International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp.

2553-2557
Geotec., Const. Mat. & Env., ISSN: 2186-2982(Print), 2186-2990(Online), Japan

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT

BASED ON LABORATORY TEST

Abdul Hakam1, Febrin Anas Ismail1 and Fauzan1

1
CivilEngineering, Andalas University, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: The physical properties of sand soil which give effect to the resistance of liquefaction include
grain size and density. Those physical properties of sand soil associated to liquefaction resistance have been
studied in laboratory. Based on that study, the method to assess the liquefaction potential then is proposed. In
laboratory tests, the vibration source is given by using the shaking table. During the tests, the acceleration
and settlement are recorded. It then concluded that there is a relationship between density and gain size
particles associated with liquefaction resistance for certain acceleration of vibration. The cone penetration
and relative density relationship has been developed based on experiments in laboratory. Based on the results
of those laboratory tests, the liquefaction potential of a certain site then assessed. It is found that the relative
density and mean gain size relationship can be used to assess liquefaction potential in sand deposits.

Keywords: Liquefaction, Earthquake, Soil particle size, Relative density, Laboratory test

1. INTRODUCTION Kramer in 1996 [9] has summarized a number of

methods to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a
The liquefaction potential assessment in a soil soil deposit. Those are the liquefaction history, the
deposit is an important aspect of geotechnical geological process, the soil type and fine size
earthquake engineering practice since Niigata particles, soil density and effective stress at the
earthquake in 1964. Based on the occurrence of time it is subjected to shaking. It has been
liquefaction and field test data a method named summarized number of factors that affect soil
"simplified method" was proposed [1]. The liquefaction resistance in [10], that are:
liquefaction potential assessment at the coast of - Relative density, Dr
Padang using 'simplified method' has been - Initial stress of the soil, si
presented [2]. The application of this method - Mean grain size of the soil, D50
actually is not as simple as its name. It involves - Applied peak acceleration, amax
many factors that rarely used in civil engineering - Duration of the motion, t
such as earthquake magnitude and depth factor. - Over consolidation ratio, OCR
This procedure has been continuously improved - Initial pore pressure, ui
based on a number of liquefaction histories around
the world [3]. Based on these methods, further Even though historically, sands were
Shibata and Teparaksa [4] developed a method for considered to be the only type of soil susceptible to
evaluating the liquefaction potential based Cone liquefaction, but observation showed that fine-
Penetration Test results. grained soil also been suffered from liquefaction.
The analysis of liquefaction susceptible using The fine-grained soils may have a tendency to
Cone Penetration data at several locations in the liquefy under a vibration load if they satisfy the
city of Padang due to the 2009 earthquake has Chinese criteria [11] that are:
been presented [5]. Although these penetration- - Fraction < 0.005 mm less than 15%
based methods (SPT and CPT) and cyclic stress - Liquid Limit, LL less than 35%
ratio are well developed, but in the use still require - Natural water content more than 0.9 LL
advanced knowledge in choosing the parameters as - Liquidity Index less than 0.75
discussed in [6].
The application of liquefaction potential by Based on the grain size analysis test from
using the data of mean grain size and standard several location due to Kocaeli earthquake in
penetration test values has been demonstrated [7]. Turkey in 1999 [12] and due to Padang earthquake
In this study, the mean grain diameter is used for 2009, it have been reported the results of sieve
determining in undrained cyclic resistance. The analysis tests of liquefied soil samples as shown in
results of that study are presented in the Figure 2 (shadowed). The soil gradation of Padang
liquefaction potential maps. is just in the middle of liquefaction boundaries
In the past it has been summarized that the from Aydan. The distribution of liquefied soil
newly deposited loose sands under the shallow particle in Padang generally composed fine sand
ground water are susceptible to liquefaction [8].
2553
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 2553-2557

more than 60%. The fine content of liquefies soil Therefore, this study is conducted to find out a
of Padang is less than 20%. The mean grain size relationship between density and gain size particles
D50 is about 0.15mm to 0.35mm. associated with liquefaction resistance for certain
0.5 acceleration of vibration which is simply can be
used to assess liquefaction potential of soil
deposits. The simple liquefaction potential
rasio tegangan siklis
Cyclic stress ratio

0.4
assessment is important to have good estimation of
the liquefaction problem. In this paper, the
0.3
application of liquefaction potential assessment
based on laboratory experiments is presented. The
4 8
0.2 10 factors have been considered in the laboratory
12 experiments are:
0.1 - Relative density, Dr
- Cone resistance of the soil, qc
0.0 - Mean grain size of the soil, D50
- Applied peak acceleration, amax
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
N1 - Duration of the motion, t
Fig. 1 Liquefaction using ‘simplified method’ [2].
100 2. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Liquefied soils
A series of laboratory testing has been done by
80 placing indicator bar on soil samples in the round
container. In these tests the relative density Dr and
the mean grain size D50 are varied. The samples
% passing

60 are placed on the shaking table and then vibrated

for 0.3g and 0.6g accelerations. During the testing
the acceleration and the settlement of the indicator
Potentially liq. soil 40 bar are recorded. The acceleration of 0.3g is the
same as the maximum acceleration of the Padang
20 earthquake in 2009. Meanwhile the value of 0.6g is
the maximum acceleration for Padang city
according to Indonesian code.
0 In field liquefaction, a seismic shaking can
cause sand deposit to loose its contract and
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
increase the water pore pressure. It happens
Grain size (mm) because the seismic shaking occurs relatively fast
Fig. 2 Grain size limit for liquefaction [10]. and the soil performs an undrained loading. If soil
has reached liquefaction condition then the
Based on the field case histories on evaluation effective stress in soil mass is decreased hence its
of liquefaction potential for 50-year around the shear strength can drop. In the liquefaction the
world [13], mean grain size of liquefied soils are individual soil particles are released from any
presented in Figure 3. It can be seen that from confinement [14].
those 155 occurrences of liquefaction, 78% of The same phenomenon in these experiments
liquefaction happened on the soil with mean grain when liquefaction occurs in the sample, the shear
size between 0.113 to 0.338 mm. strength of the soil dropped thus the indicator bar
will settle down during the shaking. The rate of
settlement during shaking is approximately 0.1
D50 Aydan
cm/sec is taken as the separation criterion of
settlement rate values. The rate settlement more
than 0.1 cm/sec indicated that liquefaction has
60
happened in this saturated soil samples. The
Occurrence

50
40 general results of the tests are shown in Figure 4.
30 The linear boundary line is made up for each
20 acceleration 0.3g and 0.6g.
10
Since Cone Penetration Test is very famous in
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
practice, the qc – Dr relationship become essential
grain size (mm) for liquefaction potential analysis based on Cone
Fig. 3 D50 for liquefied soils, based on [12]. Penetration Test (CPT). The calibration studies of
2554
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 2553-2557

the qc is effected by sand density, in-situ effective confirmed that the liquefaction happened during
stress and sand compressibility. Sand the 2009 earthquake.
compressibility is controlled by grain
characteristics, such as grain size, shape and
mineralogy. The qc – Dr relationships for sand then
is written as follows [15]:

Dr = C2(-1) ln Q/C0 (1)

Where C0=15.7, C2=2.41 and Q=(qc/pa)/(s’/pa)-0.5.

Here pa is reference pressure taken as 100kPa, in
the same unit as qc and s’.
100
90 amax = 0.3 g
80 > 0.1 cm/sec.
70 < 0.1 cm/sec
60
Dr (%)

amax = 0.6 g
50 > 0.1 cm/sec.
40 < 0.1 cm/sec. Fig. 5 Liquefaction in Padang due to
30 earthquake 2009.
20 0.3 g 0.6 g
10 Table 1 Parameter for liquefaction assessment
0
0,01 0,1 1 10
Grain size (mm)
Dept D50 qc Dr
Fig. 4 Dr – D50 for liquefaction test. Name (m) (mm) (kg/cm2) (%)
D0.5 0.5 0.2 17 3
3. LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT
D1.0 1.0 0.25 25 5
During Padang earthquake 2009 with the D1.5 1.5 0.25 50 25
maximum acceleration of 0.3g, there are many
locations along the shore suffered from D2.0 2.0 0.25 65 30
liquefaction. Soil liquefaction induced by the M7.6
of Padang earthquake has contributed to damage of 100
houses dan many facilities including roadway,
0.5 m
river bank, sport court and play ground. The 80
1.0 m
liquefactions on sites of Padang were indicated by
% passing

sand boils right after the earthquake were observed 60 1.5 m

on a number of sites as shown in Figure 5. 2.0 m

40
One of those location is Pasir Jambak district
where has sand deposit and very shallow water 20
table. The field soil testing using Cone Penetration
Test (CPT) has been conducted. The soil samples 0
also have been taken from the site to investigate 0,01 0,1 1 10
soil particle distributions. The test results are Grain size (mm)
presented in Figures 6 and 7.
Table 1 shows the mean grain size of sand Fig. 6 Particle distribution of Pasir Jambak
which is determined from the grain distribution sand.
chart and relative density is calculated using
equation (1) with the unit volume of 12 kN/m3. In the same chart it also shows the line of
Both values of Relative density, Dr and Mean acceleration of 0.6g which the maximum
grain size, D50 are then plotted in the 'Liquefaction acceleration for Padang city in Indonesian Code.
Chart' as shown in in the Figure 8. The maximum The points are under the line of 0.6g which
acceleration of Padang earthquake is about 0.3g. It indicated that the site is prone to liquefaction in
shows that point D0.5 just in the 0.3g line which case of future earthquake according to the code.

2555
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 2553-2557

qc (kg/cm2) assess liquefaction potential in any certain sand

0 20 40 60 80 100 deposits.
0,00
5. REFERENCES
0,50
[1] Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., ‘‘Simplified
procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction
1,00
potential.’’ J. Geotech. Engg. Div. , ASCE,
depth (m)

97(9) , 1971, pp 1249–1273

1,50 [2] Hakam, A. and Darjanto, “Liquefaction
potential assessment of Padang Beach Based
2,00 on grain size and standard penetration
resistance” (in Indonesia: Penelusuran Potensi
2,50 Likuifaksi Pantai Padang Berdasarkan Gradasi
Butiran dan Tahanan Penetrasi Standar),
3,00
Jurnal Teknik Sipil – ITB, Vol. 20 No. 1,
April 2013, pp. 33-38
Fig. 7 CPT of Pasir Jambak.
[3] Seed, H. Bolton dan Idriss I.M., Ground
Motion and Soil Liquefaction During
amax: 0.3 g Earthquake, Earthquake Engineering Research
g = 0.3 g
0.6amax Institute, Berkeley, 1982
> 0.1 cm/se [4] Shibata, T. and Teparaksa, W., “Evaluation of
< 0.1 cm/se liquefaction potential of soils using cone
penetration tests”, J. Soils and Foundations,
amax = 0.6 g
Vol. 28., N0. 2, 1998, pp. 49-60
> 0.1 cm/se
[5] Hakam, A., “Soil Liquefaction of Padang due
D2.0 < 0.1 cm/se to Padang Earthquake 30s’09”, The Journal of
Civil Engineering Dimension, Volume 14, no
D1.5 2, 2012, pp. 64-68
D0.5 D1.0 [6] Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (2001).
“Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshop on evaluation of
liquefaction resistance of soils”, J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engg.,
Fig. 8 Dr – D50 for Pasir Jambak assessment.
ASCE, April 2001, pp. 297-313
[7] Habibullah B Md. , Pokhrel, R. M. , Kuwano J.
4. CONCLUSION
and Tachibana S. , “GIS-Based Soil
Liquefaction Hazard Zonation due to
This paper presented that relative density and
Earthquake Using Geotechnical Data”, Int. J.
mean particle size can be associated with the
of GEOMATE, March, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Sl.
liquefaction susceptibility of soil deposits.
No. 3), pp. 154-160
Liquefaction resistance of the sands increases with
[8] Day R. W., , Geotechnical Earthquake
the relative density and mean particle size. Both
Engineering Handbook, The McGraw-Hill
relative density and mean particle size give unique
Comp., 2002
relationship for resistance of sand soil against
[9] Kramer,S.L., Geotechnical Earthquake
shaking.
Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
Here, the liquefaction assessment of Pasir
N.J., 1996
Jambak deposit due to the Padang earthquake 2009
[10] Das, BM., , Fundamental of Soil Dynamics,
is presented. It is shown that the sand deposit in a
Elsevier Pub., New York, 1983
certain depth is potential to liquefaction due to
[11] Wang, W. S., “Some Findings in Soil
0.3g earthquake. The sand on the site for all depth
Liquefaction”, Report Water Conservancy and
is also predicted may be liquefied due to the
Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research
earthquake with the maximum acceleration of 0.6g.
Institute, Beijing, China, August 1979, pp.
This analysis shown in this paper is
1-17.
practically simple to estimate the liquefaction
[12] Aydan, O., Ulusay, R. and Atak, VO.,
potential. Thus the relationship Relative density
“Evaluation of ground deformations induced
and Mean grain size chart further can be used to
by the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake (Turkey) at

2556
 International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 2553-2557

selected sites on shorelines”, Environ Geol [15] Robertson P. K. and Cabal K.L., Guide to
(2008) 54. , 2008, pp. 165–182 Cone Penetration Testing, GREGG inc., 2010.
[13] Cetin K. O., Seed R. B., Moss R. E. S., Der
Kiureghian A., Tokimatsu K., Harder, Jr. L. F., International Journal of GEOMATE, Oct., 2016,
and Kayen R. E., , Field Case Histories for Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 2553-2557.
SPT-Based In Situ Liquefaction Potential MS No 5253 received on August 15, 2015 and
Evaluation, Geotechnical Engineering reviewed under GEOMATE publication policies.
Research Report No. UCB/GT-2000109, Copyright © 2016, Int. J. of GEOMATE. All
Department of Civil and Env. Engineering, rights reserved, including the making of copies
California University, Berkeley., 2000 unless permission is obtained from the copyright
[14] Ishihara. K., ”Stability of Natural Deposits proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
during Earthquakes”, Proc. The 11th authors’ closure, if any, will be published in Oct.
International Conf. on Soil Mechanics and 2017 if the discussion is received by April 2017.
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 1985, Corresponding Author: Abdul Hakam
Vol. 1. pp. 321-376

2557