Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review on Impacts and Mitigation of Liquefaction of Soil Around the Tunnels

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Liquefaction occurs when the ground experiences intense shaking due to seismic activities, causing water-saturated soils or loosely packed sediments near the surface to weaken and behave like a liquid. The present paper has reviewed and investigated the liquefaction around tunnels due to any seismic event that may occur during the tunnel’s lifetime. To effectively prevent soil liquefaction around the tunnel, it is crucial to analyze both the acceleration response of the tunnel and the soil motion that results from liquefaction. This paper examines the geotechnical engineering aspects of such liquefactions and discusses analytic techniques to mitigate their effects. Also, the response of tunnel displacement under different magnitudes of earthquakes has been discussed. Different mitigation methods are explored in response to the damages caused by the liquefaction of soil due to earthquakes. Case studies of this problem that occurred in different nations were analyzed as well, amidst which are tunnel disasters in Turkey, Syria, China, Italy, Japan, India, and the USA. These instances demonstrate the terrible repercussions of liquefaction, such as building collapse, road network destruction, and surface and subsurface structure deterioration. By reviewing these instances, major patterns and trends in liquefaction-induced damages emerge, giving valuable insights for future mitigation and engineering practices. This review serves as a valuable resource for engineers and researchers involved in tunnel design, construction, and maintenance. This review paper addresses the dangers associated with liquefaction in soils and highlights the need for robust design considerations and appropriate construction techniques to mitigate potential damages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C. Ebrich, An investigation into potential liquefaction beneath the Conwy tunnel due to seismic activity. Ground Eng. 24(1) (1991)

  2. M.B. De Groot, M.D. Bolton, P. Foray, P. Meijers, A.C. Palmer, R. Sandven, T.C. Teh, Physics of liquefaction phenomena around marine structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 132(4), 227–243 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. S.S.C. Madabhushi, S.P.G. Madabhushi, Finite element analysis of floatation of rectangular tunnels following earthquake-induced liquefaction. Indian Geotech. J. 45, 233 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-014-0133-3242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S.Y. Zolfegharifar, N. Mahmoodi, Assessing the liquefaction and geotechnical properties of the soil of the north route of metro line 3 in Tabriz. Fen Bilimleri Dergisi (CFD), 36(6) (2015)

  5. J. Dixit, D.M. Dewaikar, R.S. Jangid, Assessment of liquefaction potential index for Mumbai City. Nat. Hazard. 12(9), 2759–2768 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Kammerer, J. Pestana, R.B. Seed, Undrained response of monterey 0/30 sand under multidirectional cyclic simple shear loading conditions (2002)

  7. J. Hu, Q. Chen, H. Liu, Relationship between earthquake-induced uplift of rectangular underground structures and the excess pore water pressure ratio in saturated sandy soils. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 79, 35–51 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. T.S. Lee, T. Jackson, R.R. Anderson, Innovative designs of seismic retrofitting the Posey and Webster Street tubes, Oakland/Alameda, California. In Third National Seismic Confrence on Bridges and Highways, Portland, Oregon (2002)

  9. L. Timar, A. Grimes, R. Fabling, That sinking feeling: the changing price of urban disaster risk following an earthquake, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31, 1326–1336. ISSN 2212-4209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.026

  10. M. Cubrinovski, N. Ntritsos, 8th Ishihara lecture: holistic evaluation of liquefaction response. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 168, 2023, 107777, ISSN 0267-7261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107777.

  11. Z. Wang, Bo. Gao, Y.-J. Jiang, S. Yuan, Investigation and assessment on mountain tunnels and geotechnical damage after the Wenchuan earthquake. Sci. China Ser. E: Technol. Sci. 52, 546–558 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-009-0054-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. C.-C. Lu, J.-H. Hwang, Damage of New Sanyi Railway Tunnel During the 1999 Chi–Chi earthquake. Taiwan(R.O.C.). 886-3 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1061/40975(318)207

  13. S.G. Chern, C.Y. Lee, C.C. Wang, CPT-based liquefaction assessment by using fuzzy network. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 16(2), 6 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. ASTM Standard Test Method D1586-11, Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp. 1–9 (2011)

  15. P.K. Robertson, Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update. in 2nd International symposium on cone penetration testing (Vol. 2, No. 56, p. 8). Huntington Beach: Cone Penetration Testing Organizing Committee (2010)

  16. M.G. Gomez, J.T. DeJong, C.M. Anderson, Effect of bio-cementation on geophysical and cone penetration measurements in sands. Can. Geotech. J. 55(11), 1632–1646 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. P.K. Robertson, Discussion of “Influence of particle size on the correlation between shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance. Can. Geotech. J. 49(1), 121–123 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Ghafghazi, J.T. DeJong, A.P. Sturm, C.E. Temple, Instrumented Becker penetration test II: iBPT-SPT correlation for characterization and liquefaction assessment of gravelly soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143(9), 04017063 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. W.D. Finn, Assessment of liquefaction potential and post-liquefaction behavior of earth structures: developments 1981–1991. in Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (1991: March 11–15; St. Louis, Missouri). Missouri S&T (formerly the University of Missouri-Rolla) (1991)

  20. S. Li, C. Wu, F. Kong, Shaking table model test and seismic performance analysis of a high-rise RC shear wall structure. Shock Vib. (2019)

  21. X. Cheng, L. Jing, J. Cui, Y. Li, R. Dong, Shaking-table tests for immersed tunnels at different sites. Shock. Vib. 2017, 1–11 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. S.P.G. Madabhushi, X. Zeng, Seismic response of gravity quay walls. II: numerical modeling. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124(5), 418–427 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. T.M. Do, A.N. Do, H.T. Vo, Numerical analysis of the tunnel uplift behavior subjected to seismic loading. J. Min. Earth Sci. 63(3a), 1–9 (2022)

  24. W. Moser, C. Duenser, G. Beer, Mapped infinite elements for three-dimensional multiregion boundary element analysis. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 61(3), 317–328 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. E. Yulianto, P. Utari, I.A. Satyawan, Communication technology support in disaster-prone areas: case study of earthquake, tsunami and liquefaction in Palu, Indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 45, 101457, ISSN 2212-4209 (2020)

  26. B.W. Maurer, R.A. Green, M. Cubrinovski, B.A. Bradley, Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140(7), 04014032 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. S. Van Ballegooy, P.J. Malan, M.E. Jacka, V.I.M.F. Lacrosse, J.R. Leeves, J.E. Lyth, H. Cowan, (2012). Methods for characterising effects of liquefaction in terms of damage severity. in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering (pp. 1-10).

  28. T. Iwasaki, K.I. Tokida, F. Tatsuoka, S. Watanabe, S. Yasuda, H. Sato, Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1310-1330) (1982)

  29. R. Pudi, T.R. Martha, P. Roy, K.V. Kumar, P.R. Rao, Regional liquefaction susceptibility mapping in the Himalayas using geospatial data and AHP technique. Curr. Sci. 116(11), 1868–1877 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. E.O. Shelley, V. Mussio, M. Rodríguez, J.G.A. Chang, Evaluation of soil liquefaction from surface analysis. Geofísica Int. 54(1), 95–109 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA https://www.usa.gov/agencies/occupational-safety-and-health-administrationsafety-and-health-administration. Last cited: 04 May 2023

  32. T.L. Youd, Liquefaction-induced damage to bridges. Transp. Res. Rec. 1411, 35–41 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. Sharafi, S. Jalili, Assessment of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) in silty sands using artificial neural networks. Open J. Civil Eng. (2014)

  34. R. Luna, J.D. Frost, Spatial liquefaction analysis system. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 12(1), 48–56 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. I. Standard, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, Part, 1 (1893)

  36. S.S. Liao, R.V. Whitman, Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 112(3), 373–377 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97(9), 1249–1273 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. T.L. Youd, I.M. Idriss, Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127(4), 297–313 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. IS 2131-1981 Standard Penetration Test (1997)

  40. EN 1998-1:2004(MAIN) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

  41. S.L. Kramer, Performance-based earthquake engineering: opportunities and implications for geotechnical engineering practice. Geotech. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn. IV, 1–32 (2008)

  42. H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, Analysis of soil liquefaction: niigataearthquake. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. Proc. ASCE, SM3, 83–108 (1967)

  43. P.R. Klibbe, The Determination of Factor of Safety against Liquefaction and Post Liquefaction Settlement (2016)

  44. I. Kongar, T. Rossetto, S. Giovinazzi, Evaluating simplified methods for liquefaction assessment for loss estimation. Nat. Hazard. 17(5), 781–800 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. H. Sonmez, Modification of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol, Turkey). Environ. Geol. 44, 862–871 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. R. Katzenbach, F. Clauss, S. Rochée, Recent developments in procedures for estimation of liquefaction potential of soils

  47. USGS, https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-liquefaction-:~:text=Liquefaction%20takes%20place%20when%20loosely,cause%20major%20damage%20during%20earthquakesliquefaction#:~:text=Liquefaction%20takes%20place%20when%20loosely,cause%20major%20damage%20during%20earthquakes. Last cited 02 March 2023

  48. T.L. Youd, Liquefaction mechanisms and induced ground failure. in International Geophysics (Vol. 81, pp. 1159–1173). Academic Press (2003)

  49. Earthquake Engineering Research Center: https://www.eeri.org/. Last cited 16 Feb 2023

  50. K.L. Maithili, A discussion of liquefaction mitigation methods. Int Res J Eng Technol. 4(12), 1830–1833 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  51. B.A. Robbins, I.J. Stephens, W.F. Marcuson III, Geotech. Eng. (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12508-4

  52. Geo engineers, 2023: https://www.geoengineer.org/education/web-class-projects/cee-542-soil-siteimprove-winter-2014/assignments/vibroflotation. Last cited: 17 April 2023

  53. U.K. Keller, https://www.keller.co.uk/expertise/techniques/dynamic-compaction-:~:text=Dynamic%20compaction%20is%20a%20ground,of%20up%20to%2010%20metrescompaction#:~:text=Dynamic%20compaction%20is%20a%20ground,of%20up%20to%2010%20metres (Last cited: 15 May 2023) (2023)

  54. K. S. Beena, Ground Improvement Using Stone Column. In International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 7 (2010) https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icrageesd/05icrageesd/session08/7

  55. F. Yarmohammadi, R. Rafiee-Dehkharghani, C. Behnia, A.J. Aref, Topology optimization of jet-grouted overlapping columns for mitigation of train-induced ground vibrations, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 190, 2018, pp. 838–850, ISSN 0950-0618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.156

  56. D. Kolymbas, Tunnelling and Tunnel Mechanics: A Rational Approach to Tunnelling. Springer (2005)

  57. Rembco, https://www.rembco.com/portfolio/compaction-grouting/. Last cited: 14 May 2023 (2023)

  58. R.P. Orense,. Liquefaction remediation by compaction grouting, in Proceedings, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference, Wairakei, Paper (No. 50) (2008)

  59. University of Washington, https://depts.washington.edu/liquefy/html/main.html. Last cited 06 March 2023 (2023)

  60. C. El Mohtar, V. Drnevich, M. Santagata, A. Bobet, Combined resonant column and cyclic triaxial tests for measuring undrained shear modulus reduction of sand with plastic fines. Geotech. Test. J. 36(4), 484–492 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. I. Towhata, New strategy and tools for mitigation of landslide disasters. Earthq. Hazards Mitigat. 116 (2008)

  62. A. Ansari, K.S. Rao, A.K. Jain, A. Ansari, Deep learning model for predicting tunnel damages and track serviceability under seismic environment. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 9(1), 1349–1368 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. R.D. Dwivedi, R.K. Goel, M. Singh, M.N. Viladkar, P.K. Singh, Prediction of ground behaviour for rock tunnelling. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 52, 1165–1177 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. T. Johnson, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/infrastructure-damage-highlights-severe-impact-of-turkey-and-syria-earthquakes-13-02-2023/severe-impact-of-turkey-and-syria-earthquakes-13-02-2023/. Last cited 14 March 2023 (2023)

  65. Report by IRJ, 2023. https://www.railjournal.com/infrastructure/turkey-and-syria-battle-impact-of-7-8-magnitude-earthquake/. Last cited 24 Jan 2023

  66. A. Ansari, K.S. Rao, A,K. Jain, Damage assessment of tunnels in seismic prone zone during earthquakes: a part of hazard evaluation. in Earthquakes and Structures: Select Proceedings of 7th ICRAGEE 2021 (pp. 161–169). Springer, Singapore (2022)

  67. J. Lai, S. He, J. Qiu, J. Chen, L. Wang, K. Wang, J. Wang, Characteristics of seismic disasters and aseismic measures of tunnels in Wenchuan earthquake. Environ. Earth Sci. 76, 1–19 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Civico, R., Pucci, S., Villani, F., Pizzimenti, L., De Martini, P. M., Nappi, R., & Open EMERGEO Working Group. (2018). Surface ruptures following the 30 October 2016 M w 6.5 Norcia earthquake, central Italy. J. Maps, 14(2), 151–160.

  69. S. Yasuda, K. Ishikawa, Several features of liquefaction-induced damage to houses and buried lifelines during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the (pp. 825–836) (2011)

  70. T. Uchimura, I. Towhata, L. Wang, S. Nishie, H. Yamaguchi, I. Seko, J. Qiao, Precaution and early warning of surface failure of slopes using tilt sensors. Soils Found. 55(5), 1086 (2015)

  71. J. Shen, X. Bao, X. Chen, X. Wu, H. Cui, Prediction of tunnel earthquake damage based on a combination weighting analysis method. Symmetry. 14(9), 1922 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. A.J. Durrani, A.S. Elnashai, Y. Hashash, S.J. Kim, A. Masud, The Kashmir earthquake of October 8, 2005: A quick look report (2005)

  73. Ö. Aydan, Y. Ohta, M. Geniş, N. Tokashiki, K. Ohkubo, Response and stability of underground structures in rock mass during earthquakes. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 43, 857–875 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. United States Geological Survey: Niigata Earthquake: https://www.usgs.gov/publications/investigation-m66-niigata-chuetsu-oki-japan-earthquake-july-162007. Last cited: 04 June 2023

  75. M. Ikuma, Maintenance of the undersea section of the Seikan Tunnel. Tunnelling and underground space technology, 20(2), pp. 143–149, ISSN 0886-7798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2003.10.001 (2005)

  76. G. Tsinidis, F. de Silva, I. Anastasopoulos, E. Bilotta, A. Bobet, Y.M. Hashash, R. Fuentes, Seismic behaviour of tunnels: from experiments to analysis. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 99, 103334 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. K.H. Chen, T. Furumura, J. Rubinstein, R.J. Rau, Observations of changes in waveform character induced by the 1999 Mw7. 6 Chi‐Chi earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38(23) (2011)

  78. Y. Sun, S. Klein, J. Caulfield, V. Romero, J. Wong, Seismic analyses of the Bay Tunnel. in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV (pp. 1–11) (2008)

  79. P.M. Byrne, W.D.L. Finn, C.E. Ventura, The Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake of 17 January 1995: seismological aspects and ground motions. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 23(3), 771–777 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1139/L96-887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Idaho State University: https://digitalatlas.cose.isu.edu/geo/quakes/seismic/text/05.htm. 31 May 2023

  81. LAF Relief Association, 2023: https://www.lafra.org/lafd-history-sylmar-tunnel-explosion-june-23-1971/1971/. 08 March 2023

  82. Historical Marker Database, 2023: https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=126024. 08 Feb 2023

  83. R.W. Jibson, A.R.R. Grant, R.C. Witter, K.E. Allstadt, E.M. Thompson, A.M. Bender, Ground failure from the Anchorage, Alaska, earthquake of 30 November 2018. Seismol. Res. Lett. 91(1), 19–32 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. K. Yashiro, Y. Kojima, M. Shimizu, Historical earthquake damage to tunnels in Japan and case studies of railway tunnels in the 2004 Niigataken-Chuetsu earthquake. Q. Rep. RTRI. 48(3), 136–141 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. T.M. Brocher, G.S. Fuis, J.R. Filson, P.J. Haeussler, T.L. Holzer, G. Plafker, J.L. Blair, The 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake and Tsunamis: A Modern Perspective and Enduring Legacies. Earthquake Science Center, US Geological Survey (2014)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Tuba Fatima & Md. Rehan Sadique

  2. Politecnico di Milano Scuola di Architettura, Urbanistica Ingegneria delle Costruzioni, Milan, Lombardia, Italy

    Abdul Ahad Alam

Authors
  1. Tuba Fatima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Md. Rehan Sadique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdul Ahad Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul Ahad Alam.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fatima, T., Sadique, M.R. & Alam, A.A. A Review on Impacts and Mitigation of Liquefaction of Soil Around the Tunnels. J Fail. Anal. and Preven. 23, 1822–1840 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-023-01759-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-023-01759-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation