290

LIQUEFACATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

Shamsher Prakash1 and Vijay K. Puri2

ABSTRACT

The liquefaction behavior of silts and silt clay mixers was investigated over a range of
plasticity index values of interest by conducting cyclic triaxial tests and was compared
with that of sand. It was found that saturated silts with plastic fines behave differently
from sands both with regard to rate of development of pore water pressure and axial
deformations with number of load cycles. The results also showed that liquefaction
susceptibility of silts shows a marked change with change in the plasticity index values.
For a PI range of 2-4%, the liquefaction resistance of silt was fond to decrease with an
increase in plasticity. The results of the investigation were compared with available
information and reasonable agreement was noted.

Key Words: Liquefaction, Soils, Fine Grained, Silt, Clay, Plasticity

Introduction

Most earlier studies on liquefaction were devoted to sands. The present state of the art on
liquefaction of sands has progressed to a stage that reasonable estimates of liquefaction potential
can be made based on laboratory investigations or on simple in-situ test data such as standard
penetration values ( N1 or (N1)60 ) or on cone penetration data, and the experience during the past
earthquakes,(Arulanandan et al.1986, Mitchell and Tseng 1990, Robertson 1990, Seed 1976,1979
Seed and Idriss 1981, Seed and DeAlba, 1986, Seed and Harder 1990, Idriss 1991,Youd and
Idriss ,2001 and Youd et. al, 2001).

The cyclic stress approach (Seed and Idriss 1981) and the cyclic strain approach (Dobry et
al 1982) are commonly used for evaluation of liquefaction potential of sands and fine grained
soils such as silts, clayey silts and sands with fines and silty soils were considered non-
liquefiable. However, the observations following the Haicheng (1975) and Tangshan (1976)
earthquakes indicate that many cohesive soils had liquefied. These cohesive soils had clay
fraction less than 20%, liquid limit between 21-35%, plasticity index between 4% and 14% and
water content more than 90% of their liquid limit. Kishida (1969) reported liquefaction of soils
with upto 70% fines and 10% clay fraction during Mino-Owar, Tohankai and Fukui earthquakes.

1
Emeritus Professor, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401
2
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
 Tohno and Yasuda (1981) reported that soils with fines up to 90% and clay content of 18 %
exhibited liquefaction during Tokachi –Oki earthquake of 1968. Soils with up to 48 % fines and
18 % clay content were found to have liquiefied during the Hokkaido Nansai –Oki earthquake
of 1993. Gold mine tailings liquefied during the Oshima- Kinkai earthquake in Japan (Ishihara,
1984). These tailings had silt sized particles and liquid limit of 31%, plasticity index of 10 % and
water content of 37 %.
Seed et al (1983) found that some soils with fines may be susceptible to liquefaction.
Such soils (based on Chinese criteria) appear to have the following characteristics:

Percent finer than 0.005 mm (5 microns) ‹15%

Liquid limit ‹ 35 %
Water content › 90 % of liquid limit

Seed et al., (2001) observed that there is significant controversy and confusion regarding
the liquefaction potential of silty soils (and silty /clayey soils), and also coarser, gravelly
soils and rockfills. Finn et al., (1994), Perlea et al., (1999) and Andrews and Martin
(2000) have provided general criteria about liquefaction susceptibility of soils with fines.
The findings of Andrews and Martin (2000) are summarized in table 1 below. For use of
table 1, the clays refers to fraction finer than 2 μm and liquid limit should be determined
by Cassagrande- type percussion equipment.

Table1. Liquefaction susceptibility of silty and clayey sands (Andrew and Martins, 2000)

Liquid limit < 32 Liquid limit ≥ 32

Clay content Susceptible Further studies required

< 10 % (Considering plastic non-clay
sized grains such as Mica)

Clay content Further studies required Not susceptible

> 10 % (Considering non-plastic
clay sized grains such as
mine and quarry tailings

It may be mentioned here that in soils in which the fines content is sufficient to
separate the coarser particles, the nature of the fines controls the behavior (Ishihara 1993). Low
plasticity or non-plastic silts and silty sands may be highly susceptible to liquefaction. This will
be the case when PI is less than 10. For soils with moderately plastic fines ( fines content more
than about 15 % and 8 ≤ PI ≤ 15 ), the liquefaction behavior may be uncertain and may need
further investigation. It is obvious that it is still not possible to evaluate the likelihood of
liquefaction of silts or silty clays with the same confidence as for clean sand.

2
 Present Investigation

Dynamic triaxial tests were conducted on 73.65 mm (diameter) and 147.3 mm (high) samples of
two different types of silts (A and B) to determine the effect of plasticity index on susceptibility
to liquefaction. The index properties of these silts are given below:

Soil A Soil B

Percent finer than 75 μ (0.075 mm) 93-98 96-98

Natural water content % 18-26 ---
Liquid limit 32.0 -36.0 24.2-26.6
Plastic limit 21.5-25.0 22.5-23.0
Plasticity index 9 -14 (mostly ≈ 10) 1.6-1.8
Clay content (‹ 2μm) 2.0 – 7.2 %
Specific gravity of soil particles 2.71 2.725
Particle size D50 mm 0.06 0.022

Soil A is a naturally occurring silt. The PI of this silt was altered by adding the clay
fraction obtained from this soil itself (Puri, 1984). The tests on silt A were conducted at PI = 10,
15 and 30. The PI of silt B was varied in the low plasticity range by adding kaolinite. The tests on
silt B were conducted at PI = 1.7, 2.6 and 3.4 (Sandoval 1989)
A typical data for the tests for one test on silt A is shown in figure 1. It is seen form this
figure that for the case of silt samples tested the failure defined by 5 % or 10 % double
amplitude axial strains occurs before the condition of initial liquefaction defined by u = σ 3
occurs. Similar trend has been observed by other investigators also during cyclic strength tests on
silt samples (Singh 1994)
Figure 2. shows the effect of plasticity index on cyclic stress ratio inducing 5% DA strain
in a given number of load cycles. Increase in PI value is seen to increase the cyclic stress ratio.
The trend of the data from other tests was similar with the exception that that for the case of
PI=20, the condition u= σ 3 did not develop within the range of cyclic load applications used in
this study.

Typical results of the investigation on samples of silt B showing the effect of plasticity index (PI
= 1.7%, 2.6% and 3.4%) on the cyclic stress ratio causing initial liquefaction in any given number
of cycles are shown in Fig. 3. It is clear from this figure that the cyclic stress ratio causing
liquefaction in a given number of cycles decreases with the increase in plasticity index. It was
observed during the testing phase that cyclic loading of plastic silts results in pore pressure build
up which becomes equal to the initial effective confining pressure resulting in development of the
initial liquefaction. This is just opposite the case when PI of 10% or greater (Silt A).

3
 OCR = 1
PI = 10

Figure 1. Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Number of Cycles for

Reconstituted Saturated Samples, silt A, For σ 3 = 15 psi
C ycles S tress R atio (σ d /2 σ 3 )

0.6
Failure Condition 5 % D.A
0.5 PI = 10
PI = 15
0.4
PI = 20

0.3
0.2

0.1

0
1 10 100 1000
Number of Cycles

Figure 2. Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Number of Cycles for

Reconstituted Saturated Samples, silt A, For σ 3 =10 psi

Combining results for silts A and B with CSR normalized at void ratio of 0.74, (Prakash and
Guo, 1998) leads to results as shown in Fig. 4. It is observed from this figure that for PI values of
less than about 4% the cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction in any given number of cycles
decreases with an increase in PI values. For PI values beyond about 4%, the cyclic stress ratio
causing initial liquefaction in any given number of cycles increases with an increase in the PI
values. Based on these results, it may

4
Figure 3 Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Number of Cycles for Low Plasticity Silts for Inducing
Initial Liquefaction Condition at 15 psi Effective Confining Pressure; PI = 1.7, 2.6, and 3.4, for
Density 97.2-99.8 pcf, and w = 8% (Sandoval 1989; Prakash and Sandoval 1992)

Figure 4 Cyclic Stress Ratio versus Plasticity Index for Silt-Clay Mixtures (CSR Normalized to
initial Void Ration e0 = 0.74)

5
Figure 5 Normalized cyclic Stress Ratio versus plasticity Index on Undisturbed samples
(After El Hosri et al 1984)

be inferred that there is a critical value of PI at which saturated samples of silt–clay measured
mixtures have a minimum resistance to cyclic loading or highest susceptibility to liquefaction.
For PI value below the critical value, liquefaction susceptibility increases with an increase in the
PI value. In this case, this critical value of PI is about 4%; the limited nature of the study does not
justify any general conclusion. It is worth mentioning here that data of ElHosri et al., (1984) on
undisturbed sample Fig.5 also suggests a similar effect of PI on cyclic stress ratio causing
liquefaction as observed during the present investigation.

Conclusions

It may be concluded that:

(1)The silts and silt–clay mixtures behave differently from sands, both with respect to
development and build up of pore water pressures, and deformations under cyclic loading.
(2)There are several gaps in the existing literature and no guidelines are available and there is no
definite criterion to ascertain the liquefaction susceptibility of silts and silt-clay mixtures from
simple index properties or simple field tests.

REFERENCES:

Andrews, D.C.A. and Martin G.R. (2000) “Criteria for Liquefaction of Silty Soils”, Proc. 12th
WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand

Arulndandan, K., Yogachandran, C., Meegoda, N. J., Ying, L, and Zhauji, S. (1986)
“Comparision of the SPT, CPT, SV and Electrical Methods of Eevaluating Earthquake Induced
Liquefaction Susceptibility in Ying Kou City during the Haicheng Earthquake” Proc., Use of In
Situ Tests in Geotech. Engrg., Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 6, ASCE, New York, N. Y., 389-415

6
Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M. and Powell, D., (1982) “Prediction of Pore
Pressure Build up and Liquefaction of Sands During Earthquake by Cyclic Strain Method”,
National Bureau of Standards, N.B.S. Building Science Series 138

Finn, W. D.L., Ledbetter, R. H., R.L. Fleming, R.L. ,Jr., Templeton, A.E. , Forrest, T.W., and
Stacy, S.T. (1991) “Dam on Liquefiable Foundation: Safety Assessment and Remediation” Proc.
17th International Congress on Large Dams, Vienna, pp. 531-553

El Hosri, M.S., J. Biarez, J. and. Hicher, P.Y.(1984) “Liquefaction Characteristics of Silty Clay”,
8th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Prentice-Hall Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J., 3. 277-284

Ishihara, K. (1984) “Post-Earthquake Failure of a Tailings Dam due to Liquefaction of the Pond
Deposit”. Proc. Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engrg. St. Louis, Missouri, Vol. 3,
1129-1143

Ishihara, K.(1993) ”Liquefaction of natural deposits during earthquakes”, Proc. 11th ICSMFE,
SanFrancisco,1, 321-376

Kishida, H.(1969) “Characteristics of Liquefied Sands during Mino-Owari, Tohnankai, and

Fukui Earthquakes”. Soils and Foundations, 9(1): 75-92

Mitchell, J.K. and Tseng, D.J. (1990) “Assessment of Liquefaction Potential by Cone Penetration
Rresistance” Proc., H.B. Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishing, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada, 335-350

Perlea, V.G., Koester, J.P. and Prakash, S. (1999) “How Liquefiable are Cohesive Soils?” Proc.
Second Int Conf on Earthquake Geotechnical Engg., Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 2, 611-618

Prakash, S. and Guo, T. (1998) “Liquefaction of silts with clay content” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, ACSE, Seattle, WA, Vol. I, pp 337-348

Puri, V.K. (1984) “Liquefaction Behavior and Dynamic Properties of Loessial (silty) Soils” Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Missouri – Rolla, Missouri

Robertson, P.K. (1990) “Cone Penetration Testing for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential” Proc.,
Symp. On Recent Advances in Earthquake Des. Using Lab. And In Situ Tests, ConeTec
Investigations Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Sandoval, J.A. (1989) “Liquefaction and Settlement Characteristics of Silt Soils” PhD thesis,
University of Missouri – Rolla, MO

Seed, H.B. (1976) “Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground During
Earthquakes”, Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Annual Convention
and Exposition, Philadelphia, PA, October, pp 1-109

7
Seed H.B. (1979) “Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation of Level Ground During
Earthquakes”, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASSCE, Vol. 105, No. GT2,
February, pp. 201-255

Seed H.B., and De Alba (1986) “Use of SPT and CPT tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction
Resistance of Sands” Proc., INSITU ’86, ASCE Spec. Conf. on Use of In Situ testing in
Geotechnical Engg., Spec. Publ. No. 6, ASCE, New York, N.Y

Seed R.B. and Harder Jr., L.F. (1990) “SPT-based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation
and Undrained Residual Strength”: Proc., H.B.Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishing,
Vancouver, B. C., Canada, 351-376

Seed H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1981) “Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits Based
on Observations and Performance in Previous Earthquakes”, Pre-print No. 81-544, In Situ
Testing to Evaluate Liquefaction Susceptibility, ASCE Annual Convention, St. Louis, October

Seed H.B. and Idriss, I.M. and I. Arango (1983) “Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential using
Field PerformanceDdata.” Journal of Geotechnical Engg, ASCE, 109(3); 458-482

Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M. and Riemer,
M.F. (2001) “Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering and Seismic Site Response
Evaluation”, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earth. Engrg. Ans Soil Dynamics,
San Diego

Singh, S., (1994) “Liquefaction Characteristics of Silts”, Session on Ground Failures under
Seismic Conditions, Proceedings , ASCE National Convention , Special Publication No. 44,
pp.105-116

Tohno, I. and Yasuda, S. (1981) “Liquefaction of the Ground During the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki
earthquake” Soils and Foundations, 21(3), 18-34

Youd T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (2001) “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10,
pp. 297-313

Youd T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andurus, Ronald D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R.,
Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Haymes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcusson,
W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y, Power, M.C., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B. and
Stokoe, K.H. (2001) “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp 817-833

Zhu, R. and Law, K.T. (1998) “Liquefaction Potential of Silt” Proceedings, Ninth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, August, Vl. III. 237-242