial compression tests
exhibits the steady-state line (SSL) as shown in Fig. 4. Assuming that the sand can
mobilize a friction angle of 330 in the steady state, estimate the steady state strength
that would be mobilized by the following test specimens:

6.6
 Fig. 4 Steady-state line for sand sample

14. Consider an anisotropically consolidated direct simple shear test specimen with the
initial conditions shown in Fig. 5. Show graphically how the pore pressure ratio at
the initiation of liquefaction, r u varies with the amplitude of the cyclic shear stress.

Fig. 5 Results of an anisotropically consolidated direct simple shear test

15. A level deposit of saturated clean sand has an average (N 1 ) 60 value of 18 and an
average dry unit weight of 16.5 kN/m3. Plot the variation of cyclic shear stress
required to produce liquefaction in M = 5.5, 6.5, 7.5 and 8.5 earthquakes. Assume
that the sand has 15% fines.

6.7
16. Write notes on the following:

(a) Evaluation of subsidence during earthquakes

(b) Evaluation of lateral spreading during earthquakes
(c) Constitutive models for simulation of liquefaction phenomena
(d) Numerical analysis of liquefaction: Finite element and finite difference
methods

6.8