Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY CRITERIA FOR

FINE GRAINED SOILS SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE LOADING

Raskar-Phule, R*., Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
(IIT) Bombay, 124043001@iitb.ac.in.
Choudhury, D., Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay,
dc@civil.iitb.ac.in.

ABSTRACT: Majority of liquefaction related studies concentrated on relatively clean sands believing that only
“clean sandy soils” with few amount of fines do liquefy and cohesive soils were non liquefiable because of its
resistance to cyclic loading due to shear strength. However, a few major earthquakes showed that even cohesive
soils, like silts and clays may exhibit soil liquefaction response. This accelerated research studies on liquefaction
susceptibility of fine grained soils. The paper presents an overview of previous and recent studies on the assessment
of liquefaction susceptibility giving brief information about the development and discrepancies found in the
literature.

INTRODUCTION in fine grained soils after Haichen (1975) and

Majority of liquefaction related studies
concentrated on relatively clean sands believing
that only “clean sandy soils” with few amounts of
fines do liquefy and cohesive soils were non
liquefiable because of its resistance to cyclic
loading due to shear strength. However, a few
major earthquakes showed that even cohesive soils,
like silts and clays may exhibit soil liquefaction
response. This accelerated research studies on
liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils. The
paper presents an overview of previous and current
studies on the assessment of liquefaction
susceptibility giving brief information about the
development and discrepancies found in the
literature.
An Overview of Liquefaction Susceptibility
Criteria for Fine Grained Soils
[1] reported liquefaction of soils with up to 70%
fines and 10% clay fraction during Mino-Owar,
Tohankai and Fukui earthquakes. This led to study
of liquefaction and cyclic mobility of fine grained
soils.
The criteria to assess liquefaction susceptibility of
fine soils begin with Chinese criteria published by
[2] and recommended by Chinese code for
Aseismic Design of hydraulic Structures. It was
based on the observed failures due to liquefaction
Tangshan (1976) earthquakes in China. According
to these criteria, the liquefiable fine grained soils
were having clay content less than 15 % (5 μm or
less), liquid limit (LL) between 21 and 35,
plasticity index (PI) between 4 and 14, and natural
water content (wc) of 90% or above LL. The
criterion for the measure of the clay content of the
soil eliminates the medium to high plastic soils.
The LL criterion of a soil is an indirect measure of
wc or void ratio (e) that corresponds to specified
undrained shear strength of 2 to 2.5 kPa. The next
two criteria identify the sensitivity of fine grained
soils. A few researchers have shown that [2] differ
from the ASTM procedures followed in USA and
some other countries.
[3] reported that soils with fines up to 90% and
clay content of 18 % exhibited liquefaction during
Tokachi –Oki earthquake of 1968.
[4] had suggested that low plasticity fines (PI< 4)
do not influence the liquefaction potential.
Chinese criteria was modified and revised by [5] as
“Modified Chinese Criteria” to fit the universal
guidelines. According to these criteria, fine
(cohesive) soils that plot below the line as shown
in Fig. 1 are considered to be susceptible to
liquefaction if, percent clay fines (clay size less
than 0.005mm) are less than 15% , LL limits to
35% , and the in-situ wc is or above 0.9 times LL.
Raskar-Phule,R. & Choudhury, D.
Fig.1 Modified Chinese criteria [5]
[6] suggested that if the fines in sand are less than
5%, their effect on liquefaction susceptibility may
be neglected and suggested use of charts in Fig.2
for sands as well for soils with fines.
Fig.2 Relationship between CSR and (N1)60 values
for silty sand for Mw = 7.5 [6]
[7] made an observation about the effect of fines in
sand in developing equivalent clean sand behavior.
If the void ratio of silty sand and clean sand is the
same the liquefaction resistance decreases.
[8] noted that the determination of LL by means of
the fall cone used in China produced values that
are about four points higher than those values
determined by means of the Casagrande percussion
device. Hence [8] recommended a slight reduction
of the LL condition of the Chinese criteria before
using it as a screening tool when the Casagrande
method has been used.
[7], [9] and [10] also suggested some adjustments
of the index properties as determined using the US
standards, prior to applying the Chinese criteria as
shown in Fig.3. According to this criteria, the soils
that fall below the line having wc = 0.87(LL) and
LL as 33.5 will be considered as susceptible to
liquefaction.
Fig.3 Chinese criteria adapted to ASTM definitions
of Soil Properties [10]
[11] mentioned that in soils in which the fines
content is sufficient to separate the coarser
particles, the nature of the fines controls the
behavior. . Low plasticity or non-plastic silts and
silty sands may be highly susceptible to
liquefaction. This will be the case when PI is less
than about 10. For soils with moderately plastic
fines ( fines content more than about 15 % and 8 ≤
PI ≤ 15 ), the liquefaction behavior may be
uncertain and may need further investigation.
After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, [12, 13]
noted that a deposit of clayey soil might have
contributed to the surface deformations observed at
the Moss Landing site. They concluded that
indiscriminate use of the Chinese criteria as a
substitute for detailed laboratory and in situ testing
should be avoided.
[14] recommends the Chinese criteria as a
generally conservative predictive tool.
Additionally, he follows a series of assumptions to
 A Critical Review of Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Fine grained Soils Subjected to Earthquake Loading
state that natural soil deposits that have a "C"
descriptor (e.g. CH, CL, SC, and GC) are screened
as non-liquefiable. Possibly liquefiable fine-
grained soils should have LL < 35 and plot below
the A-line or have PI < 7 (Bray and Sancio, 2006).
[15] proposed a criterion according to soil type
behavior index (Ic) which can be determined using
CPT parameters: normalized tip resistance, Q, and
friction ratio, FR. Authors suggest that soils with Ic
> 2.6 are considered to be non-liquefiable; whereas
soils with Ic < 2.6 and FR< = 1.0% are considered
to be very sensitive and vulnerable to liquefaction.
After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, [16] found
that liquefaction of silty soils caused “widespread
permanent ground deformation” on gently sloping
Holocene, alluvial fan surfaces in the affected
region. They state, “The conclusion that permanent
ground deformation during the 1994 earthquake
was caused by liquefaction of very silty sands is
consistent with the experience from the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake.” The dynamic resistance of
low plasticity silty and clayey soils, which led to
significant ground failure and damage, e.g., Balboa
Boulevard, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake,
warrants additional study
[17] found a threshold value of PI at around 4-5 at
which silt-clay mixtures have highest susceptibility
of liquefaction. They gave an approximate
correlation between cyclic stress ratio (CSR) for
initial liquefaction and PI, initial void ratio (e0)
and number of cycles (N) based on statistical
analysis. They showed that an increase in PI lowers
the cyclic stress ratio for liquefaction in low
plasticity range upto a critical point after which the
liquefaction resistance increases with increase in
PI.
[18] reinforced, refined and promoted the criteria
for silty soils outlined in [5] as shown in Table 1.
They presented several case histories and theory to
promote a simple criterion based on two „key‟ soil
parameters; clay content (percent of fines by
weight smaller than 0.002mm) and LL (determined
by Casagrande-type percussion apparatus) not only
to partition liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils but
also to address cases where clay sized grains are
non-plastic and non-clay sized grains are plastic.
[19] indicate that soils that have LL < 30 and PI <
10 are liquefiable, and those with 30 < LL <40 and
10 < PI < 12 fall into an "uncertain range".
Undisturbed samples of soils that plot in that
region of the plasticity chart should be obtained for
laboratory testing (Bray and Sancio, 2006).
Table 1 Liquefaction susceptibility of silty soils
[18]
Clay Content Liquid Limit Liquid Limit
< 32 ≥ 32
< 10% Susceptible Further
studies
Required
(considering
plastic non-clay
sized grains –
such as mica)
≥ 10% Further Non-
studies Susceptible
required
(considering
non-plastic clay
sized grains –
such as mine
and quarry
tailings)
[20] used a wider range of the plasticity chart, and
according to his criteria, soils with LL < 25 and PI
< 7 is liquefiable. Soils that have 25 < LL < 35 and
7 < PI < 10 are potentially liquefiable, and finally
soils with 35 <LL < 50 and 10 < PI < 15 are
susceptible to cyclic mobility (Bray and Sancio,
2006).
[21] developed and recommended revised
approximate corrections to better fit the empirical
database as shown in Fig. 3 for Fines Content (FC):
i) FC < = 5%, ii) 5%< FC<35% and iii) FC>=35%
In [22] and [23] fundamental aspects of monotonic
and cyclic liquefaction of silty sands were
explored. The steady-state line for silty soils
appeared to be non-unique, and as opposed to clean
sands, sands with high silt content exhibit
increasing dilatancy with increasing confining
pressure. Importantly, sands with high silt contents
were found to be highly contractive and clearly
liquefied in these carefully performed cyclic
triaxial tests.
The proposed cut-off value of Ic by [15] was
criticized by [24]. They stated that 2.6 is too
conservative and this boundary should be lowered.
Raskar-Phule,R. & Choudhury, D.
Later [21] lowered Ic value to 2.4 and stated that
soils with Ic > 2.4 should be further tested while
soils with Ic < 2.4 are considered to be liquefiable.
[25] defined the threshold and limit fines content
(FCth and FCl) to discriminate between cases when
the coarser grains interact and influence response
and when there are sufficient fines (FC>FCl) such
that the coarse particles are essentially “floating” in
a matrix of fine silt-size particles. In the latter case,
the void ratio of the fine fraction (ef; or if FCth<FC
<FCl, the equivalent inter-fine void ratio) is the key
descriptor of density because the fine fraction
governs the response of the mixed soil.
Based on this field and laboratory performance,
[26] recommended that the Modified Chinese
Criteria be relegated to history as the „percent clay
fines‟ is less important than overall contribution of
fines to plasticity. The authors represented
recommendations regarding “liquefiability” of soils
with significant fines contents as shown in the Fig.
4. The classification was done based on soil index
parameters. Soils having PI < = 12, LL < = 37 and
wc > 0.8(LL) are considered in Zone A and are
considered potentially susceptible to “classic”
cyclically induced liquefaction. Soils with PI < =
20, LL < = 47 and wc > = 0.85(LL) comes in Zone
B which may be liquefiable and soils lying out of
these boundaries, termed as Zone C soils are not
considered to be susceptible to “classic cyclic
liquefaction but to be checked for potential
sensitivity.
[27] criticized the [2] and the criteria proposed by
[18] and recommended laboratory testing as the
best way to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility of
cohesive soils. Based on the results of their study,
[17] proposed the following criteria as shown in
Fig. 5. Soils are susceptible to liquefaction or
cyclic mobility if, wc /LL≥0.85 and PI≤12. Soils
are moderately susceptible to liquefaction or cyclic
mobility if, wc /LL≥0.85 and 12<PI<20. Soils with
PI>20 are non- liquefiable due to high clay content.
[28] found that Fraser River Delta silt (PI=5) and
fine-grained mine tailings (0< = PI< = 12),
respectively, underwent liquefaction even though
some of the criteria cited above indicated that some
of the soils tested were not susceptible to
liquefaction.
Fig.4 Recommended liquefaction susceptibility
boundaries for fine-grained soils by [26]
[29] further developed the criteria proposed by
Bray et al. (2004) as shown in Fig. 6 proposing that
soils with wc/LL > 0.85 and (ii) PI < 12 are
vulnerable to liquefaction, soils having (i) wc /LL >
0.80 and (ii) 12 < PI < 18 are moderately
susceptible to liquefaction and they propose further
laboratory testing for fine-grained soils located in
this range; whereas, soils having PI > 18 are
considered to be non-liquefiable under low
effective stress levels due to their high clay
content.
[30] found that the liquefaction potential of clayey
soils that do not have high ion concentrations in
their pore-water can be related to PI with
liquefaction potential decreasing as PI increases.
They state that “soil with PI >15 is non-
liquefiable.”
[31], [32] and [33] have investigated the
liquefaction of soils with fines and shown that fine
grained soils with more than 50 % passing US
sieve # 200 can be reasonably grouped either into
soils that exhibit sand-like stress-strain behavior or
soils that exhibit clay like stress-strain behavior
during monotonic and cyclic undrained shear
loading. They presented new liquefaction
susceptibility criteria for saturated silts and clays
subjected to earthquake loading. Fig.7 provides a
schematic illustration of the transition behavior of
fine grained soils with increasing PI.
The criterion is based on PI and according to
authors; fine-grained soils having PI < 3 are named
as “sand-like” and they can exhibit “cyclic
 A Critical Review of Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Fine grained Soils Subjected to Earthquake Loading
liquefaction” type response; whereas, for fine-
grained soils having PI > 7 are named as “clay-
like” and they are expected to exhibit “cyclic
mobility” type response. In between these PI
ranges, i.e. 3 to 7, a transition is expected from
sand-like behavior to clay-like behavior.
Fig.5 Liquefaction susceptibility margins [27]
Fig.6 Liquefaction susceptibility margins [29]
[35] investigated the liquefaction susceptibility of
saturated loess (silty soil) and fine sand obtained
from an airport site near Lanzhou, China. This
loess had PI varying from 7.2 to 9. Their studies
indicated that this loess was more susceptible to
liquefaction than fine sand.
[36] Investigated liquefaction behavior of clayey
sand from a site where large sand boiling,
softening and large deformations had been
observed in Iran due to an earthquake of magnitude
6.4. The soil had a LL of 38 %, PI=18 %, and fine
fraction (finer than 75 microns) of 44%. They
performed cyclic triaxial tests. The analysis of data
indicated that the clayey sand deposit likely
developed high residual excess pore water
pressures and significant shear strains during the
earthquake.
Fig.7 Transition from sand-like to clay-like
behavior with increasing PI [32]
[37] based on the data suggested that the soils with
low plasticity (PI < about 7) may liquefy or
develop large deformations under cyclic loading.
[38] gave insights into the influential role of clay
mineralogy on the cyclic behavior of silt–clay
mixtures. They stated that there are some aspects
of clay mineralogy that the PI cannot quite capture
(e.g., differences in clay mineral coating, water-
orienting ability). The effects of clay mineralogy
may actually explain the different limiting PI
values.
After the 2009 Olancha M5.2 earthquake, [39]
reported that the liquefaction occurred in fine-
grained sand to silty sand from 0.9 to 1.4 m having
Fines content(less than 0.075mm) as high as
15±8%.
[40] gave critical silt contents for different
accelrations upto which the liquefaction resistance
increases. Further, the authors also stated that the
effect of silt content is very much dependent on
relative density.
Raskar-Phule,R. & Choudhury, D.

[41]) studied the effect of plastic fines on sand and But if the silt particles are located between the sand
concluded that increase in fines leads to an increase grains so as to separate the sand grains, then the
in the instability, followed by a decrease with a structure is much weaker.
further increase in fines content. [47] demonstrated the comparison of phase concept
[42] assessed the liquefaction potential area of for liquefaction in both sandy and clayey soils as
southwest Christchurch following the 2010 darfield shown in Table 2.
earthquake and observed that the liquefaction
ejecta throughout Christchurch were consistently Table 2 Phase concept for both sandy and clayey
grey fine silty sand. soils [47]
[43] characterized the different regimes of fine- Soils Sand; clayey sand Clay; silty clay
Water
grained soil behavior under earthquake load by a content
Wn PL; Wn; LL
(η, LI5) stability diagram as shown in Fig.8 that Cyc Cyc
Force Type Impact Impact Static
captures the effect of soil plasticity through lic lic
Liquidity Index (LI) and used it to analyze the Influence Water
Excess Pore Water Pressure
Factor Content
potential for liquefaction in fine grained soils.
[44] stated that liquefaction resistance increases Effective Stress
Liquefied
with increase in fines up to about 10–15% and then Mechanism
>LL <LL
starts to decline for a higher increase in fines >0 =0
content and that the effect of non-plastic fines on Full or 100
strain energy based liquefaction resistance shows a Behavior
% pore
Liquefaction
Mud Land
more complicated behavior. pressure Flow slide
ratio
[45] carried out Cyclic triaxial tests for remodeled Limited
saturated clayey sands with varying clay Content Limited
Deformation Unlimited flow Strain Flow
Flow strain
and found that the lowest liquefaction resistance in strain
mixtures occurs when clay contents is 15%.

Discrepancies / Limitations of the Liquefaction

Susceptibility Criteria

Although the performances of widely used

liquefaction susceptibility criteria for fine grained
soils helps to better understand the soil response,
they also suffer from some limitations which are
discussed here.
The use of both [2] and [5] is questionable for
sites exhibiting significant different characters than
the specified grain soils and for different
earthquake conditions, i.e. different level and
duration of shaking.
The suggestions of [6] are not based on
experimental or field data.
Fig.8 Stability diagram [43]
[4] did not consider the effect of the void ratio in
their analysis.
[46] pointed out that location of silts in the soils
[7] stated that if the void ratio of silty sand and
structure is a primary factor for silt contents below
clean sand is the same the liquefaction resistance
approximately 30%. If the silt particles are located
decreases. If the comparison is made at the same
in the voids between the larger sand grains, the
(N1)60, the effect of fines is to increase the
effect of the silt is to increase the strength and
liquefaction resistance. But, if comparison is made
decrease the liquefaction potential of the structure.
 A Critical Review of Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Fine grained Soils Subjected to Earthquake Loading
using the “the same void ratio in sand skeleton” as
the criteria, then there is no effect on the cyclic
strength provided the fines can be accommodated
in the sand voids.
[11] mentioned that for soils with moderately
plastic fines ( fines content more than about 15 %
and 8 ≤ PI ≤ 15 ), the liquefaction behavior may be
uncertain and may need further investigation. It is
obvious that it is still not possible to evaluate the
likelihood of liquefaction of silts or silty clays with
the same confidence as for clean sands without
additional investigations.
The main limitation of the criteria proposed by [18]
is that the criteria did not take into account the wc
to LL ratio as a screening tool for the assessment of
liquefaction susceptibility. Also, for the use of
Table 1 the clay refers to fraction finer than 0.002
mm and LL should be determined using
Casagrande type equipment.
[19] observed that there is significant controversy
and confusion regarding the liquefaction potential
of silty soils (and silty /clayey soils), and also
coarser, gravelly soils and rockfills.
[17] states that more detailed and comprehensive
study is warranted to prove that the lowest level of
liquefaction resistance is at PI = 4.They
recommends that more research to understand
seismic behavior of fined grained soils is essential.
The CRR curves developed by [21] are valid only
for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes and are to be
adjusted to other magnitudes using scaling factors.
The only limitation of [26] criteria is that it was
based on a summary of field observations and
experimental researches and hence do not address
on how the criteria was developed.
[27], [31], and [33] suggested that field test data is
nessecary for sand like soils for the determination
of liquefaction potential whereas laboratory testing
is essential to ascertain the behavior of clay like
soils during cyclic loading. Authors presented
these criteria in the CRR vs. PI domain without a
scale. The distinction of “sand-like” and “clay-
like” fine grained soils was made based on solely
PI of the specimens. Criteria proposed by [27] is
similar to that proposed by [26], except that LL
which is a common parameter of almost all the
previous studies is not considered as the authors
observed that a number of specimens with LL >
35% were found to be moderately susceptible to
liquefaction.
As shown in Fig. 5, only the upper limit of PI
given by [27] is modified for moderately
liquefiable soils from 20 to 18. Also the authors
suggest that the proposed criteria should be applied
with engineering judgments as there may be cases
where sensitive soils with PI > 18 may undergo
sever strength loss as a result of earthquake
induced straining.
[16] recommends additional study for the dynamic
resistance of low plasticity silty and clayey soils
and is supported by [17], who state that for the
commonly occurring low plasticity silts and silty
clays in the central United States, “Their
liquefaction behavior is not properly understood at
present and is often confused with that of sand-silt
mixtures.”
CONCLUSIONS
Although researchers had made efforts on
identification of the susceptible soil type on
liquefaction for fine grained soils based on both
empirical and theoretical conduct, there is still no
qualitative and quantitative parameter, no definite
guidelines in geotechnical field that could be used
as an evaluation tool on liquefaction susceptibility.
The controversy and confusion of the fines grained
soils behavior after disturbed by cyclic load is
complex. Hence, review on fine grained soils
which are vulnerable to liquefaction must be
studied and more related research on this needs to
be done to have a good understanding of the
liquefaction behavior of fine grained soils.
REFERENCES
1. Kishida, H. (1969), Characteristics of
liquefied sands during Mino-Owari,
Tohnankai and Fukui earthquakes, Soil and
foundation, 9(1), 75-92.
2. Wang, W. (1979), Some findings in soil
liquefaction, Water Conservancy and
Hydro-electric Power Scientific Research
Institute, Beijing, China, 1-17.
3. Tohno, I., and Yasuda S. (1981),
Liquefaction of the ground during the 1978
Miyagiken-Oki earthquake, Soils and
Foundations, 21(3), 18-34.
Raskar-Phule,R. & Choudhury, D.
4. Ishihara, K., and Koseki, J. (1989), Cyclic
shear strength of fines containing sands.
Earthquake and Geotechnical. Engrg.,
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 101-106.
5. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1982),
Ground motions and soil liquefaction
during earthquakes, Berkeley Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
6. Seed H.B., Tokimatsu, K., L.F., and Chung,
R. (1985), Influence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J.
Geotechnical Engg., ASCE, 111(12), 861-
878.
7. Finn, W. D., L. (1991), Assessment of
Liquefaction Potential and Post
Liquefaction Behavior of Earth Structures:
Developments 1981-1991, Proc. Second
International Conference on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and soil Dynamics, St. Louis,
March 11-15, 2, pp. 1883-1850.
8. Koester, J. P. (1992), The influence of test
procedure on correlation of Atterberg limits
with liquefaction in fine-grained soils.
Geotech. Test. J., 15 (4), 352-361.
9. Finn, W. D.L., Ledbetter, R. H., R.L.
Fleming, R.L., Jr., Templeton, A.E.,
Forrest, T.W., and Stacy, S.T. (1994), Dam
on Liquefiable Foundation: Safety
Assessment and Remediation, Proc. 17th
International Congress on Large Dams,
Vienna, 531-553.
10. Perlea, V.G., Koester, J.P. and Prakash , S.
(1999), How liquefiable are cohesive soils?,
Proc. Second Int Conf on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engg., Lisbon, Portugal, 2,
611- 618.
11. Ishihara, K. (1993), Liquefaction of natural
deposits during earthquakes, Proc. 11th
ICSMFE, SanFrancisco, 1, 321-376, 2, 683-
692.
12. Boulanger, R. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss,
I. M. (1997), Liquefaction at Moss Landing
during Loma Prieta Earthquake, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 123(5), 453–467.
13. Boulanger, R. W., Meyers, M. W., Mejia,
L. H., and Idriss, I. M. (1998), Behavior of
a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, Can. Geotech. J., 35, 146–158.
14. Youd, T. L. (1998), Screening guide for
rapid assessment of liquefaction hazard at
highway bridge sites, Buffalo, New York:
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research.
15. Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. (1998),
Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential
using cone penetration test, Can.
Geotech.J., 35 (3), 442-459.
16. Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Ponti, D. J.,
and Tinsley, J. C., III (1999), Liquefaction
and soil failure during 1994 Northridge
earthquake, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
125(6), 438–452.
17. Guo, T., and Prakash, S. (2000),
Liquefaction of silt-clay mixtures, In Proc.,
12th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, NZ Soc. for EQ Engrg.
18. Andrews, D. C., and Martin, G. R. (2000),
Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils, 12th
World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
Paper No. 0312, Upper Hutt, New Zealand:
NZ Soc. for EQ Engrg.
19. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S.,
Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M.
and Riemer,M.F. (2001),Recent advances
in soil liquefaction engineering and seismic
site response evaluation, Proc. 4th Int.
Conf. on Recent Adv. in Geotech. Earth.
Engrg. and Soil Dynamics, San Diego.
20. Polito, C.P. (2001), Plasticity based
liquefaction criteria, Proc., 4th Int. Conf.
Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, San Diego.
21. Youd, T. L., et al. (2001), 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(10), 817–833.
22. Yamamuro, J. A., and Lade, P. V. (1998),
Steady-state concepts and static
liquefaction of silty sands, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 124(9), 868–877.
 A Critical Review of Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Fine grained Soils Subjected to Earthquake Loading
23. Yamamuro, J. A., and Covert, K. M.
(2001), Monotonic and cyclic liquefaction
of very loose sands with high silt content, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(4), 314–
324.
24. Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and
Brachman, R. W. (2002), Estimating
liquefaction-induced ground settlements
from CPT for level ground, Can.
Geotech.J., 35 (5), 1168-1180.
25. Thevanayagam, S., et al. (2002), Undrained
fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and
sandy silts, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
128(10), 849–859.
26. Seed, R. B., et al. (2003), Recent advances
in soil liquefaction engineering: A unified
and consistent framework, EERC-2003–06,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Berkeley, Calif.
27. Bray, J. D., Sancio, R. B., Riemer, M. F.,
and Durgunoglu, T. (2004), Liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils, Proc.,
11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Int. Conf.
on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Stallion Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1, 655–662.
28. Wijewickreme, D., Sriskandakumar, S., and
Byrne, P.M. (2005), Cyclic loading
response of loose air-pluviated Fraser River
sand for validation of numerical models
simulating centrifuge tests, Can. Geotech.
J., 42(2): 550–561.
29. Bray, J. D., and Sancio, R. B. (2006),
Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132, 1165-
1177.
30. Gratchev, I. B., Sassa, K., Osipov, V. I.,
and Sokolov, V. N. (2006), The
liquefaction of clayey soils under cyclic
loading, Eng. Geology, 86(1), 70-84.
31. Boulanger, Ross W. and Idriss, I.M. (2005),
New criteria for distinguishing between
silts and clays that are susceptible to
liquefaction versus cyclic failure, 25th.
Annual USSD Conference, Salt Lake City,
Utah, June 6-10, pp 357-366.
32. Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, R. W. (2006),
Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts
and Clays, J. of Geotech.and Geoenviron.
Eng., 132:11, 1413-1424.
33. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008),
Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, EERI,
MNO-12.
34. Ishihara, K.(1993), Liquefaction of natural
deposits during earthquakes, Proc. 11th
ICSMFE, SanFrancisco,1, 321-376 2, pp.
683-692
35. Li, D. K., Juang, C. H., Andrus, R. D., and
Camp, W. M. (2007), Index properties-
based criteria for liquefaction susceptibility
of clayey soils: A critical Assessment, J.
GeotechGeoenviron. Eng., 133 (1), 110-
115.
36. Wang, J., Yuan, Z. and Li, L. (2007), Study
on liquefaction of Loess Site, 4th Int. Conf.
on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece, March 25-28.
37. Ghalandarzadeh, A. , Ghahremani, M. and
Konagai, K., (2007), Investigation on the
liquefaction of a clayey-sandy soils during
Changureh earthquake, 4th Int. Conf. on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece, March 25-28.
38. Towhata, I. (2008), Goetech. Earthquake
Eng., Springer Series in Geomehanics and
Geoengineering.
39. Beroya, M. A. A., Aydin, A., and
Katzenbach, R. (2009), Insight into the
effects of clay mineralogy on the cyclic
behavior of silt–clay mixtures, Eng.
Geology, 106(3), 154-162.
40. Holzer, T. L., Jayko, A. S., Hauksson, E.,
Fletcher, J. P., Noce, T. E., Bennett, M. J.
and Hudnut, K. W. (2010), Liquefaction
caused by the 2009 Olancha, California
(USA) earthquake, Eng.Geology, 116(1),
184-188.
41. Maheshwari, B. K., and Patel, A. K. (2010),
Effects of non-plastic silts on liquefaction
potential of Solani sand, J. Geotech. and
Geological Eng., 28(5), 559-566.
42. Abedi, M., and Yasrobi, S. S. (2010),
Effects of plastic fines on the instability of
Raskar-Phule,R. & Choudhury, D.

Sand, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng.,

30(3), 61-67.
43. Ward, S. D., Brown, M. K. H., Brown, I.
R., and Larkin, T. J. (2010), Geological
engineering study of liquefaction after the
2010 Darfield earthquake in an area of
complex fluvial geology, Proc. of the Ninth
Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engrg.:
Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society,
14-16 April, 2011, Auckland, New
Zealand.
44. Muhunthan, B., and Worthen, D. L. (2011),
Critical state framework for liquefaction of
fine grained soils, Eng. Geology, 117(1), 2-
11.
45. Baziar, M. H., Jafarian, Y., Shahnazari, H.,
Movahed, V. and Amin Tutunchian, M.
(2011), Prediction of strain energy-based
liquefaction resistance of sand–silt
mixtures: An evolutionary approach,
Computers & Geosciences, 37(11), 1883-
1893.
46. Wang, Y. L., Li, Z. Y., Sun, R., and Yuan,
X. M. (2012), Experimental Study of
Liquefaction Resistant Characteristics of
Remodeled Clayey Sands, Advanced
Materials Research, 368, 2887-2890.
47. Lade, P. V. (2012), Reply to the discussion
by Jefferies, Been, and Olivera on
Evaluation of static liquefaction potential of
silty sand slopes, Can. Geotech. J., 49(6),
751-752.
48. Lee, S. H. H., Huang, J. H., Widjaja, B.,
and Chang, D. W. (2013), The Phase
Concept for Liquefaction in both Sandy and
Clayey Soils, J. of App. Sc. and Eng., 16(1),
15-22.