Pseudo static vs.

performance based seismic bearing capacity of footings on

liquefiable soil

G. D. Bouckovalas, A. I. Valsamis, K. I. Andrianopoulos

School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Abstract
The effect of liquefaction on the post-shaking bearing capacity and settlement of strip footings is explored,
focusing on the case where a thin clay layer is overlying the liquefiable sand. Starting with a simple analytical
model of bearing capacity degradation developed earlier, both the use of a more realistic failure surface and a
more accurate simulation of the strength degradation in the liquefiable sand are explored and consequently
verified against pseudo-static numerical analysis. Furthermore, a parametric dynamic numerical analysis is
performed in order to study the coupled excess pore pressure-settlement response of the foundation and evaluate
the overall accuracy of the simplified analytical approach. Comparison of the analytical (pseudo-static) with the
numerical predictions shows that: (a) the former may provide reasonable estimates of the degraded bearing
capacity, however (b) the use of a reduced friction angle to model liquefaction-induced shear strength
degradation may prove overlay conservative, and (c) for common static factors of safety, settlements at the end
of shaking are an order of magnitude higher than initial static settlements and consequently they should form the
basis of design.

Keywords--Liquefaction, foundation, bearing capacity, settlements

INTRODUCTION two layered soils proposed by Meyerhof and Hanna [9], it

Since the first liquefaction-induced extensive damage
to engineered structures was recorded, during Niigata
1964 earthquake, this form of soil strength degradation is
considered as one of the most ominous earthquake
hazards. In fact, many seismic codes rate liquefiable soils
in the prohibited (X-) soil category where ground
improvement and re-inforcement are mandatory
prerequisites. Nevertheless, this approach is gradually
giving ground to quantitative evaluations of the bearing
capacity and the deformations of the liquefied ground, as a
more rational means for deciding upon the necessity, the
type and the extend of the required remedial measures.
The empirical evaluation of the residual shear strength of
liquefied soils ([4], [12], [19]), the computation of lateral
spread displacements ([15], [21]), as well as the evaluation
of liquefaction-induced lateral loads on piles ([5], [7],
[10]) are typical advancements in this direction.
This article deals with the bearing capacity
degradation of strip foundations resting upon a liquefiable
soil layer with a relatively thin non-liquefiable soil cap.
The photographs in Fig. 1 are typical of this type of
foundation failure. They show buildings with relatively
low height over width ratio, less than about 1.5, which
settle almost vertically, with little deviation from
verticality. A punch-through failure mode is observed,
with minor heave of the ground surface around the
building.
A simple analytical solution for this practical problem
was presented earlier by Cascone and Bouckovalas [3],
assuming the failure mechanism of Fig. 2. Namely, based
on the analytical solutions for strip and square footings on
was possible to derive correction coefficients for the static
bearing capacity, in terms of the initial soil properties, the
geometry of the footing and the soil profile, as well as the
average excess pore pressure ratio that is expected to
develop under the footing at the end of shaking.
Furthermore, the minimum required thickness of the clay
cap was estimated so that liquefaction of the underlain
sand layer does not affect the bearing capacity.
The research that is summarized herein, focuses upon
three tasks of immediate practical interest for the accuracy
of the analytical predictions:
(a) Numerical verification and improvement of the
failure mechanism assumed by the Meyerhof and Hanna
bearing capacity solutions (Fig. 2).
(b) Exploration of alternative ways that may be used
to model the shear strength degradation of the liquefiable
sand, as well as introduction of the residual strength
concept.
(c) Numerical simulation of earthquake-induced
settlements and post-shaking bearing capacity of vertically
loaded footings, where excess pore pressure build up in
the sand layer, bearing capacity and foundation settlements
are consistently coupled with seismic ground shaking.
RΕFINEMENT OF BEARING CAPACITY MECHANISM
As of [3], the pseudo-static evaluation of bearing
capacity degradation due to liquefaction follows the
following basic steps:
• The nominal bearing capacity of the footing
qULT,O is first evaluated, as if the sand layer did not exist
and failure occurred totally within the clay cap.

(a)
(b)
Fig. 1: Typical examples of bearing capacity failure of
foundations on liquefiable soil, from (a) Caracas 1967
earthquake and (b) Kocaeli 1999 earthquake.
• An average excess pore pressure ratio U=∆u/σ΄vo
(σ΄vo is the initial effective vertical stress) is computed for
the liquefiable sand.
• An equivalent reduced friction angle φ* is
consequently evaluated in terms of U and the actual
friction angle φ:
tan ϕ* = ( 1 − U ) tan φ (1)
• The degraded bearing capacity of the footing
qULT,D is then evaluated, assuming a combined failure
mechanism that affects both the liquefiable sand layer and
the clay cap (Fig. 2).
• The bearing capacity degradation factor is
consequently defined as ζ= qULT,D/ qULT,O.
From the above brief presentation, it becomes evident that
the assumed failure mechanism is a key element of the
analysis. To meet the requirements of [9], the
aforementioned solution assumed that, during seismic
shaking, the sand layer will eventually become weaker
than its clay cap leading to a punch-through failure
mechanism with vertical slip surfaces developing within
the clay cap. To verify this assumption, a number of
elastoplastic pseudo-static numerical analyses were
performed with the Finite Difference method [11], for
varying footing width B, clay thickness H and soil strength
B
Clay H
Sand
uο+∆u
Fig. 2: Footing resting on liquefiable sand with a clay cap:
failure surface assumed by [3]
properties. The numerical simulation assumed a total
stress, Tresca failure criterion for the clay cap and an
effective stress, Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for the
sand.
Results from this parametric study are shown in Fig. 3,
for a typical case with H/B=0.5, initial friction angle of
sand φ=30o, and undrained shear strength of the clay cap
c*=c/γΗ=1.0. In the above definitions γ is the buoyant
unit weight of the clay cap, H is the thickness of the clay
cap and B is the width of the footing. It is observed that,
the slip surface in the clay is indeed not vertical, but
converges gradually with depth towards the foundation
axis. Driven by the above finding, the failure mechanism
of Cascone and Bouckovalas [3] was modified as shown in
Fig. 4. Thus, it was possible to compute a deviation angle
α of the slip surface in the clay from verticality after
imposing limit equilibrium analysis and consequently
minimizing the resulting ultimate load.
The resulting analytical expression is:
 1 2γ N γ B − 4 γ N γ cH 
a = arctan   (2)
4 γ Nγ H 
 
where γ is the liquefiable buoyant unit weight of the
liquefiable sand and Nγ is the bearing capacity factor.
Clay
failure surface
Sand
Fig. 3: Typical contours of shear strain rate at failure and trace
of equivalent failure surface
 a
B
C lay a a H
Sand
Clay
u ο+ ∆ u

(a)
Sand

qu qu
Fig. 5: Comparison of analytically predicted failure surface in
W the clay cap with numerically computed strain increment
cuH cuH contours at failure.
cuL
W zero. To model this, the degraded in situ shear strength of
a sand τf was simply expressed as:
N
h h
τ f = (1 − U )σ VO tan φ + Uτ res
ι
(3)
qu΄
where, τres represents the residual shear strength of the
(b) liquefied sand. Among the various empirical correlations
which are available for the estimation of τres (e.g. [12],
Fig. 4: Footing resting on liquefiable sand with a clay cap: (a) [17], [18]) the one proposed by Stark and Mesri [18] was
Refined failure mechanism and (b) Limit equilibrium
used here. In average terms, this correlation can be
model
approximately written as:
This procedure proved adequately accurate, as it led ι

to deviation angles α fairly similar to these obtained τ res = 0.011Nl ,60σ VO (4)
numerically. This is shown in Fig. 5, where the
analytically computed refined failure surface in the clay where N1,60 is the corrected number of SPT blow count
cap is compared to the numerically predicted shear strain (e.g. [20]) and σ’vo is the initial vertical consolidation
rate contours at failure. Nevertheless, the more accurate stress.
failure mechanism had a rather minor effect on the There are two ways to introduce the above shear
degraded bearing capacity qULT,D. For instance, Fig. 6 strength degradation into conventional bearing capacity
shows a typical comparison between the degradation computations. The first is to define a reduced friction
factors ζ=qULT,D/ qULT,O derived from the basic and the angle φ*, in a way similar to that followed in the initial
refined failure mechanisms shown in Figs. 2 and 4 development of the method:
respectively. The observed differences are indeed
secondary and can be readily overlooked in view of other tan ϕ* = [(1 − U )tan ϕ + U tan ϕres ] (5)
more crucial problem uncertainties (e.g. the evaluation of
a representative excess pore pressure value for the whole where the value of the residual friction angle of the sand is
foundation area). given as:
EFFECT OF LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED SHEAR STRENGTH tan ϕ res = 0.011 N l ,60 (6)
DEGRADATION

The method of Cascone and Bouckovalas [3] assumes The second way is to define an apparent buoyant unit
the simplified degradation mechanism suggested by many weight γ*, in terms of the nominal buoyant unit weight γ of
seismic codes, namely that the friction angle of the sand sand and U:
degrades gradually with excess pore pressure build up,
according to Eq. 1, and finally diminishes to zero. γ * = γ ′(1 − U ) + Uγ res (7)
However, it is widely known that liquefiable soils attain a
residual strength even when effective stresses approach to with
 0.011N l , 60 1
γ res = γ′ (8)

γ res
tan φ 0.8

=2
γ re s

.4 2
φ

=0

kN
Note that, using either Eqs. 5 & 6 or Eqs. 7 & 8 one 0.6 res =4 o

kN

/m
ζ
comes to essentially the same relation for the degraded φ

/m

3
3
insitu shear strength of the sand (Eq. 3). Still, the different 0.4 res =0 o
methods of simulating the degradation of shear strength
0.2
lead to considerably different values for the bearing
capacity degradation factor ζ. This is because bearing 0
capacity formulas are highly non-linear with respect to the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
friction angle (φ or φ*), while they are linear with respect U
to the buoyant unit weight of the soil (γ or γ*).
To show the potential effect of the different Fig. 7: Effect of sand degradation model on analytically
computed correction factor ζ (c*=1.0, φ=30o, H/B=0.5).
assumptions regarding shear strength degradation, Fig. 7
compares the variation of ζ with U for a loose sand
A total of ten (10) cases were examined, for various initial
(φ=30ο, N1,60 = 7), computed (a) for a degraded friction
loading conditions corresponding to average contact
angle with a φres=0 or φres=4o , and (b) for a reduced
pressure between 0 and 130 kPa. In all analyses, seismic
buoyant unit weight with γres=0 or γres=2.42kN/m3.
shaking was applied under undrained conditions. On the
Observe that degrading the friction angle of sand is by
other hand, static loading was applied under undrained
far more conservative than reducing the buoyant unit
conditions for the clay cap and under drained conditions
weight. The difference between the two approaches is
for the underlying sand. The analyses were performed with
remarkably large and cannot be simply overlooked for the
the Finite Difference computer code FLAC [11]
benefit of increased safety. Furthermore, note that taking
appropriately extended to account for excess pore pressure
into account the post-liquefaction residual strength of sand
build up during cyclic loading. A uniform grid of 1000
leads to reasonably lower degradation of the bearing
square 1mx1m elements was used. The first 2 m of depth
capacity (i.e. greater values for factor ζ), regardless of the
consisted of clay with c=40KPa and φ=0ο, while the rest
basic approach that was used to simulate liquefaction
18m consisted of sand with c=0KPa and φ=30o. The
effects.
width of the foundation was B=4m, giving an H/B ratio of
COUPLED DYNAMIC ANALYSES OF BEARING CAPACITY 0.5. The base of the sand layer was excited with the
DEGRADATION AND SETTLEMENT acceleration time history shown in Fig. 8.
The soil element response was taken as elastic-
In order to evaluate the validity and the accuracy of perfectly plastic with failure described by the Mohr-
the pseudo-static approach, a series of numerical analyses Coulomb criterion. Pore pressure build-up during seismic
was performed, where: shaking was simulated via a coupled effective stress –
a) The foundation was first loaded statically, with an plastic volumetric strain analysis. Namely, the rate of
initial uniform vertical load less than the ultimate. plastic volumetric strain due to cyclic loading was defined
b) Consequently, seismic shaking was applied, under by the following empirical relation (based on [6]):
constant static load, and a 2-D field of excess pore
b
pressures was computed in the liquefiable sand layer.  ε 
c) Following the end of shaking, the foundation load a
∆ε vol = bAγ cyc  vol  (8)
was further increased until failure.  Aγ cyc
a 
 
1
0.6
amax=0.42g
0.8
0.4
ζ=q ULT,D /q ULT,O

0.6
0.2
a (g)

0.4 Bouckovalas &

Cascone (1998) 0
0.2 Refined failure
-0.2
mechanism
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.4
0 1 2 3 4
U
Fig.6: Effect of bearing capacity mechanism on analytically
t (sec)
Fig. 8: Acceleration time history for coupled dynamic analyses
computed correction factor ζ (c*=1.0, φ=30ο, Η/Β=0.5)
where εvol is the permanent volumetric strain that would Load (kPa)
have developed after N cycles of drained cyclic loading 0 40 80 120 160 200
with strain amplitude γcyc, while A=5.0, α=1.26 and b=- -0.01
1.50 are average model parameters determined for cyclic
simple shear tests on a number of relatively uniform
graded sands. The plastic volumetric strain was then 0
converted to an effective stress change ∆σ’ by reducing
according to the following relation: 0.01
static loading
∆ε (clay)
∆σ ij′ = C ijkl
e
(∆ε kl − vol δ kl ) (9)
3 0.02
static loading

Displacement (m)
(sand with clay cap)
where Ceijkl is the elastic stiffness matrix of the soil qST=0 kPa
0.03
skeleton. Under constant volume (i.e. undrained
conditions) this effective stress change gives the increase
of pore pressure ∆u due to cyclic loading. The same 0.04 coupled
procedure has been successfully used Byrne [2] for the static & seismic
implementation of the empirical model of Martin et al. [8] analyses
in the finite difference code FLAC [11]. 0.05
Typical results for the vertical load-deformation
response of the footing, obtained from this numerical
0.06
experiment, are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Namely, Fig. 9
shows typical pore pressure contours in the foundation qST=50 kPa
soil, at the end of shaking, while Fig. 10 shows the load 0.07
qST=90 kPa
(average contact pressure)-displacement curves for:
a) One case of static loading with initial (pre-
shaking) soil conditions and a continuous soil profile 0.08
consisting of clay. This condition is used as reference for
Fig. 10. Results from static and coupled static-seismic
the definition of the degradation factor ζ.
numerical analyses: typical load-displacement curves
b) One case of static loading with initial (pre- (for c*=1.0, φ=30o, H/B=0.5)
shaking) soil conditions and the actual soil profile
consisting of liquefiable sand with a clay cap. This this observation is disturbing as it suggests that there is no
condition is used as reference for the definition of the unique degradation factor ζ that can be defined in terms of
initial static factor of safety (F.S.), before the onset of the initial soil conditions, the foundation geometry and the
shaking. intensity of shaking. However, such an interpretation
c) Three typical cases of coupled static and seismic would prove premature, as the observed differences can be
loading, for uniform initial contact pressures qST=0, 50 adequately explained by the different values of the excess
and 90 kPa. pore pressure ratio U corresponding to each curve in Fig.
There are two main observations in this figure. First, 10.
note that the degraded bearing capacity of the footing To show this, Fig. 11 correlates the degradation
depends on the magnitude of the initial static load, i.e. the factors ζ obtained from all numerical analyses to the
design load of the foundation and the corresponding factor corresponding average values of the excess pore pressure
of safety against conventional static failure. At first glance
1
IIb
IIa
0.8 Ib
Ia
ζ (qult/qst,clay)

0.6 Numerical simulations

Ia (φres=0ο)
0.4 Ib (φres=4ο)
IIa (γres=0)
0.2
IIb (γres=2.4kN/m3)

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
U (∆u/σ'vo)
Fig. 9: Pore pressure contours at the end of shaking for
qST=50kPa Fig. 11: Comparison between analytical and numerical
predictions of bearing capacity degradation factors ζ
ratios U at the end of shaking. The numerical predictions
are compared to the ζ-U curves predicted analytically for
the same soil and foundation conditions, assuming either
degradation of the friction angle or reduction of the
buoyant unit weight of the sand. In all cases, the average
value of U was calculated on the basis of the numerically
computed values along the respective failure surface (e.g.
see Fig. 9). Observe that the data points from the dynamic
analyses define a more or less unique ζ-U relation which
lays between the analytical predictions for degraded
friction angle and those for decreased buoyant unit weight
of the sand.
The second observation of practical interest is that the
displacements at failure are considerably larger for the
degraded soil conditions than for the reference static
analyses for non-degraded soil. This difference is mostly
due to the permanent settlements accumulated during
shaking (vertical branch of the load-displacement curves)
and increases rapidly with the magnitude of the initial
static load. Taking into account that seismic loading takes
place under undrained conditions, as well as that the
constitutive model used for the analyses allows for
permanent shear and deviatoric strain accumulation upon
q/qST,Cl-Sand
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-2
Static loading
(sand with clay cap)
0 of safety between 3.0 and 5.0. When the factor of safety is
7.1
4.2 3.5 3.0
2
4 2.4
6 2.1
δ/δST,Cl-Sand
1.9
8 In summary, the preceding study has shown that:
10
12
F.S.=1.8
14
16
1.6
18
Fig.12. Results from static and coupled static-seismic numerical
analyses: Normalized load – displacement curves. (for
c*=1.0, φ=30o, H/B=0.5).
failure only, it is concluded that this branch of the load-
displacement curves is attributed to instantaneous
foundation failure, each time ground accelerations exceed
a critical level. This phenomenon, under drained soil
conditions, has been given detailed attention by Richard et
al. [16].
For the benefit of further insight, Fig. 12 shows the
load displacements curves from the reference static
analysis (b), for uniform clay soil over sand, as well as
from all coupled static and seismic analyses. To highlight
the relative magnitude and the potential importance of the
accumulated settlements, applied loads have been
normalized against the ultimate load for non-degraded
sand properties (q’ULT,O), while displacements have been
normalized against the corresponding diplacements at the
onset of failure δ’ULT,O. Focusing upon the end of shaking,
denoted with a black star on the normalized load-
displacement curves, it is realised that the corresponding
displacements may become one order of magnitude higher
than those at conventional static failure while applied
static loads are still less than the degraded ultimate loads.
This is shown more clearly in Fig. 13, where the static
factor of safety F.S.=q’ULT,O/qST is correlated to the
normalized displacements at three loading history instants:
the onset of shaking, the end of shaking and at post-
shaking failure. Observe that the normalised vertical load
1
that will provide the same settlements at the end of
shaking as the the reference ultimate static loading ranges
between 0.20 and 0.35, corresponding roughly to factors
reduced to about 2.0, liquefaction-induced settlements
increase by an order of magnitude.
In other words, there is a clear need to define a
performance based failure criterion of the foundation that
will depend upon settlements rather than on the bearing
capacity it self.
CONCLUSION
(a) Analytical predictions of liquefaction effects on
the bearing capacity of surface foundations are not
sensitive to the exact shape of the assumed failure surface
in the top clay layer, that lays between the foundation and
the liquefiable soil.
(b) On the contrary, they depend strongly on the
method used to model the post-shaking degraded strength
of the sand. Based on the results of static and dynamic
numerical analyses, it appears that gradual degradation of
the friction angle leads to lower bound estimates of the
degradation factor ζ while gradual decrease of the
effective buoyant weight provides upper bound estimates.
(c) Implementation of the residual shear strength of
sand to the degraded bearing capacity computations
reduces bearing capacity degradation (increases ζ) while
limits somewhat the gap between the two different
 5.00 4.25 3.503 FS 2.75 2.00
5 4 2 1
10
δULT
δ/δST,Cl-Sand
1 [1]
δST+δD
0.1
δST
0.01
0.2 0.4 0.6
qST/qULT,O
Fig.13. Results from static and coupled static-seismic numerical
analyses: Effect of initial static load on foundation
settlements. (for c*=1.0, φ=30o, H/B=0.5)
models of strength degradation in the liquefiable sand.
(d) Pseudo-static simulation of the effects of
liquefaction fails to predict the very large foundation
settlements at the end of shaking. Based on the present
results, the level of settlement at conventional static failure
is obtained at the end of shaking even though the static
load applied to the foundation corresponds to a factor of
safety between 3 and 5. When this factor of safety is
reduced to about 2, post shaking settlements increase by
an order of magnitude.
(e) The bearing capacity of surface foundations on
liquefiable subsoil, is better defined on the basis of
performance rather than on soil failure criteria.
It is acknowledged that the constitutive models that
were used in the present study, do not provide the
quantitative accuracy that is necessary for detailed bearing
capacity and seismic ground response analyses. In view of
this shortcoming, this stage of the study focused upon a
qualitative rather than quantitative exploration, on the
basis of a mostly non-dimensional parametric analysis.
Nevertheless, it is our present aim to improve the
numerical accuracy of the analyses so that quantitatively
sound design guidelines can be established. This will be
achieved with the aid of a critical state plasticity
constitutive model [13], [14], that has been extensively
validated against monotonic and cyclic test data and
implemented to FLAC [1], as well as an extensive analysis
of published case histories and model experiments. This
activities are currently under progress.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work presented herein has been financially supported
by the General Secretariat for Research and Technology
(Γ.Γ.Ε.Τ.) of Greece, through research project ΕΠΑΝ-
1.25 ∆Π23 (“X-SOILS”). Dr. Ach. Papadimitriou was
0
instrumental for the implementation of the excess pore
pressure build up model to FLAC. These contributions are
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Andrianopoulos K. I. 2005, Numerical simulation of static
and dynamic loading on elastoplastic soils, Ph.D.
Dissertation, National Technical University of Athens,
Greece (in Greek)
[2] Byrne P. 1991. A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and
Pore-Pressure Model for Sand. Proc Second International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (St. Louis,
Missouri, March, 1991), Paper No. 1.24, 47-55.
[3] Cascone E. & Bouckovalas G. 1998. Seismic bearing
0.8
capacity of soils. Proc. 11th European Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Paris, September 1998
[4] De Alba Pedro, 2004. Residual strength after liquefaction:
A rheological approach, 11th International conference on
Soil dynamics & earthquake engineering, 3rd International
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, 7-9
January 2004, Berkeley
[5] Dobry Ricardo, Abdoun Tarek, O’Rourke Thomas & Goh
S. H., 2003. Single piles in lateral spreads: Field bending
moment evaluation, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenviromental engineering, Vol. 129,No.10, October 1,
2003.
[6] Egglezos D.N., Bouckovalas G., 1998. Analytical
relationships for earthquake-induced pore pressure in sand,
clay and silt, Proc. 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paris, September.
[7] Finn W.D.L., Fujita N. 2002. Piles in liquefiable soils:
seismic analysis and design issues, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineerin,g 22 (2002) pp. 731-742.
[8] Martin, G. R., W. D. L. Finn and H. B. Seed. 1975.
Fundamentals of Liquefaction Under Cyclic Loading,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol
101(GT5), 423-438.
[9] Meyerhof G.G. & Hanna A.M. 1978. Ultimate bearing
capacity of foundations on layered soils under inclined
load.SCanadian Geotechnical Journal, vol 15 (4): 565-
572.
[10] Ishihara K. & Cubrinovski M., 1998, Soil-pile interaction
in liquefied deposits undergoing lateral spreading, XI
Danube-European Conference, Croatia, May 1998.
[11] Itasca 1998. Flac version 3.4: Fast Langrangian Analysis
of Continua. RItasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
[12] Olson S. M. and Stark T. D. 2002, Liquefied strength ratio
from liquefaction flow failure case histories, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 629-647
[13] Papadimitriou Ach., Bouckovalas G., Dafalias Y. 2001, A
plasticity model for sand under small and large cyclic
strains, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 127(11),
[14] Papadimitriou Ach., Bouckovalas G. 2002, Plasticity
model for sand under small and large cyclic strains: a
multiaxial formulation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 22
[15] Rauch A. F. & Martin J. R. II 2000, EPOLLS Model for
Predicting average displacements on lateral spreads,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviromental
 engineering, Vol 126, No. 4, pp. 360-371
[16] Richard R., Elms D. G. & Budhu M., 1990. Dynamic
fluidization of soils, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 119 (4), pp 662-674.
[17] Seed R. B. and Harder L. F. 1990, SPT-based analysis of
cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained residual
strength, in J. M. Duncan ed., Proceedings H. Bolton Seed
Memorial Symposium, University of California, Berkeley,
Vol. 2, pp. 351-376
[18] Stark T.D. & Mesri G. 1992. Undrained Shear Strength of
Liquefied Sands for Stability Analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 118 (11),
November 1992
[19] Yoshimine M. and Ishihara K., 1998. Flow potential of
sand during liquefaction, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 38
(3), pp. 189-198
[20] Youd T. L. and Idriss I. M. 2001, Liquefaction resistance
of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127 (4), pp.
297-313)
[21] Youd T. L., Hansen C. M. & Barlett S. F. 2002, Revised
multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral
spread displacement, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenviromental engineering, Vol. 128,No.12, December