Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-014-1550-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential index based on SPT data
in the Erzincan, Eastern Turkey
E. Suba Duman & S. B. Ikizler & Z. Angin
Received: 7 November 2013 / Accepted: 14 July 2014
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014
Abstract This study includes determination of liquefaction
potential in Erzincan Province. Erzincan Province, the study
area, is located in a deep alluvial basin in a mountainous
region of eastern Turkey that is a few kilometers from the
highly active North Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). North
Anatolian Fault Zone is located approximately 7.7 km from
Erzincan city center. In a probable earthquake, Erzincan Prov-
ince is thought to be affected. On 13 March 1992, an earth-
quake having a surface wave magnitude of 6.8 struck Erzin-
can, giving rise to peak horizontal accelerations in the center
of the city of 0.501g in the eastwest direction and 0.398g in
the northsouth direction. Liquefaction potential for peak
horizontal accelerations (0.501g and 0.398g) was determined.
Liquefaction potential was investigated using Standard Pene-
tration Test (SPT). Liquefaction potential analyses are deter-
mined in two steps: geotechnical investigations and
calculations. In the first steps, boreholes were drilled to
obtain disturbed and undisturbed soil samples and SPT
values were obtained. Laboratory tests were made to identify
physical properties of soil samples. In the second step,
Liquefaction potential analyses were examined by a Seed
and Idriss (1971) method (simplified method) based on Stan-
dard Penetration Test (SPT). In order to liquefaction analysis
complete within a short time, MATLAB program were pre-
pared. Following the analyses, liquefaction potential is
E. S. Duman
Civil Engineering Department, Turgut Ozal University,
Ankara 06010, Turkey
e-mail: subasi_esra_53@hotmail.com
S. B. Ikizler (*) : Z. Angin
Civil Engineering Department, Karadeniz Technical University,
Trabzon 61080, Turkey
e-mail: banuh73@gmail.com
Z. Angin
e-mail: angin@ktu.edu.tr
investigated and by Sonmez and Gokceoglu (2005) method.
At the final stage of this study, liquefaction potential maps and
liquefaction potential index maps were prepared for different
earthquake magnitudes and different depths.
Keywords Liquefaction . Liquefaction potential index .
Earthquake . Standard penetration test . Erzincan . Turkey
Introduction
One of the most important causes of damages after the earth-
quakes is the soil liquefaction. Liquefaction can be defined as
temporary loss in strength of saturated sandy and silty deposits
under transient and cyclic loadings due to excess pore water
pressure. Since 1970, Seed and Idriss (1982, 1983, 1985,
1986) developed a simplified procedure for evaluation of soil
liquefaction resistance from Niigata and Alaska earthquakes
in 1964. Several empirical expressions were recommended to
determine the liquefaction potential using standard penetra-
tion tests, cone penetration tests, and shear wave velocity
(Tokimatsu and Yoshimi 1983; Iwasaki et al. 1981; Seed and
De Alba 1986; Suzuki et al. 1997; Robertson and Wride
1998). Liquefaction potential was determined by many re-
searchers using SPT-N values (Yalcn et al. 2008; Kanth and
Dash 2010; Tosun et al. 2011; Orhan et al. 2013). In the
literature, assessments of liquefaction potential are available
for different regions (Samui and Sitharam 2011; Ayothiraman
et al. 2012; Ganapathy and Rajawat 2012). Many provinces of
Turkey such as Manisa, Eskiehir, Aksaray, Sakarya, and
Hatay, the determination of liquefaction potential based on
SPT-N values were determined using Seed and Idriss (1971)
method (Karanlk 2006; Sisman 2006; Saglam 2008; Ulamis
and Klc 2012).
Liquefaction potential index (IP) and its severity categories
were proposed by Iwasaki et al. (1982). Sonmez and
 Arab J Geosci

Fig. 1 Erzincan Province map

Gokceoglu (2005) modified the equation of IP1. Liquefaction Geological and geotechnical studies have been conducted
potential index was investigated by many researchers for by several researchers in Erzincan. For instance, Akyldrm
different regions (Yalcn et al. 2008; Papathanassiou and (1993) investigated the geotechnical and seismologic
Valkaniotis 2010; Dixit et al. 2012). characteristics in the center of Erzincan. Saylan (2006)

Fig. 2 Simplified geological

plan of the Erzincan Basin
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 3 Tectonic framework and location map of the Turkish sector of the AlpineHimalayan orogenic belt (Tatar et al. 2013)

determined liquefaction potential using shear wave velocity liquefaction potential of Erzincan Province and its vicinity.
data for Erzincan Province. The liquefaction potential analysis Liquefaction potential is investigated by a Seed and Idriss
based on SPT-Nvalue methods is not studied for Erzincan (1971) method (simplified method) based on standard pene-
Province. The aim of our study was determination of tration test (SPT) and by recent procedure suggested by

Fig. 4 a Active faults in Turkey. b Cumulative right-lateral slip associated with M6.7 earthquakes. c The region inscribed by the solid red line in a is
projected relative to the AnatoliaEurasia rotation pole, so that a transform fault would strike due eastwest; the North Anatolian fault is seen todeviate
less than 40 km from being a simple right-lateral transform (Stein et al. 1997)
 Arab J Geosci

Table 1 Some historical earthquakes in Erzincan (Earthquake Research

Department, 1993)

Date N E Magnitude (M)

06 April 1907 39.3 40.4 4.9

15 September 1929 40.3 38.8 5
10 December 1930 39.7 39.2 5.6
13 October 1935 39.4 40.5 5
07 December 1937 39.9 40.4 4.7
26 December 1939 39.8 39.5 7.9
22 April 1940 39.6 39.9 5.2
12 November 1941 39.7 39.4 5.9
17 August 1949 39.6 40.6 5.3
04 February 1950 39.5 40.6 4.9
24 October 1954 40 40 4.6
07July 1957 39.4 40.4 5.1
14 January 1958 39.5 40.4 5.1
13 December 1959 39.8 38.8 4.5
26 January 1960 40.2 38.8 5.9
01 November 1961 39.7 40.8 4.5
16 November 1964 39.5 40.3 4.9
31 August 1965 39.4 40.8 5.6 Fig. 5 Acceleration time histories for the main shock (Erzincan station)
(EEFIT 1992)
20 August 1966 39.3 40.5 4.6
26 July 1967 39.5 40.4 5.9
18 September 1968 39.8 40.2 4.5
01 October 1969 39.3 40.6 4.7 sides by mountains rising to heights in excess of 3,000 m. The
03 September 1970 39.6 38.8 5.3 whole plain 4550 km long and 420 km wide in northwest
20 January 1979 40 39.6 4.6 southeast direction is located within the boundaries of Erzin-
18 October 1980 39.9 40.3 4.6
can. The elevation of plain from sea level is 1140 m. Erzincan
18 November 1983 39.8 39.4 5
Plain is surrounded by 3,500 m high Mount Kei in the north,
13 March 1992 39.7 39.5 6.8
more than 3,500 m high Mount Munzur in the south and
Karada in the west. Karasu which is a river reach of Frat
and other influent streams create large planes on Erzincan
plain. There is a big fault system in the north of Erzincan plain.
Sonmez and Gokceoglu (2005). Within this scope, SPT values The principal geological feature of the affected area is
were obtained in different locations and laboratory testing was Erzincan Basin (Fig. 2). Formation of the basin was initiated
performed to determine physical properties of soil samples. by pull-apart motion between two divergent segments of the
The liquefaction maps were prepared by considering the liq- North Anatolian Fault; subsequently, development is complex
uefaction severity categories for different depths and different and incompletely understood. The center of the basin is filled
peak horizontal accelerations (0.501g and 0.398g) using with alluvial plain deposits, consisting of silts, sands, and
ArcGIS 10.0 Software. The analyses and maps showed that gravels. These comprise rather more loose material than the
there is diversity in the study area in terms of liquefaction alluvial fan deposits which predominate around the edges of
potential. the basin.

Geology of the study area Seismotectonics of the study area

Erzincan Basin is situated in eastern Turkey, at 39323952
latitude and 39153950 longitude; approximately 600 km
east of Ankara (Fig. 1). The province of Erzincan is a highly
mountainous region with an area of 11,900 km2. The city sits
in a basin measuring 50 km eastwest by 15 km northsouth,
at an altitude of 1,200m above sea level, surrounded on all
The Erzincan basin and vicinity in the North Anatolian Fault
zone, which is the most active and the longest fault system of
Turkey (Fig. 3), display a fairly complex structure in terms of
its geologic, tectonic, and morphologic features. This region
where many earthquakes with varying magnitudes occurred
during the historical period is seismologically very active
Arab J Geosci

Fig. 6 Test holes at different locations

(Fig. 4). Erzincan basin and its vicinity located on North
Anatolian Fault Zone (NAFZ). The area where numerous
earthquakes (Table 1) in various magnitudes have taken place
during historical era is very active in seismologic sense
(Kaypak 2002). In the last century, two destructive earth-
quakes have occurred causing significant loss of life in the
province of Erzincan. The 1939 (M, 7.9) earthquake is the first
and the largest event (Emre et al. 2010). As a result of this
earthquake, nearly 360-km-long surface rupture occurred
from Erzincan to Erbaa, then towards Amasya. The 1939
earthquake started with a large compressing flexure towards
the east end of surface rupture and the rupture moved mostly
towards west. Surface faulting between Erzincan-Niksar ba-
sins followed the main route of North Anatolia Faulting Zone

Table 2 Field properties of the

soil samples Investigation area Depth (m) Boreholes Nspt Ground water level

State building (1) 420 SK1SK5 2235 12

Private hospital 318 SK6SK10 2235 22
Hospital (1) 37.5 SK11SK18 4155 30
Hospital (2) 320 SK19SK26 2548 30
State building (2) 39 SK27SK29 1447 19
Home for the aged 320 SK30SK32 2650 9.5
Treatment plant 310.5 SK34SK36 1930 1
Industrial area 320 SK37SK38 2649 33
Uzumlu 67.5 SK39SK40 2344 3
Yalnizbag 324 SK41SK46 1836 33
Cukurkuyu 37.5 SK47SK49 2150 47
Kavakyolu 37.5 SK50SK54 2350 30
Akyazi 39 SK55SK58 2650 31
Altinbasak 312 SK59SK62 1738 1
Ula 36 SK63 2850 11

Fig. 7 Soil class zonation maps
(NAFZ). However, in the most west section which is 76 km
long, surface faulting diverged from the main route and turned
towards Ezinepazar (Amasya) faulting route (Emre et al.
2010). This earthquake triggered earthquakes during 1939
1967 on NAFZ, seismic activity shifted towards west, and the
following earthquakes took place in the east and west ends of
faulting system.
Fig. 8 Position of the samples on
a plasticity chart
Arab J Geosci
Another important earthquake that took place on Erzincan
Basin was the one in 1992 with the magnitude of 6.8. This
earthquake was the second most devastating earthquake after
1939 great disaster due to its way of formation, seismic
features, and the damage it caused. Erzincan earthquake which
took place in 1992 is between the east end of 360-km section
of North Anatolia Fault which was torn in 1939 earthquake
Arab J Geosci

Table 3 Statistical assessment of

the soil samples Soil properties Sample amount Value

Min. Max. Mean Std. deviation

Unit weigth (kN/m3) 111 18.1 20.15 18.72 0.325

Water content (%) 111 4.23 27 14.90 5.52
Consistency limits
Liquid limit (%) 33 24 52 38.96 6.06
Plastic limit (%) 33 6 32 20.46 6.21
Plasticity index (%) 33 2 35 18.5 8.01
Grain size distribution
#10 (%) 111 0 57.71 7.01 9.63
#200 (%) 111 7.96 84.98 41.45 15.01

and the east of Erzincan. It draws attraction that fractures
emerged in this earthquake does not exactly follow the fault.
Fractures spread through an area about 50 km long and 3 km
wide. These fractures focused on four areas. These areas are
west end of Erzincan plain, road to ayrl in the north of
Erzincan, around mineral water facilities in the east of Erzin-
can and east end of Erzincan plain. There are also thrust faults
among these. There were 4-cm right lateral movements in
fractures and up to 30 cm drifts observed. Apart from this,
liquefaction was observed around mineral water facility and
torsions on the railway (Akyldrm 1993). Strong ground
motions were recorded by an accelerometer located in the
meteorology station, about 0.75 km northwest of Erzincan
city center and an estimated 5 km from the epicenter (EEFIT
1992). Acceleration time histories for the main shock (Erzin-
can station) are shown in Fig. 5. Maximum acceleration were
recorded 0.501g (eastwest) and 0.398g (northsouth).
Field and laboratory properties of the study area
In this study, Erzincan city center and its vicinity was chosen
as the investigation area. Areas which are contained in the
study area are as follows: Erzincan city center (state building
(1), private hospital, hospital (1), hospital (2), state building
(2), home for the aged, treatment plant), industrial area,
Uzumlu, Yalnzbag, Akyazi, Cukurkuyu, Kavakyolu, Ula,
Altnbasak.
Table 4 Rod length correction with respect the depth
Depth, d Correction for road length, CR
Soil condition is an important factor in the soil lique-
faction. The SPT-N values are important for the lique-
faction potential analysis. Sixty-three boreholes in differ-
ent locations were drilled to obtain SPT-N values. Test
holes at different locations are shown in Fig. 6. The
depths of measured SPT-N values changed between 1.5
and 24.0 m. Different soil types were observed in the
study area. The lowest SPT blow counts are observed in
regions where ground water level near the surface of the
ground, whereas at deeper levels, high SPT-N values are
obtained. Average of SPT values is changed between 20
and 30. However, high SPT-N values are changed be-
tween 30 and 50 at the some soils like hospital (one),
Cukurkuyu, Kavakyolu, Ula. Test holes at different loca-
tions were obtained to determine index properties of soils
disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. Ground water
levels were determined. Ground water levels changed
between 1 and 47 in the study area. The field properties
of the soil samples are shown in Table 2.
The physical properties of the soil samples were tested
in laboratory. Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were
determined physical properties such as grain size distribu-
tion, Atterberg limits, unit weight, water content, and type
of soil. According to USCS (Unified Soil Classification
System), in the study area, soils can be classified as SM
(silty sand), GM (silty gravel), and CL (inorganic clay).
The major part of the study area was classified as SM. Soil
class zonation maps of the study area are shown in Fig. 7.
In this study area, the values of unit weight changed
between 18.1 and 20.15 kN/m3 and average is 18.72 kN/
m3. The values of water content changed between 4.23 and

d<3 m 0.75 Table 5 Correction fac-

tor for borehole diameter Diameter of borehole CB
d=34 m 0.80
d=46 m 0.85 65 to 115 mm 1.00
d=610 m 0.95 150 mm 1.05
d=1030 m 1.0 200 mm 1.15
 Arab J Geosci

Table 6 Correction factor for

hammer energy ratio Country Hammer type Hammer release CE

United States Safety Rope and pulley 1.0

United States Donut Rope and pulley 0.75
Japan Donut Rope and pulley, special throw release 1.1
Japan Donut Free fall 1.1

27 % and average is 14.90 %. The Atterberg limits in the
study area are quite variable. In most places, soil was
determined as none-plastic. Position of the samples on a
plasticity chart is shown in Fig 8. The values of liquid limit
changed between 24 and 52 % and average is 38.96 %.
The values of plastic limit changed between 6 and 32 %
and average is 20.46 %. Average value of plasticity index
is determined as 18.5 %. The statistical assessment of the
soil samples is shown in Table 3.
overburden stress, rd is depth-dependent stress reduction fac-
tor (Dixit et al. 2012). Youd et al. (2001) formulated following
expression to calculate the stress reduction factor (rd):
1:00:4113z0;5 0:04052z 0:001753z1;5
rd
1:00:4177z0;5 0:05729z0:006205z1;5 0:00121z2
2
Determination of cyclic resistance ratio

The cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) is defined as the ability of

Methodology
The most liquefaction data are based on standard penetration
test in the literature. Using SPT data, liquefaction potential can
be determined by using three different methods: Seed and
Idriss (1971), Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983), and Iwasaki
et al. (1981). In this study, SPT- based method suggested by
Seed and Idriss (1971) has been performed.
Determination of cyclic stress ratio
Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) characterizes the seismic demand
induced by a given earthquake, and it can be determined from
peak ground surface acceleration that depends upon site-
specific motions (Dixit et al. 2012). Seed and Idriss (1971)
formulated following expression to calculate the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR):
amax v
CSR 0:65 rd
g 0 v
The 0.65 is a weighing factor to calculate the equivalent
uniform stress cycles required to generate the same pore water
pressure during an earthquake; amax is the peak horizontal
ground acceleration; g is acceleration of gravity; v and ' v
are total vertical overburden stress and effective vertical
the soil to resist the shear stresses induced by the earthquake.
Seed and Idriss (1971) formulated following expression to
calculate the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR):
The first step in assessment of liquefaction potential anal-
yses are to compute (N1)60 values from Eq. 3.
N 1 60 N C N C R C S C B C E 3
CN values can be calculated from Eq. (4).
r
Pa
CN 1:7 4
0 v
In this equation, ' v is the vertical effective stress at the
depth of SPT-N values and Pa is atmosphere pressure (100
kPa).
The CR values are recommended are shown in Table 4
(Youd et al. 2001). CS is for SPT samplers used without a
sample liner. CS value is 1.0 for a standard sampler without
liner. Otherwise, CS value is 1.2 for samplers with liner. CB
1
correction factor values are recommended by Robertson and
Fear (1996). These values are shown in Table 5. The correc-
tion factor and energy ratio values are recommended by Seed
et al. (1985). CE values are shown in Table 6.
Table 8 Liquefaction potential categories suggested by Sonmez and
Gokceoglu (2005)

Liquefaction potential index (IP) Liquefaction potential

Table 7 Liquefaction potential categories
0 Non-liquefiable
Liquefaction potential (FS) Liquefaction potential
0<IP 2 Low
0 Liquefiable 2<IP 5 Moderate
0<FS 1.2 Marginally liquefiable 5<IP 15 High
1.2<FS Non-liquefiable 15<IP Very high
Arab J Geosci

Table 9 Computation of FS for

different peak horizontal acceler- Location Depth (m) amax =0.501g amax =0.398g
ations (0.501g and 0.398g)
FS Assessment FS Assessment

State building (1) 4 1.53 Non-Liq. 1.58 Non-Liq.

8 1.07 Non-Liq. 1.57 Non-Liq.
12 0.96 Mar-Liq. 1.21 Non-Liq.
Private hospital 12 0.88 Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
Hospital (2) 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
7.5 1.14 Mar-Liq. 1.44 Non-Liq.
State building (2) 3 1.53 Non-Liq. 1.02 Mar-Liq.
6 0.81 Liq. 1.38 Non-Liq.
9 1.09 Mar-Liq. 1.17 Mar-Liq.
Home for the aged 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
6 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
9 2.02 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
12 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. 1.24 Non-Liq.
Treatment plant 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
6 0.85 Liq. 1.07 Mar-Liq.
9 0.75 Liq. 0.95 Liq.
Industrial area 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
4.5 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
Uzumlu 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
4.5 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
6 1.04 Mar-Liq. 1.3 Non-Liq.
7.5 0.7 Liq. 0.88 Liq.
Yalnizbag 3 1.37 Non-Liq. 1.73 Non-Liq.
6 0.92 Liq. 1.16 Mar-Liq.
9 0.85 Liq. 1.07 Mar-Liq.
Akyazi 3 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
6 (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq. (N1)60 >30 Non-Liq.
9 1.71 Non-Liq. 2.15 Non-Liq.
Altinbasak 3 1.23 Non-Liq. 1.54 Non-Liq.
6 0.85 Liq. 1.08 Mar-Liq.
9 0.76 Liq. 0.95 Liq.
12 0.83 Liq. 1.04 Mar-Liq.

Fig. 9 The factor of safety-depth correlation

 Arab J Geosci

Table 10 Computation of IP for different peak horizontal acceleration Table 11 Computation of IP for different peak horizontal acceleration
(0.501g) (0.398g)

Borehole IP IP IP IP Borehole IP IP IP IP
no. (depth, 3 m) (depth, 6 m) (depth, 9 m) (depth, 12 m) No (depth, 3 m) (depth, 6 m) (depth, 9 m) (depth, 12 m)

SK-1 0 0 0 0.82 SK-1 0 0 0 0

SK-2 0 0 0 0.192 SK-2 0 0 0 0
SK-3 0 0 0 0.68 SK-3 0 0 0 9.4
SK-4 0 0 0.05 2.05 SK-4 0 0 0 0.36
SK-5 0 0 0.154 0.974 SK-5 0 0 0 0
SK-6 4.2 SK-6 1.68
SK-7 10.08 SK-7 5.88
SK-8 25.2 SK-8 15.9
SK-9 4.2 SK-9 1.68
SK-10 4.2 SK-10 1.68
SK-19 0 0.049 SK-19 0 0.049
SK-20 0 0 SK-20 0 0
SK-21 0 0 SK-21 0 0
SK-22 0 0 SK-22 0 0
SK-23 0 0 SK-23 0 0
SK-24 0 0 SK-24 0 0
SK-25 0 0.049 SK-25 0 0.049
SK-26 0 0 SK-26 0 0
SK-27 5.273 5.359 6.484 SK-27 0.38 0.38 0.3961
SK-28 1.942 1.942 1.942 SK-28 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238
SK-29 5.273 5.359 6.484 SK-29 0.38 0.38 0.38
SK-30 0 0 0 0 SK-30 0 0 0 0
SK-31 0 0 0 0 SK-31 0 0 0 0
SK-32 0 0 0 0 SK-32 0 0 0 0
SK-33 0 3.487 8.174 SK-33 0 0.125 1.06
SK-34 0 0 0 SK-34 0 0 0
SK-35 0 0 0 SK-35 0 0 0
SK-36 0 0 0 SK-36 0 0 1.06
SK-37 0 0 0 SK-37 0 0 0
SK-38 0 0 0 SK-38 0 0 0
SK-39 0 0.105 SK-39 0 0
SK-40 0 0.105 SK-40 0 0
SK-41 0 1.86 4.67 8.37 SK-41 0 0.002418 1.027 2.025
SK-42 0.0416 3.06 3.08 3.09 SK-42 0.0416 0.073 0.073 0.073
SK-43 0.182 0.984 0.988 1.98 SK-43 0.182 0 0 0.0122
SK-44 0 0 0.0045 0.0045 SK-44 0 0.002418 1.027 2.025
SK-45 0 1.86 4.67 8.37 SK-45 0 0.002418 1.027 2.025
SK-46 0 1.86 4.67 8.37 SK-46 0 0.002418 1.027 2.025
SK-55 0 0 0 0 SK-55 0 0 0 0
SK-56 0 0 0 0 SK-56 0 0 0 0
SK-57 0 0 0 0 SK-57 0 0 0 0
SK-58 0 0 0 0 SK-58 0 0 0 0
SK-59 0.458 3.945 8.632 8.632 SK-59 0.458 0.106 1.043 1.043
SK-60 0 5.347 9.85 14.57 SK-60 0 0.802 1.739 4.589
SK-61 0 0.651 5.15 7.57 SK-61 0 0.106 1.043 1.178
SK-62 0 0.651 3.84 3.84 SK-62 0 0 0.178 0.178
Arab J Geosci

where MSF is the magnitude scaling factor, M is the

moment magnitude of earthquake.
The factor of safety values are classified three categories,
namely, liquefiable, marginally liquefiable and, non-
liquefiable (Table 7).

Determination of liquefaction potential index

Liquefaction potential cannot be evaluated only by the factor

Fig. 10 Pie charts showing the areas of the liquefaction potential index of safety (FS) values. In order to quantify the severity of
liquefaction, liquefaction potential index (IP) suggested by
The liquefaction potential of the silty and clayey soils has Iwasaki et al. (1982). IP is calculated as follows.
been determined for (N1)60 values greater than 30 or above as Z 20
non-liquefiable soil by Seed et al. (2003). The CRR values can IP F zW zdz 8
be calculated from Eq. 5. 0

1 N 1 60 50 1 where z is depth from the ground surface in meters.

CRR   5
34N 1 60 135 10N 1 60 45 2 200
W z 100:5z for z < 1:0 9a

Determination of factor of safety

W z 0 for z > 20m 9b
The potential for liquefaction is then described in terms of a
Sonmez and Gokceoglu (2005) modified F(z) term. F(z) is
factor of safety against liquefaction (Kramer and Mayfield
calculated as follows.
2007).
The factor of safety against liquefaction (FS) determined by F z 0for F S 1:2 10a
CRR
FS MSF 6
CSR F z 2  106 e18:427Fs for 1:2 > F S > 0:95 10b

MSF 102;24 =M 2:56 7 F z 1F S for F S < 0:95 10c

Fig. 11 Liquefaction potential maps according to FS values


Fig. 12 Liquefaction potential index maps (0.501g)
The following equation is used in cases where more than
one layer of soils:
Xn
Ip F zW zH mined. According to calculated FS and IP values, liquefaction
i potential maps were produced for different peak horizontal
where z is depth of layer midpoint in meters, n is number of
soil layer in meters, H is layer thickness in meters. W(z)
calculates using Eqs. (9a) and (9b).
Sonmez and Gokceoglu (2005) proposed new classifica-
tion categories: namely, non-liquefiable, low, moderate, high,
and very high for liquefaction potential (Table 8).
Discussion and results
The assessment of the liquefaction potential is one of the
critical issues in geotechnical earthquake engineering. In this
study, liquefaction potential has been determined with the
SPT-based method. It was determined by Seed and Idriss
(1971) methods using SPT values in Erzincan city center
and vicinity. The liquefaction assessments are carried out with
63 blow counts in the investigation area. MATLAB programs
Arab J Geosci
were written using these methods. Calculations were carried
out with this program. FS (factor of safety) and IP (liquefaction
potential index) values for the investigation area were deter-
accelerations. In the study area, some regions: namely
Cukurkuyu, Kavakyolu, Ula, hospital (1) consist of clayey
soils. So, in this region, non-liquefiable soil was accepted.
These areas were not included in the analysis of liquefaction.
On 13 March 1992, an earthquake having a surface
wave magnitude of 6.8 struck Erzincan, giving rise to
peak horizontal accelerations in the center of the city of
0.501g in the eastwest direction and 0.398g in the
northsouth direction. In this study, liquefaction potential
was estimated Erzincan city center and its vicinity using
these peak horizontal accelerations. In this study, the
calculations were made using this value. The corrected
values from the measured SPT blow counts (N1)60 were
calculated using Eq. (5). CS, CB, CR, and CE values for
the study area were selected 1.0, 1.0, 1.05, and 1.0,
respectively. The cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and the cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR) were calculated. FS (factor of
safety) values for the study area were determined using
Arab J Geosci
Eq. 6 according to Seed and Idriss (1971) methods. The
results of the analysis are presented with Table 9. Table 9
was prepared using lowest N values. As a result of these
analyses, some regions: namely Akyazi, home for the
aged, treatment plant, industrial area consist of clayey
soils. According to Seed and Idriss method, in these
areas, ((N1)60) values calculated greater than 30. So, in
these areas, soil liquefaction was not observed for peak
horizontal accelerations (0.501 and 0.398g). Liquefiable,
marginally liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils for peak
horizontal accelerations is shown in Fig. 9. The IP (liq-
uefaction potential index) values are presented with ta-
bles (Tables 10 and 11). Also, Pie charts showing the
areas of the liquefaction potential index were prepared
(Fig. 10).
At the final stage of this study, liquefaction potential
maps were prepared for peak horizontal accelerations
(0.501g and 0.398g) by interpolating most convenient FS
values depending on 63 boreholes data of study area. The
liquefaction potential is classified into three categories,
namely non-liquefiable, marginally liquefiable, and
liquefiable areas. These maps are shown in Fig. 11. The
maps produced using three colors, namely nonliquefiable
yellow, marginally liquefiable green, and liquefiable red.
Fig. 13 Liquefaction potential index maps (0.398g)
Three factors (liquefiable, non-liquefiable, and marginally
liquefiable) were observed for amax =0.501g. Liquefiable
areas were not observed for amax = 0.398g. Liquefaction
potential index maps were prepared according to depth
intervals (36912 m). Liquefaction potential index maps
are shown in Figs. 12 and 13. The liquefaction potential
index classified into five categories, namely non-
liquefiable, low, moderate, high, and very high liquefiable.
According to liquefaction potential index values, for the
amax =0.398g, 75.5 % of the study area having the category
of non-liquefiable. The low and moderate areas are 20.7
and 2.4 %, respectively. The high and very high areas are
0.9 and 0.5 %, respectively. For the amax =0.501g, 71.7 %
of the study area having the category of non-liquefiable.
Conclusions
Erzincan Province is an old town situated in the North Ana-
tolian Fault Zone. Erzincan Basin has been affected by large
earthquakes associated with the North and East Anatolian
fault zones. Erzincan Basin, where soil conditions are highly
heterogeneous, is composed of alluvial deposits of sand and
gravel with very small amounts of clay and silt. Due to the

Frat River near the city of Erzincan, ground water level is
quite high. Assessment of the liquefaction potential is one of
the critical issues in Erzincan Province due to soil conditions,
high level of ground water, and earthquake hazard. In this
study, liquefaction potential is investigated by a Seed and
Idriss (1971) method (simplified method) based on SPT. Fur-
thermore, liquefaction potential index is investigated by
Sonmez and Gokceoglu (2005) method. Liquefaction poten-
tial maps and liquefaction potential index maps of the area by
using ArcGIS 10.0 Software and IDW interpolation method
were prepared for different peak horizontal accelerations
(0.501 and 0.398g)
According to Seed and Idriss (1971) methods, FS values
were calculated greater than 1.2 for most of study area for
0.398g peak horizontal acceleration. Liquefaction potential of
less than 1 was mainly located in the north sections of the city
center for 0.501g peak horizontal acceleration. From the result
of the liquefaction analyses, less than 10 % of study area was
observed. Liquefaction potential index of greater than 15
(very high liquefiable) and between 5 and 15 (high
liquefiable) were mainly located in small regions of the south,
north, and east sections of the city center for 0.501g and
0.398g peak horizontal accelerations. IP values were mainly
calculated between 0 and 5 (low liquefiable) in the south,
north, and east of the city center for 0.501g and 0.398g peak
horizontal accelerations. In general, the results showed that
liquefaction potential changes with peak horizontal accelera-
tions. Soil investigation should be done carefully in the con-
struction sites which have high liquefaction potential and
necessary measures should be taken.
References
Akyldrm A (1993) In terms of engineering geology survey of Erzincan
location area in accordance with settlement. Istanbul Technical
University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, M.
Sc. Thesis, pp 248
Ayothiraman R, Raghu Kanth STG, Sreelatha S (2012) Evaluation of
liquefaction potential of Guwahati: Gateway city to Northeastern
India. Nat Hazards 63:449460
Dixit J, Dewaikar DM, Jangid RS (2012) Assessment of liquefaction
potential index for Mumbai city. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:
27592768
Emre O, Kondo H, Ozalp S, Elmaci H, Kurcer A (2010) Fault
geometry and slip distribution associated with the 1939
Erzincan Earthquake (M: 7.9), North Anatolian Fault.
Geophys Res Abstr 12:20102551
EEFIT (Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation Team) (1992) The
Erzincan, Turkey earthquake of 13 March 1992, pp 101
Ganapathy PG, Rajawat AS (2012) Evaluation of liquefaction potential
hazard of Chennai city, India: using geological and geomorpholog-
ical characteristics. Nat Hazards 64:17171729
Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F (1981) Soil liquefaction potential
evaluation with use of the simplified procedure. International
Arab J Geosci
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, pp 209214
Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S, Sato H (1982)
Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified
methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on
microzonation, Seattle, USA, 3:13191330
Kanth STGR, Dash SK (2010) Evaluation of seismic soil-liquefaction at
Guwahati city. Environ Earth Sci 61:355368
Karanlk, S (2006) Determination of liquefaction risk in Hatay Altinkoy
region. Cukurova University, Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, M. Sc. Thesis, pp 70
Kaypak B (2002) Determination of 3-D velocity structure of the
Erzincan basin by localearthquake tomography. Istanbul
University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences,
Ph. D. thesis,pp 224
Kramer SL, Mayfield RT (2007) Return period of soil liquefaction. J
Geotech Geoenviron 133(7):802813
Orhan A, Turkoz M, Tosun H (2013) Preliminary hazard assessment and
site characterization of Meselik campus area, Eskisehir-Turkey. Nat
Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:7584
Papathanassiou G, Valkaniotis S (2010) Liquefaction hazard map-
ping at the town of Edessa, Northern Greece. Nat Hazards
53:109123
Robertson PK and Fear CE (1996) Liquefaction of sands and its evalu-
ation proceedings. 1st Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering
Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential
using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442459
Saglam M (2008) Investigation of liquefaction potential of Saruhanl
(Manisa) municipality sites. Gazi University, Graduate School of
Natural and Applied Sciences, M. Sc. Thesis, pp 155
Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modeling for predicting
soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:19
Saylan S (2006) Liquefaction potential analysis of Erzincan basin
due to shear wave velocity. Istanbul Technical University ,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, M. Sc.
Thesis, pp 145
Seed HB and De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating
the liquefaction resistance of soils, proceedings. ASCE Insitu
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating
liquefaction potential. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):
12491273
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. EERI Monograph, Berkeley, Calif
Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential
using filed performance data. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
109(3):458482
Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung R (1985) Influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng
ASCE 111(12):14251445
Sisman E (2006) Liquefaction susceptibility of Fethiye by using
SPT and shear wave velocity measurements. Gazi University,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, M. Sc.
Thesis, pp 234
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C (2005) A liquefaction severity index suggested
for engineering practice. Environ Geology 48:8191
Stein RS, Barka AA, Dieterich JH (1997) Progressive failure on the North
Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering. Geophys
J Int 128:594604
Suzuki Y, Koyamada K, Tokimatsu K (1997) Prediction of lique-
faction resistance based on CPT tip resistance and sleeve
friction. Procedings XIV International Conference of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany,
pp 603606
Tatar O, Akpnar Z., Grsoy H, Piper J.D.A, Kobulut, F, Mesci B.L,
Polat A, Roberts A. P. (2013). Palaeomagnetic evidence for the
Arab J Geosci
neotectonic evolution of the Erzincan Basin, North Anatolian Fault
Zone, Turkey, Journal of geodynamics, 65, 244258.
Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction
based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soil and Foundations
23(4):5674
Tosun H, Seyrek E, Orhan A, Savas H, Turkoz M (2011) Soil liquefaction
potential in Eskiehir, NW Turkey. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:
10711082
Ulamis K, Klc R (2012) Liquefaction potential evaluation of the quaternary
alluvium, Western Ankara (Turkey). Environ Earth Sci 67:945958
Yalcn A, Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H (2008) Liquefaction severity map for
Aksaray city center (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Nat Hazards Earth
Syst Sci 8:641649
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
resistance of soilssummary report from the 1996 NCEER and
1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resis-
tance of soils. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(4):297313