See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282441630

ESTIMATING GROUND SETTLEMENT POST-LIQUEFACTION USING CPT

Conference Paper · May 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 590

1 author:

Agus Muntohar
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CIimate Change and Landslide in Indonesia View project

stabilization of shale ungaran-bawen toll road, Indonesia (disertation) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Agus Muntohar on 03 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ESTIMATING GROUND SETTLEMENT POST-LIQUEFACTION USING CPT

1)
Agus Setyo Muntohar
1)
Department of Civil Engineering, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Director of Center for Disaster and Environment Studies (CODES)
e-mail: muntohar@umy.ac.id

ABSTRACT
The Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY) campus is constructed on 28 hectare which mostly
rested on a sand deposit layer and the ground water table was shallow relatively. During earthquake on May
27, 2006, a magnitude 6.3 struck the provinces of Yogyakarta resulted in number of seismic damages were
reported. The damages were identified because of liquefaction phenomena during the ground vibration. Re-
connaissance study after the earthquake was found some sand boiling sites near the Masjid and Library
building. This paper presents liquefaction evaluation and estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement at
those building. The liquefaction analysis is based upon force equilibrium concept using cone penetration test
(CPT) method. The ground settlement is calculated from CPT data which were collected from 9 testing sites
at those studied area. The computation shows that the ground accelerations will make more than 50% of top
sand layer liquefied at Library building. In general, the estimated ground settlement ranges from 2.5 cm to
13.5 cm at the hazard area. The results imply that ground improvement should be applied to reduce the effect
of liquefaction-induced ground settlement. After three days of lime-column intallation, the settlement is lower
that the tolerable settlement.

Keywords: earthquake, liquefaction, sand, settlement, CPT

INTRODUCTION quake loading. Several methods have been

proposed to calculate liquefaction-induced
The Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
ground deformations (Tokimatsu and Seed,
(UMY) campus was constructed on 28 hectare
1987; Zhang et al., 2002, Ishihara and Yose-
which mostly rested on a sand deposit layer
mine, 1992). This paper present an estimated
and the ground water table was shallow rela-
liquefaction-induces ground settlement by us-
tively. Theoretically, the site was susceptible to
ing the method proposed by Zhang et al.
liquefaction during ground-shaking. During
(2002). Ground improvement technique by us-
earthquake on May 27, 2006, a magnitude M w
ing lime-column (LC) is also introduced to re-
6.3 struck the provinces of Yogyakarta, among
duce settlement. Trial-field test of LC is pre-
those number of seismic damages were re-
sented in this paper.
ported. The damages were identified because
of liquefaction phenomena during the ground
vibration. Reconnaissance study after the
earthquake was found some sand boiling sites METHOD OF ANALYSIS
near the Masjid and Library building. This pa- Site Characteristics
per presents liquefaction evaluation and esti-
mation of liquefaction-induced settlement at Based on the CPT site investigation report,
those building. the campus of UMY is covered by 8 m to 10 m
Liquefaction-induced ground settlements are thick sandy soil layers. Loose sand layer gen-
essentially vertical deformations of surficial soil erally appears at the depth from 3 m to 10 m.
layers caused by the densification and compac- The ground water table is at the depth of 0.5 m
tion of loose granular soils following earth- to 1.0 m. The particle size distribution curves of
sites are presented in Figure 1. The average
Agus – Estimating Ground Settlement Post-Liquefaction Using CPT
1
particle diameter D 50 of the soil samples range
of D 50 was between 0.057 mm – 0.841 mm
(the mean and variance value was 0.57 mm
and 0.054 mm, respectively). Comparing the
particle size distribution with the other case his-
tories, it can be concluded from Figure 1 that
the studied site is susceptible to liquefaction.
spectively; and r d is a stress-reduction factor
which is dependent on depth. The factor r d can
be estimating using the following bi-linear func-
tion, which provides a good fit to the average of
the suggested range in r d originally proposed
by Seed and Idriss [2], that is
 1 − 0, 00765 z ; if z < 9,15 m
rd =  .….(2
1,174 − 0, 0267 z ; if 9,15 ≤ z ≤ 23 m
By using the CPT data, the estimated CRR
was calculated from Robertson and Campanel-
la (1985). The flow chart for calculation is
shown in Figure 1. The factor of safely against
liquefaction (FS L ) is defined as:

CRR7.5
=
FS L ⋅ MSF ..…….(3
CSR
where MSF is the Magnitude Scaling Factor to
convert the CRR 7.5 for M = 7.5 to the equivalent
CRR for the design earthquake. The recom-
Figure 1. Particle size distribution at the hazard area mended MSF is given by:

Based on the previous investigation carried 174

out by Muntohar (2009), the critical accelera- MSF = ..…….(4
tions ranges from 0.34g to 0.69g will generate M w2.56
liquefactions in all depth of loose sand layers in The equation (4) is based on the NCEER
hazard areas. Workshop in 1996 (Youd et al., 2001).

Liquefaction Analysis START

Calculation, or estimation, of two variables is SOIL DATA :

CPT DATA :
required for evaluation of liquefaction resis- (1) cone, qc
(2) shaft, fs
(1) Soil layers
(2) Vertical stress:
σvo, σ’vo
tance of soils: (1) the seismic demand on a soil
layer, expressed in terms of cyclic stress ratio FOR i = 1,…, k
n1 = 1

(CSR) to generate liquefaction; and (2) the ca-

Cn,i = (100/σ’vo)n,i
pacity of the soil to resist liquefaction, ex-
pressed in terms of cyclic resistance ratio (1) Q = Cn.(qc - σvo)/100
(2) F = (fs.100)/((qc - σvo)
(CRR). The approach requires an estimate of (3) Ic = [(3,47 – log Q)2 + (1,22 + log F)2]0,5

the CSR profile caused by a design earth- Iterate

Ic ≥ 3,30 Ic ≤ 1,64
quake. A simplified method to estimate CSR ni = 1,0 Ic ? ni = 0,5

was also developed by Seed and Idriss (1971) 1,64 < Ic < 3,30

based on the peak ground surface acceleration ni = (Ic – 1,64).0,3 + 0,5

(a max ) at the site. This simplified approach can

No
be summarized as follows: ∆n < 0,01 ?

τ a   σ 
F > 1% Ic ≥ 2,60 1,64 < Ic < 2,60 kc = -0,403Ic4 + 5,581Ic3 –
F? kc ?
21,63Ic2 + 33,75Ic – 17,88

CSR = av = 0, 65  max  ⋅  vo  ⋅ rd ..…….(1

σ 'vo  g   σ 'vo 
F > 0,5%, and Ic ≤ 1,64
1,64 < Ic < 2,36
kc = 1

where τ av is the average cyclic shear stress; (qc1N)cs > 160

(qc1N)cs = kc.(qc1N)
50 ≤ (qc1N)cs ≤ 160

a max is the maximum horizontal acceleration at (qc1N)cs < 50

2
the ground surface; g = 9.81 m/s is the accele- No liquefible
CRR7,5 = 0,833(qc1N)cs/

′ are the total

ration due to gravity; σ vo and σ vo
CRR7,5 = 93[(qc1N)cs/1000]3 + 0,08
1000 + 0,05

and effective vertical overburden stresses, re- END

Figure 2. CRR estimation from CPT (Modified after

2 Robertson and Campanella, 1983)
Enhancing Disaster Prevention and Mitigation @ ICSBE2010 (UII), Jogjakarta, Indonesia, ISBN 978-979-96122-9-8
 the postliquefaction volumetric strain for the
soil sublayer i; ∆z i is the thickness of the sub-
layer i; and j is the number of soil sublayers.
The post-liquefaction volumetric strain is es-
timated by semi empirical equation. The equa-
tion correlates (q c1N ) cs and postliquefaction vo-
lumetric strain (ε v ) for different FS L . The
correlation is shown graphically in Figure 3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The liquefaction analysis is based upon force
equilibrium concept using Robertson and
Campanella (1985) method. The ground set-
tlement is calculated from cone penetration test
data which is collected from 9 testing sites at
library buiding. The result of the calculated set-
tlement, for the instance at SB1 point of Library
area, is shown in Figure 4. The varation of the
Figure 3. Relationship between postliquefaction estimated ground settlement is shown in Figure
volumetric strain and equivalent norma- 5. For each tested sites, the maximum settle-
lized CPT tip resistance for different fac- ment at ground surface is presented in detail in
tors of safety (Zhang et al., 2002) Table 1.
Table 1 Estimated ground settlement
Ground Settlement Estimation Location SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5
The ground settlement for level ground can a max (g) 0.43 0.57 0.56 0.27 0.43
S (cm) 2.5 10.5 2.7 11.4 12.2
be estimated by using the following equation:
Location SB6 SB7 SB8 SB9
j a max (g) 0.54 0.39 0.42 0.53
=S ∑ε
i =1
vi ∆zi ..…….(5 S (cm) 4.6 4.7 7.1 13.5
Note: the a max used in this study is the average value at
each tested CPT location
where S is the calculated liquefaction-induced
ground settlement at the CPT location; ε vi is

Agus – Estimating Ground Settlement Post-Liquefaction Using CPT

3

Figure 5. Variation of estimated ground
settlement with depth.
In general, the estimated ground settlement
ranges from 2.5 cm to 13.5 cm. The maximum
settlement occurs at the surface up to 3 m of
sub surface (see Figure 5). According tothe cri-
teria of Terzaghi et al. (1996), the allowable
settlement of foundation is 2 cm for diffential
settlement and 2.5 cm for total settlement. The
results imply that ground improvement should
be applied to reduce the effect of liquefaction-
induced ground settlement.
A lime-column method was applied for trial-
test at the field. The diameter and length of
column was designed to 6 inch and 2 m re-
qc (MPa) FR (%)
0 20 40 60 0 2 4 6 8 0
0
10
15
20
Figure 4. Example plots illustrating the major procedures in estimating liquefaction-induced
ground settlements using the proposed CPTbased method
spectively. After installation of the lime column,
4 Enhancing Disaster Prevention and Mitigation @ ICSBE2010 (UII), Jogjakarta, Indonesia, ISBN 978-979-96122-9-8
the ground settlement at the trial-test point is
estimated to diminish. The estimated ground
settlement is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Estimated ground settlement before and
after LC intallation
(a) amax = 0.34g, (b) amax = 0.69g
Calculation results in Figure 6 show that in-
stallation of lime column reduces significantly
the ground settlement. The settlement is ob-
served, from Figure 6, to decrease in asso-
ciated with the age of lime column. After one
day of installation, the ground settlement de-
crease to about 1 cm and 2.8 cm for a max =
0.34 g and 0.69 g respectively. In general, after
three days of intallation the settlement is lower
Ic (qc1N)cs CRR7.5/CSR FS S (cm)
2 4 0 100 200 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 1 2 0 5 10 15
that the tolerable settlement. This result indi-
cates that lime-column technique play a signifi-
cant role to reduce liquefaction-induced ground
settlement.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The computation shows that the ground ac-
celerations will make more than 50% of top
sand layer liquefied at Library building. In gen-
eral, the estimated ground settlement ranges
from 2.5 cm to 13.5 cm at the hazard area. The
results imply that ground improvement should
be applied to reduce the effect of liquefaction-
induced ground settlement. After three days of
intallation the settlement is lower that the toler-
able settlement. This result indicates that lime-
column technique play a significant role to re-
duce liquefaction-induced ground settlement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is part of the research supported
by Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta
through research grant “Kompetisi Penelitian
Dosen” and “Kompetisi Penelitian Mahasiswa”
in 2008-2009. Author is thankfull to Ario Mu-
hammad, Setia Dinoor, Ekrar Oktoviar, and
Damanhuri for their assistance during the trial-
field test.

REFERENCES
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M. (1992). “Evaluation
of settlements in sand deposits following lique-
faction during earthquakes”. Soils and Founda-
tions, Vol. 32(1): 173–188.
Muntohar, A.S. (2009). “Evaluation of Peak Ground
Acceleration Using CPT Data for Liquefaction
Potential”. Proceeding of the 4th Annual Interna-
tional Workshop & Expo on Sumatra Tsunami
Disaster & Recovery 2009, November 23-25,
2009, Banda Aceh.
Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. (1985).
“Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone
penetration test”. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ASCE, Vol. 22(3): 298-307.

Agus – Estimating Ground Settlement Post-Liquefaction Using CPT

5
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., (1971). "Simplified Proce-
dure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential".
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, ASCE, Vol. 97(9):1249-1273.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R., Mesri, G., (1996). “Soil Me-
chanics in Engineering Practices”, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York, USA
Tokimatsu, K., Seed, H.B. (1987). “Evaluation of set-
tlements in sands due to earthquake shaking”.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
113(8): 861–879.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M, Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Ca-
stro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L.,
Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester,
6 Enhancing Disaster Prevention and Mitigation @ ICSBE2010 (UII), Jogjakarta, Indonesia, ISBN 978-979-96122-9-8
View publication stats
J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R.,
Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robert-
son, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H. (2001). “Li-
quefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resis-
tance of soils”. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
127(4): 297 – 313.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. and Brachman, R.W.I.
(2002). “Estimating liquefaction-induced ground
settlements from CPT for level ground”. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39: 1168-1180.