Post-liquefaction Reconsolidation and Undrained Cyclic Behaviour of Chang Dam Soil

  • Majid HussainEmail author
  • Ajanta Sachan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 55)


Understanding and determination of post-liquefaction stress–strain behavior of sandy soils under monotonic and cyclic loading is essential to estimate the deformations that might occur in liquefied deposits under further loading. The undrained response of reconsolidated specimens under multilevel cyclic loading simulates the post-liquefaction behavior of soils under earthquake aftershocks and other cyclic loading conditions. In the present study, post-liquefaction reconsolidation and undrained behavior of medium dense silty-sand of Chang dam under multilevel repeated cyclic loading is explored. The soil deposit underwent severe liquefaction during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. During the first round of loading (C0), the specimens were subjected to 50 cycles of cyclic loading at 0.4 mm amplitude (A) and 0.1 Hz frequency (f) and exhibited liquefaction. After C0, developed excess pore water pressure was allowed to dissipate, and specimens were allowed to reconsolidate. Reconsolidated specimens were then subjected to second round of cyclic loading, C1 (A = 0.4 mm, f = 0.1 Hz and N = 35), and this process was continued for C2, C3, and C4 loading rounds. Significant reduction in void ratio (e) was observed each time when specimens were allowed to reconsolidate after each round of undrained cyclic loading, thereby increasing the liquefaction resistance. The increase in liquefaction resistance on repeated loading was reflected in the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) calculated for every cycle for each level of cyclic applied loading. The inclination of the peak deviatoric stress envelope (instability line) for each round of loading was observed to increase with repeated reconsolidation and cyclic loading.


Post-liquefaction Cyclic loading Reconsolidation Stress path Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) 



Financial Support from IIT Gandhinagar is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IIT Gandhinagar.


  1. 1.
    Anbazhagan P (2009) Liquefaction hazard mapping of Bangalore, South India. Disaster Adv 2(2):26–35Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amini ZA, Trandafir A (2008) Post-liquefaction shear behavior of Bonneville Silty-Sand. In: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol IV, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arulanandan K, Sybico J (1992) Post-liquefaction settlement of sand-mechanism and in situ evaluation. Tech Rep NCEER 1(92):239–253Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dash HK (2008) Undrained cyclic and monotonic response of sand-silt mixtures. Doctoral dissertation, PhD thesis submitted to Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in the Faculty of EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Finn WD, Bransby PL, Pickering DJ (1970) Effect of strain history on liquefaction of sand. J Soil Mech Found Div 96(SM6)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hussain M, Bhattacharya D, Sachan A (2019) Static liquefaction response of medium dense silty-sand of Chang dam. In: 8th international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering. Geo-Congress, Philadelphia, USA, March, 24–27, 2019Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamada M, Towhata I, Yasuda S, Isoyama R (1987) Study on permanent ground displacement induced by seismic liquefaction. Comput Geotech 4(4):197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishihara K, Yoshimine M (1992) Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 32(1):173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishihara K, Okada S (1982) Effects of large preshearing on cyclic behavior of sand. Soils Found 22(3):109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kokusho T, Kojima T (2002) Mechanism for postliquefaction water film generation in layered sand. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 128(2):129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lade PV (1972) The stress-strain and strength characteristics of cohesionless soils. Thesis Doctoral, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olson SM, Stark TD (2003) Yield strength ratio and liquefaction analysis of slopes and embankments. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 129(8):727–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olson SM, Stark TD (2002) Liquefied strength ratio from liquefaction flow failure case histories. Can Geotech J 39(3):629–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oda M, Kawamoto K, Suzuki K, Fujimori H, Sato M (2001) Microstructural interpretation on reliquefaction of saturated granular soils under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 127(5):416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porcino D, Marcianò V, Nicola Ghionna V (2009) Influence of cyclic pre-shearing on undrained behaviour of carbonate sand in simple shear tests. Geomech Geoengin: Int J 4(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robertson PK (2009) Evaluation of flow liquefaction and liquefied strength using the cone penetration test. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 136(6):842–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sriskandakumar S, Wijewickreme D, Byrne PM (2012) Multiple cyclic loading response of loose air-pluviated Fraser River sand. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisbon, September 24–28, 2012Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sitharam TG, Vinod JS, Ravishankar BV (2009) Post-liquefaction undrained monotonic behaviour of sands: experiments and DEM simulations. Géotechnique 59(9):739–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh R, Roy D, Jain SK (2005) Analysis of earth dams affected by the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Eng Geol 80(3–4):282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Soo Ha I, Ho Park Y, Mo Kim M (2003) Dissipation pattern of excess pore pressure after liquefaction in saturated sand deposits. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 1821:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scott RF (1986) Solidification and consolidation of a liquefied sand column. Soils Found 26(4):23–31MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seed HB, Rahman MS (1978) Wave-induced pore pressure in relation to ocean floor stability of cohesionless soils. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 3(2):123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toyota N (1995) Post-cyclic triaxial behaviour of Toyoura sand. In: Proceedings of IS-TOKYO96, vol 1, pp 189–195Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vaid YP, Thomas J (1995) Liquefaction and postliquefaction behavior of sand. J Geotech Eng 121(2):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang S, Luna R, Zhao H (2015) Cyclic and post-cyclic shear behavior of low-plasticity silt with varying clay content. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 75:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang S, Luna R, Onyejekwe S (2015) Postliquefaction behavior of low-plasticity silt at various degrees of reconsolidation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 75:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Youd TL, Hansen CM, Bartlett SF (2002) Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 128(12):1007–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zen K, Yamazaki H (1990) Oscillatory pore pressure and liquefaction in seabed induced by ocean waves. Soils Found 30(4):147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology GandhinagarGandhinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations