Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 5825–5848 | Cite as

Assessment of post-liquefaction consolidation settlement

  • Anna ChiaradonnaEmail author
  • Anna d’Onofrio
  • Emilio Bilotta
Original Research


This paper presents a simplified procedure for the evaluation of the free-field consolidation settlement induced by liquefaction, using the results of 1D site response analysis in effective stress and a simplified approach based on empirical chart. The excess pore water pressures induced by the seismic action are generated by both a simple stress-based model implemented on a non-linear dynamic analysis and a simplified relationship between the safety factor against liquefaction and the excess pore pressure. The post-cyclic settlement is finally calculated on the obtained distribution of excess pore water pressure along the soil column. The proposed method has been used to estimate the consolidation settlements in a centrifuge test and in well-documented case histories of widespread liquefaction: Treasure Island and Marina District after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The results have been compared to the measured settlements and to the values obtained by previous studies. It is shown that the proposed approach leads to a much more accurate estimate of the post-liquefaction consolidation settlement, with just a little increase of the calculation effort.


Liquefaction Excess pore pressure Post-liquefaction settlement In situ testing 1D seismic soil response 



This work was carried out as part of the European project Horizon 2020—Assessment and Mitigation of liquefaction potential across Europe: A holistic approach to protect structures infrastructures for improved resilience to earthquake—induced liquefaction disasters—“LIQUEFACT” (Grant Agreement No 700748). The Authors wish to thank Professor Alessandro Flora, WP4 team leader within LIQUEFACT project, for the fruitful discussions and suggestions and Dr Orestis Adamidis from ETH Zurich for providing data of the OA3 centrifuge test carried out at the Schofield Centre in Cambridge.


  1. Adamidis O, Madabhushi GSP (2016) Post-liquefaction reconsolidation of sand. Proc R Soc A 472:20150745. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett MJ (1990) Ground deformation and liquefaction of soil in the Marina District. Effects of the Loma Prieta earthquake on the marina district San Francisco, California. USGS open-file Report 90-253Google Scholar
  3. Bennett MJ (1998) Sand boils and settlement on Treasure Island after the earthquake. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction. USGS survey professional paper 1551-BGoogle Scholar
  4. Boatwright J, Seekins LC, Fumal TE, Liu H, Mueller CS (1992) Ground-motion amplification. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Marina District. USGS survey professional paper 1551-FGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonilla MG (1992) Geologic and historical factors affecting earthquake damage. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Marina District. USGS survey professional paper 1551-FGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No UCD/GCM-14/01, University of California at Davis, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bray JD, Macedo J (2017) Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Seul, Korea, pp 102–118Google Scholar
  8. Brinkgreve RBJ, Kumarswamy S, Engin E, Swolfs WM, Zampich L, Ragi Manoj N (2019) PLAXIS 2D reference manual 2019. Retrieved from PLAXIS Website:
  9. Chian SC, Tokimatsu K, Madabhushi SPG (2014) Soil liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures: physical and numerical modelling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 140(10):04014057. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiaradonna A, Flora A (2019) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiaradonna A, Tropeano G, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2016) A simplified method for pore pressure buildup prediction: from laboratory cyclic tests to the 1D soil response analysis in effective stress conditions. In: Italian conference of researchers in geotechnical engineering, CNRIG, Bologna, Procedia Engineering, vol 158, pp 302–307.
  12. Chiaradonna A, Tropeano G, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2018) Development of a simplified model for pore water pressure build-up induced by cyclic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 16(9):3627–3652​. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiaradonna A, Tropeano G, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2019) Interpreting the deformation phenomena of a Levee damaged during the 2012 Emilia Earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 124:389–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiaradonna A, Flora A, d’Onofrio A, Bilotta E, Silvestri F (2017) Una procedura semplificata per la stima del cedimento di consolidazione post-sismico. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Researchers in Geotechnics, Matera, 5–7 July 2017. Universosud Editor ISBN: 978-88-994-430-0 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  15. Cubrinovski M, Rhodes A, Ntritsos N, van Ballegooy S (2018) System response of liquefiable deposits. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1:11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graizer V (2011) Treasure Island geotechnical array—case study for site response analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium: effects of surface geology on seismic motion, University of California Santa Barbara, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardin BO, Black WL (1969) Closure to vibration modulus of normally consolidated clays. J Soil Mech Found Div 95(SM6):1531–1537Google Scholar
  18. Hicher PY, El Hosri MS, Homsi M (1987) Cyclic properties of soils within a large range of strain amplitude. In: Cakmak AS (ed) Soil dynamics and liquefaction. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoque E, Tatsuoka F (2004) Effects of stress ratio on small-strain stiffness during triaxial shearing. Geotechnique 54(7):429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ishihara K, Yoshimine M (1992) Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 32(1):173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ITASCA Consulting Group Inc (2016) FLAC 8.0—fast Lagrangian analysis of Continua. Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwasaki T, Arakawa T, Tokida K (1984) Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):49–58Google Scholar
  23. Jabary RN, Madabhushi SPG (2015) Tuned mass damper effects on the response of multi-storied structures observed in geotechnical centrifuge tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:373–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulhawy FH, Mayne PW (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for foundation design. Report EL-6800. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, 306 p.
  25. Luque R, Bray JD (2017) Dynamic analyses of two buildings founded on liquefiable soils during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marcuson WF III, Hynes ME, Franklin AG (1990) Evaluation and use of residual strength in seismic safety analysis of embankments. Earthq Spectra 6(3):529–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matasovic N, Vucetic M (1993) Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands. J Geotech Eng ASCE 119(11):1805–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyerhof GG, Fellenius BH (1985) Canadian foundation engineering manual, 2nd edn. Canadian Geotechnical Society, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitrani H (2006) Liquefaction remediation techniques for existing buildings. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Pass DG (1994) Soil characterization of the soil of the deep accelerometer site at Treasure Island, San Francisco, California. Master Degree Thesis, University of New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips C, Hashash YMA (2009) Damping formulation for non linear 1D site response analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(7):1143–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramirez J, Barrero AR, Chen L, Dashti S, Ghofrani A, Taiebat M, Arduino P (2018) Site response in a layered liquefiable deposit: evaluation of different numerical tools and methodologies with centrifuge experimental results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1:11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson PK, Cabal (Robertson) KL (2015) Guide to cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc, Signal HillGoogle Scholar
  34. Rollins KM, McHood MD (1991) Comparison of computed and measured liquefaction-induced settlements in the Marina District, San Francisco. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction. USGS survey professional paper 1551-BGoogle Scholar
  35. Santisi d’Avila MP, Lenti L, Semblat JF (2012) Modelling strong seismic motion: 3D loading path vs wavefield polarization. GJI 190:1607–1624Google Scholar
  36. Santisi d’Avila MP, Semblat JF, Lenti L (2013) Strong ground motion in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake: a one-directional three-component modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2B):1394–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report No EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(SM9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  39. Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed HB (1988) Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Report No UCB/EERC-88/15. University of California at BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  40. Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng ASCE 113(8):861–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tropeano G, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2016) An innovative computer code for 1D seismic response analysis including shear strength of soils. Géotechnique 66(2):95–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tropeano G, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2019) Numerical model for non-linear coupled analysis on seismic response of liquefiable soils. Comput Geotech 105:211–227. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang G, Robertson PK, Brachman RWI (2002) Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground. Can Geotech J 39:1168–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Napoli Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations