Soil Dynamics

Module #5 Liquefaction

INSTRUCTOR :
MUHAMMAD RIZA H., ST., MT., AFF. M. ASCE
LECTURER & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
CEO PT. BIMA SAKTI GEOTAMA
INTRODUCTION
❖ During earthquake, strength and stiffness of loose, saturated,
cohesionless soil is reduced.

❖ Increase in pore water pressure during undrained shearing

cause a reduction in effective stress which in turn reduces the
shear strength.

❖ Pore pressure is often released through sand or water boils

❖ The soil behaves more like a viscous fluid

SHEAR STRENGTH CONCEPTS DURING
LIQUEFACTION
𝜎 = 𝜎′ + 𝑢 Increase pore pressure (u)

Decrease effective stress (s’)

~0 𝜎′ = 𝜎 − 𝑢 Decrease shear strength (t)

‘c’ component Suspect

mud pumping when
liquefaction for c-f soil
𝑐
𝜎
𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝜎′𝑣 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙
~0 ~0
No shear strength available in soil (f-soil) that’s why soil behaves likes Fluid Material
EFFECTS OF LIQUEFACTION

❑ It is not the occurrence of liquefaction that is of prime importance, but

ist severity or its capability to cause damage.
❑ Adverse effect of liquefaction can take many form :
• Flow failures
• Loss of bearing strength & settlement
• Lateral spreads
• Increased lateral pressure on retaining walls
• Differential settlement
• Ground oscillation
TYPES OF LIQUEFACTION

FLOW LIQUEFACTION :
Can occur when the static shear stress (required for stability) is greater than the
shear strength of the liquefied soil (residual shear strength). In this case,
liquefaction leads to a strength loss. Which causes static stresses to cause the
flow failure.
CYCLIC MOBILITY:
Occurs when the static shear stress is smaller than the shear strength of the
liquefied soil (residual shear strength). In this case, incremental deformation are
caused by both cyclic and static shear stresses.

▪ Static Loading : tstatic > Sur -------------------- FLOW LIQUEFACTION

▪ Cyclic Loading : tcyclic + tstatic > Sur ---------- FLOW LIQUEFACTION
▪ Cyclic Loading : tcyclic + tstatic < Sur ---------- CYCLIC MOBILITY
FLOW FAILURES

• Flow failures are the most catastrophic ground failures caused by

liquefaction. These failures commonly displace large masses of
soil laterally ten of meters and in a few instances, large masses
of soil have traveled ten of kilometers down long slopes at
velocities ranging up to ten of kilo-meters per hour.
• Flows may comprise completely liquefied soil or block of intact
material riding on a layer of liquefied soil
• Flow failures can be triggered during or after strong ground
shaking
• If the ground motion produces high porewater pressure in an area
of a slope that is critical to the maintenance of stability, flow
liquefaction may be triggered during the earthquake.
FLOW FAILURES
• In some cases, however, the highest porewater pressure are
generated in zones that are not critical for stability- for example,
under the central portion of an earth dam.

• Following earthquake shaking, redistribution of excess porewater

pressure will cause porewater pressure to decrease in some
areas but to temporarily increase in others.

• If excess porewater pressures migrates into areas that are critical

for stability, a flow slide may be triggered at some period of time
after earthquake shaking has ended (eg. Lower Sand Fernando
Dam Failure)

• The Accurrence of delayed flow failure depends on hydraulic as

well as dynamic soil properties, and is likely to be strongly
influenced by the presence and distribution of layers and seams
of fine-grained soils.
FLOW MODE OF FLOW LIQUEFACTION

Lower San Fernando Dam due to the 1971 earthquake

FLOW FAILURES

Flow failure of Lake Merced in San Francisco During the 1957 Daly City Earthquake
FLOW FAILURES

Valdez Alaska Earthquake 1964

CYCLIC MOBILITY

• A liquefaction phenomenon
• Triggered by cyclic loading
• Occuring with static shear stresses lower than residual soil
strength
• Can occur in both loose and dense soil that extend from low to
high initial effective confining pressure, and states that would plot
above or below the steady state line (SSL)
• Deformations due to cyclic mobility develop incrementally
• Lateral spreading is a common result of cyclic mobility
LATERAL SPREADING

• Lateral spreading occurs when earthquake-induced shear

stresses temporarily exceed the yield strength of a liquefiable soil
that is not susceptible to flow liquefaction

• Lateral spreading is characterized by lateral deformations that

occur during earthquake shaking (and end when earthquake
shaking has ended)

• The displacements may be small or large, depending on the

slope of the ground, the density of the soil, and the characteristics
of the ground motion

• Lateral spreading can occur in gently sloping areas or in flat

areas adjacent to free surfaces.

• Because the residual strength exceeds the static shear stress,

large flow deformation that could continue after the end of
earthquake shaking do not develop.
LATERAL SPREADING

• Lateral spreading can have a severe impact on structures.

• Because it occurs so frequently in waterfront areas, it has

historically had a profound effect on structures such as bridge
and wharves and consequently a strong economic impact on
transportation system and port

• The lateral spreading phenomenon is a complex one, and it has

proven to be extremely difficult to make accurate a priori
prediction of permanent using analytical/numerical procedures
alone.

• As a result, currently available procedure to estimate the lateral

deformations are empirical.
CYCLIC MOBILITY

Lateral spreading due to M7.4 Guatemala earthquake, 1976

CYCLIC MOBILITY

Lateral Spreading
Sand boiling

Liquefaction &
Earthquake

Loss Bearing capacity cases

LIQUEFACTION

From Terzaghi’s principle of effective stress, if the pore water pressure (u)
increases, the effective stress will decrease

𝜎′𝑣𝑜 = 𝜎𝑣𝑜 − 𝑢

“Full Liquefaction” is defined as excess pore water pressure ratio (ru) equal
to 1.0

𝑈𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑟𝑢 =
𝜎′𝑣𝑜
FACTOR INFLUENCING LIQUEFACTION
SUSCEPTIBILITY
▪ Earthquake intensity and duration
▪ Soil type
▪ Soil relative density
▪ Particle size distribution
▪ Presence or absence of plastic fines
▪ Groundwater table location (saturation)
▪ Hydraulic Conductivity
▪ Placement conditions or depositional environment
▪ Aging and cementation
▪ Overburden pressure
▪ Structure load
▪ Historical Liquefaction
PRELIMINARY SCREENING FOR
LIQUEFACTION

1. Screening Investigation
2. Quantitative evaluation

Screening :
Review of relevant topographic, geologic, soil engineering maps and
reports, aerial photographic, groundwater contour maps, water well logs,
agricultural soil survey maps, history of liquefaction in the area, other
relevant published and unpublished sources
PRELIMINARY SCREENING FOR
LIQUEFACTION
• Is the Soil Saturated?
If the estimated maximum-past, current and maximum-future-ground-
water-level (i.e. highest ground water level applicable for liquefaction
analysis) are determined to be deeper that 50 feet (15 m) below the
existing ground surface or proposed finished grade (whichever is
deeper), liquefaction assessments are ot required (Martin and Lew,
1999)

• Is the site underlain by bedrock?

Bedrock or similar lithified formational material underlies site
PRELIMINARY SCREENING FOR
LIQUEFACTION
• Is the corrected SPT N1,60 value greater than 30 blows per foot in
all samples for a sufficient number of tests?
If so, liquefaction tests are not required. Similarly, if corrected CPT
tip resistance, qc1n is greater than or equal to 160 in all soundings in
sandy material, liquefaction assessment is not required.

• Is site underlain by clayey materials?

If the soil throughout the site clearly classifies as clay per the
Chinese criteria, Andrews and martin (2000) and Seed at al, (2003),
additional quantitative liquefaction assessment are not required.
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION

❖ Most basic procedure used in engineering practice for assessment

of liquefaction potential is the “SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE”
originally by Seed and Idriss (1971), subsequently updated and
refined (see Youd and Idriss, 1997, Youd et al. 2001 and Seed et
al. 2003)

❖ Compares a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) with the earthquake-

induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at a given depth for a specified
design earthquake.

CRR : Cyclic resistance ratio of the soil layer; cyclic stress ratio
required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum of
given properties at a given depth.
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR
LIQUEFACTION
CSR : Seismic demand on a soil layer; based on a peak ground
surface acceleration and an associated moment magnitude.

❖ Allows a factor of safety against liquefaction, FS1 to be

calculated for a soil stratum at a given depth.

𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5
𝐹𝑆1 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR LIQUEFACTION

Process by which the zone of liquefaction is identified

ACCEPTABLE FACTOR OF SAFETY

❖ 1.3 is recommended, but depends on severity of hazard,

importance and vulnerability of structure tolerable settlements or
level of risk acceptable to owner or regulating body, confidence
and certainty in underlying data and assumptions.

❖ Lower factor of safety (1.1) may be acceptable for single family

dwellings, for example, where potential for lateral spreading is low
and differential settlement is hazard of concern, where post-
tensioned floor slabs are specified.
STEP BY STEP EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
LIQUEFACTION

1. Calculating Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

2. Calculating Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
3. Calculating Factor of Safety Againts Liquefaction FS
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5
𝐹𝑆1 =
𝐶𝑆𝑅
FS < 1.0 Liquefies area
FS > 1.0 Not Liquefy area
DETERMINING CYCLIC STRESS RATIO (CSR)
❖ Seismic demand on a soil layer
Equation formulated by Seed and Idriss (1971)

𝜏𝑎𝑣 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝑣𝑜

𝐶𝑆𝑅 = = 0.65 . 𝑟𝑑
𝜎′𝑣𝑜 𝑔 𝜎′𝑣𝑜

Where :
amax = Peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface
generated by the earthquake
g = Acceleration due to gravity
svo = Total vertical overburden stress
s’vo = Effective vertical overburden stress
rd = Stress reduction co-efficient (flexibility of the soil )
STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR (rd)

Stress reduction factor to estimate the variation of cyclic shear stress

with depth below level or gently sloping ground surfaces (after Seed
and Idriss,1971)
STRESS REDUCTION COEFFICIENT (rd)

❑ For routine practice for noncritical projects, use Liao and Whitman
(1986) equations :

rd = 1.0 - 0.00765z for z ≤ 9.15 m

rd = 1.174 - 0.0267z for 9.15 m < z ≤ 23 m
rd = 0.744 – 0.008z for 23 < z ≤ 30 m Robertson & Wride, 1998
rd = 0.5 for z > 30 m

❑ New procedures are under development and verification

(Robertson and Wride 1998, Seed et al. 2003) but uncertainty
remains
STRESS REDUCTION COEFFICIENT (rd)
❑ Blake, 1996 (From Youd et al. 2001)

1.000 − 0.4113𝑧 0.5 + 0.04052𝑧 + 0.001753𝑧 1.5

𝑟𝑑 =
1.000 − 0.4177𝑧 0.5 + 0.05729𝑧 − 0.006205𝑧 1.5 + 0.001210𝑧 2
EVALUATION OF CRR

❑ Cyclic resistance of a layer; cyclic stress required to

induce liquefaction

❑ Based on semi-empirical correlations from database of

field experience of sites which did not liquefy; using
values of SPT N1,60cs or CPT qc1Ncs or Vs1

❑ The charts are developed for moment magnitude 7.5,

any other magnitude requires a correction

❑ Corrections are also required for overburden stress

and presence of a driving static shear stress (a slope)
CORRECTIONS TO CRR

Regardless of the investigative method, three corrections should be

applied to the CRR

▪ Magnitude correction, kM
▪ Overburden correction, ks
▪ Sloping ground (driving static shear stress) correction, ka

𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 𝐶𝑅𝑅. 𝑘𝑀 . 𝑘𝜎 . 𝑘𝛼
𝐹𝑆1 = =
𝐶𝑆𝑅 𝐶𝑆𝑅
MAGNITUDE CORRECTION FACTOR, kM

Empirical correlations are based on moment magnitude 7.5; for any

other magnitude, a correction is required.
(After Youd et al, 2001)

102.24
𝑀𝑆𝐹 = 𝑘𝑀 = 2.56
𝑀𝑤
OVERBURDEN CORRECTION FACTOR, ks

▪ Laboratory tests indicate that liquefaction resistnace increases

(nonlinearly) with increasing confining stress
▪ A correction for overburden stress is recommended
𝑘𝜎 = 𝜎′𝑣 𝑓−1

The exponent f is function of site condition , relative density, stress

history, aging.
(After Youd et al, 2001)
OVERBURDEN CORRECTION FACTOR, ks

Variation of correction factor, Ks with effective overburden pressure

(After Marcuson et al, 1990)
SLOPING GROUND CORRECTION FACTOR, ka

Variation of correction factor, Ka with initial stress/normal stress ratio

(after Seed and Harder, 1990)
SLOPING GROUND CORRECTION FACTOR,
ka

(After Youd et al, 2001)

VARIOUS SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE
COMPUTATIONAL CRR
USING SPT
CORRECTION FOR SPT

A number of corrections are recommended to convert the N value

measured in the field to a corrected and normalized (N1)60 value
𝑁1 60 = 𝑁𝑀 𝐶𝑁 𝐶𝐸 𝐶𝐵 𝐶𝑅 𝐶𝑆

Where :
NM = Measured standart penetration resistance
CN = Depth or overburden correction factor
CE = Hammer energy ratio (ER) correction factor
CB = Borehole diameter correction factor
CR = Rod length correction factor
CS = Correction factor for sampler with or without liners
OVERBURDEN CORRECTION FOR SPT

𝑁1 60 = 𝑁𝑀 𝐶𝑁 𝐶𝐸 𝐶𝐵 𝐶𝑅 𝐶𝑆

0.5
𝑃𝑎 Pa = 100 kPa
𝐶𝑁 =
𝜎′𝑣𝑜 0.4 ≤ CN ≤ 1.7

Normalized to an effective overburden pressure of 100 kPa (1.044 tsf).

This normalized blow count is designated as N1.

Note : use s’vo at time of drilling (not as built)

ENERGY CORRECTION FOR SPT

𝑁1 60 = 𝑁𝑀 𝐶𝑁 𝐶𝐸 𝐶𝐵 𝐶𝑅 𝐶𝑆
𝐸𝑅(%)
𝐶𝐸 =
60

• Most important factor affecting SPT result is the ENERGY delivered to

the sampler (measure it if possible)
• Depends primarily on the type of hammer/anvil system and the method
of hammer release (hammer strikes rod eccentrically, lack of hammer
free fall, new stiff rope, more than two turn around cathead, incomplete
release of rope each drop…)
• Expressed in term of the rod energy ratio (ER)
• ER of 60% has generally been accepted as the reference value (safety
hammer, N.A. practice)
TESTING PROCEDURE CORRECTIONS FOR SPT
𝑁1 60 = 𝑁𝑀 𝐶𝑁 𝐶𝐸 𝐶𝐵 𝐶𝑅 𝐶𝑆

• Borehole diameter correction, CB-larger gives lower NM

CB = 1 for 65 – 115 mm diameter (preferred dia.)
CB = 1.05 for 150 mm diameter
CB = 1.15 for 200 mm diameter
• Short rod correction, CR – shorter drill rods give higher NM
CR = 0.75 for rod length less than 4m
CR = 0.85 for 4m to 6m rod length
CR = 0.95 for 6m to 10m rod length
CR = 1 for rod length between 10m and 30m

Missing sampling liner correction, Cs

Cs = 1.2 for sampler without liners
SUMMARY OF SPT CORRECTION
(After Youd et al 2001)
SPT FINES CORRECTION FOR LIQUEFACTION

If the SPT (N1)60 value are to be used in the simplified liquefaction triggering
analyes, the value must be converted to equivalent clean sand value. If the fines
content is greater than 5% use the following correction.

𝑁1 60,𝑐𝑠 = 𝑁1 60 𝐶𝐹𝐼𝑁𝐸𝑆

Where :
𝐹𝐶
𝐶𝐹𝐼𝑁𝐸𝑆 = 1 + 0.004. 𝐹𝐶 + 0.05
𝑁1,60

Which is valid for fines content (FC) less than 35%

VARIATION OF CRR WITH SPT N VALUE

Relationship between cyclic

stress ratio causing
liquefaction and (N1)60 value
for clean sand in M = 7.5
earthquakes. (after Seed et
al. (1975). Influence of SPT
procedures in soil
liquefaction resistance
evaluations.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRR & SPT
(After Youd et al, 2001)
COMPUTATION OF CRR FROM SPT
1 𝑁1 60 50 1
𝐶𝑅𝑅7.5 = + + 2
−
34 − 𝑁1 60 135 10. 𝑁1 60 + 45 200

Raunch (1998), valid for N1,60 < 30 with clean sand condition

Correction in SPT value for other than Clean Sand

𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 = 𝛼 + 𝛽 𝑁1 60
SPT VS CPT
• ADVANTAGES OF CPT
1. Continous sampling with depth
2. Faster and more economical compared to drilling and laboratory
testing
3. Repeatibility is good

• LIMITATION OF CPT
1. No soil sample is obtained so does not provide the actual soil
classification per USCS – so, Always include a few SPTs with CPT
investigation
2. Cannot be used in gravelly soil, difficult when stiff crust is present
3. Depends on operator expertise
4. Existing empirical relationships for liquefaction triggering based on
CPT are still tentative
END PART A
LIQUEFACTION INDUCED
SETTLEMENT
1. Based On SPT (Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987)
2. Based On SPT (Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992)
Schematic Ilustration of Liquefaction Induced
ground vertical displacement mechanisms

(Seed et al, 2001) (Bray et al, 2014)

STEP BY STEP CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENT
INDUCED LIQUEFACTION
Based On Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987 :
1. Divide soil profile to be sublayer
2. Calculating (N1)60
3. Calculating Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)
4. Determined Volumetric shear strain, ev (%) based on Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987
curve
5. Calculating Settlement value for each layer (ΔH)

Based On Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992 :

1. Divide soil profile to be sublayer
2. Calculating (N1)60
3. Calculating Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)
4. Calculating Cyclic Stress Ratio during post liquefaction (CSRLIQ)
5. Determined Factor Of Safety against the triggering liquefaction (FSLIQ)
6. Determined post liquefaction re-consolidation strain, ev (%) based on Ishihara &
Yoshimine , 1992 curve
7. Calculating Settlement value for each layer (ΔH)
LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENT

Tokimatsu & Seed, 1987 Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992

Empirical Formula For Post Liquefaction
Re-consolidation strain based on SPT
(Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992)

𝜀𝑣 = 1.5𝑒𝑥𝑝 −0.369 𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 . 𝑚𝑖𝑛 0.08, 𝛾𝑚𝑎𝑥

Where :
gmax = The maximum shear strain, as a decimal, calculated following the
relationsderived from Yoshimine et al (2006)
gmax = 0 if FSliq ≥ 2

gmax = min(glim, 0.035(2-FSliq)(1-Fa)/(FSliq – Fa) if 2 >FSliq > Fa

gmax = glim if FSliq ≤ Fa

Where :
glim = The limit of the maximum shear strain :
3
𝛾𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 1.859. 1.1 − 𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 Τ46 ≥0

Fa = the limiting values of FSliq :

𝐹𝛼 = 0.032 + 0.69 𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 − 0.13 𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 ; 𝑁1 60𝑐𝑠 ≥7

EXAMPLE LIQUEFACTION INDUCED SETTLEMENT
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝑣 𝑟𝑑 𝑛
𝛾𝑐𝑦𝑐 = 0.65 𝑆 = ෍ 𝜀𝑣𝑖 . ∆𝑧𝑖
𝑔 𝐺 𝛾𝑐𝑦𝑐
𝑖=1

Tokimatsu & Seed Method, 1987

Ishihara-Yoshimine Method, 1992

PAST RESEARCH ABOUT LIQUEFACTION INDUCED
SETTLEMENT

➢ Liquefaction behavior of soil is significantly affected by the fines content

(Martin and Lew, 1999)
➢ In the Simplified liquefaction triggering analysis originally introduced by Seed
and Idriss (1982) for clean sands, there is a fines correction procedure.
➢ For Post-liquefaction settlement analysis, Ishihara (1993) recommended
increasing the cyclic shear strength of the soil if the Plasticity Index (PI) of
the fines is greater than 10; this would increase the FS against liquefaction
and thus decrease the seismically induced settlement using the Ishihara and
Yoshimine method.
➢ Field observations by O’Rourke et al (1999) and Egan and Wang (1991) suggest
that the Tokimatsu and See method results in Overestimation of liquefaction-
induced settlements.
SETTLEMENT CRITERIA DUE TO LIQUEFACTION
(Ishihara & Yoshimine, 1992)

Extent of Damage Settlements Phenomena on the ground

(cm) surface
Light to no damage 0 – 10 Minor cracks
Medium damage 10 – 30 Small cracks, oozing of sand
Extensive damage Large crack, spouting of sand,
30 - 70
large offsets, lateral movement

Vulnerability
No Settlement (cm)
Liquefaction Zone
1. < 5.0 Very Low
2. 5.0 – 10.0 Low
3. 10.0 – 20.0 Moderate
4. 20.0 – 40.0 High
5. > 40.0 Very High
LIMITATION

The method can only be used for the following cases :

• Lightweight structure : Settlement of lightweight structure, such as wood-
frame building bearing on shallow foundations.

• Low net bearing stress: Settlement of any other type of structure that
imparts a low net bearing pressure onto the soil

• Floating foundation : Settlement of floating foundations, provided the zone

of liquefaction is below the bottom of the foundation and the floating
foundation does not impart a significant net stress upon the soil.

• Heavy structures with deep liquefaction : Settlement of heavy structure,

such as massive building founded on shallow foundations, provided the
zone of liquefaction is deep enough that the stress increase caused by the
structural load is relatively low

• Differential settlement : Differential movement between a structure and

adjacent appurtenances, where the structure contains a deep foundation
that is supported by strata below the zone of liquefaction.
LIMITATIONS
The method cannot be used for the following cases :
• Foundation bearing on liquefiable soil : Do not use when the foundation is bearing
on soil that will liquefy during the design earthquake. Even lightly loaded foundation
will sink into the liquefied soil .

• Heavy building with underlying liquefiable soil : Do not use when the liquefied soil
is close to the bottom of the foundation and the foundation applies a large net load
onto the soil. In this case, once the soil has liquefied, the foundation load will cause it
to punch or sink into the liquefied soil.

• Buoyancy effects : Consider possible buoyancy effects. Example include buried

storage tanks or large pipelines that are within the zone of liquefied soil. Instead of
settling, the buried storage tanks and pipelines may actually float to the surface when
the ground liquefies.

• Sloping ground condition :Do not use when there is a sloping ground condition. If
the site is susceptible to liquefaction-induced flow slide or lateral spreading, the
settlement of the building could be well in excess of the value obtained from this
method.

• Liquefaction-induced ground damage :Do not include settlement that is related to

the loss of soil through the development of ground surface sand boils or the
settlement of shallow foundation caused by development of ground surface fissures.
LIQUEFACTION INDUCED
LATERAL SPREADING
LATERAL SPREAD

There are 2 general approaches to computing lateral spread displacement :

Analytical Methods :
Methods like the Newmark sliding block method or finite element analysis. More
complex and harder to do, but very promising as our constitutive models and
computing tools improve.

Empircal Methods :
Based solely on observation and statictical regression, Easier to perform, but
dangerous to extrapolate beyond the limitations of the dataset.
LATERAL SPREAD

Bartlett and Youd (1995) is arguably the most widely-used empirical lateral
spread model in the world. The model considers two possible cases of lateral
spread :

• Ground Slope Case

Used if you have a constant or nearly constant slope gradient

• Free Face Case

Used if your site is located near a free face (i.e. a river channel, a quay wall,
etc)

Note :
Your site can be a ground slope case or a free face case. It cannot be both with
the Bartlett and Youd approach
LATERAL SPREAD

Bartlett and Youd (1995) : Characterizing site geometry

L

Crest
1
Site
1/S
H

Toe

L = Distance from toe of free face to site

H = Height of free face (crest elev. - toe.elev)
W = Free-face ratio = (H/L) (100), in percent
S = Slope of natural ground toward channel in percent
LATERAL SPREAD
Bartlett and Youd (1995) and Youd et al (2001)

𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐷𝐻 = 𝑏𝑜 + 𝑏1 𝑀 + 𝑏2 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑅∗ + 𝑏3 𝑅 + 𝑏4 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 + 𝑏5 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑆 + 𝑏6 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇15

+𝑏7 𝑙𝑜𝑔 100 − 𝐹15 + 𝑏8 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐷5015 + 0.1

Where ;
DH = Lateral spread displacement (m)
bo through b8 = model coefficients
M = Moment magnitude
R = Source to site distance (km)
R* = Distance parameter to account near field earthquake events
W = Free face ratio (%) (if S≠0, logW = 0)
S = Slope gradient (%) (if W≠0, logS = 0)
T15 = Cumulative thickness of saturated granular of silt layers with (N1)60 < 15 blows/ft (m)
F15 = Mean fines content of soils comprising the T15 parameter (%)
D5015 = Mean grain size of the soils comprising the T15 parameter (mm)
LATERAL SPREAD
Bartlett and Youd (1995) and Youd et al (2001)

𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐷𝐻 = 𝑏𝑜 + 𝑏1 𝑀 + 𝑏2 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑅∗ + 𝑏3 𝑅 + 𝑏4 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 + 𝑏5 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑆 + 𝑏6 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇15

+𝑏7 𝑙𝑜𝑔 100 − 𝐹15 + 𝑏8 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐷5015 + 0.1

𝑅∗ = 𝑅 + 100.89𝑀−5.64 𝜎𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐷𝐻 = 0.197

Model b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8

Ground
-16.213 1.532 -1.406 -0.012 0 0.338 0.540 3.413 -0.795
slope
Free
-16,713 1.532 -1.406 -0.012 0.592 0 0.540 3.413 -0.795
Face
 Soil Dynamics
Module #5 Liquefaction

SELESAI