Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
DOI 10.1007/s12517-017-2998-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Evaluation of liquefaction potential and post-liquefaction
settlements in a coastal region in Atakum
Muzaffer Kerem Ertek 1 & Gökhan Demir 1
Received: 5 September 2016 / Accepted: 18 April 2017
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2017
Abstract Soil liquefaction is one of the most momentous
causes of damages induced by earthquakes. It can be described
as a sudden decrease in the strength of saturated, cohesionless
soil layers, remaining effectual for a length of time under tran-
sient and cyclic loading due to excess pore water pressure gen-
eration. Consequently, the most appropriate and typical soil
condition which brings the potential out to liquefy is loose sand
with a groundwater table close to ground surface. This study is
pertinent to determine the liquefaction potential in a coastal
region in Atakum County of Samsun Province, Turkey.
Therefore, empirical equations were used to determine the peak
ground accelerations for three scenario earthquakes with the
magnitudes of 6.5, 7.0, and 7.2 in order to consider in the
simplified procedure context proposed by Seed and Idriss (J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 97:1249–1273 1971).
Liquefaction potential evaluations were performed using stan-
dard penetration test blow counts for four boreholes for sandy
portions of the soil profile which exist in the first 20 m below
ground surface. In addition to analytical evaluations, two-
dimensional nonlinear analyses were ran with Towhata-Iai con-
stitutive model suitable for liquefaction analysis available in
DIANA finite element software to clarify excess pore pressure
generation that leads to liquefaction. It is also well-known that
sands tend to densify when subjected to seismic shaking.
Densification of undersoil causes settlement at the ground sur-
face. Liquefaction induced settlements usually cause damages
on both superstructures and infrastructures. On the basis of this
fact, the method proposed by Ishihara and Yoshimine (Soils
* Muzaffer Kerem Ertek
mkerem.ertek@omu.edu.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Ondokuz Mayis University,
55139 Samsun, Turkey
Found. 32:173–188 1992) was used to determine the settle-
ments for scenario earthquakes.
Keywords Liquefaction . Standard penetration test (SPT) .
Pore pressure . Towhata-Iai . Settlement
Introduction
Mogami and Kubo (1953) were first to use the expression
Liquefaction in order to define the loss of shear strength of
cohesionless saturated soils under seismic excitation and the
fact which is one of the most destructive induced by earth-
quakes strictly became a major seismal phenomena, further
an attractive subject for many researchers correspondingly to
give importance to just after the striking earthquakes occurred
in Alaska and Niigata in 1964 (Kramer 1996; Ayothiraman
et al. 2012). In accordance with the first definition, the most
appropriate and typical soil condition which brings the poten-
tial out to liquefy is loose sand with a groundwater table close
to ground surface. When saturated sand deposits are subjected
to seismic concussion, pore water pressures are common to
generate leading to liquefaction or loss of strength in the sand
deposits (Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992). Then, settlement hap-
pens as the excess pore pressures disappear (Tokimatsu and
Seed 1987). The settlement and lateral spreading of saturated
soil deposits are the major geotechnical hazards following liq-
uefaction during earthquakes (Tsukamoto and Ishihara 2010).
Earthquake-induced settlement frequently causes distress to
structures supported on shallow foundations, damage to utili-
ties that serve pile supported structures, and to lifelines that are
usually constructed at groundling depths (Kramer 1996).
The objective of this study is to determine the liquefaction
potential and liquefaction induced settlements in the study
area (Fig. 1) at a coastal region in Atakum county and to
232 Page 2 of 16
Fig. 1 Study area
numerically assess excess pore pressure ratios inflicted from
three scenario excitations with the magnitudes of 6.5, 7.0, and
7.2, through finite element analyses for 2D models using
Towhata-Iai constitutive model implemented in DIANA pro-
gram. Such a study for the region was considered a necessity
since soils in Atakum, especially along the coastal districts,
are of alluvial origin and a fast urbanization consistently
reigns the county for more than a decade.
Literature
Wide range of studies has appeared following Alaska and
Niigata earthquakes, intending to understand and to explain
liquefaction mechanism, to establish correlations between soil
conditions and liquefaction resistance in liquefied areas, and
also to determine the liquefaction potential of earthquake-
prone zones. Since it is pretty well unfeasible to take
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
undisturbed cohesionless soil samples (Bowles 1997), the
studies aimed to propose correlations so as to assess liquefac-
tion potential are mainly based on in situ tests consisting of
standard penetration test (SPT), associated especially with the
spearheading work of Seed and Idriss (1971) followed by
Iwasaki et al. (1981) as well as Tokimatsu and Yoshimi
(1983) for instance, cone penetration test (Zhou 1980;
Robertson and Campanella 1985; Seed and De Alba 1986;
Shibata and Teparaska 1988) and shear wave velocity
(Stokoe et al. 1988; Tokimatsu and Uchida 1990; Andrus
and Stokoe 2000). Nevertheless, laboratory tests have also
had extensive interest in order to suggest several constitutive
models aiming to explain stress-strain relationship and pore
pressure generation in sand under various types of loading
(Ishihara et al. 1975; Finn et al. 1977; Prevost 1985; Iai et al.
1990; Nishi and Kanatani 1990; Beaty and Byrne 1998).
Within this period, some of the earthquakes which caused
liquefaction have fed the database, so the parameters in the
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232 Page 3 of 16 232

Fig. 2 NAF and the other important faults of Eastern Mediterranean (modified from Taymaz et al. 2007)

empirical correlations have been modified bit by bit and some Eventually, studies concerning liquefaction potential are avail-
of these earthquakes have brought individual procedures and able for different regions all around the world based on several
criteria into the literature as Adapazari criteria which did not approaches with various objectives (e.g., Kanth and Dash
innately revive till 1999 Kocaeli earthquake (Bol et al. 2010). 2010; Ayothiraman et al. 2012; Maugeri and Grasso 2013;

Fig. 3 Soil sections and SPT-N values along BH1, BH2, BH3, and BH4 (from left to right, respectively)
232 Page 4 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232

Table 1 General properties for soil

Borehole Depth (m) Water Mass density Sieve analysis Atterberg limits Soil type (USCS)
content Wn (%) (γn) (kN/m3)
Sand (%) Silt-clay (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)

BH-1 4.50–4.95 10.6 – 97 3 Non-plastic SW

10.50–10.95 17.9 – 95 5 Non-plastic SW-SM
18.00–18.50 27.9 19.4 11 89 33 21 12 CL
22.50–22.95 25.4 19.7 79 21 Non-plastic SM
28.00–28.10 24.0 18.1 Non-plastic
BH-2 6.00–6.45 22.0 – 94 6 Non-plastic SW-SM
9.00–9.45 20.4 – 92 8 Non-plastic SW-SM
BH-3 3.00–3.45 24.4 – 79 21 Non-plastic SM
15.00–15.45 22.3 – 73 27 Non-plastic SM
17.50–17.95 27.0 – 10 90 Non-plastic ML
21.00–21.45 20.2 – 82 18 Non-plastic SM
29.00–29.20 20.1 19.7 Non-plastic

Maurer et al. 2014; Papathanassiou et al. 2015; Katona et al.
2015; Sana and Nath 2016). There also are several researches
done for various regions and cities in Turkey including
Yalova, Aksaray, İzmit, Eskişehir, Ankara, Erzincan (Yilmaz
and Yavuzer 2005; Yalcin et al. 2008; Karakaş and Coruk
2010; Tosun et al. 2011; Ulamiş and Kiliç 2012; Duman and
Ikizler 2014) considering different fault zones capable of gen-
erating significantly strong ground motion.
There is no study based on the procedure given by Seed
and Idriss (1971) concerned with Atakum or any district in
Samsun. This procedure was preferred for the analytical part
of the study to evaluate liquefaction potential since the other
methods generally pay regard to fine percentage which is
scarcely any for the soil in the study area.
Study area
Atakum County the study area hosted by stays westerly of the
three central districts of Samsun city, the most populous in
Black Sea Region of Turkey. Samsun city is located in midst
of Black Sea Region of Turkey between the deltas Kızılırmak
and Yeşilırmak disembogue to Black Sea. The entire city has
9579 km2 area within 40°83′–41°73′ northern latitudes and
34°85′–37°17′ eastern longitudes. Three types of landforms
Table 2 Rod length
correction factors Rod length
<3 m
3–4 m
4–6 m
6–10 m
10–30 m
dominate in the region; mountainous terrain in the south, the
plateaus between mountains and coastline, lastly the plains
between plateaus and Black Sea. Specific to Atakum, the
county is surrounded by Kürtün River in the east, mount
Kocadağ in the south, and Ondokuz Mayis county in the west.
Geological information and seismotechtonics
In addition to alluvial deposits in young delta plains, old alluvial
deposits are observed in terrace sets separated by steep slopes in
Samsun. The area dispreading to the mountainous zone in the
south is covered by clayey-calcareous deposits from Neogene
period. Coastal mounts are formed of Cretaceous lava while
southern sections of these mountains are covered by clayey-
graveled deposits. Neogene deposits are encountered through
the interior zones and curvaceous rocks, flysches of Cretaceous
and Eocene origin that are present south of the plains mantled
with Neogene alluvial deposits in patches. Volcanic formations
are also observed among wide zones. Formations of Eocene,
Neogene, and Cretaceous origin are commonly observed in
Samsun. Therefore, north of the city is completely covered by
alluvial deposits of Holocene origin. In the coastal sections of
Atakum, alluvial deposits stay on clay and argillaceous marl
layers. The thickness of alluvial deposit which also locally con-
sists of gravel varies between 10 and 40 m.
The city center of Samsun and its vicinity are located on
Central Pontides. Thrust, reverse, strike-slip faults, folds, and
CR
joints in NW-SE direction exist due to the compressional stress-
0.75 es in NE-SW direction. Normal faults are also present because
0.8 of the tensional stresses. The region had been impressed by
0.85 compression from the beginning of Mesozoic, by tension dur-
0.95 ing Liassic—Lower Cretaceous and once again by compression
1.0 between Upper Cretaceous—Miocene. Strike-slip faults had
developed in Ladik and Vezirköprü counties and their vicinities
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
Fig. 4 Liquefaction front, state variable S and shear stress ratio r (Iai et al.
1990)
between Upper Miocene—Pliocene and thus the region had
attained present tectonic conditions. Three faults are important
which are still active; the North Anatolian Fault (NAF), Erikli,
and Çarşamba reverse faults. NAF is an important fault in
Turkey capable of causing destructive earthquakes having
many heavy examples in the past (Fig. 2). It reaches from
Destek to Ladik Lake and then ranges to Samsun-Ladik high-
way and leaves the borders of the city passing through south of
Vezirköprü. Morphotectonic features including lakes (e.g.,
Ladik Lake), hills, fault scarps, compression ridges, active land-
slides, and hot and cold springs had been formed along NAF.
Besides being a right-lateral strike-slip active fault, NAF
has also components as thrust and reverse faults. Right-lateral
strike-strip characteristic of NAF has been more apparent
since Pliocene. Type of the fault differs along its length and
is not formed of just one plane. It is partly formed of fault
zones of multiple slip planes with 500–1000 m in width, there-
fore, called North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ) as well.
Fig. 5 Finite element model
Page 5 of 16 232
NAF had caused a devastating earthquake (Mw = 7.2) in
Ladik in 1942 which extends along south of the study area in
Atakum with a distance of 55 km approximately (Büyüksaraç
et al. 2013). Hence, it becomes an important issue to evaluate
liquefaction potential for coastal regions of Atakum district
since it has soils of alluvial origin and has high groundwater
level.
Geotechnical properties
Standard penetration tests were performed through three
boreholes along 30 m each and one borehole along
12 m at depths that are multiples of 1.5 m down from
the surface. Soil sections in these boreholes and SPT-N
values can be seen in Fig. 3 and the geotechnical proper-
ties of the soils obtained by laboratory tests are given in
Table 1. The soil profile uppermost forms of surface soil
as can be seen in Fig. 3. The thickness of this surface soil
alters from 0.8 to 2.2 m above the clean sand (SW) and
silty sand (SM) portions located in between the overbur-
den and 16.5 m approximately. It is also observed that the
ground water level varies between 2.1 and 2.8 m.
According to the case studies, the soil susceptible to liq-
uefaction usually extends from the ground surface to a
depth of 15 m. It is because deeper soils have higher
confining pressures, generally preventing liquefaction.
However, it is common to evaluate liquefaction potential
to a depth of 20 m (Day 2002). In the study area, clay
strata takes place between the depths of 16.5 m to levels
deeper than 20 m, ensuring it is sufficient to determine
liquefaction potential only for the top 16.5 m.
232 Page 6 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232

Table 3 Material properties for

soil layers Layer Depth (m) σ’v0 Gref (kPa) Kref (kPa) E (kPa) S1 w1 p1 p2 c1
(kPa)

ZEM1 1 17.6 – – 91703 – – – – –

ZEM2 2.5 44 51417 111403 144996 0.005 4 0.78 1 1.8
ZEM3 6.75 82.7 70490 152730 198784 0.005 7 0.78 1 1.5
ZEM4 13.5 150.2 94998 205829 267895 0.005 10 0.78 1 1.5

Methodology
Following the destructive earthquakes of Alaska and Niigata
in 1964, many researchers have made significant contribu-
tions to the subject in terms of estimation of liquefaction po-
tential or mitigation of liquefaction itself. These studies un-
doubtedly were triggered mostly from the vanguarding work
of Seed and Idriss (1971). The analytical part of this study in
order to assess liquefaction potential is based on the simplified
procedure given by Seed and Idriss (1971). In addition to this,
Towhata-Iai constitutive model developed by means of sever-
al cyclic triaxial test data to represent the stress-strain relation-
ship for sand has been used to obtain pore pressures under
dynamic loading. Further, the method proposed by Ishihara
and Yoshimine (1992) was used to determine liquefaction-
induced settlements.
Simplified procedure
The most common type of analysis to determine the liquefac-
tion potential is to use the SPT (Seed et al. 1985; Day 2002).
The analysis is based on the simplified method proposed by
Seed and Idriss (1971) which is commonly known as the
simplified procedure. The steps of this method are discussed
below.
Cyclic stress ratio
Cyclic stress ratio (CSR), a substantial component of simplified
procedure can be expressed as a variant symbolizing the seis-
mic stress on the soil. In simplified procedure, CSR can be
found using the following equation given by Seed and Idriss
(1971):



σv0 amax
CSR ¼ 0:65rd 0 ð1Þ
σv0 g
In Eq. (1), amax is the peak ground acceleration, rd is depth
reduction factor, g is gravitational acceleration, σv0, and σ’v0 are
total and effective vertical overburden stresses, respectively. In
this procedure proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) and Seed et al.
(1975), soil column was considered as a rigid body and the shear
stress generated in the soil column was calculated in contrast to
the reality that soil actually is deformable. Hence, Seed and Idriss
(1971) applied a factor for depth reduction to Eq. (1). The fol-
lowing equations can be used to determine amax and rd, respec-
tively:
 
amax ¼ 2:8 e0:9M w  e−0:025R −1 ð2Þ
ð1:0 − 0:4113z0:5 þ 0:4052z þ 0:001753z1:5 Þ
rd ¼ ð3Þ
ð1:0 − 0:4177z0:5 þ 0:05729z − 0:006205z1:5 þ 0:00121z2 Þ
In Eq. (2) which can be precisely used to estimate acceler-
ation characteristic of any earthquake predicted in Turkey, Mw
is the magnitude of scenario earthquake and R is the distance
to fault (Aydan et al. 1996). In Eq. (3), z is the depth beneath
ground surface in meters (Youd et al. 2001).
Cyclic resistance ratio
The other essential component of simplified procedure is the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) which can be expressed as the

Fig. 6 Acceleration-time history

of 1999 Düzce earthquake
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232 Page 7 of 16 232

capability of soil to resist liquefaction, is calculated using the

equation below (Youd et al. 2001).

1 ðN 1 Þ60 50 1
CRR7:5 ¼ þ þ 2 − ð4Þ
34−ðN 1 Þ60 135 10ðN 1 Þ60 þ 45 200

In Eq. (4), (N1)60 is the SPT blow count normalized to an

overburden pressure of 100 kPa and a hammer energy ratio of
60% (Youd et al. 2001). The following equation can be used to
calculate (N1)60 (Sivrikaya and Toğrol 2006):

ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 0:75C N C R N m ð5Þ

In Eq. (5), Nm is SPT blow count, CR is the correction factor

for rod length which can be taken from Table 2 (Day 2002),
and CN is the overburden stress correction factor that might be
smaller than 1.60 (Cetin et al. 2004), can be calculated by the
equation below (Liao and Whitman 1986):
 0
0:5
C N ¼ Pa =σv0 ð6Þ

CN is used to normalize SPT blow count to an effective

Fig. 7 Chart for estimating the ground surface settlement of clean sand as overburden pressure σ’v0 of 100 kPa atmospheric pressure
a function of the factor of safety against liquefaction FSL (modified
from Day 2002)
Pa (Youd et al. 2001).

Fig. 8 (N1)60 values along BH1, BH2, BH3, and BH4 (from left to right, respectively)
232 Page 8 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232

Table 4 Magnitude As FS gets a higher value, so the soil will be more

scaling factors and peak Magnitude (Mw) amax (g) MSF
accelerations
resistant to liquefaction. Besides, soil that has FS some-
6.5 0.248 1.442 what larger than 1.0 can even liquefies during a seismic
7.0 0.39 1.192 shaking. For example, if a layer liquefies, then the up-
7.2 0.468 1.109 ward flow of water might trigger liquefaction of the
layer that has FS somewhat larger than 1.0 (Day
2002). Hence, in most cases, for the values of factor
Factor of safety against liquefaction of safety between 1.0 and 1.2, it is considered that there
still is a risk of liquefaction (Seed et al. 2003).
The last stage in simplified procedure is to determine the fac-
tor of safety (FS) with the use of expression below: Excess pore pressure ratios
CRR7:5
FS ¼ ð7Þ Theoretically, liquefaction occurs when the effective
CSR
stress of soil is reduced to essentially zero, which leads
In Eq. (7), MSF is the magnitude scaling factor and to a complete loss of shear strength or in other words,
has to be applied when the earthquake magnitude is the increase in pore water pressure causes the effective
different from 7.5, because the CRR calculated from stress to become equal to zero. So, the soil behaves as a
Eq. (4) is for the earthquakes with a magnitude of liquid. But, according to the studies aimed to compare
7.5. The following equation was used to determine in situ and laboratory pore pressure responses, it is un-
MSF (Youd et al. 2001): derstood that a value greater than 0.9 is enough for
excess pore pressure ratio to generate liquefaction
MSF ¼ 102:24 =M 2:56
w ð8Þ (Hazirbaba and Rathje 2004; Khatibi et al. 2012).

Fig. 9 FS, CRRMSF:1.442, and CSR values along boreholes (Mw = 6.5)
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232 Page 9 of 16 232

In this study, DIANA finite element software was used θ (Iai et al. 1990; Iai et al. 1992; Cazemier et al. 1998;
for the numerical analysis of excess pore pressure genera- TNO DIANA BV 2014). The parameter B can be de-
tion in which Towhata-Iai constitutive model is suitable fined as follows:
for such kind of analyses. The Towhata-Iai constitutive
model is based on an undrained two-dimensional approach ð0:5 K a Þ2
B¼
0
ð10Þ
of the soil accompanied by partial decoupling of the shear
−σ

ma
and volumetric deformations (Cazemier et al. 1998). The
stress-strain relationship is given by the following equa- Ka is the bulk modulus at the effective stress σ′ma. The
tion: volumetric plastic strain is given by:
8 0 9 8 9 8 9 s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
< σxx >
=   2 < 1 = < cosθi = 0 ffi
0
σyy ¼ −B εp − εxx þ εyy
I
1 þ ∑ Q ðγ ÞΔθi −cosθi
n 0 σm0 S
> εp ¼ σ ð1−S Þ þ þ εe0 ð11Þ
: σ0 >; : ; i¼1 i i
0
:
sinθi
; K f m0 −B
xy

ð9Þ
Here, n is the porosity, Kf is the bulk modulus of the ground
In Eq. (9), the stress σ is constituted of the isotropic water, σ′m0 is the initial mean effective stress and εe0 is the
and the deviatoric parts. Total strain ε, volumetric plas- initial elastic strain. The variable S and the shear stress vari-
tic strain εp and B, the elastic stiffness contribution to able r are expressed by:
the tangential stiffness are the components of the isotro- 0
σm τ
pic part. The deviatoric components are the shear stress S¼ 0 r¼ 0 ð12Þ
Q, the shear strain γ and the angle of shear mechanism σm0 −σm0

Fig. 10 FS, CRRMSF:1.192, and CSR values along boreholes (Mw = 7.0)
232 Page 10 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232

Fig. 11 FS, CRRMSF:1.109, and CSR values along boreholes (Mw = 7.2)

Fig. 12 Excess pore pressure

ratios
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232 Page 11 of 16 232

As can be seen in Eq. (34), S is the ratio of actual isotropic S1, p1, p2, and w1are material parameters describing the
effective stress to the initial effective isotropic stress and r is liquefaction properties of cohesionless soil (Iai et al.
the ratio of the shear stress to the initial isotropic stress. S is 1992). The parameter w1 defines the contribution of
obtained by: normalized shear work while p1 and p2 manage the
dilatancy of the initial and final phases, respectively.
The parameter S1 stands to keep S0 above zero for nu-
S ¼ S0
2 merical robustness (Roten et al. 2011). According to
for r < sinφp S 0
v ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
! !2
3 Dobry et al. (1982), below a certain limit in the ampli-
1 u 1
sinφ f − sinφp u sinφ 2 r− 2
sinφ S tude of cyclic shear strain or stress, no pore water pres-
S0 þ t 3
3 p p 0 2
S¼ þ 3
for r > sinφp S 0
sinφ f sinφ f sinφ f 3 sure generates. This is called the threshold limit and
ð13Þ takes part in the model as the parameter c1. A compre-
hensive presentation of the model and the method to
The parameter S0 is called the liquefaction front parameter identify its particular parameters can be found in Iai
defining the state of liquefaction (Fig. 4) while φf and φp are et al. (1990, 1992).
the friction angle at failure and phase transformation angle, Finite element model and material properties for the
respectively. The parameter S0 is determined as follows: soil layers can be seen in Fig. 5 and Table 3, respec-

p1 tively. The model has 18 m width and 16.5 m depth.
w
S 0 ¼ 1:0−0:6 for w < w1 Stiffness parameters of soil which are shear modulus G,
w
 w1 p2 ð14Þ
1 bulk modulus K, and young modulus E were calculated due
S 0 ¼ ð0:4−S 1 Þ þ S1 for w > w1
w to mean effective stresses at the midst of all layers. The

BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain
εv εv εv εv
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0 0.002 0.004 0 0.002 0.004 0 0.002 0.004
0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

6 6 6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

8 8 8 8

10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12

14 14 14 14

16 16 16
Σ Settlement=4.52 cm Σ Settlement=3.27 cm Σ Settlement=3.14 cm Σ Settlement=1.88 cm
Fig. 13 Liquefaction-induced settlements for four boreholes (Mw = 6.5)
232 Page 12 of 16 Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232

following equations were used to determine these parameters
(Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; Özener 2007):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð2:17−eÞ2 0 after scaling the accelerations to have the peak values fitting
G ¼ 700  σv0
ð 1 þ eÞ
2Gð1 þ ν Þ
K¼
3ð1−2ν Þ
E ¼ 2Gð1 þ ν Þ
Plane-strain approximation and Q8EPS four-node
isoparametric plane strain elements were used in the finite
element analyses. This type of element is based on linear
interpolation and Gauss iteration. The base of the model was
supported in both vertical and horizontal directions. In addi-
tion to this, the soil mass was prevented to compress or stretch
to simulate its horizontal extension to infinity by applying
rigid horizontal connections between all nodes along the left
and right edges of the model. The model is subjected to both
gravity and dynamic loading. As the dynamic load, time
history of 1999 Düzce Earthquake (Fig. 6) with peak acceler-
ation value of 0.513 g (WE component) was applied to all
nodes at the base of the soil mass in the horizontal X direction
ð15Þ
those obtained from Eq. (2).
Elastic stress analysis was performed as the first step
ð16Þ of each individual analysis for the three-scaled-time his-
tory data to obtain initial vertical stress and shear stress.
ð17Þ In this step of the analysis, horizontal stress was derived
from the initial vertical stress using lateral pressure ratio
K0 input which was calculated by well-known Jacky
formula given below:
K 0 ¼ 1−sinφ ð18Þ
The stress in this step was used as the reference value for
the calculation of the excess pore pressure ratio. In the follow-
ing transient nonlinear analysis, Newton-Raphson iteration
scheme with a maximum of ten iterations was applied inside
each time step (TNO DIANA BV 2014). For time integration,

BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain
εv εv εv εv
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

6 6 6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

8 8 8 8

10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12

14 14 14 14

16 16 16
Σ Settlement=28.6 cm Σ Settlement=22.8 cm Σ Settlement=22.4 cm Σ Settlement=15.1 cm
Fig. 14 Liquefaction-induced settlements for four boreholes (Mw = 7.0)
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232 Page 13 of 16 232

Wilson-θ with the value of 1.4 for θ as proposed by Bathe
(2006) was applied.
Liquefaction-induced settlements
By the time, saturated alluvial deposits are exposed to seismic
concussion, pore water pressures are common to generate
leading to liquefaction or loss of strength in the sand deposits
(Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992). Then settlement happens as
the excess pore pressures disappear (Tokimatsu and Seed
1987). The settlement and lateral spreading of saturated soil
deposits are the major geotechnical hazards following lique-
faction during earthquakes (Tsukamoto and Ishihara 2010).
Earthquake induced settlement frequently causes distress to
structures supported on shallow foundations, damage to utili-
ties that serve pile supported structures and to lifelines that are
usually constructed at groundling depths (Kramer 1996).
It is difficult to estimate earthquake induced settle-
ment while errors of 25 to 50% are common even in
static settlement predictions. However, some procedures
produce results reasonably comply well with many cases
of observed field behavior (Kramer 1996). One of these
methods used in common to estimate the liquefaction
induced settlements is proposed by Ishihara and
Yoshimine (1992) which correlates factor of safety
against liquefaction and one of the soil properties from
between relative density Dr, cone penetration resistance qc1
and Japanese standard penetration test N1 value with post-
liquefaction volumetric strain as can be seen in the chart given
in Fig. 7. The first step in this procedure is to calculate the
factor of safety against liquefaction. The second step is to
determine one of the soil properties given above and (N1)60
values were used in this manner. But, Japanese standard pen-
etration test procedure transmits about 20% more energy and
(N1)60 can be converted to N1 using the equation below given
by Kramer (1996):
N 1 ¼ 0:83ðN 1 Þ60 ð19Þ

BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4

Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain Volumetric Strain
εv εv εv εv
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

6 6 6 6
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

8 8 8 8

10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12

14 14 14 14

16 16 16

Σ Settlement=33.0 cm Σ Settlement=27.1 cm Σ Settlement=30.6 cm Σ Settlement=20.3 cm

Fig. 15 Liquefaction-induced settlements for four boreholes (Mw = 7.2)
232 Page 14 of 16
The next step in this procedure is to determine volumetric
strain by intersecting the factor of safety against liquefaction at
the vertical axis to appropriate N1 curve and then taking the
value at horizontal axis where N1 curve extends to. After deter-
mining volumetric strain values for all layers, settlements can
be calculated multiplying these values with the thickness of all
layers. As one can see in Fig. 7, settlements also will occur for
the layers with factor of safety bigger than 1.0 due to excess
pore pressure generation even insufficient to cause liquefaction.
Results
Following the procedure given in details for standard penetra-
tion test correction, (N1)60 values calculated in four boreholes
are given in Fig. 8. These values are necessary to determine
CRR component of simplified procedure and liquefaction in-
duced settlements.
CRR values for an earthquake with the magnitude of 7.5
were determined using Eq. (4) in four boreholes at all depths
the soil is SW and SW-SM. Since the magnitudes of the sce-
nario earthquakes are all different from 7.5, magnitude scaling
factors for each were calculated by use of Eq. (8).
As discussed before, the amount of loading generated by an
earthquake, CSR, is a function of peak horizontal ground ac-
celeration amax. Hence, values of amax for three scenario earth-
quakes were assessed using Eq. (2). These amax values were
then used in Eq. (1) to compute CSR values. Magnitude scal-
ing factors and peak ground accelerations calculated for three
scenario earthquakes are given in Table 4.
After determination of the components of simplified pro-
cedure, FS values were calculated using Eq. (7). These values
at all relevant depths of four boreholes for the scenario earth-
quakes with the magnitudes of 6.5, 7.0, and 7.2 including
CRR (multiplied with MSF) and CSR are given in Figs. 9,
10, and 11, respectively.
Excess pore pressure ratio values (for the sixth column of
nodes from left) obtained from the numerical analyses can be
seen in Fig. 12. These values generate after approximately 11 s
(rise steadily until 11 s) and hold steadily at the rest of the motion.
The settlement values for four boreholes for three scenario
earthquakes with the magnitudes 6.5, 7.0, and 7.2 are given in
Figs. 13, 14, and 15 respectively.
Conclusion
Results obtained from the analyses with simplified procedure as
well as numerical analyses with DIANA finite element software
using Towhata-Iai constitutive model indicate that liquefaction
phenomena importantly needs to be considered for the study area
especially for probable earthquakes with the magnitudes larger
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
than 7.0. It is not purpose of this paper, however, to drag up a
limit value of earthquake magnitude that will initiate liquefac-
tion, it is obvious that an earthquake with a magnitude somewhat
smaller than 7.0 will also generate enough cyclic stress to cause
liquefaction. This must be kept in mind for future structuring and
also for existing superstructures and infrastructures in the area
based upon the reality that liquefaction-induced settlements,
tilting and rupture of structures are some of the most hazardous
manifestations of earthquakes.
Due to fast urbanization, affecting the region for more than
a decade, it is hard to meet a coastal terrain nothing construct-
ed on. Correspondingly, this study is limited to a particular
area. The results for this particular area has shown that lique-
faction is a very important hazard needed to be considered for
Atakum. In the light of these, cooperation with Atakum mu-
nicipality, one of whose responsibilities is to archive past site
investigation reports and other relevant projects to grant a
construction license to any constructor, seems to be the next
step for future studies. Using the data shared by the munici-
pality in after days, it may be possible to assess risk in terms of
liquefaction for the entire county.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank to Metropol
Engineering, a boring company in Samsun, for their appreciated efforts at site.
References
Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from
shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:1015–1025.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015)
Aydan O, Sezaki M, Yarar R (1996) The seismic characteristics of
Turkish earthquakes. In:11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper No. 1270, Acapulco, Mexico
Ayothiraman R, Kanth SR, Sreelatha S (2012) Evaluation of liquefaction
potential of Guwahati: gateway city to Northeastern India. Nat
Hazards 63:449–460. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0158-9
Bathe KJ (2006) Finite element procedures. Prentice-Hall
Beaty M, Byrne PM (1998) An effective stress model for predicting
liquefaction behaviour of sand. In Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics III: (pp. 766–777). ASCE
Bol E, Onalp A, Arel E, Sert S, Ozocak A (2010) Liquefaction of silts: the
Adapazari criteria. B Earthq Eng 8:859–873. doi:10.1007/s10518-
010-9174-x
Bowles JE (1997) Foundation analysis and design. 5th edn. The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York
Büyüksaraç A, Bektaş Ö, Yılmaz H, Arısoy MÖ (2013) Preliminary
seismic microzonation of Sivas city (Turkey) using microtremor
and refraction microtremor (ReMi) measurements. J Seismol 17:
425–435. doi:10.1007/s10950-012-9328-1
Cazemier W, Feenstra PH, Snijders JMA, Visschedijk MAT, Bezuijen A,
Teunissen JMA, van Kesteren WGM, and Meijer K (1998) TNO
liquefaction project definition study. Tech. Rep. 97-NMR1449,
TNO Building and Construction Research
Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF Jr,
Kayen RE, Moss RE (2004) Standard penetration test-based proba-
bilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction po-
tential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130:1314–1340. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314)
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
Day RW (2002) Geotechnical earthquake engineering handbook.
McGraw-Hill, New York
Dobry R, Ladd RS, Yokel FY, Chung RM, Powell D (1982) Prediction of
pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction of sands during earth-
quakes by the cyclic strain method. National Bureau of Standards
Building Science Series 138. Washington, DC
Duman ES, Ikizler SB (2014) Assessment of liquefaction potential of
Erzincan Province and its vicinity, Turkey. Nat Hazards 73:1863–
1887. doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1170-z
Finn WDL, Lee KW, Martin GR (1977) An effective stress model for
liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 103:517–533
Hazirbaba K, Rathje EM (2004) A comparison between in situ and lab-
oratory measurements of pore water pressure generation. In: 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1–6,
Vancouver, Canada
Iai S, Matsunaga Y, Kameoka T (1990) Parameter identification for a
cyclic mobility model. Rep Port and Harbour Res Inst 29:57–83
Iai S, Matsunaga Y, Kameoka T (1992) Strain space plasticity model for
cyclic mobility. Soils Found 32(2):1–15. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.32.2_1
Ishihara K, Yoshimine M (1992) Evaluation of settlements in sand de-
posits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 32:
173–188. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.32.173
Ishihara K, Tatsuoka F, Yasuda S (1975) Undrained deformation and
liquefaction of sand under cyclic stresses. Soils Found 15(1):29–
44. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.15.29
Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F (1981) Soil liquefaction potential eval-
uation with use of the simplified procedure. In: First International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri S&T
Kanth SR, Dash SK (2010) Evaluation of seismic soil-liquefaction at
Guwahati city. Environ Earth Sci 61(2):355–368. doi:10.1007/
s12665-009-0347-3
Karakaş A, Coruk Ö (2010) Liquefaction analysis of soils in the western
Izmit Basin, Turkey. Environ Eng Geosci 16:411–430. doi:10.2113/
gseegeosci.16.4.411
Katona TJ, Bán Z, Győri E, Tóth L, Mahler A (2015) Safety assessment
of nuclear power plants for liquefaction consequences. Sci Technol
of Nucl Installations. doi:10.1155/2015/727291
Khatibi BR, Sutubadi MH, Moradi G (2012) Liquefaction potential var-
iations influenced by building constructions. Earth Sci Res 1:23
Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Liao SS, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in
sand. J Geotech Eng 112:373–377. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1986)112:3(373)
Maugeri M, Grasso S (2013) Liquefaction potential evaluation at Catania
Harbour (Italy). WIT Trans Built Environ 132:69–81. doi:10.2495/
ERES130061
Maurer BW, Green RA, Cubrinovski M, Bradley BA (2014) Evaluation
of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard
in Christchurch, New Zealand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001117
Mogami T, Kubo K (1953) The behavior of soil during vibration. In
Proceedings 3rd Internationa conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, pp 152–155
Nishi K, Kanatani M (1990) Constitutive relations for sand under cyclic
loading based on elasto-plasticity theory. Soils Found 30:43–59. doi:
10.3208/sandf1972.30.2_43
Özener PT (2007) Investigation of liquefaction and post-liquefaction be-
havior of layered sands during earthquakes by means of model tests.
Dissertation, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul
Papathanassiou G, Mantovani A, Tarabusi G, Rapti D, Caputo R (2015)
Assessment of liquefaction potential for two liquefaction prone
areas considering the May 20, 2012 Emilia (Italy) earthquake. Eng
Geol 189:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.02.002
Page 15 of 16 232
Prevost JH (1985) A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils.
Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 4:9–17. doi:10.1016/0261-7277(85)90030-0
Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands
using the CPT. J Geotech Eng 111:384–403. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1985)111:3(384)
Roten D, Fäh D, Laue J (2011) Application of a neighborhood algorithm
for parameter identification in a cyclic mobility model. In 4th
IASPEI/IAEE International Symposium: Effects of Surface
Geology on Seismic Motion
Sana H, Nath SK (2016) Liquefaction potential analysis of the Kashmir
valley alluvium, NW Himalaya. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:11–18. doi:
10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.009
Seed HB, De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the
liquefaction resistance of soils. Proceedings of the specialty confer-
ence on the use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering ASCE,
Special Publication No. 6, Blacksburg Virginia
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liq-
uefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273
Seed HB, Mori K, Chan CK (1975) Influence of seismic history on the
liquefaction characteristics of sands. Report No. EERC 75-25,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley
Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung R (1985) Influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 111(12):1425–1445
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Moss RE, Kammerer AM, Wu J, Pestana JM,
Riemer MF, Sancio RB, Bray JD, Kayen RE, Faris A (2003)
Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified and con-
sistent framework. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ASCE Los
Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar: Long Beach, CA
Shibata T, Teparaska W (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of
soils using cone penetration testing. Soils Found, J Jpn Soc Soil
Mech Found Eng 28:49–60. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.28.2_49
Sivrikaya O, Toğrol E (2006) Determination of undrained strength of
fine-grained soils by means of SPT and its application in Turkey.
Eng Geol 86(1):52–69. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.002
Stokoe KH II, Roesset JM, Bierschwale JG, Aouad M (1988)
Liquefaction potential of sands from shear wave velocity. Proc.,
9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engrg. 3:213–218
Taymaz T, Yilmaz Y, Dilek Y (2007) The geodynamics of the Aegean and
Anatolia: introduction. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications,291(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1144/SP291.1
TNO DIANA BV (2014) DIANA User’s Manual, Release 9.5. Delft,
The Netherlands
Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to
earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 113(8):861–878. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(861)
Tokimatsu K, Uchida A (1990) Correlation between liquefaction resis-
tance and shear wave velocity. Soils Found 30(2):33–42. doi:10.
3208/sandf1972.30.2_33
Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction
based on SPT-N value and fines content. Soils Found 23(4):56–74.
doi:10.3208/sandf1972.23.4_56
Tosun H, Seyrek E, Orhan A, Savaş H, Türköz M (2011) Soil liquefaction
potential in Eskişehir, NW Turkey. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
11(4):1071–1082. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-1071-2011
Tsukamoto Y, Ishihara K (2010) Analysis on settlement of soil deposits
following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found 50(3):399–
411. doi:10.3208/sandf.50.399
Ulamiş K, Kiliç R (2012) Liquefaction potential evaluation of the quater-
nary alluvium, Western Ankara (Turkey). Environ Earth Sci 67(4):
945–958. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1526-1
Yalcin A, Gokceoglu C, Sönmez H (2008) Liquefaction severity map for
Aksaray city center (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Nat Hazards Earth
Syst Sci 8(4):641–649. doi:10.5194/nhess-8-641-2008
232 Page 16 of 16
Yilmaz I, Yavuzer D (2005) Liquefaction potential and susceptibility
mapping in the city of Yalova, Turkey. Environ Geol 47(2):175–
184. doi:10.1007/s00254-004-1141-x
Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry
R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao
SSC, Marcuson WF, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power
MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction
Arab J Geosci (2017) 10:232
resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and
1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resis-
tance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(10):817–833.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)
Zhou S (1980) Evaluation of the liquefaction of sand by static
cone penetration test. Chin J Tech Eng 3