Chapter-IV

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

4.1 Liquefaction analysis

Liquefaction analysis need not be carried out for cohesive soils not meeting all the four
criteria discussed earlier. Similarly, dense sands and sites where the water table is very
deep or the susceptible soil layer is located at great depth are also unlikely to liquefy.
However, all sites where loose cohesion less soils are encountered and the water table is
at shallow depths, or may rise, should be analyzed.
Various methods have been proposed for analyzing the liquefaction potential of soils.
The procedure presented below is adapted from the method proposed by Seed et al. (1975).
The highly complex earthquake forces are assumed equivalent to a uniform cyclic
stress. With this simplification, the first step consists in determining the Seismic Stress Ratio
(SSR), defined as

(Loading function)
Where SSR is a dimensionless seismic stress ratio,

and

are the total vertical

and effective stresses, respectively, at depth Z, a is the peak ground acceleration due to
earthquake and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Df is a depth factor which can be evaluated as follows:
Df = 1 - 0.012Z
Z being the depth below the ground level at which the liquefaction analysis is required.
And

are calculated as per the procedure given else table. The magnitude of

peak ground acceleration, a, is assumed depending upon the previous incident

occurred.

Liquefaction Analysis

The next step is to determine the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) is resistance function
of the soil. This factor is a measure of the resistance to liquefaction of the in-situ soil. The
resistance to liquefaction increases with increase in N-values (SPT) or
relative density, and with change in percent fines present in the soil.
The value of CRR, corresponding to the percent fines present in the site soil, can
be obtained from Fig. It may be noted that these plots were developed for earthquakes of
magnitude 7.5. A scaling factor is to be applied if the magnitude is different (Table).
Table
Magnitude scaling factor
Earthquake magnitude

Scaling factor

8.5

0.89

7.5

1.0

6.75

1.13

Fig 4.0 Variation of cyclic resistance ratio with SPT N-values (after Seed,1985)

Liquefaction Analysis

4.2 Methods to find out the liquefaction potential:

There are certain Research personnel developed empirical formulae to assess the
liquefaction potential based on certain parameters.
The same are described below

1. Seed developed formula based on cyclic triaxial shear tests data by

calculating loading functions and Resistance function.
The loading function:

av

Resistance function

Where

amax
g

= 0.65 r z

dc

amax
g

/2

rd

and

x Cr. DR/ 50

V '

= the horizontal ground surface acceleration

rd = reduction factor = 1- 0.15z Where Z = depth under consideration.

dc
2 V 1

Where

dc

= peak Cyclic stress amplitude to cause liquefaction or 100% pore

water pressure build up in the sample.

V ' =effective confining pressure.

dc
2 V 1

C r

Is a function of mean grain size , D50 and no of stress cycles NC

= 1+

2 ko
3

The ratio between resistance function and Loading function gives factor of safety.

2. Jennings (1980) proposed the following equation.

Liquefaction Analysis

Loading faction:

1+0.125 ( d s 3 )0.05(d w 2)

= NC

Where dS = depth of strata under consideration Z,

dW = depth of water table below ground level.
NC = A function of shaking intensity
Resistance function = R = N (SPT value).
Resistance function
F.S = Loading function

3.

Iwaski et. Al 1981 proposed the following equations.

Loading function: The max shear stress induced in the soil deposit due to earthquake
max = Z

Resistance function:

dc
2 V '

and

amax
rd
g

[ (
0.0082

1
N
2
+ f ( D50 ) ' V
V ' +0.7

correlation bet.

effect of grading

Where N = SPT value

V '

= effective over burden pressure

f (D50 ) = 0.2251 log

0.35
D 50

4. Yegain and vitelli (1981) proposed the following equations

Liquefaction Analysis

Loading function:

0.2M
(R h+25)0.4
= e

Where e = 2.718, M = Ritchter magnitude

V

Rh = hypo central distance from source to the site in km

Resistance function: R = 0.464

Where N = SPT value,

N 0.4 (1- 1.25 log V

V '

= r

'

0.4

F.S = R / :

5. Seed and Fin et al (1983, 1984) proposed the following equations

Loading function:
Average cyclic shear stress induced in the deposit due to earth quake loading is given by

av

Where

= 0.65 r z.

rd

amax
r
g d

= 1-0.015z, Z is depth under consideration.

Assumption: The average uniform cyclic shear stress is 65% of the peak shears stress
due to Irregular loading,
rd

= stress reductions Factor determined from ground response Analysis;

amax
g

= horizontal ground surface acceleration

Liquefaction Analysis

Resistance function
RL =

[ N 1 /12.9 M 15.7 ]

V '
N1 = CN x N; N = 1-125 log

'0

Where N = measured from SPT

CN = correction to N.
V

= r z ;

=1kg/cm2

M =earth quake magnitude on Ritchter scale

F.S =

R
L

The above all equation have their own advantages and disadvantages and limitations.

4.3 METHODOLOGY APPLIED IN THE THESIS WORK

The simplest reliable approach developed by HD seed, ldriss (1981) is used with little
improvement with regard to correction factors applied to find out the liquefaction resistance
of the soil. In this method cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and cyclic Resistance ratio with reference
to the soil resistance will be calculated and the ratio between cyclic Resistance ratio with
reference soil resistance in terms of corrected N value and cyclic stress ratio due to seismic or
earth quake activity will give the factor of safety.
The following are factor of safety range with reference to severity index

Liquefaction Analysis

Groups

F.S range

Severity Index

<1

High

1 to 2

Moderate

2 to 3

Low

>3.0

Nil

Non liquefiable (NL)

Nil

Cyclic stress ratio due to earth quake activity or seismic activity (CSR)

=0.65

When

rd

[ ]

amax v
r
g v d
'

amax
g

=0.1g for Hyderabad city considered

= stress reduction factor 1-0.0012 Z

Where Z is depth under consideration

V

= Total over burden pressure = z in KN/m2

V '

= Effective overburden pressure = ' z KN/m2

Next step to find out cyclic stress ratio with reference soil resistance calculated with
corrected SPT value (CRR) 7.5

Liquefaction Analysis

The standard penetration Test (N) value observed in the field is to be corrected for various
Corrections such as i) over burden pressure (CN) ii) Hammer energy (CE) iii) Bore hole die
(CB) iv) presence or absence of liner (CS) v) Rod length (CR) and vi) fines content (Cfines)
Corrected N value is N60 i.e. obtained using the following equation
N60 = N x CN x CE x CB x CS x CR x C fines
Correction for over burden pressure CN (seed and Idriss, 1982)
V '
(2.2) / (1.2 + pa )

Where

= effective over burden pressure in Kpa

Pa =100Kpa
CN should not exceed 1.7
Correction for Hammer energy ratio: (Robertson and wride 1988)

Type of Hammers

Notation

Range of correction

Donut Hammer

CER

0.5-1.0

Safety Hammer

CER

0.7-1.2

Automatic-trip Donut Hammer

CER

0.8-1.3

The other correction factors such as bore hole dia, rod length, and sampling methods are
presented in the table
Correction factors for bore hole dia (CB), Rod length (CR) and sampling method (CS )
Correction factor for fine content Fin et al. 1995

Liquefaction Analysis

S.No

Factor

Equipment Variable

Notation

Correction

Bore hole dia

65-115mm

CB

1.0

Bore hole dia

150mm

CB

1.05

Bore hole dia

200mm

CB

1.15

Rod length

<3.0m

CR

0.75

Rod length

3-4m

CR

0.80

Rod length

4-6m

CR

0.85

Rod length

6-10m

CR

0.95

Rod length

10-30m

CR

1.00

Sampling method

Standard Samplers

CS

1.00

10

Sampling method

Samplers without liner

CS

1.1-1.3

The corrected N value CN60 are further corrected for fines content using the following
formula
N1(60) = N 60 X C fines
Where C fines = 1+ 0.004( FC ) + 0.055 (FC / N 60) and
FC = percent fines content (percent dry weight finer than 0.075 mm for deposits. Soil
resistance cyclic stress ratio is arrived based on corrected N value (seed et al 1985) and this is
proposed for a magnitude of 7.5 on the Ritchter scale. This is given in the graph for corrected
SPT blow count N1(60) and soil resistance cyclic resistance ratio.

Liquefaction Analysis

For the thesis work, this ratio is found out for the magnitude of 5, 6 and 7 applying the
magnify scaling factor MSF.
The magnify scaling factor for the magnitudes less than 7.5 is calculated using the following
equations:

MSF =

102.24
Mw 2.56

Where Mw = required magnitude of earth quake.

Factor of safety for liquefaction potential is calculated using

FS =

cyclic Resistance ratio ( CRR 7.5 )

cyclic stress ratio CSR

MSF

The factor of safety of different layers of soil strata are arrived at and identified the severity
of potential of liquefaction whether high, moderate and low and nil. As per the results,
microzonation is done.
For making microzonation, 30 areas have been selected in and around the Hyderabad city of
AP. The geotechnical data has been obtained from Geotechnical services organisations which
are attending the sub surface exploration for various construction of multi residential or
commercial buildings required to assess the safe bearing capacity of various foundations.

4.4 THE FOLLOWING ARE THE AREAS WHERE EXPLORATIONS

HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR WHICH SPT VALUES AND FINE
CONTENTS ARE AVAILABLE
1. Ameerpet
2. BHEL- Ramachandrapuram-1
3. BHEL- Ramachandrapuram-2
4. Dilsuknagar
Liquefaction Analysis

5. Erram manzil
6. ESI Hospital Ramachandra puram
7. Gandipet
8. Hafizpet
9. High court Nayapal
10. Hitech city-1
11. Hitech city-2
12. Hitech city-3
13. Kachiguda
14. Manikonda-1
15. Manikonda-2
16. Medchal
17. Moosapet
18. Musarambagh
19. Nacharam
20. Nagaram
21. Nampally
22. Nasheerbagh
23. Papulguda
24. Patancheruvu
25. Punjaguta

Liquefaction Analysis

26. Saroor nagar

27. Shaikpet-1
28. Shaikpet-2
29. Serilingampally
30. Uppal
For these areas seismic bore logs have been prepared for different depths. This
seismic bore log contains SPT value, Density, Total stress (T S), Effective stress (ES) , over
burden correction(CN) and Correction factors for such as Hammer effect (CE), Bore hole
dia(CB) , Rod length (CR), Sampling method(CS), correction for SPT N value considering the
errors into account(N60), Fines content (%),corrections for fines content(CFC) and ultimately
corrected (N60) value considering the correction for fines content into account(N1(60)).
And table is prepared for finding out the factor of safetys for earthquake magnitudes
of 5, 6, and 7. The table contains, depth of considerations, corrected SPT value N 1(60) brought
from seismic bore log., total over burden pressure, effective over burden pressure from the
seismic bore log, Ratio of Total Stress and Effective Stress, stress reduction factor, Cyclic
Stress Ratio(CSR), Fines content (%), Type of strata, soil resistance ratio with reference to
corrected N value from graph at earthquake magnitude of 7.5, Magnifying Scaling factors for
earthquake magnitudes of 5,6, and 7 have been calculated, accordingly factor of safety for
earthquake magnitudes of 5,6, and 7 have been determined.
Generally the depth of water table will be at deeper depth in Hyderabad city. But depth of
water table is assumed for certain areas and calculated, effective over burden pressure. Since
there is a possibility of increasing the water table in rainy season and due to any seeping
activity happened due to stagnation of water in low lying areas.
After examining the factor of safetys calculated no area is proned for liquefaction
except two areas where FS is obtained at BHEL Ramachandrapuram-1, BHEL
Ramachandrapuram-2, for the earthquake magnitudes of 7 which falls under Moderate
activity. For other sites liquefaction activity fall under Low to Nil for the magnitudes of 5,6
and 7. From the typical graph, it is observed factor of safety decreases as the earthquake
magnitude increases. By and large there is no possibility of getting liquefaction even under

Liquefaction Analysis

magnitude of earthquake of 7.0. As per the records for the within the Hyderabad city
earthquake of magnitude 2 to 5 were occurred in the past. It comes under the zone II as per
1893-2002.

Liquefaction Analysis