IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.

www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968

Determination of Liquefaction Potential By Sub-Surface

Exploration Using Standard Penetration Test
1
Sabih Ahmad, 2M.Z.Khan, 3Abdullah Anwar and 4Syed Mohd. Ashraf Husain
1
Associate Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department, Integral University,
1
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India, E-mail: sabihahmed10@gmail.com
2
Professor and Head, Civil Engineering Department, I.E.T. Sitapur Road
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India, E-mail: 2drkhan61@rediffmail.com
3
Assistant Prof., Civil Engineering Department, Integral University,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India, E-mail: a.anwar14330@gmail.com
4
Assistant Prof., Civil Engineering Department, Integral University,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (226022), India, E-mail: smah@iul.ac.in

Abstract years through the efforts of countless researchers.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most widely used in-situ Development of SPT-based correlations began in Japan (e.g.,
test throughout the world for subsurface geotechnical investigation Kishida 1966) [1] and progressed through to the landmark
and this procedure have evolved over a period of 100 years. work of Seed et al. (1984, 1985) [2]-[3] which set the
Estimation of the liquefaction potential of soils for earthquake standard in engineering practice for over two decades
design is often based on SPT test. Liquefaction is one of the critical
problems in the field of Geotechnical engineering. It is the
(Youd et al. 2001) [4]. Recent updates to SPT based
phenomena when there is loss of shear strength in saturated and procedures include those by Idriss and Boulanger (2008,
cohesion-less soils because of increased pore water pressures and 2010) [5]-[6]. The SPT-based procedures from Youd et al.
hence reduced effective stresses due to dynamic loading. Semi (2001) [4] and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) [6] are compared
empirical field-based procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential in Figure 1.1 with the case history data.
during earthquakes uses experimental findings together with the
theoretical considerations for establishing the framework of the
analysis procedure. The major factors affecting the liquefactions
potential of soils are the earthquake magnitude, the vertical effective
overburden stress, SPT N-value, the peak acceleration at the ground
surface, unit weight of soil above and below ground water table and
the fine content of the soil. In this paper determination of
liquefaction potential of soil is carried out using Semi-Empirical
SPT based procedure.

Keywords: Liquefaction, Earthquake, Semi-empirical, SPT

1. Introduction
It is well recognized that structures located on the surface of
liquefiable soil may severely damaged due liquefaction of
supporting soil during earthquakes. Liquefaction of loose,
cohesionless, saturated soil deposit is a subject of intensive
research in the field of Geo-technical engineering over the
past 40 years. The liquefaction characteristic of a soil depends Fig.1: Examples of SPT-based liquefaction triggering
on several factors, such as ground acceleration, grain size curves with a database of case histories processed
distribution, soil density, thickness of the deposits and with the Idriss-Boulanger (2008) procedure (from
especially the position of the ground-water table. Liquefaction Idriss and Boulanger 2008)
and ground failures are commonly associated with large
earthquakes. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is the most The liquefaction triggering databases provide an opportunity
widely used method for evaluating the liquefaction for researchers to re-evaluate liquefaction triggering
characteristics of soils. The development of SPT-based procedures and updating them as per different soil conditions.
liquefaction triggering procedures has progressed over the The strength of semi-empirical procedure is the use of both

751
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
experimental findings together with the theoretical
considerations for establishing the framework of the analysis Undisturbed Soil
SPT

S. No.
procedure. Soil Type Blow
Counts Cohesion Friction
2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (psf) Angle (◦)
The Standard Penetration Test was introduced in 1947 and is 1. Very Soft <2 250 0
now in widespread use because of its low cost, simplicity and
2. Soft 2-4 250-500 0
versatility. In 1947, Karl Terzaghi described the ‘‘Standard

Cohesive Soil
Penetration Test’’ (SPT) in a presentation titled ‘‘Recent 3. Firm 4-8 500-1000 0
Trends in Subsoil Exploration,’’ which he gave at the 7th 1000-
4. Stiff 8-15 0
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at 2000
the University of Texas at Austin. The first published SPT 5.
Very
15-30
2000-
0
correlations appeared in Terzaghi and Peck (1948) [7]. Stiff 4000
Estimation of the liquefaction potential of saturated granular 6. Hard >30 >4000 0
soils for earthquake design is often based on SPT tests. The
test consists of driving a standard 50-mm outside diameter

Cohesionless
7. Loose <10 0 28
thick walled sampler into soil at the bottom of a borehole,

Soil
using repeated blows of a 63.5-kg hammer falling through 8. Medium 10-30 0 28-30
760 mm. The SPT ‘N’ value is the number of blows required
to achieve a penetration of 300 mm, after an initial seating 9. Dense >30 0 32
drive of 150 mm. Correlations relating SPT blow counts for
silts & clays and for Sands & Gravels, from Peck et al. (1953) 10. Loose <10 0 28

Intermediate
[8] is depicted in Table 1. The SPT procedure and its simple
correlations quickly became soil classification standards.

Soil
11. Medium 10-30 0 28-30
Estimated values of Soil friction and cohesion based on
uncorrected SPT blow counts from Karol (1960) [9] are 12. Dense >30 0 32
presented in Table 2.

Table 1: Correlations relating SPT blow counts for silts

& clays and for Sands & Gravels, from Peck et al. (1953)

Blows/Ft Sands and Blows/Ft Silts and

S. No.
(NSPT) Gravels (NSPT) Clay

1 0-4 Very Loose 0-2 Very Soft

2 4-10 Loose 2-4 Soft

3 10-30 Medium 4-8 Firm

4 30-50 Dense 8-16 Stiff

5 Over 50 Very Dense 16-32 Very Stiff

6. _ _ Over 32 Hard

Fig. 2: Standard Penetration Test

Table 2: Estimated values of Soil friction and cohesion
based on uncorrected SPT blow counts, from Karol (1960)

752
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
Fig. 3: SPT conducted at the Site in Lucknow
3. MECHANISM OF LIQUEFACTION
The phenomenon of liquefaction can be divided into two
main categories [10]:
a) Flow liquefaction: It is the phenomenon in which the
static equilibrium is destroyed by static or dynamic
loads in a soil deposit with low residual strength
(strength of liquefied soil).It occurs when the static
shear stress in the soil exceeds the shear strength of
liquefied soil. This will cause large deformation in soils.
Earthquakes, blasting and pile driving are all examples
of dynamic loads that could trigger flow liquefaction.
Once triggered the strength of the soil susceptible to
flow liquefaction is no longer sufficient to withstand the
static stresses that were acting on the soil before the
disturbances.
ISSN 2348 – 7968
b) Cyclic Softening: Cyclic softening is another
phenomenon, triggered by cyclic loading, occurring in
soil deposits with static shear stresses lower than the soil
strength. Two main engineering terms i.e, Cyclic
Mobility and Cyclic Liquefaction can be used to define
the cyclic softening phenomenon.
4. Ground Failure Associated with Soil
Liquefaction
The National Research Council (Liquefaction...1985) [11]
lists eight types of ground failure commonly associated with
the soil liquefaction in earthquakes:
a) Sand boils resulting in land subsidence accompanied by
relatively minor change.
b) Failure of retaining walls due to increased lateral loads
from liquefied backfill or loss of support from the
liquefied foundation soils.
c) Ground settlement, generally linked with some other
failure mechanism.
d) Flow failures of slopes resulting in large down slope
movements of a soil mass.
e) Buoyant rise of buried structures such as tanks.
f) Lateral spreads resulting from the lateral movements of
gently sloping ground.
g) Loss of bearing capacity resulting in foundation failures.
h) Ground oscillation involving back and forth
displacements of intact blocks of surface soil.
5. DETERMINATION OF LIQUEFACTION
POTENTIAL OF SOIL USING SPT
SPT follows three main steps in evaluation of liquefaction
assessment of an area
i. Calculation of Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR), induced at
various depth within the soil by the earthquake.
ii. Assessment of the capacity of soil to resist
liquefaction using in-situ test data from SPT,
expressed as Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR).
iii. Evaluation of liquefaction potential by calculating
the factor of safety (FS) against liquefaction, where;
FS = CRR/CSR
Semi-Empirical approach for determination of liquefaction of
soil as suggested by Boulanger and Idriss using Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (N-values) is summarized
below:
753
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
5.1 Calculation of Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio (CSR): Idriss (1999) [12] re-evaluated the MSF relation
which is given by:
The cyclic shear stress ratios (CSR) induced by −𝑴
earthquake ground motions, at a depth z below the 𝑴𝑺𝑭 = 𝟔. 𝟗 𝐞𝐱𝐩 � � − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓𝟖 Eqn. 4 (b)
ground surface, using the following equation 𝟒
where;
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 Eqn. 1 M= Magnitude of the earthquake
𝑪𝑺𝑹 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 � � 𝒓𝒅
𝝈′𝒗𝒐 The MSF should be less than equal to 1.8
amax = maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground
surface Boulanger and Idriss (2004) [13] found that overburden stress
σvo = total vertical stress effects on the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR). The
σ`vo = effective vertical stress at depth recommended K curves are expressed as follows:
z = depth (m)
rd = stress reduction coefficient that accounts for the 𝝈′ 𝒗𝒐
𝑲𝝈 = 𝟏 − 𝑪𝝈 𝐥𝐧 � � ≤ 𝟏. 𝟎 Eqn. 5 (a)
flexibility of the soil column 𝑷𝒂

The value of CSR is adjusted for the magnitude, M= 7.5. The coefficient Cσ is expressed in terms of (N1)60
Accordingly, the value of CSR is given as:
𝟏
𝑪𝝈 = Eqn. 5 (b)
𝑪𝑺𝑹 𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝒓 𝟏𝟖.𝟗−𝟐.𝟓𝟓 �(𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎
(𝑪𝑺𝑹)𝑴−𝟕.𝟓 = = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 � � 𝒅 Eqn. 2
𝑴𝑺𝑭 𝝈′𝒗𝒐 𝑴𝑺𝑭
where, where,
MSF- Magnitude Scaling Factor (N1)60 is limited to maximum value of 37 and 211 respectively
(i.e., keeping Cσ less than equal to 0.3)
Stress reduction coefficient (rd) is expressed as a function of
depth (z) and earthquake magnitude (M): The evaluation of CSR on applying the K factor as described
by (Boulanger and Idriss (2004) [13] is:
𝑳𝒏 (𝒓𝒅 ) = 𝜶(𝒛) + 𝜷(𝒛)𝑴 Eqn. 3(a)
𝝈𝒗𝒐 𝒂𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝒓 𝟏
(𝑪𝑺𝑹)𝑴=𝟕.𝟓 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟓 � � 𝒅 Eqn. 6
𝒛 𝝈′ 𝒗𝒐 𝑴𝑺𝑭 𝑲𝝈
𝜶(𝒛) = −𝟏. 𝟎𝟏𝟐 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟐𝟔 𝐬𝐢𝐧 � + 𝟓. 𝟏𝟑𝟑� Eqn. 3(b)
𝟏𝟏.𝟕𝟑

𝒛
5.2 Calculation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR):
𝜷(𝒛) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟎𝟔 + 𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟖 𝐬𝐢𝐧 � + 𝟓. 𝟏𝟒𝟐� Eqn. 3(c)
𝟏𝟏.𝟐𝟖
where, Boulanger and Idriss (2004) [13] adjusted the equation of
CRR to an equivalent clean sand value as follows:
z = Depth (m)
𝟐 𝟑
M = Magnitude of earthquake (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔 (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔 (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔
rd = Stress reduction coefficient 𝑪𝑹𝑹 = 𝐞𝐱𝐩 � + � � − � �
𝟏𝟒. 𝟏 𝟏𝟐𝟔 𝟐𝟑. 𝟔
𝟒
The above equations were appropriate for depth, z ≤ 34m. (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔
+ � � − 𝟐. 𝟖�
However, for depth, z > 34m; the following expression is 𝟐𝟓. 𝟒 Eqn. 7 (a)
used:
Subsequent expressions describe the way parameters in the
𝒓𝒅 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟐 𝐞𝐱𝐩(𝟎. 𝟐𝟐 𝑴) Eqn. 3(d)
above equation are calculated as:

(𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎𝒄𝒔 = (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎 + ∆(𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎 Eqn. 7(b)

The magnitude scaling factor, MSF, is used to adjust the

induced CSR during earthquake magnitude M to an equivalent 𝟗.𝟕 𝟏𝟓.𝟕 𝟐
∆(𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎 = 𝒆𝒙𝒑 �𝟏. 𝟔𝟑 + −� � � Eqn. 7 (c)
CSR for an earthquake magnitude, M = 7.5 𝑭𝑪 𝑭𝑪

𝑪𝑺𝑹𝑴
𝑴𝑺𝑭 = �𝑪𝑺𝑹 Eqn. 4(a) (𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎 = 𝑪𝑵 (𝑵)𝟔𝟎 Eqn. 7 (d)
𝑴−𝟕.𝟓

754
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968

where,
(N) 60 – SPT ‘N’ value after correction to an equivalent 60%
hammer efficiency
CN – Overburden Correction Factor for Penetration resistance
FC – Fine contents

5.3 Calculation of factor of Safety (FS):

If the cyclic stress ratio caused by an earthquake is greater
than the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) of the in-situ soil,
then liquefaction could occur during the earthquake and vice-
versa. The Factor of Safety against liquefaction is defined as :
𝑪𝑹𝑹
𝑭𝑺𝑳𝒊𝒒 =
𝑪𝑺𝑹 Eqn. 8

Liquefaction is predicted to occur when FS ≤ 1.0, and

liquefaction predicted not to occur when FS > 1. The higher
the factor of safety, the more resistant against liquefaction
[14].
5.4 Determination of Liquefaction:
5.4.1 Experimental Methodology:
Standard Penetration Test were conducted at a site in
Lucknow to collect bore-hole datasets. The soil specimen was
collected from these bore-holes up to depth of 21.30 meters
as well as SPT N-values were also determined at a regular
interval of depth 1.5 m. The soil samples were used to
determine liquid limit; plastic limit; angle of internal friction;
particle size finer than 10mm, 4.75mm, 2 mm, 1mm, 600µ,
425µ, 212µ, 150µ, 75µ , natural water content, bulk unit
weight. All experiments were conducted according to Bureau
of Indian Standard’s guidelines for soil testing.
5.4.2 Data Modification:
To calculate liquefaction potential corrected SPT-N values
are used. Value correction was adopted as given by
IS: 2131-1981[15].
5.4.2.1 Correction for overburden pressure:
N-value obtained from SPT test is corrected as per following
equation:
(𝑵𝟏 )𝟔𝟎 = 𝑪𝑵 (𝑵)𝟔𝟎
C N- Correction factor obtained directly from the graph given
in Indian Standard Code (IS: 2131-1981). (Fig. 6)
Fig. 4: Correction due to overburden Pressure
It can also be calculated using the relationship:
𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎 Eqn. 9
𝑪𝑵 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟕 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝟏𝟎
𝝈′𝒛
𝝈′𝒛 = effective overburden pressure in kN/m2 [16].
5.4.2.2 Correction for Dilatancy correction:
The values obtained in overburden pressure (N1) shall be
corrected for dilatancy if the stratum consist of fine sand and
silt below water table for values of N1 greater than 15 as
under [17]:
𝑵𝒄 = 𝟏𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟓 (𝑵𝟏 − 𝟏𝟓) Eqn. 10
6. Results and Discussions:
This study refers to the prediction of liquefaction potential of
soil by conducting Standard Penetration Test at a site in
Lucknow. To meet the objective four boreholes sets
(BH-1, BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4) were analyzed, field and
laboratory tests were conducted for the prediction of
liquefaction potential. The water table at varying depth and
earthquake magnitude of (M= 7.5) value were considered for
assessing liquefaction potential The data sets were used to
determine liquefaction parameters viz., Cyclic Resistance
Ratio (CRR) and Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) by Idriss and
Boulanger method to identify the liquefaction prone areas.

755
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968

Table 3: Water Table and Earthquake Magnitude

Parameter BH-1 BH-2 BH-3 BH-4

Depth of water
4.100 4.600 4.600 4.750
table (m)
Earthquake
magnitude 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
(rector scale)

Table 4: IS Soil Classification (IS: 1498-1970)

Symbol Soil Description

SP Poorly graded sand
SM Silty sand
ML Very fine sand
CL Silty clay with low plasticity
CI Sandy clay with medium plasticity
CH Silty clay with high plasticity

1. Bore Hole (BH) 1:

Table 5: Study about liquefaction potential for Water

Table at 4.100m

S.No Depth SPT-N CSR CRR FSLiq Status

(Z) m value
1. 1 11 0.084 0.23 2.74 No
2. 2.50 4 0.083 0.13 1.56 No
3. 4.00 1 0.082 0.10 1.21 No
4. 5.50 7 0.096 0.15 1.56 No
5. 7.00 7 0.105 0.14 1.33 No Fig. 5: Bore Log Chart of Bore Hole (BH-1)
6. 8.50 8 0.111 0.15 1.35 No Liquefaction Potential for Bore Hole (BH-1)
7. 10.00 9 0.115 0.11 0.95 Yes
3.0
8. 11.50 11 0.117 0.13 1.10 Probability
exist
9. 13.00 13 0.119 0.19 1.59 No 2.5

10. 14.50 15 0.119 0.21 1.76 No 2.0

11. 16.00 17 0.118 0.23 1.94 No

FSLiq

1.5
12. 17.50 17 0.117 0.22 1.88 No
13. 19.00 19 0.116 0.25 2.15 No 1.0

14. 20.50 19 0.114 0.24 2.10 No

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Depth below Ground Surface (m)

Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq

Fig. 6: Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Hole (BH-1)

756
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
2. Bore Hole (BH) 2:

Table 6: Study about liquefaction potential for water Liquefaction Potential for Bore Hole (BH-2)
table at 4.600m
3.0

S.No. Depth SPT N CSR CRR FSLiq Status

2.5
(Z) m value
1. 1 11 0.084 0.23 2.74 No
2. 2.50 4 0.083 0.13 1.57 No 2.0

3. 4.00 3 0.082 0.11 1.34 No

FSLiq
4. 5.50 9 0.090 0.17 1.88 No 1.5
5. 7.00 10 0.101 0.17 1.68 No
6. 8.50 10 0.107 0.17 1.58 No 1.0
7. 10.00 11 0.112 0.13 1.16 Probability
exist 0.5
8. 11.50 13 0.115 0.14 1.21 No
9. 13.00 14 0.116 0.20 1.72 No 0.0
10. 14.50 15 0.117 0.21 1.79 No 0 5 10 15 20 25

11. 16.00 16 0.116 0.21 1.81 No Depth below Ground Surface (m)
12. 17.50 19 0.116 0.26 2.24 No
Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq
13. 19.00 19 0.114 0.25 2.19 No
14. 20.50 20 0.113 0.26 2.30 No
Fig. 8: Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Hole (BH-2)

3. Bore Hole (BH) 3:

Table 7: Study about liquefaction potential for water table

at 4.600m

S.No Depth SPT N CSR CRR FSLiq Status

(Z) m value
1. 1 12 0.084 0.22 2.61 No
2. 2.50 10 0.083 0.19 2.28 No
3. 4.00 1 0.082 0.10 1.21 No
4. 5.50 2 0.090 0.10 1.11 No
5. 7.00 6 0.099 0.13 1.31 No

6. 8.50 9 0.106 0.15 1.41 No

7. 10.00 11 0.110 0.12 1.09 Yes

8. 11.50 11 0.112 0.12 1.07 Yes

9. 13.00 12 0.114 0.16 1.40 No

10. 14.50 15 0.114 0.18 1.57 No

11. 16.00 16 0.114 0.18 1.57 No

12. 17.50 20 0.113 0.22 1.94 No

13. 19.00 20 0.112 0.21 1.87 No

14. 20.50 18 0.110 0.19 1.72 No

Fig. 7: Bore Log Chart of Bore Hole (BH-2)

757
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
4. Bore Hole (BH) 4:

Table 8: Study about liquefaction potential for water

table at 4.750m

S.No Depth SPT N CSR CRR FSLiq Status

(Z) m value
1. 1 11 0.084 0.23 2.73 No
2. 2.50 1 0.083 0.10 1.20 No
3. 4.00 3 0.082 0.11 1.34 No
4. 5.50 1 0.088 0.10 1.13 No
5. 7.00 7 0.099 0.14 1.41 No
6. 8.50 8 0.105 0.15 1.42 No
7. 10.00 9 0.110 0.11 1.00 Yes
8. 11.50 11 0.113 0.12 1.06 Yes
9. 13.00 11 0.114 0.16 1.40 No
10. 14.50 13 0.115 0.18 1.56 No
11. 16.00 16 0.115 0.21 1.82 No
12. 17.50 15 0.114 0.19 1.66 No
13. 19.00 17 0.113 0.21 1.85 No
14. 20.50 19 0.112 0.24 2.14 No

Fig. 9: Bore Log Chart of Bore Hole (BH-3)

Liquefaction Potential for Bore Hole (BH-3)

3.0

2.5

2.0
FSLiq

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Depth below Ground Surface (m)

Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq

Fig. 10: Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Hole (BH-3)
Fig. 11: Bore Log Chart of Bore Hole (BH-4)

758
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Liquefaction Potential for Bore Hole (BH-4) 7. Conclusion
3.0 SPT- based liquefaction triggering procedure is presented in
this study. The framework for liquefaction analysis based on
2.5 SPT includes four key functional terms viz; (CN, Kσ, MSF,
and rd). Liquefaction is said to occur if the FSliq ≤ 1.
2.0 However, some of the studies reveals that liquefaction have
also occurred when FSLiq> 1 [18], uncertainties exist due to
FSLiq

1.5
different soil conditions, validity of case history data and
calculation method chosen. Further studies are required for
1.0
assessment of liquefaction to obtain more accurate results.

0.5
References
[1] Kishida, H. (1966). "Damage to reinforced concrete buildings in
0.0 Niigata City with Special reference to foundation engineering."
0 5 10 15 20 25
Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Depth below Ground Surface (m) Foundation Engineering, 6(1),71–86.

Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq
Fig. 12: Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Hole (BH-4)
[2] Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. Jr., and Chung, R.
(1984). The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction
resistance evaluations. Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-
84/15, 50 pp.

[3] Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. Jr., and Chung, R.

Liquefaction Potential for Bore Hole (BH-1, 2, 3 & 4) (1985). "Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction
resistance evaluations." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
3.0 ASCE, 111(12), 1425-1445.

2.5 [4] 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., Marcuson, W.
2.0
F., Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S.,
Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H. (2001).
FSLiq

1.5
[5] Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction
during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake
1.0
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.

0.5 [6] Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2010). "SPT-based

liquefaction triggering procedures." Report UCD/CGM-10/02,
0.0 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
0 5 10 15 20 25 of California, Davis, CA, 259 pp.
Depth below Ground Surface (m)
[7] Terzaghi,K.and Peck, R. B., 1948, Soil Mechanics in
Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq (BH-1) Engineering Practice, 1st ed.: John Wiley & Sons, New York,
Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq (BH-2)
566 p.
Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq (BH-3)
[8] Peck, R. B.; Hanson, W. E.; and Thornburn, T. H., 1953,
Depth below Ground Surface (m) vs FSLiq (BH-4)
Foundation Engineering: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 410 p.

[9] Karol, R. H., 1960, Soils and Soil Engineering: Prentice Hall,
Fig. 13: Combined Graph of FSLiq vs Depth (z) for Bore Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 194 p.
Hole (BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4)
[10], Sabih A, Khan M. Z,, Abdullah A, Ashraf S.M., (2015),
“Assessment of Liquefaction Potential of Cohesionless Soil by
Semi- Empirical: SPT- Based Procedure”, International Journal
of Recent Advances in Engineering & Technology (IJRAET),
Vol.3, Issue 10, pp 53-59, 2015

759
 IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 10, October 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968

[11] National Research Council‟s Committee on Earthquake

Engineering (1985)

[12] Idriss, I.M., (1999), “An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified

procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential”, Proc., TRB
Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, January,
Publication No.FHWA-RD-99-165, Federal Highway
Administration, 1999.

[13] Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M. (2004), “State normalization of

penetration resistances and the effect of overburden stress on
liquefaction resistance”, 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, Vol. 2, 484-491.

[14] Youd et al., Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report

from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops
oevaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, 2001, J. Geotech.
Engg. Div.. ASCE, 127(10) (2001) pp817-833.

[15] IS 2131-1981, Methods for Standard Penetration Test For Soil

[16] Terzaghi K., Peck R. B., and Mesri G., Soil mechanics in
engineering practice (2nd Ed.), Wiley & Sons Inc., New York
1996.

[17] Varghese, P.C. Foundation Engineering, prentice hall of India

private limited, New Delhi – 110001, 2007

[18] Adel M. Hanna, Derin Ural, Gokhan Saygili, “Neural network

model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey
and Taiwan earthquake data”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 27 (2007) 521–540

[19] PEER (2002) http://peer.berkeley.edu/turkey/adapazari/

760