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

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

are further divided into sub-groups on the basis of was followed using normalized CPT tip resistance and
adopted methodology. 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-
2 Literature Review grained soils, however the factor of safety was
determined based on Su values obtained from uncon-
Liquefaction frequently occurs in saturated loose sand solidated undrained triaxial test. The soft clays in the
during application of dynamic and seismic loads. After proposed study area have high sensitivity which
the occurrence of Alaska and Niigata earthquakes concluded that the cyclic disturbance can cause a
(1964), Seed and Lee (1966), Seed and Idriss (1971) significant loss in shear strength for soils with high
developed a methodology known as ’Simplified sensitivity. Lately, it was observed that the addition of
Approach’ for assessing liquefaction potential of fine content in cohesionless soil will affect the
cohesionless soil during an earthquake which uses liquefaction behaviour under monotonic as well as
laboratory data of cyclic triaxial loading tests. This cyclic loading.
method takes into consideration of soil type, relative Krim et al. (2019) studied the influence of clay
density, initial confining pressure, intensity and dura- content and grading characteristics on the liquefaction
tion of ground shaking. This simplified procedure has resistance of sand–clay mixtures using triaxial tests
been modified and updated by various researchers. performed on reformed sand–clay mixtures varying
Seed (1979) made an attempt to develop correlations clay content. The liquefaction resistance is found to be
between liquefaction potential and standard penetra- reduced with increase in clay content. It was also
tion resistance (SPT). These SPT (N values) obtained concluded that liquefaction resistance may be con-
in the field need to be corrected for accounting the trolled by varying percentage of clay fraction as well
effect of overburden pressure. Seed et al. (1983) as grading characteristics of the sample. Dash et al.
established a criterion for assessing the liquefaction (2010) studied the effect of non-plastic fines on the
potential of sandy soils from interpretation of field behavior of silty sand subjected to cyclic loading. The
data for different sites with their known status as results obtained from experimental investigation con-
liquefied or not liquefied in respective earthquakes in cludes that nature of soil deposits plays an important
the different countries. The results of this study are role in defining the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and
then extended to other magnitude earthquakes incor- pore water pressure generation which occurs during
porating the magnitude scaling factor in evaluation for earthquake. Dash and Sitharam (2010) carried a
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) induced by an earthquake at a detailed study on the effects of non-plastic fines on
given depth. Later several researchers proposed undrained monotonic behaviour of saturated and
different empirical methods based on field tests such isotopically consolidated sand–silt mixtures prepared
as Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Cone Penetration at different density through various approaches
Test (CPT), Becker Penetration Test (BPT), Shear namely gross void ratio approach, relative density
wave velocity results. Idriss sand Boulanger (2006) approach, sand skeleton void ratio approach, and inter-
recommended revised semi-empirical procedures for fine void ratio approach. The results concluded that
accessing the liquefaction potential of saturated sands. limiting silt content and the relative density of a
Revised SPT and CPT based liquefaction correlations specimen were found to influence the undrained
were recommended for use in practice after re- monotonic response of sand–silt mixtures to a great
evaluations of key parameters such as the stress extent whereas undrained monotonic response was
reduction factor (rd), earthquake magnitude scaling found to be independent of silt content at very high
factor for cyclic stress ratios, overburden correction relative densities; however the presence of fines
factor for cyclic stress ratios (Ks), and the overburden significantly influenced this response in case loose
correction factor for penetration resistances (CN). and medium dense samples.
Bilsel et al. (2010) carried out case study for deter- Even observations made during numerous earth-
mination of factor of safety against liquefaction based quakes show proof of liquefaction in silts and clayey
on CPT, SPT and undrained shear strength (Su) of soil of low plasticity as well. These type of soil dilate
alluvial soils of Tuzla. For sandy soils, the procedure extensively throughout shearing. Once liquefaction

123
Geotech Geol Eng

starts, the soil subjected to cyclic loading may undergo the limit in between clay and silt particles. Also,
a temporary shear strength loss instead of a permanent Casagrande’s Apparatus should be used for obtaining
loss i.e., cyclic mobility with limited flow deformation liquid limit. It was also concluded that soils of 2 lm
(Bray and Sancio 2006). Therefore, the response of size having percentage finer less than 10% and
soil deposit in seismic condition is less likely to cause LL \ 32%,were susceptible to liquefaction whereas
large deformations unlike lateral spreading which are the soils having C 10% finer than 2 lm and LL
mostly found in saturated and loose sands due to C 32% were not susceptible to liquefaction. Still no
liquefaction.Therefore, liquefaction and cyclic mobil- reliable and accurate standards are available for
ity of fine grained soils must be studied thoroughly. consideration of fine content in evaluation of lique-
Wang (1979) had discussed Chinese Criteria which faction susceptibility. Observation made in past
was initially recommended for seismic design of earthquake depicts that the use of clay-size particle
hydraulic structures which directed that liquefaction percentage for the evaluation of liquefaction suscep-
can occur during a strong seismic motion in any silty tibility is misleading. Even Chinese criteria was found
soil. However, this criteria did not include the soil with out to be unreliable. The major shortcoming of the
low plasticity. Koester(1992) later suggested appro- ‘‘Chinese Criteria’’ is that the liquefaction potential is
priate changes into this criteria because liquid limit not associated with the intensity of shaking. Based on
(LL) determined using the Casagrande’s cup (United ‘‘Chinese Criteria’’, any soil meeting the mentioned
States Practice) was 4 points less than liquid limit criteria should be considered susceptible to liquefac-
evaluated using Fall cone device (Chinese practice). tion, irrespective of the level of shaking, which was
Seed and Idriss (1982) re-evaluated Wang (1979) later contradicted by many researchers. Zhou (1987)
theory and suggested criteria based on liquid limit and proposed the relation between intensity of earthquake
water content. Earthquake occurred during Northridge and clay percentage causing liquefaction. It was
(1994), Kocaeli (1999) and Chi-Chi (1999) revealed suggested that liquefaction will not occur if the clay
that fine-grained soil deposits which liquefied under content (Pc) in a soil is more than the critical
the seismic condition did not fulfilled the clay-size percentage (Pc*). The relation in between critical clay
criterion as stated in Chinese criteria, yet these site percentage (Pc*) and intensity of earthquake (I) are
underwent liquefaction. This raised the question on the defined in Table 1.
reliability of Chinese criteria. The reason behind this Umar et al. (2018) concluded that earthquake
contradiction directed to modify the method of magnitude plays very important role for the assess-
determination of soil index such as liquid limit which ment of liquefaction, irrespective of soil type and
is different from American Society for Testing and water table of the site using deterministic and prob-
Materials (ASTM) International’s procedure. Finn abilistic approach.
(1991) suggested scaling in Chinese criteria in accor- Studies carried out in early 19800 s at University of
dance with United States (US) practice. It was Missouri–Rolla (UMR) (now Missouri University of
suggested that fines content should be decrease by Science & Technology) also acknowledges the effect
5% whereas liquid limit and water content should be of plasticity of soil on the liquefaction of silts based
increased by 1% and 2% respectively. Ishihara (1993) laboratory test data. It was observed that the cyclic
suggested that cyclic shear strength of the soil will stress ratio (CSR) causing liquefaction decreases with
increases if the Plasticity Index (PI) of the fines is the increase in plasticity index.
greater than 10. This would lead to increase in factor of
safety against liquefaction and thus decrease the
Table 1 Critical clay percentage (Pc*) verses intensity of
settlement caused during earthquake. Andrews and
earthquake (I)
Martin (2000) reviewed the empirical approach and
suggested a new assessment index. This index trans- Intensity of Earthquake (I) Critical clay percentage [Pc*]
formed the conventional Chinese Criteria according to 7 10%
US standards which was renamed as Modified Chinese 8 13%
Criteria. The major difference proposed in this mod- 9 16%
ified criteria as compared to the original Chinese
Criteria was that 0.0002 mm particle size was used as

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Puri (1984) found that introduction of clay or to those who falling in ‘‘uncertain range’’. Soil
plasticity to the silt increases the resistance of soil samples that lies in uncertain zones of the plasticity
mass against liquefaction. Ishihara and Koseki (1989) chart should be carried for laboratory testing. Seed
recommended that low plasticity fines (PI \ 4) has no et al. (2003) proposed Zone based liquefaction
influence the liquefaction potential. However, the susceptibility criteria based on the Atterberg’s limits
effect of the void ratio was not considered in their chart. Boulanger and Idriss (2004) suggested that
analysis. Later, Sandoval (1989), Prakash and San- susceptibility of liquefaction failure of silts and clays
doval (1992) demonstrated that the liquefaction resis- should be separated into two categories. PI was used to
tance of silt decreases with increase in plasticity when distinguish in between these two categories. The test
plasticity index (PI) falls in the range of 2–4%. Guo results indicated that clay-size particles in the soil does
and Prakash (2000) also studied liquefaction behavior not outlines a soil’s susceptibility to liquefaction
of silt–clay mixture based on established liquefaction rather it was the percent of active clay minerals present
behavior and it’s dependency on Plasticity index. in the soils. Also, the use of liquid limit criteria as an
Based on this analysis, it was concluded that there is a absolute standard is not appropriate, rather the ratio of
critical value of plasticity index below which the water content and liquid limit (wc/LL) criteria seems
cyclic stress ratio decreases. As the plasticity index more reliable. Bray et al. (2004), Bray and Sancio
increases, soil becomes less liquefiable and beyond (2006) performed series of cyclic triaxial test (CTX)
certain critical value, the cyclic stress ratio increases. and cyclic simple shear test (CSS) on the sample
In this study, the critical value of plasticity index was obtained from the city in Adapazari and concluded that
found to be probably in between 4 and 5%. Therefore, age of the soil and plasticity index are one of the
it was concluded that with the increase in plasticity contributing factors in evaluation of liquefaction
index, the liquefaction resistance of silt–clay mixtures susceptibility. Non-plastic silt and clayey silt with
decreases in the low range of plasticity whereas, in low plasticity and high water content were susceptible
high plasticity range, the liquefaction resistance to liquefaction under cyclic loading whereas clayey
increases. Prakash et al. (1998) concluded that void silt and silty clay with medium plasticity are more
ratio (e) is also a significant parameter for silty soil resistant to liquefaction i.e. it can liquefy under cyclic
whereas fabric and plasticity of fines become impor- loading with high intensity. Clay with PI [ 18 were
tant parameters in case of cohesive soils. Youd (1998) found to be more resistant to liquefaction. Gratchev
recommended that natural soil deposits which have a et al. (2006) inspected the validity of using PI as
‘‘C’’ descriptor (e.g. CH, CL, SC, and GC) may be screening parameter that was based on the results
grouped as non-liquefiable. It was also stated that fine- obtained from undrained cyclic stress-controlled ring-
grained soils which are possibly susceptible to lique- shear tests. It was concluded that liquefaction potential
faction should have LL \ 35% and area below the of soil decreases when PI of soil specimen is increased
A-line plot or may have PI \ 7. Ishihara (1996) whereas liquefaction was not triggered for soil having
recommended the cyclic strength does not change PI [ 15. Park and Kim (2013) carried out a series of
much for low plasticity range i.e. plasticity index undrained cyclic triaxial tests on loose, medium, and
(PI = 10), but increases thereafter with increasing PI. dense specimens. Plastic silt and clay were mixed with
Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of clean sand having grain size which ranges from 2 to
liquefaction potential of the soil. In his understanding, 0.075 mm. These fine content have different plasticity
soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be considered as index (PI) i.e. silt (PI = 8), kaolinite (PI = 18),
non-liquefiable as compared to the deformation and bentonite and silt mixture (PI = 50), bentonite (PI =
strain caused under flow liquefaction. Based on series 377). It was found that liquefaction resistance tend to
of Cyclic Triaxial Test and considering different decrease when PI of soil having 10% fines used in the
geotechnical properties like plasticity, water content, specimens is increased. Resistance to liquefaction of
clay content, mean grain size, relative density and void loose specimens were affected with variation in
ratio, a clear demarcation line was suggested in plasticity of fines. In the case of dense specimens,
between flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Seed resistance to liquefaction decreased up to 40% with
et al. (2001) recommended that soils liquid limit as increase in PI. It was concluded that even a low
well as plasticity index differentiates susceptible soil fraction of plastic fines had a significant effect on the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

liquefaction resistance of sandy soils. Marto et al. the use of plasticity index as a key criteria for the
(2015) studied the effect of PI on liquefaction evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility of soil. Plas-
susceptibility of sand and fine mixtures and suggested ticity of the soil can be computed either in terms of the
that the use of clay fraction as one of the evaluating liquid limit or plasticity index. These criteria are used
criteria for liquefaction susceptibility was question- to differentiate soils form being non-liquefiable to
able and therefore PI should be used in place of clay being susceptible to liquefaction.
fraction as a controlling parameter based on the It was generally believed that presence of fine helps
experimental studies. It was observed that resistance to in resisting liquefaction susceptibility. But this
liquefaction of the sand-fines mixtures increases as the believed changed when large scale failure was seen
PI increases. This concludes that PI is a better in fine-soil deposits during seismic excitation (Bhuj
indicator for liquefaction susceptibility of sand-fines earthquake 2001). Thus, the response of fine-soil
mixtures as compared to clay content, plastic limit deposits under dynamic loading became an important
(PL) and activity of the soil. Prakash and Puri (2010) field of study and research. Therefore a reliable and
reviewed literature which was based on the experi- proper method for the assessment of liquefaction
mental evidence on liquefaction of soils with fines and susceptibility of fine grained soil considering plastic-
concluded that silts and clays can also liquefy under ity is required.
certain situations. PI was found better criteria for
liquefaction susceptibility of silts and clays. Contrary
to the conclusions made above Wijewickreme and 3 Important Findings and Gaps
Sanin (2004) and Wijewickreme et al. (2005) reported
that Fraser River Delta silt (PI = 5) and fine-grained Initially liquefaction was analyzed considering cohe-
mine tailings (0 \ PI [ 12) underwent liquefaction sionless soil but many incidents indicated that lique-
even though the criteria stated above directed that the faction was also observed in silty sand or silty clay
soils tested had low liquefaction potential. type of soil. It was also observed that based upon the
Paydar and Ahmadi (2016) carried out cyclic seismic and environmental factors almost all soils
triaxial and bender element tests to examine the effect including sands, silts, clays, and gravels and their
of fine content and its classification. Cyclic Liquefac- mixtures can liquefy. From the study, it was observed
tion Resistance Ratio (CRR) and Shear wave velocity that soil with higher level of plasticity were found to
(Vs) was evaluated for sand samples containing 5% undergo different kind of deformation under cyclic
and 15% fines with different plasticity. It was observed loading as compared to those having lower levels of
that small-strain shear modulus (Go) and CRR reduces plasticity. Cyclic mobility form of failure was
with the addition of small amounts of fines to the sand observed in soils with higher levels of plasticity and
and hence it was concluded that the use of plasticity on the other hand soils with lower levels of plasticity
index (PI) of the fines fraction is better than the PI of exhibited criteria of flow liquefaction.
the overall soil, this laid down the conclusion that fine Based on the literature review, major criteria which
content and its classification in sand–fines mixture are were applied to the study liquefaction susceptibility
two important elements that strongly affect the considering fine content are Boulanger and Idriss
resistance to liquefaction. Akhila et al. (2019) studied (2006), Chinese Criteria, Andrews and Martin (2000)
the effect of cyclic load amplitude levels, over- criteria, Polito (2001) criteria, Seed et al (2003)
consolidation, and cycles of preloading of non-plastic criteria, Bray et al. (2004) criteria and Bray and Sancio
fines on liquefaction resistance of fine sands and (2006). The major highlights and key parameters of
recommended that, at constant relative density, the these criteria area as follows:
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- 4 Boulanger and Idriss (2006)
icantly with an increase in cycles of preloading and
over-consolidation pressures. Based on the literature, Boulanger & Idriss classified soils as ‘‘sand-like’’ and
it is found that interdependency exists in between ‘‘clay-like’’ based on their plasticity index (PI), with a
plasticity and cyclic strength of soil which gives rise to transition zone in between these two categories. The

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

primary purpose for this was to define a classification clay content of the soil, eradicates the medium to high
scheme for determining appropriate testing procedures plastic soils that will not undergo volume change
for evaluating cyclic strength. It was concluded that during the application of cyclic loads. As Chinese
simplified procedure are suitable for soils that are criteria is exclusively based on index properties and
classified as ‘‘sand-like,’’ for evaluating their lique- grain size data it can be concluded that it is indepen-
faction potential whereas soils classified as ‘‘clay- dent of the intensity and duration of the applied loads.
like’’ should be evaluated using laboratory tests. The
simplified procedures for evaluating the cyclic
strength of sandy soil deposit has been used to 6 Andrew and Martin (2000) Criteria
determine factor of safety and conclude its liquefac-
tion susceptibility. Andrew and Martin (2000) studied the criteria for
Equations used to determine cyclic stress ratio liquefaction of silty soils. They observed that silty
(CSR) and cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and corre- soils are often encountered in engineering practices,
sponding factor of safety (FOS) has been listed below: and there is plenty of evidence that shows they can be
rvc susceptible to liquefaction. But most of the liquefac-
CSR ¼ 0:65 amax rd ð1Þ tion studies have been focused on clean sands and very
r0vc
little liquefaction research has been commenced on
ðCRR ÞM ¼ ðCRR ÞM¼7:5 MSF ð2Þ soils that ranges between silty sand to silt with or
without the presence of clay content. So they pro-
ðCRRÞM moted a simple criteria based on ‘‘key’’ soil param-
FOS ¼ ð3Þ
ðCSRÞM eters that helps to differentiate between liquefiable and
non-liquefiable silty soils based on extensive literature
In which, amax = peak ground acceleration,
review. Based on the criteria outlined by Seed et al.
rVC = total vertical stress, r0VC = effective vertical
(1983) concluded from case histories in China, served
consolidation stress, rd ¼ Stress reduction coefficient, as a base for dividing clayey soils susceptible to
MSF = Magnitude Scaling factor. 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
5 Chinese Criteria (1979) soil parameters to differentiate between silty soils
susceptible to liquefaction and non-susceptible to
Wang (1979) noted the incidence of liquefaction in liquefaction. Water content was not considered in the
silty sand to slightly sandy silt soils during Haicheng assessment of liquefaction potential due to its ten-
earthquake, 1975 and Tangshan earthquake, 1976, and dency to fluctuate which is mostly caused by environ-
proposed a criteria which was known as Chinese mental dynamics and errors during soil sampling. A
criteria (1979) which stated that a fine-grained soil is clear discrimination in between Seed et al. (1983) and
considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, when all Andrew and Martin (2000) criteria is described in
of the following four criteria are satisfied: Table 2.
• Liquid Limit \ 35%
• Liquidity Index [ 0.75
• Natural Water Content [ 0.9 9 Liquid Limit 7 Polito (2001) Criteria
• Percent Passing 0.005 mm Sieve Size \ 15%
Polito (2001) studied various criteria for assessment of
The Liquid Limit of a soil is an indirect measure of liquefaction potential of the soil. A series of cyclic
the water content or void ratio (density) that corre- triaxial test were carried out in order to understand the
sponds to a specified undrained shear strength of 2 kPa effects of the amount and the plasticity of those fines
to 2.5 kPa, while the Liquidity Index is an indirect have upon the liquefaction resistance of sandy soils.
measure of the sensitivity of the soil. The first three Sixteen combinations of kaolinite, bentonite and non-
criteria identifies weak sensitive fine-grained soils plastic silt were mixed with a medium to fine sand,
whereas fourth criterion, which is a measure of the with fines contents varying from 4 to 37%, and clay

123
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 9 Bray et al. (2004) Criteria
at relative density of approximately 25%. He studied
various geotechnical properties like plasticity, water Bray et al. (2004) carried out a series of 100 cyclic
content, clay content, mean grain size, relative density triaxial tests, 19 static strength tests, 24 consolidation
and void ratio and suggested that the implication tests and several soil index tests such as water content,
which can be drawn from the study was that the Atterberg’s limits, and hydrometer on undisturbed soil
parameter which constantly separates soils susceptible specimens which were recovered from 7 different sites
to flow liquefaction and soil susceptible to cyclic throughout the city. After the liquefaction tests,
mobility is soil plasticity. Whether the plasticity is reconsolidation tests were performed. During the
calculated in terms of plasticity index or liquid limit, course of the study, it was observed that the soil’s
soils that met threshold level of plasticity tend to be in situ penetration resistance was a suitable parameter
safe from flow liquefaction failure. In his understand- to determine the condition of the soil. Soil’s normal-
ing, soil susceptible to cyclic mobility can be consid- ized Standard Penetration Test (N1)60 value when
ered as non-liquefiable as compared to the combined with its plasticity index proved to be a good
deformation and strain caused under flow liquefaction. indicator of the cyclic strength of soils. The results
Based on his findings a clear demarcation line was obtained from the tests were divided in two categories,
suggested in between flow liquefaction and cyclic one with soils having PI B 12 and the other with soils
mobility. 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
8 Seed et al. (2003) Criteria moderately susceptible to liquefaction. Soils with
PI [ 20 are considered too clayey to liquefy. How-
Seed et al. (2003) suggested an assessment chart to ever, structures founded on these soils may undergo
combine Modified Chinese Criteria with effects of significant deformations if the cyclic load exceeds the
fines contents. In other words, he proposed Zone based dynamic strength of the soil.
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 10 Bray and Sancio (2006) Criteria
are potentially susceptible to liquefaction. The soils
which falls out of Zone A and Zone B are considered Bray and Sancio (2006) performed 100 cyclic triaxial
as non-liquefiable. Soils which have PI B 12 and test (CTX), 10 cyclic simple shear tests (CSS), 19
LL B 37 are potentially susceptible to liquefaction if anisotropically consolidated monotonic triaxial com-
the water content is greater than 80% of the LL and pression tests, 24 consolidation tests and various soil
were placed in Zone A whereas soils which have index tests such as water content, Atterberg’s limits,
PI B 20 and LL B 47 are potentially liquefiable if the sieve and hydrometer analysis on undisturbed soil
water content is greater than 85% of the LL belonged specimens which were recovered from seven different
to Zone B, and soils with PI [ 20 and LL [ 47 are sites in Adapazari. The results obtained from the
generally non susceptible to liquefaction where rep- cyclic testing concluded that age of the soil and
resented by Zone C. plasticity index are one of the contributing factors in

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

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

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) 2 \ PI [ 4% the liquefaction resistance of silt decreases with increasing plasticity
Youd (1998) Fine-grained soils with PI \ 7, LL \ 35 and plot below the A-line are susceptible to liquefaction
Polito (2001) 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
Seed et al. (2001) LL \ 30 and PI \ 10—susceptible to liquefaction
30 \ LL \ 40 and 10 \ PI \ 12 -uncertain range of liquefaction susceptibility
Seed et al. (2003) 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
Boulanger and Idriss (2004) PI \ 7—susceptible to liquefaction
PIP7—undergo cyclic mobility
Bray et al. (2004) 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
Bray and Sancio (2006) PI \ 12 – liquefaction will occur
PI [ 18-resistant to liquefaction
Gratchev et al. (2006) 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

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

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

30
that, a combination of liquid limit (LL) along with
Non- Susceptible
plasticity index (PI) may be a better indicator than
20 using clay content.
Moderatley Susceptible
Different researcher had defined a wide range of
10
Susceptible plasticity index along with some of the other soil
0 parameters. It has been observed that if PI is less than
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
7%, liquefaction can occur whereas some study
wc /LL
suggests that liquefaction can occur even when the
Fig. 3 Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria as per Bray and PI is less than 12%. Some of the studies suggest that if
Sancio (2006) PI is greater than 20% liquefaction will not occur

123
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 Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Assessment of the liquefaction
happen even if the plasticity index is greater than 15%. susceptibility of fine grained soil. J Geotech Eng
132(9):1165–1177
But these differences in the range of plasticity index Bray JD, Sancio RB, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A, Youd TL, Stewart
leads to confusion and misperception while determin- JP, Seed RB, Cetin OK, Bol E, Baturay MB, Christensen C,
ing the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil. Karadayilar T (2004) Subsurface characterization at
Therefore, considering existing literature gaps and ground failure sites in Adapazari, Turkey, International
conference on geotechnical earthquake engineering.
lack of appropriate reliable methods for the evaluation J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(7):673–685
of liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soil with Dash HK, Sitharam TG (2010) Undrained monotonic response
fine content and seeing the devastation caused due to of sand-silt mixtures: effect of nonplastic fines. J Geomech
liquefaction during earthquakes in the past, recom- Geoeng Int J 6(1):47–58
Dash HK, Sitharam TG, Baudet AB (2010) Influence of non-
mendation and modification and a further study to plastic fines on the response of a silty sand to cyclic load-
determine a reliable method is essentially required. 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
References and soil dynamics, 2, St Louis, 1883–1850.
Gratchev I, Sassa K, Fukuoka H (2006) How reliable is the
Akhila M, Rangaswamy K, Sankar N (2019) Undrained plasticity index for estimating the liquefaction potential of
response and liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures. clayey sands? J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 132(1):124–127
J Geotech Geol Eng Springer 37(4):2729–2745 Guo T, Prakash S (2000) Liquefaction of silt-clay mixtures In:
Andrews DCA, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of Proc. 12th World conference on earthquake engineering,
silty soils Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engi- Upper Hutt, New Zealand,
neering, Auckland, New Zealand. Idriss IM, Boulanger R (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for
Bilsel H, Erhan G, Durgunoglu T (2010) Assessment of lique- evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. J Soil
faction/cyclic failure potential of alluvial deposits on the Dyn Earthq Eng 26(2):115–130
eastern coast of cyprus. In: International conferences on Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earth-
recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering quakes. Geotechnique 43(3):351–415
and soil dynamics. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behavior in earthquake engineering.
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2004) Evaluating the potential for Clarendon Press, Oxford
liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays Rep. UCD/ Ishihara K, Koseki J (1989) Cyclicshear strength of fines-con-
CGM-04/01, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Calif. taining sands, Earthquake and Geotech. Engg. Japanese
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
criteria for silts and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng Tokyo, pp 101–106
ASCE 132(11):1413–1426 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
 Geotech Geol Eng

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

123