Geotech Geol Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01491-3 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

Insight into the Effect of Fine Content on Liquefaction

Behavior of Soil
Sufyan Ghani . Sunita Kumari

Received: 8 November 2019 / Accepted: 23 July 2020

 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract The present paper presents different
approaches which includes plasticity based criteria
that helps in distinguish between liquefiable and non-
liquefiable soils deposits having fine content. A brief
review of the previous work has been mentioned to
emphasise on the need of new parameters for lique-
faction susceptibility of clayey soils. Clay content,
liquid limit and water content are considered as key
parameters that helps in liquefaction assessment.
Several recommendations proposed by prominent
researchers are described here to present wide range
of plasticity index, liquid limit and other parameters
that affects liquefaction behaviour of clayey soil
significantly. But the differences in the range of
plasticity index leads to confusion and misperception
in determination of liquefaction susceptibility of fine
grained soil. One of the high seismic zone site is
analyzed using different approach which consider fine
content of soil mass. It is found that for a better and
proper segregation of the layers Bray and Sancio
criteria may be adopted which uses plasticity as one of
its input parameter and clearly differentiate site in
between liquefiable, non-liquefiable and sites that may
liquefy i.e. moderately liquefiable. This summarizes
S. Ghani  S. Kumari (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar 800005, India
e-mail: sunitafce@gmail.com
S. Ghani
e-mail: sufyan04@gmail.com
that plasticity is one of the significant criteria which
draws a clear differentiating line between liquefiable
and non-liquefiable soil deposits.
Keywords Liquefaction  Plasticity index 
Plasticity limit  Liquid limit  Fine content
1 Introduction
Liquefaction is one of the most discussed topics in
geotechnical engineering associated with the failure of
earth structures. Soil deformation caused by mono-
tonic, transient and repeated disturbance of saturated
soils under undrained condition leads to the generation
of excess pore-water pressure and loss of strength
which is major criteria for the occurrence of liquefac-
tion phenomenon. The failure behaviour is broadly
divided into two category; flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility. Flow liquefaction leads to huge instabilities
and deformations which are driven by cyclic shear
stresses. On the other hand, cyclic mobility is another
phenomenon that causes large deformations known as
lateral spreading, but in comparison to flow liquefac-
tion deformation produced by cyclic mobility is driven
by both cyclic and static shear stresses. Accordingly,
the available literature is discussed separately in two
major approaches in the subsequent sections. These

123

are further divided into sub-groups on the basis of
adopted methodology.
2 Literature Review
Liquefaction frequently occurs in saturated loose sand
during application of dynamic and seismic loads. After
the occurrence of Alaska and Niigata earthquakes
(1964), Seed and Lee (1966), Seed and Idriss (1971)
developed a methodology known as ’Simplified
Approach’ for assessing liquefaction potential of
cohesionless soil during an earthquake which uses
laboratory data of cyclic triaxial loading tests. This
method takes into consideration of soil type, relative
density, initial confining pressure, intensity and dura-
tion of ground shaking. This simplified procedure has
been modified and updated by various researchers.
Seed (1979) made an attempt to develop correlations
between liquefaction potential and standard penetra-
tion resistance (SPT). These SPT (N values) obtained
in the field need to be corrected for accounting the
effect of overburden pressure. Seed et al. (1983)
established a criterion for assessing the liquefaction
potential of sandy soils from interpretation of field
data for different sites with their known status as
liquefied or not liquefied in respective earthquakes in
the different countries. The results of this study are
then extended to other magnitude earthquakes incor-
porating the magnitude scaling factor in evaluation for
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) induced by an earthquake at a
given depth. Later several researchers proposed
different empirical methods based on field tests such
as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration
Test (CPT), Becker Penetration Test (BPT), Shear
wave velocity results. Idriss sand Boulanger (2006)
recommended revised semi-empirical procedures for
accessing the liquefaction potential of saturated sands.
Revised SPT and CPT based liquefaction correlations
were recommended for use in practice after re-
evaluations of key parameters such as the stress
reduction factor (rd), earthquake magnitude scaling
factor for cyclic stress ratios, overburden correction
factor for cyclic stress ratios (Ks), and the overburden
correction factor for penetration resistances (CN).
Bilsel et al. (2010) carried out case study for deter-
mination of factor of safety against liquefaction based
on CPT, SPT and undrained shear strength (Su) of
alluvial soils of Tuzla. For sandy soils, the procedure
123
Geotech Geol Eng
was followed using normalized CPT tip resistance and
corrected SPT blow counts, along with the percentage
of fine contents (%). The factor of safety indicates a
high potential for liquefaction in the region. In fine-
grained soils, however the factor of safety was
determined based on Su values obtained from uncon-
solidated undrained triaxial test. The soft clays in the
proposed study area have high sensitivity which
concluded that the cyclic disturbance can cause a
significant loss in shear strength for soils with high
sensitivity. Lately, it was observed that the addition of
fine content in cohesionless soil will affect the
liquefaction behaviour under monotonic as well as
cyclic loading.
Krim et al. (2019) studied the influence of clay
content and grading characteristics on the liquefaction
resistance of sand–clay mixtures using triaxial tests
performed on reformed sand–clay mixtures varying
clay content. The liquefaction resistance is found to be
reduced with increase in clay content. It was also
concluded that liquefaction resistance may be con-
trolled by varying percentage of clay fraction as well
as grading characteristics of the sample. Dash et al.
(2010) studied the effect of non-plastic fines on the
behavior of silty sand subjected to cyclic loading. The
results obtained from experimental investigation con-
cludes that nature of soil deposits plays an important
role in defining the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and
pore water pressure generation which occurs during
earthquake. Dash and Sitharam (2010) carried a
detailed study on the effects of non-plastic fines on
undrained monotonic behaviour of saturated and
isotopically consolidated sand–silt mixtures prepared
at different density through various approaches
namely gross void ratio approach, relative density
approach, sand skeleton void ratio approach, and inter-
fine void ratio approach. The results concluded that
limiting silt content and the relative density of a
specimen were found to influence the undrained
monotonic response of sand–silt mixtures to a great
extent whereas undrained monotonic response was
found to be independent of silt content at very high
relative densities; however the presence of fines
significantly influenced this response in case loose
and medium dense samples.
Even observations made during numerous earth-
quakes show proof of liquefaction in silts and clayey
soil of low plasticity as well. These type of soil dilate
extensively throughout shearing. Once liquefaction
Geotech Geol Eng
starts, the soil subjected to cyclic loading may undergo
a temporary shear strength loss instead of a permanent
loss i.e., cyclic mobility with limited flow deformation
(Bray and Sancio 2006). Therefore, the response of
soil deposit in seismic condition is less likely to cause
large deformations unlike lateral spreading which are
mostly found in saturated and loose sands due to
liquefaction.Therefore, liquefaction and cyclic mobil-
ity of fine grained soils must be studied thoroughly.
Wang (1979) had discussed Chinese Criteria which
was initially recommended for seismic design of
hydraulic structures which directed that liquefaction
can occur during a strong seismic motion in any silty
soil. However, this criteria did not include the soil with
low plasticity. Koester(1992) later suggested appro-
priate changes into this criteria because liquid limit
(LL) determined using the Casagrande’s cup (United
States Practice) was 4 points less than liquid limit
evaluated using Fall cone device (Chinese practice).
Seed and Idriss (1982) re-evaluated Wang (1979)
theory and suggested criteria based on liquid limit and
water content. Earthquake occurred during Northridge
(1994), Kocaeli (1999) and Chi-Chi (1999) revealed
that fine-grained soil deposits which liquefied under
the seismic condition did not fulfilled the clay-size
criterion as stated in Chinese criteria, yet these site
underwent liquefaction. This raised the question on the
reliability of Chinese criteria. The reason behind this
contradiction directed to modify the method of
determination of soil index such as liquid limit which
is different from American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International’s procedure. Finn
(1991) suggested scaling in Chinese criteria in accor-
dance with United States (US) practice. It was
suggested that fines content should be decrease by
5% whereas liquid limit and water content should be
increased by 1% and 2% respectively. Ishihara (1993)
suggested that cyclic shear strength of the soil will
increases if the Plasticity Index (PI) of the fines is
greater than 10. This would lead to increase in factor of
safety against liquefaction and thus decrease the
settlement caused during earthquake. Andrews and
Martin (2000) reviewed the empirical approach and
suggested a new assessment index. This index trans-
formed the conventional Chinese Criteria according to
US standards which was renamed as Modified Chinese
Criteria. The major difference proposed in this mod-
ified criteria as compared to the original Chinese
Criteria was that 0.0002 mm particle size was used as
the limit in between clay and silt particles. Also,
Casagrande’s Apparatus should be used for obtaining
liquid limit. It was also concluded that soils of 2 lm
size having percentage finer less than 10% and
LL \ 32%,were susceptible to liquefaction whereas
the soils having C 10% finer than 2 lm and LL
C 32% were not susceptible to liquefaction. Still no
reliable and accurate standards are available for
consideration of fine content in evaluation of lique-
faction susceptibility. Observation made in past
earthquake depicts that the use of clay-size particle
percentage for the evaluation of liquefaction suscep-
tibility is misleading. Even Chinese criteria was found
out to be unreliable. The major shortcoming of the
‘‘Chinese Criteria’’ is that the liquefaction potential is
not associated with the intensity of shaking. Based on
‘‘Chinese Criteria’’, any soil meeting the mentioned
criteria should be considered susceptible to liquefac-
tion, irrespective of the level of shaking, which was
later contradicted by many researchers. Zhou (1987)
proposed the relation between intensity of earthquake
and clay percentage causing liquefaction. It was
suggested that liquefaction will not occur if the clay
content (Pc) in a soil is more than the critical
percentage (Pc*). The relation in between critical clay
percentage (Pc*) and intensity of earthquake (I) are
defined in Table 1.
Umar et al. (2018) concluded that earthquake
magnitude plays very important role for the assess-
ment of liquefaction, irrespective of soil type and
water table of the site using deterministic and prob-
abilistic approach.
Studies carried out in early 19800 s at University of
Missouri–Rolla (UMR) (now Missouri University of
Science & Technology) also acknowledges the effect
of plasticity of soil on the liquefaction of silts based
laboratory test data. It was observed that the cyclic
stress ratio (CSR) causing liquefaction decreases with
the increase in plasticity index.
Table 1 Critical clay percentage (Pc*) verses intensity of
earthquake (I)
Intensity of Earthquake (I) Critical clay percentage [Pc*]
7 10%
8 13%
9 16%
123

Puri (1984) found that introduction of clay or
plasticity to the silt increases the resistance of soil
mass against liquefaction. Ishihara and Koseki (1989)
recommended that low plasticity fines (PI \ 4) has no
influence the liquefaction potential. However, the
effect of the void ratio was not considered in their
analysis. Later, Sandoval (1989), Prakash and San-
doval (1992) demonstrated that the liquefaction resis-
tance of silt decreases with increase in plasticity when
plasticity index (PI) falls in the range of 2–4%. Guo
and Prakash (2000) also studied liquefaction behavior
of silt–clay mixture based on established liquefaction
behavior and it’s dependency on Plasticity index.
Based on this analysis, it was concluded that there is a
critical value of plasticity index below which the
cyclic stress ratio decreases. As the plasticity index
increases, soil becomes less liquefiable and beyond
certain critical value, the cyclic stress ratio increases.
In this study, the critical value of plasticity index was
found to be probably in between 4 and 5%. Therefore,
it was concluded that with the increase in plasticity
index, the liquefaction resistance of silt–clay mixtures
decreases in the low range of plasticity whereas, in
high plasticity range, the liquefaction resistance
increases. Prakash et al. (1998) concluded that void
ratio (e) is also a significant parameter for silty soil
whereas fabric and plasticity of fines become impor-
tant parameters in case of cohesive soils. Youd (1998)
recommended that natural soil deposits which have a
‘‘C’’ descriptor (e.g. CH, CL, SC, and GC) may be
grouped as non-liquefiable. It was also stated that fine-
grained soils which are possibly susceptible to lique-
faction should have LL \ 35% and area below the
A-line plot or may have PI \ 7. Ishihara (1996)
recommended the cyclic strength does not change
much for low plasticity range i.e. plasticity index
(PI = 10), but increases thereafter with increasing PI.
Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of
liquefaction potential of the soil. In his understanding,
soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be considered as
non-liquefiable as compared to the deformation and
strain caused under flow liquefaction. Based on series
of Cyclic Triaxial Test and considering different
geotechnical properties like plasticity, water content,
clay content, mean grain size, relative density and void
ratio, a clear demarcation line was suggested in
between flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Seed
et al. (2001) recommended that soils liquid limit as
well as plasticity index differentiates susceptible soil
123
Geotech Geol Eng
to those who falling in ‘‘uncertain range’’. Soil
samples that lies in uncertain zones of the plasticity
chart should be carried for laboratory testing. Seed
et al. (2003) proposed Zone based liquefaction
susceptibility criteria based on the Atterberg’s limits
chart. Boulanger and Idriss (2004) suggested that
susceptibility of liquefaction failure of silts and clays
should be separated into two categories. PI was used to
distinguish in between these two categories. The test
results indicated that clay-size particles in the soil does
not outlines a soil’s susceptibility to liquefaction
rather it was the percent of active clay minerals present
in the soils. Also, the use of liquid limit criteria as an
absolute standard is not appropriate, rather the ratio of
water content and liquid limit (wc/LL) criteria seems
more reliable. Bray et al. (2004), Bray and Sancio
(2006) performed series of cyclic triaxial test (CTX)
and cyclic simple shear test (CSS) on the sample
obtained from the city in Adapazari and concluded that
age of the soil and plasticity index are one of the
contributing factors in evaluation of liquefaction
susceptibility. Non-plastic silt and clayey silt with
low plasticity and high water content were susceptible
to liquefaction under cyclic loading whereas clayey
silt and silty clay with medium plasticity are more
resistant to liquefaction i.e. it can liquefy under cyclic
loading with high intensity. Clay with PI [ 18 were
found to be more resistant to liquefaction. Gratchev
et al. (2006) inspected the validity of using PI as
screening parameter that was based on the results
obtained from undrained cyclic stress-controlled ring-
shear tests. It was concluded that liquefaction potential
of soil decreases when PI of soil specimen is increased
whereas liquefaction was not triggered for soil having
PI [ 15. Park and Kim (2013) carried out a series of
undrained cyclic triaxial tests on loose, medium, and
dense specimens. Plastic silt and clay were mixed with
clean sand having grain size which ranges from 2 to
0.075 mm. These fine content have different plasticity
index (PI) i.e. silt (PI = 8), kaolinite (PI = 18),
bentonite and silt mixture (PI = 50), bentonite (PI =
377). It was found that liquefaction resistance tend to
decrease when PI of soil having 10% fines used in the
specimens is increased. Resistance to liquefaction of
loose specimens were affected with variation in
plasticity of fines. In the case of dense specimens,
resistance to liquefaction decreased up to 40% with
increase in PI. It was concluded that even a low
fraction of plastic fines had a significant effect on the
Geotech Geol Eng
liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Marto et al.
(2015) studied the effect of PI on liquefaction
susceptibility of sand and fine mixtures and suggested
that the use of clay fraction as one of the evaluating
criteria for liquefaction susceptibility was question-
able and therefore PI should be used in place of clay
fraction as a controlling parameter based on the
experimental studies. It was observed that resistance to
liquefaction of the sand-fines mixtures increases as the
PI increases. This concludes that PI is a better
indicator for liquefaction susceptibility of sand-fines
mixtures as compared to clay content, plastic limit
(PL) and activity of the soil. Prakash and Puri (2010)
reviewed literature which was based on the experi-
mental evidence on liquefaction of soils with fines and
concluded that silts and clays can also liquefy under
certain situations. PI was found better criteria for
liquefaction susceptibility of silts and clays. Contrary
to the conclusions made above Wijewickreme and
Sanin (2004) and Wijewickreme et al. (2005) reported
that Fraser River Delta silt (PI = 5) and fine-grained
mine tailings (0 \ PI [ 12) underwent liquefaction
even though the criteria stated above directed that the
soils tested had low liquefaction potential.
Paydar and Ahmadi (2016) carried out cyclic
triaxial and bender element tests to examine the effect
of fine content and its classification. Cyclic Liquefac-
tion Resistance Ratio (CRR) and Shear wave velocity
(Vs) was evaluated for sand samples containing 5%
and 15% fines with different plasticity. It was observed
that small-strain shear modulus (Go) and CRR reduces
with the addition of small amounts of fines to the sand
and hence it was concluded that the use of plasticity
index (PI) of the fines fraction is better than the PI of
the overall soil, this laid down the conclusion that fine
content and its classification in sand–fines mixture are
two important elements that strongly affect the
resistance to liquefaction. Akhila et al. (2019) studied
the effect of cyclic load amplitude levels, over-
consolidation, and cycles of preloading of non-plastic
fines on liquefaction resistance of fine sands and
recommended that, at constant relative density, the
liquefaction resistance of fine sand decreases with the
addition of non-plastic fines up to 40% as well as the
liquefaction resistance of sand was increased signif-
icantly with an increase in cycles of preloading and
over-consolidation pressures. Based on the literature,
it is found that interdependency exists in between
plasticity and cyclic strength of soil which gives rise to
the use of plasticity index as a key criteria for the
evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of soil. Plas-
ticity of the soil can be computed either in terms of the
liquid limit or plasticity index. These criteria are used
to differentiate soils form being non-liquefiable to
being susceptible to liquefaction.
It was generally believed that presence of fine helps
in resisting liquefaction susceptibility. But this
believed changed when large scale failure was seen
in fine-soil deposits during seismic excitation (Bhuj
earthquake 2001). Thus, the response of fine-soil
deposits under dynamic loading became an important
field of study and research. Therefore a reliable and
proper method for the assessment of liquefaction
susceptibility of fine grained soil considering plastic-
ity is required.
3 Important Findings and Gaps
Initially liquefaction was analyzed considering cohe-
sionless soil but many incidents indicated that lique-
faction was also observed in silty sand or silty clay
type of soil. It was also observed that based upon the
seismic and environmental factors almost all soils
including sands, silts, clays, and gravels and their
mixtures can liquefy. From the study, it was observed
that soil with higher level of plasticity were found to
undergo different kind of deformation under cyclic
loading as compared to those having lower levels of
plasticity. Cyclic mobility form of failure was
observed in soils with higher levels of plasticity and
on the other hand soils with lower levels of plasticity
exhibited criteria of flow liquefaction.
Based on the literature review, major criteria which
were applied to the study liquefaction susceptibility
considering fine content are Boulanger and Idriss
(2006), Chinese Criteria, Andrews and Martin (2000)
criteria, Polito (2001) criteria, Seed et al (2003)
criteria, Bray et al. (2004) criteria and Bray and Sancio
(2006). The major highlights and key parameters of
these criteria area as follows:
4 Boulanger and Idriss (2006)
Boulanger & Idriss classified soils as ‘‘sand-like’’ and
‘‘clay-like’’ based on their plasticity index (PI), with a
transition zone in between these two categories. The
123

primary purpose for this was to define a classification
scheme for determining appropriate testing procedures
for evaluating cyclic strength. It was concluded that
simplified procedure are suitable for soils that are
classified as ‘‘sand-like,’’ for evaluating their lique-
faction potential whereas soils classified as ‘‘clay-
like’’ should be evaluated using laboratory tests. The
simplified procedures for evaluating the cyclic
strength of sandy soil deposit has been used to
determine factor of safety and conclude its liquefac-
tion susceptibility.
Equations used to determine cyclic stress ratio
(CSR) and cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and corre-
sponding factor of safety (FOS) has been listed below:
rvc
CSR ¼ 0:65 amax rd ð1Þ
r0vc
ðCRR ÞM ¼ ðCRR ÞM¼7:5 MSF ð2Þ
ðCRRÞM
FOS ¼ ð3Þ
ðCSRÞM
In which, amax = peak ground acceleration,
rVC = total vertical stress, r0VC = effective vertical
consolidation stress, rd ¼ Stress reduction coefficient,
MSF = Magnitude Scaling factor.
5 Chinese Criteria (1979)
Wang (1979) noted the incidence of liquefaction in
silty sand to slightly sandy silt soils during Haicheng
earthquake, 1975 and Tangshan earthquake, 1976, and
proposed a criteria which was known as Chinese
criteria (1979) which stated that a fine-grained soil is
considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, when all
of the following four criteria are satisfied:
• Liquid Limit \ 35%
• Liquidity Index [ 0.75
• Natural Water Content [ 0.9 9 Liquid Limit
• Percent Passing 0.005 mm Sieve Size \ 15%
The Liquid Limit of a soil is an indirect measure of
the water content or void ratio (density) that corre-
sponds to a specified undrained shear strength of 2 kPa
to 2.5 kPa, while the Liquidity Index is an indirect
measure of the sensitivity of the soil. The first three
criteria identifies weak sensitive fine-grained soils
whereas fourth criterion, which is a measure of the
123
Geotech Geol Eng
clay content of the soil, eradicates the medium to high
plastic soils that will not undergo volume change
during the application of cyclic loads. As Chinese
criteria is exclusively based on index properties and
grain size data it can be concluded that it is indepen-
dent of the intensity and duration of the applied loads.
6 Andrew and Martin (2000) Criteria
Andrew and Martin (2000) studied the criteria for
liquefaction of silty soils. They observed that silty
soils are often encountered in engineering practices,
and there is plenty of evidence that shows they can be
susceptible to liquefaction. But most of the liquefac-
tion studies have been focused on clean sands and very
little liquefaction research has been commenced on
soils that ranges between silty sand to silt with or
without the presence of clay content. So they pro-
moted a simple criteria based on ‘‘key’’ soil param-
eters that helps to differentiate between liquefiable and
non-liquefiable silty soils based on extensive literature
review. Based on the criteria outlined by Seed et al.
(1983) concluded from case histories in China, served
as a base for dividing clayey soils susceptible to
strength loss due earthquake shaking. The properties
of this soil are tabulated in Table 2. In this paper they
only considered clay content and liquid limit areas key
soil parameters to differentiate between silty soils
susceptible to liquefaction and non-susceptible to
liquefaction. Water content was not considered in the
assessment of liquefaction potential due to its ten-
dency to fluctuate which is mostly caused by environ-
mental dynamics and errors during soil sampling. A
clear discrimination in between Seed et al. (1983) and
Andrew and Martin (2000) criteria is described in
Table 2.
7 Polito (2001) Criteria
Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of
liquefaction potential of the soil. A series of cyclic
triaxial test were carried out in order to understand the
effects of the amount and the plasticity of those fines
have upon the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils.
Sixteen combinations of kaolinite, bentonite and non-
plastic silt were mixed with a medium to fine sand,
with fines contents varying from 4 to 37%, and clay
Geotech Geol Eng
Table 2 Evaluation criteria as per Seed et al. (1983) versus Andrew and Martin (2000)
Seed et al.(1983) criteria Modified by Andrew and Martin (2000)
Clay Content (defined as % finer than Soils having B10% finer than 2 lm and LL \ 32% are susceptible to
0.005 mm) \ 15% liquefaction
Liquid Limit \ 35 Soils having C 10% finer than 2 lm andLL C 32% were not susceptible to
Water Content [ 0.9 9 Liquid Limit liquefaction
contents varying from 2 to 37%. All soils were tested
at relative density of approximately 25%. He studied
various geotechnical properties like plasticity, water
content, clay content, mean grain size, relative density
and void ratio and suggested that the implication
which can be drawn from the study was that the
parameter which constantly separates soils susceptible
to flow liquefaction and soil susceptible to cyclic
mobility is soil plasticity. Whether the plasticity is
calculated in terms of plasticity index or liquid limit,
soils that met threshold level of plasticity tend to be
safe from flow liquefaction failure. In his understand-
ing, soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be consid-
ered as non-liquefiable as compared to the
deformation and strain caused under flow liquefaction.
Based on his findings a clear demarcation line was
suggested in between flow liquefaction and cyclic
mobility.
8 Seed et al. (2003) Criteria
Seed et al. (2003) suggested an assessment chart to
combine Modified Chinese Criteria with effects of
fines contents. In other words, he proposed Zone based
liquefaction susceptibility criteria based on the Atter-
berg’s limits chart. The soils positioned in Zone A are
susceptible to liquefaction while soils within Zone B
are potentially susceptible to liquefaction. The soils
which falls out of Zone A and Zone B are considered
as non-liquefiable. Soils which have PI B 12 and
LL B 37 are potentially susceptible to liquefaction if
the water content is greater than 80% of the LL and
were placed in Zone A whereas soils which have
PI B 20 and LL B 47 are potentially liquefiable if the
water content is greater than 85% of the LL belonged
to Zone B, and soils with PI [ 20 and LL [ 47 are
generally non susceptible to liquefaction where rep-
resented by Zone C.
9 Bray et al. (2004) Criteria
Bray et al. (2004) carried out a series of 100 cyclic
triaxial tests, 19 static strength tests, 24 consolidation
tests and several soil index tests such as water content,
Atterberg’s limits, and hydrometer on undisturbed soil
specimens which were recovered from 7 different sites
throughout the city. After the liquefaction tests,
reconsolidation tests were performed. During the
course of the study, it was observed that the soil’s
in situ penetration resistance was a suitable parameter
to determine the condition of the soil. Soil’s normal-
ized Standard Penetration Test (N1)60 value when
combined with its plasticity index proved to be a good
indicator of the cyclic strength of soils. The results
obtained from the tests were divided in two categories,
one with soils having PI B 12 and the other with soils
having 12 \ PI \ 20. It was concluded that a soil with
wc/LL C 0.85 and PI B 12 is susceptible to liquefac-
tion. Soils with 12 \ PI [ 20 and wc/LL C 0.8 may be
moderately susceptible to liquefaction. Soils with
PI [ 20 are considered too clayey to liquefy. How-
ever, structures founded on these soils may undergo
significant deformations if the cyclic load exceeds the
dynamic strength of the soil.
10 Bray and Sancio (2006) Criteria
Bray and Sancio (2006) performed 100 cyclic triaxial
test (CTX), 10 cyclic simple shear tests (CSS), 19
anisotropically consolidated monotonic triaxial com-
pression tests, 24 consolidation tests and various soil
index tests such as water content, Atterberg’s limits,
sieve and hydrometer analysis on undisturbed soil
specimens which were recovered from seven different
sites in Adapazari. The results obtained from the
cyclic testing concluded that age of the soil and
plasticity index are one of the contributing factors in
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility. Non-plastic
silt and clayey silt with low plasticity (PI \ 12) and
high water content (wc/LL [ 0.85) are susceptible to
liquefaction under cyclic loading. Clayey silt and silty
clay with medium plasticity (12 \ PI \ 18) & (wc/
LL [ 0.8) are more resistant to liquefaction i.e. it can
liquefy under cyclic loading with high intensity. Clay
with PI [ 18 looses strength due to earthquake
straining, when tested under low effective confining
stress i.e. more resistant to liquefaction.
Table 3 presents most of the significant Plasticity
based liquefaction criteria which uses limiting value
for different parameters in evaluation of liquefaction
susceptibility of soil having fine content.
Based on the literature reviewed, it was observed
that there are numerous gaps in the present literature
and there are no certain guideline available to
determine liquefaction potential of fine soils based
on a simple field/laboratory test as available in the case
of sands. These recommendations and gaps are
described below:
• The reliability of Chinese criteria has been ques-
tioned in the past because many earthquakes data
analysis have proved that the parameters taken into
consideration for the evaluation of liquefaction is
not sufficient and reliable.
• The major shortcoming of the ‘‘Chinese Criteria’’
is that the liquefaction potential is not associated
with the intensity of shaking. Based on ‘‘Chinese
Criteria’’, any soil meeting the mentioned criteria
should be considered susceptible to liquefaction,
irrespective of the level of shaking.
• Further, the proposal of determining liquefaction
susceptibility based on particle size came into
practice (Seed and Idriss 1982; Andrew and Martin
2000) but this was also proved wrong for Kocaeli
earthquake, 1999 liquefaction analysis.
• Also, no CPT or SPT based methods are available
to estimate ground settlements and lateral dis-
placements of soils with consideration of fine
contents.
• The need of a better and more reliable parameter in
the assessment of liquefaction susceptibility came
into light as the conventional methods of liquefac-
tion susceptibility went unattended after past
earthquakes.

Table 3 Plasticity based liquefaction criteria

Author Plasticity based Liquefaction Criteria

Ishihara and Koseki (1989) PI \ 4% do not influence the liquefaction potential

Prakash and Sandoval (1992)
Youd (1998)
Polito (2001)
Seed et al. (2001)
Seed et al. (2003)
Boulanger and Idriss (2004)
Bray et al. (2004)
Bray and Sancio (2006)
Gratchev et al. (2006)
2 \ PI [ 4% the liquefaction resistance of silt decreases with increasing plasticity
Fine-grained soils with PI \ 7, LL \ 35 and plot below the A-line are susceptible to liquefaction
LL \ 25% and PI \ 7%—susceptible to liquefaction
LL [ 35% and PI [ 10%-non-susceptible to liquefaction
25% \ LL \ 35% and 7% \ PI \ 10%—potentially liquefiable
LL \ 30 and PI \ 10—susceptible to liquefaction
30 \ LL \ 40 and 10 \ PI \ 12 -uncertain range of liquefaction susceptibility
LL B 37 and PI B 12 -susceptible to liquefaction if the water content is greater than 80% of the LL
LL B 47 and PI B 20—potentially liquefiable if the water content is greater than 85% of the LL
LL [ 47 and PI [ 20—non susceptible to liquefaction
PI \ 7—susceptible to liquefaction
PIP7—undergo cyclic mobility
PI B 12 and wc/LL [ 0.85—susceptible to liquefaction
12 \ PI \ 20 and wc/LL [ 0.8-resistant to liquefaction
PI [ 20 are non-liquefiable
PI \ 12 – liquefaction will occur
PI [ 18-resistant to liquefaction
PI [ 15- Non liquefiable

123
Geotech Geol Eng

• Cyclic failure of fine-grained soils, silts and clays, FOS

were also studied based on index-properties of 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0
liquid limit, plasticity index, clay fraction, and
natural water content etc. and amongst all the
above mentioned criteria, only soil plasticity is 0.2
able to satisfy the validity of Chinese criteria based
upon the experimental results. 0.4

Z\Zc
0.6
11 Results and Discussion
0.8
The data obtained from an investigation site, Darb-
hanga, Bihar (India) is used to analyze the liquefaction
behaviour of soil deposits having clay particles. The 1

selected site lies in seismic Zone V based on the

vulnerability atlas of India, BMTPC (Building Mate-
rials and Technology Promotion Council). Alluvium
soil deposits are usually found in this region (Khadar
soil) which are dark brown in color and are very fertile
for agriculture. The data obtained were precisely
studied and were analyzed using three criteria’s
mainly, Boulanger and Idriss (2006) criteria, Chinese
Criteria and Bray and Sancio (2006) criteria.
Boulanger and Idriss (2006) gave a relation for
determining the liquefaction potential of cohesionless
soil on the basis of the value of evaluated factor of
safety (FOS). The value of FOS describes the lique-
faction potential of soil deposits. For FOS \ 1, soil is
termed as liquefiable whereas for soil deposit having
FOS C 1, the soil is said to be non-liquefiable. When
the concerned soil deposit was analyzed using
Boulanger and Idriss criteria factor of safety was
observed to be less than 1, which signifies that the
proposed soil deposit is liquefiable. Figure 1 shows
the trend of factor of safety verses normalized depth (z/
zc), where z is the depth (m) and zc is the critical depth.
The critical depth is taken as zc= 15 m. Generally, it is
found that chances of liquefaction is less beyond 15 m
Fig. 1 Factor of safety verses normalized depth (z/zc)
susceptibility of any soil deposits which have been
discussed above. Figure 2 describes the estimation of
liquefaction potential based on Wang (1979). The
section above the plotted line in Fig. 2 represents non-
liquefiable zone whereas section below this line is
potentially liquefiable. The input parameters such as
liquid limit (LL) and saturated water content that has
been used to determine the liquefaction potential of
the desired soil deposit. Figure 2 reveals that the soil
deposit considered for this analysis is lying in both the
regions. Majorly all the points are very close to the
differentiating line. A totally different indication of
liquefaction susceptibility is observed as compared to
Boulanger and Idriss criteria.
It is found that all the layers are liquefiable
considering Boulanger and Idriss criteria wherereas
Wang criteria indicates that some of the layers are non
liquefiable. Thus, soil plasticity is one of the major
60
50
Non-Liquefiable Zone
Liquid Limit (LL)

due to existence of overburden pressure. 40

Boulanger and Idriss criteria indicates that the soil
deposit is liquefiable and respective measures should 30

be adopted for construction on such soils. The input 20

Liquefiable Zone
parameters were, bulk density of the soil, water
content, and N value obtained from the SPT test 10

results. There was no provision for considering 0

plasticity, liquid limit or grain size of the soil deposits 0 20 40 60 80

in the evaluation of FOS. Although, these parameters Saturated Water Content (%)
have major contribution in determining liquefaction
Fig. 2 Assessment of liquefaction using Chinese Criteria

123

governing criteria which distinguishes liquefiable soil
from the non-liquefiable ones. Also, Fig. 3 presents
liquefaction susceptibility based on Bray and Sancio
(2006) criteria. This criteria uses plasticity index (PI)
and ratio of water content to liquid limit (wc/LL) as
input parameter to distinguish liquefaction suscepti-
bility in three zones, susceptible, non-susceptible and
an intermediate zone i.e. moderately susceptible.
Mostly all the point lies in susceptible zone whereas
couple of sites falling in the intermediate zone and
only one site clearly depicts that it is a non-susceptible
zone. Figure 3 clearly distinguishes the soil in the
respective three zones as compared to the above
mentioned two criteria. Considering PI as one of the
parameters has given a clear demarcation of the
proposed soil deposit for determining their liquefac-
tion potential. Generally, the presence of plastic fines
tend to increase the liquefaction resistance of a soil
due to dilitative nature of clayey soil.
Table 4 provides the cumulative data obtained from
the above three analysis, and clearly concludes that
plasticity is a better governing criteria for evaluation
liquefaction potential of soil deposits having clay
content. Table 4 demonstrates that Bray and Sancio
(2006) criteria is showing better presentation because
parameters like plasticity index (PI) and wc/LL are
better indicators than the particle size distribution, in
assessing liquefaction susceptibility or cyclic failure
of fine-grained soils.
From the above analysis, it can be clearly suggested
that without considering plasticity the site considered
for study is completely liquefiable as suggested by
Boulanger and Idriss (2006). Afterwards, Chinese
criteria (1979) was introduced and the proposed site
tends to show some of the non-liquefiable layers based
50
40
Plasticity Index
30
Non- Susceptible
20
Moderatley Susceptible
10
0 parameters. It has been observed that if PI is less than
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
wc /LL
Fig. 3 Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria as per Bray and
Sancio (2006)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
on grain size and liquid limit, but still no clear
demarcation was obtained as all the non-liquefiable as
well as liquefiable layers lied very close to the
boundary line. So for a better and proper segregation
of the layers, Bray and Sancio criteria (2006) was
adopted which uses plasticity as one of its input
parameter and clearly differentiate site between
liquefiable, non-liquefiable and sites that may liquefy
i.e. moderately liquefiable. This summarizes that
plasticity is one of the significant criteria which draws
a clear differentiating line between liquefiable and
non-liquefiable soil deposits.
12 Concluding Remarks
Plasticity based liquefaction assessment is one of most
recent and so far reliable methods adopted by various
researchers for fine grained soil and is a major
highlight of this paper. Plasticity Index plays a key
parameter in evaluation of liquefaction of cohesive
soil. It was also suggested that loose and saturated silt
and clay are susceptible to liquefaction but the results
of liquefaction may be different from those seen in
loose and saturated sand as low plasticity silt dilates
significantly during shear once liquefaction has
started, they undergo temporary loss of shear strength
(cyclic mobility with limited flow deformation) hence
their behavior during seismic loading will not cause
large (unlimited) deformation as found in saturated
loose sand when liquefied. Evaluation of liquefaction
considering cohesionless soil gives a conservative
response of soil profile. Therefore, plasticity based
liquefaction criteria will provide a better means to
evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility of soils. Based
on the above studies, it is also clear that liquefaction
susceptibility is dependent on many factors like
earthquake intensity, type of soil, plastic limit, liquid
limit, particle size etc., and therefore it was concluded
that, a combination of liquid limit (LL) along with
plasticity index (PI) may be a better indicator than
using clay content.
Different researcher had defined a wide range of
Susceptible plasticity index along with some of the other soil
1 1.2 1.4
7%, liquefaction can occur whereas some study
suggests that liquefaction can occur even when the
PI is less than 12%. Some of the studies suggest that if
PI is greater than 20% liquefaction will not occur
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 4 Liquefaction susceptibility based on three approaches

Depth (m) Plasticity Index (PI) Boulanger and Idriss (2006) Chinese Criteria (1979) Bray and Sancio (2006)

1.5 10.3 L NL ML
3.0 7.8 L L L
4.5 4.5 L L L
6.0 8.2 L NL L
7.5 13.2 L NL NL
9.0 11.1 L NL ML
10.5 9.6 L NL L
12.0 7 L L L
13.5 4.7 L L L
15.0 6.5 L L L
L: indicate liquefiable layer, ML: indicates moderately liquefiable, NL: indicates non-liquefiable layers

while other recommended that liquefaction will not
happen even if the plasticity index is greater than 15%.
But these differences in the range of plasticity index
leads to confusion and misperception while determin-
ing the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil.
Therefore, considering existing literature gaps and
lack of appropriate reliable methods for the evaluation
of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil with
fine content and seeing the devastation caused due to
liquefaction during earthquakes in the past, recom-
mendation and modification and a further study to
determine a reliable method is essentially required.
References
Akhila M, Rangaswamy K, Sankar N (2019) Undrained
response and liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures.
J Geotech Geol Eng Springer 37(4):2729–2745
Andrews DCA, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of
silty soils Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bilsel H, Erhan G, Durgunoglu T (2010) Assessment of lique-
faction/cyclic failure potential of alluvial deposits on the
eastern coast of cyprus. In: International conferences on
recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering
and soil dynamics.
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2004) Evaluating the potential for
liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays Rep. UCD/
CGM-04/01, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Calif.
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 132(11):1413–1426
Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine grained soil. J Geotech Eng
132(9):1165–1177
Bray JD, Sancio RB, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A, Youd TL, Stewart
JP, Seed RB, Cetin OK, Bol E, Baturay MB, Christensen C,
Karadayilar T (2004) Subsurface characterization at
ground failure sites in Adapazari, Turkey, International
conference on geotechnical earthquake engineering.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):673–685
Dash HK, Sitharam TG (2010) Undrained monotonic response
of sand-silt mixtures: effect of nonplastic fines. J Geomech
Geoeng Int J 6(1):47–58
Dash HK, Sitharam TG, Baudet AB (2010) Influence of non-
plastic fines on the response of a silty sand to cyclic load-
ing. Soils Found 50(5):695–704
Finn WD (1991) Assessment of liquefaction potential and post
liquefaction behavior of earth structures: developments
1981–1991. In: Proc. second international conference on
recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering
and soil dynamics, 2, St Louis, 1883–1850.
Gratchev I, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2006) How reliable is the
plasticity index for estimating the liquefaction potential of
clayey sands? J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 132(1):124–127
Guo T, Prakash S (2000) Liquefaction of silt-clay mixtures In:
Proc. 12th World conference on earthquake engineering,
Upper Hutt, New Zealand,
Idriss IM, Boulanger R (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for
evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. J Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 26(2):115–130
Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earth-
quakes. Geotechnique 43(3):351–415
Ishihara K (1996) Soil behavior in earthquake engineering.
Clarendon Press, Oxford
Ishihara K, Koseki J (1989) Cyclicshear strength of fines-con-
taining sands, Earthquake and Geotech. Engg. Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, pp 101–106
Koester JP (1992) The influence of test procedure on correlation
of Atterberg limits with liquefaction in fine-grained soils.
Geotech Test J 15(4):352–361

123

Krim A, Arab A, Chemam M, Brahim A, Sadek M, Shahrour I
(2019) Experimental study on the liquefaction resistance of
sand–clay mixtures: Effect of clay content and grading
characteristics. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 37(2):129–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1407974
Marto A, Tan CS, Makhtar AM, Ung SW, Lim MY (2015)
Effect of plasticity on liquefaction susceptibility of sand-
fines mixtures. Appl Mech Mater 773–774:1407–1411
Park S-S, Kim Y-S (2013) Liquefaction resistance of sands
containing plastic fines with different plasticity. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000806
Paydar NA, Ahmadi MM (2016) Effect of fines type and content
of sand on correlation between shear wave velocity and
liquefaction resistance. Geotech Geol Eng
34(6):1857–1876
Polito C (2001) Plasticity based liquefaction criteria. In: Proc. of
the 4th intl. Conf. on recent advances in geotechnical
earthquake engineering and soil dynamics.
Prakash S, Puri V K (2010) Recent advances in liquefaction of
fine grained soils. In: Fifth international conference, San
Diego, California.
Prakash S, Sandoval JA (1992) Liquefaction of low plasticity
silts. J Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engg 71(7):373–397
Prakash S, Guo T, Kumar S (1998) Liquefaction of silts and silt-
clay mixture. In: Proc. 1998 Spec. Conf. on Geotech.
Earthq. Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Seattle, WA, vol
1, pp 327–348
Puri VK (1984) Liquefaction behaviour and dynamic properties
of loessial (silty) soils, PhD Dissertation, University of
Missouri–Rolla, Mo.
Sandoval J (1989) Liquefaction and settlement characteristics of
silt soils, PhD Dissertation, University of Missouri–Rolla,
Mo.
Seed HB (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation
for level ground during earthquakes. J Geotech Eng Div
ASCE 105(GT2):201–255
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating
soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE
97(SM8):1249–1274
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction
during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkeley, Calif
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Seed HB, Lee KL (1966) Liquefaction of saturated sands during
cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Founclations Div ASCE
92(SM6):105–134
Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction
potential using field performance. J Geotech Eng ASCE
109(3):458–482
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES (2001) Recent advances in soil
liquefaction hazard assessment. In: 15th ICSMGEG, TC4
satellite conference on lessons learned from recent strong
earthquakes, Istanbul, Turkey.
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RES, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana
JM, Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE, Faris A
(2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a
unified and consistent framework, EERC-2003–06.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley,
California
Umar SK, Samui P, Kumari S (2018) Deterministic and Prob-
abilistic analysis of liquefaction for different regions of
Bihar. Geotech Geol Eng 36(5):3311–3321
Wang W (1979) Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction. Report
Water Conservancy and Hydro-electric Power Scientific
Research Institute, Beijing, China, pp 1–17
Wijewickreme D, Sanin M (2004) Cyclic shear loading response
of Fraser River Delta Silt. In: Proc., 13th World Conf. on
EQ Engineering, Mira Digital Publishing, Vancouver,
Canada, Paper No. 499.
Wijewickreme D, Sanin MV, Greenaway GR (2005) Cyclic
shear response of fine-grained mine tailings. Can Geotech J
42:1408–1421
Youd TL (1998), Screening guide for rapid assessment of liq-
uefaction hazard at highway bridge sites. MCEER-98-0005
Zhou SG (1987) Soil liquefaction during recent major earth-
quakes in China and aseismic design method related to soil
liquefaction In: Proc. 8th Asian Regional Conference on
SM&FE, vol. II, pp. 249–250.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.