HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Laboratory testing procedure to assess post-liquefaction

deformation potential
Jongkwan Kim ⇑, Tadashi Kawai, Motoki Kazama
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Aramaki 6-6-06, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan

Received 30 November 2015; received in revised form 1 June 2017; accepted 4 July 2017
Available online 10 November 2017

Abstract

Buildings and infrastructure suffer extensive damage due to liquefaction during strong earthquakes. The FL method has long been
considered adequate for evaluating the likelihood of liquefaction, and is widely used. Due to the high frequency of large earthquakes,
generally referred to as level 2 earthquakes, the necessity of multi-level assessments has been acutely felt in Japan. This requires the duc-
tility nature of liquefied ground to be assessed. Because these earthquakes do not always occur with the motion level and waveform used
in design, new assessment methods are required which take some deviation into account. Another point of consideration in developing a
new method is that high quality site investigations are often either not possible or practical in the initial stage of design. Because the site
investigation methods should differ depending on the site selection and the precise design of important structures, there is a clear demand
for assessment methods with the flexibility to meet the particular objectives of each case. The new laboratory testing procedure proposed
in this paper aims to classify soils according to their likelihood to undergo liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. With the proposed
procedure, it is possible to classify soils as either ‘clearly safe’ or ‘likely to result in significant damage if liquefied’ by testing a small
number of specimens. It should be noted that this test is not designed to provide for a highly accurate prediction of liquefaction or
the extent of post-liquefaction deformation.
Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Liquefaction; Laboratory test; Undrained cyclic loading; Post-liquefaction deformation

1. Introduction To mitigate such post-liquefaction damage, a number of

After the Niigata and Alaska earthquakes of 1964,
reports of liquefaction damage were reported after earth-
quakes. The Christchurch and Tohoku (off the Pacific
Coast) earthquakes of 2011 resulted in widespread lique-
faction damage that has been extensively reported. Besides
the damage sustained by buildings and infrastructure due
to tilting and settlement (Kazama et al., 2012;
Yamaguchi et al., 2012; Cubrinovski et al., 2012), the wide-
spread occurrence of sand boiling obstructed restoration
work after these earthquakes.
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jong.kwan.kim.c2@tohoku.ac.jp (J. Kim).
tests and assessment methods have been proposed based on
the results of studies conducted in the aftermath of these
large earthquakes. Methods employing the stress ratio as
an index (Seed and Idriss, 1971; Arulmoki et al., 1985;
Iwasaki et al., 1984) for inferring resistance against lique-
faction have been widely employed to determine whether
liquefaction will occur under predetermined design earth-
quake motion. In these tests, the stress ratio is determined
from an undrained constant stress amplitude cyclic shear
test when liquefaction takes place at a fixed number of
cycles, generally 15 or 20. In Japan, it is considered neces-
sary to consider either level 1 or level 2 design earthquake
motions in earthquake resistant design, depending on the
location. The stress ratio corresponding to each design
earthquake motion as suggested by design standards

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.10.001
0038-0806/Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
906 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
(Japan Road Association, 2012; Architectural Institute of
Japan, 2001) has been utilized. The likelihood of liquefac-
tion is determined by comparing the stress ratios corre-
sponding to liquefaction resistance and design earthquake
motion in a test generally referred to as the FL method.
In another method prescribed in the standards of The
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan
(2009), equivalent acceleration and N-values are employed
instead of the stress ratios, but the concept of comparing
external loading and the resistance of ground is identical
to the FL method. Both of these methods can be consid-
ered adequate in terms of their ability to assess the occur-
rence of liquefaction against the supposed earthquake
motions. However, because of the increasing frequency of
large earthquakes, regarded as level 2 earthquakes, and
the uncertainty in setting design earthquake motion,
demands for a more robust design have been made for
an assessment method which considers not only the likeli-
hood of liquefaction but also the extent of post-
liquefaction deformation. Besides these two considerations,
the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake sug-
gests it is also necessary to take the earthquake duration
into consideration.
In research on post-liquefaction deformation, volumet-
ric strain has been the main focus of study. Lee and
Albaisa (1974), Yoshimi et al. (1975), Tatsuoka et al.
(1987), Nagase and Ishihara (1988) reviewed the residual
volumetric strain generated after liquefaction by applying
drainage after cyclic loading. On the basis of these studies,
simple evaluation methods have been suggested for deter-
mining the extent of post-liquefaction settlement. Ishihara
and Yoshimine (1992) established a family of curves show-
ing volumetric strain correlated with density as well as a
safety factor against liquefaction, and outlined a methodol-
ogy for predicting post-liquefaction settlement. Tsukamoto
et al. (2004) inferred the relationship between the factor of
safety and residual volumetric strain for silty sand, using a
large triaxial test apparatus and some of the acceleration
time histories captured in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. In
prior studies, good correlation was found between maxi-
mum shear strain during cyclic loading and liquefaction-
induced settlement. In another study, Sento et al. (2004)
reported that accumulated shear strain is a better indicator
of liquefaction-induced settlement than maximum shear
strain, and proposed an idealized relationship between
post-liquefaction volume change and effective stress.
Unno et al. (2006) and Unno and Tani (2008) also demon-
strated that under the same loading history (i.e., of accu-
mulated shear strain), the residual volumetric strain is the
same regardless of the drainage condition.
The occurrence of flow failure (including lateral flow)
after liquefaction is an important criterion for classifying
damage configuration. When drastic shear strain develops,
especially on inclined ground, catastrophic flow failures
can occur. Extensive research has been conducted on this
flow after liquefaction. Yasuda et al. (1999) applied a
monotonic shear loading to a liquefied specimen and
confirmed that there are two regions: a region where no
shear stress is recovered with shearing because of the low
rigidity of the soil, and a rigidity recovery region, where
the rigidity of the soil is restored with shear loading.
Shamoto et al. (1997) showed that shear strain is composed
of two different components, i.e. a shear strain component
depending on the change in effective stress, and a shear
strain component independent of effective stress. The
constitutive model they proposed for the evaluation large
post-liquefaction shear deformation was validated by com-
paring their results with actual case studies.
While many studies on post-liquefaction deformation
have been conducted, the focus of most of the research
has been either on shear strain or volumetric strain. The
various methods developed for use to determine the likeli-
hood of liquefaction, the post-liquefaction shear strain,
and the post-liquefaction volumetric strain are adequate
for their stated purposes. After the Kobe earthquake in
1995, and because of the higher frequency of large ‘‘level
2” earthquakes and consequent necessity for multi-level
assessment, demands for a new technique to evaluate the
ductility nature of liquefied ground have been made. The
uncertainty in the design earthquake motion also has indi-
cated the importance of taking deviation into account in
earthquake resistant design. Since high quality site investi-
gations in the initial stage of design are not possible and are
frequently cost-prohibitive, a simple method capable of
determining whether or not large amounts of damage are
likely to occur in the event of an earthquake are required.
In addition, since the loading history, the irregularity of
earthquake waveforms, and the boundary conditions also
need to be considered when making precise estimations
of post-liquefaction deformation, a numerical analysis is
required and a constitutive model needs to be developed.
In this paper, a simple laboratory testing procedure for
the assessment of the likelihood of post-liquefaction defor-
mation is proposed. The procedure involves four consecu-
tive tests which are carried out in the laboratory; a constant
stress amplitude cyclic test, a constant strain amplitude
cyclic test, a monotonic shear test, and a drainage test.
The main focus of the procedure is to classify soils speci-
mens as either likely to remain safe or likely to result in
large damage if liquefied. The procedure also has potential
to provide the data for parameter setting in a numerical
analysis and in the development of constitutive model.
2. Cyclic shear testing procedure
2.1. The concept of the test
The concept and procedure of the test method proposed
in this study are shown in Fig. 1. The procedure comprises
the following steps (STEP 1 to 4): constant stress amplitude
cyclic shear, constant strain amplitude cyclic shear, mono-
tonic shear, and drainage. STEP 1 is almost similar to
conventional liquefaction strength test. In this step,
whether liquefaction occurs against a certain stress ratio
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 907

Constant stress
amplitude cyclic shear

Test termination
Strain convergence
after drainage
Conventional
liquefaction judgment

Constant strain
amplitude cyclic shear

Stress-strain loop
stabilization
Considering hysteresis
such as duration and
the number of cycles

Monotonic shear

Judgment of flow potential

Shear stress unloading

and drainage

Test termination

Fig. 1. Test procedure and method.

is evaluated, and confirmation of definitely safe specimen is

conducted. Additional excitation on specimen can be per-
formed to consider the accumulation of damage in STEP
2. STEP 3 evaluates the post-liquefaction damage level
roughly. In the step, a specimen having a high potential
to induce large damage is classified. Shear stress is
unloaded to zero and volumetric strain is measured in
STEP 4. Parameters for each step, such as stress ratio
(STEP 1) and the number of cycles (STEP 1 and 2), can
be established by the user in accordance with the intended
purpose. The proposed testing procedure may be utilized to
establish the parameters for FEM numerical analysis, even
though a constitutive model by which all procedures are
reproduced is necessary. The details of the test procedure
are explained below. A schematic of the test procedure is
provided in Fig. 2. Fig. 2. Illustration of each step.
908 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
2.1.1. Constant stress amplitude cyclic shear (STEP 1)
The constant stress amplitude cyclic shear is similar to
the test method for determining the resistance to liquefac-
tion. In this step, the specimen is subjected to a certain
stress ratio corresponding to the design earthquake
motion. Excess pore water pressure and strain increase
in most fully saturated soils when subjected to cyclic load-
ing. However, in the case of dense soil and clay, a small
increase in the excess pore water pressure and strain result
in the convergence of the shear stress-strain loop even as
the cyclic loading is continued. Since the soil is regarded
as a non-liquefiable material, it is considered likely to
be safe under that stress ratio, and drainage is performed.
The same conclusion is drawn when the strain does not
reach the strain level employed as a liquefaction criterion
until a certain number of cycles is accomplished. The
stress ratio, the number of cycles, and the strain level in
this step are flexible parameters which can be established
by the users depending on their specific purpose for carry-
ing out the test. Because of the large deformation in the
shape of the specimen which takes place during the con-
ventional liquefaction test, it is difficult to examine the
post-liquefaction behavior. This implies that the strain
level in STEP 1 should be in the range where the influence
on the shape of the specimen is small. The liquefaction
potential may be roughly judged by counting the number
of cycles until a certain strain level is reached. However, it
should be noted that the number of cycles does not indi-
cate liquefaction resistance. The focus of STEP 1 is only
to determine whether a given material is safe at a certain
stress ratio.
2.1.2. Constant strain amplitude cyclic shear (STEP 2)
In this period of heightened seismic activity, the large
number of strong earthquakes which have lasted for
lengthy periods of time has made it clear that the duration
of the earthquake on post-liquefaction damage is also a
matter of concern. The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific
Coast of Tohoku was one such earthquake, lasting for over
three minutes. The purpose of STEP 2 is to apply an addi-
tional cyclic loading to the specimens considered prone to
liquefaction so that the duration of the earthquake can
be taken into account. The number of cycles can be decided
by the users according to the design earthquake motion
and their purpose. STEP 2 is terminated when the predeter-
mined number of cycles is accomplished. Since post-
liquefaction deformation tends to be strongly dependent
on the loading history during cyclic loading, another
method that applies additional cyclic loading until the
stress-strain loop passes through an identical trace, namely
the state of their apparent lower limit of shear modulus,
can be utilized. Despite the variations in the loading history
required until the state of apparent lower limit of stiffness is
reached, largely due to the nature of the material and its
density, it is possible to investigate and compare the post-
liquefaction deformation potential for specimens whose
shear modulus is at its apparent lower limit.
2.1.3. Undrained monotonic shear test (STEP 3)
STEP 3 is an undrained monotonic shear test, carried
out to determine whether substantially loose ground is
likely to spread laterally even if the ground is only slightly
inclined, in the event that the ground liquefies. Since the
recovery of the shear modulus, which is attributed to the
dilatancy of soil, is not expected when lateral flow occurs
on even slightly inclined ground, the potential for post-
liquefaction damage is assessed based on the recovery of
shear modulus. The dilation characteristics of soil after liq-
uefaction can be examined on the basis of their post-
liquefaction monotonic behavior. While dilative materials
recover strength easily when undrained monotonic shear
loading is applied, quite a large shear strain is required in
the case of non-dilative materials before their strength is
recovered. The risk that flow-like damage will occur in
materials which exhibit dilative behavior is regarded to
be low. On the contrary, that risk in non-dilative materials
is considered to be quite high.
Damage classification can also be performed by set cri-
terion values of stress and strain. For shear stress, in addi-
tion to a very small gradient ground generally regarded as a
target of lateral flow, the shear stress required to stop the
deformation on ground of a certain gradient may be uti-
lized as a criterion of shear stress during undrained mono-
tonic loading. When some displacement is allowed, on
ground on roads and in parks, for example, the shear strain
criterion can be employed. It should be noted that the
method is not suitable for use in severe conditions, for
example, to determine the settlement of buildings. By
employing the shear stress and strain criteria, post-
liquefaction monotonic behavior can be classified. If shear
stress is not recovered until the shear strain criterion is
reached, the potential for flow-like deformation for this
material can be regarded as high. On the other hand, the
potential for the occurrence of flow-like deformation is
low when the shear stress is recovered prior to the develop-
ment of shear strain employed as the criterion. As men-
tioned above, the purpose of this step is to determine
whether ground will definitely incur significant damage.
That is, this is a rough estimate, not a precise estimate of
ground deformation for materials that were not classified
as non liquefiable in STEP 1.
2.1.4. Unloading of shear stress and drainage (STEP 4)
To obtain the residual volumetric strain, shear stress is
unloaded and drainage is carried out following the applica-
tion of monotonic loading. The volumetric strain is mea-
sured as a reference data in this step, and may be used
for parameter setting in a numerical analysis. The test
results can also be applied to the charts proposed by
Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) and Sento et al. (2004).
2.2. Damage assessment by the proposed test method
A schematic of the liquefaction damage assessment
based on the test procedure is shown in Fig. 3. Liquefaction
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 909

damage can be classified into three types: non-liquefaction The shear stress and strain components can be decided
(N.L.), limited deformation (L.D.), and catastrophic defor- by the user in accordance with their purpose, design earth-
mation (C.D.). quake motion, and the boundary condition. The stress

(a)
Stress Ratio γ criterion_cyclic

SRDesign-2

N.L
SRDesign-1 N.L = Non Liquefation
L.D = Limited Deformation
C.D = Catastrophic Deformation

Shear Strain (%)

Cyclic shear

(b)
Stress Ratio

SRDesign-2
Strain level considered
Stress level required severe damage
N.L to stop the deformation
SRDesign-1
τ criterion_mono
γ criterion_mono

C.D

Cyclic shear Shear Strain (%)

Monotonic shear

(c)
Stress Ratio

Stress level required

to stop the deformation Strain level considered
severe damage
SRDesign-2 τ criterion_mono

N.L
SRDesign-1 Varies with
γ criterion_mono

boundary condition

L.D

Shear Strain (%)

Cyclic shear
Monotonic shear

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of liquefaction assessment.

910 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
ratio (SRdesign = s=r00 ) and the number of cyclic loading
steps (N1design ) are defined by the design earthquake motion
expected, and the threshold of the strain (ccriterion cyclic ) in
the cyclic loading step is defined by considering the allow-
able displacement in the design structure and the effect on
the shape of the specimen for STEP 2. The shear strain
gradually increases along with the increase in the excess
pore water pressure during cyclic loading. In cases where
no increase is noted in either the excess pore water pressure
or shear strain, or the increase is almost negligible, the
stress-strain hysteresis loop converged during cyclic load-
ing in STEP 1. In other cases, the shear strain does not
reach ccriterion cyclic until N1design is applied. Such cases can
be classified as non-liquefaction cases against SRdesign
(Fig. 3(a)).
Specimens which developed ccriterion cyclic are subjected to
additional cyclic loading with a constant strain amplitude
of ccriterion cyclic . The number of cycles (N2design ) of the con-
stant strain amplitude cyclic shear (STEP 2) is defined con-
sidering the expected duration of the design earthquake
motion. By applying cyclic loading until the stress-strain
hysteresis loop reaches its apparent lower limit of shear
modulus regardless of N2design , the potential for post-
liquefaction deformation can be evaluated and the decrease
in the shear modulus corresponding to ccriterion cyclic in this
step can be determined additionally.
By applying monotonic shear loading to the liquefied
specimen, it is possible to determine whether the soil is
prone to catastrophic deformation behavior (C.D.).
Depending on the change in the shear modulus during
monotonic shear, the post-liquefaction behavior is deter-
mined. In the event that the low rigidity region (Yasuda
et al., 1999) continues until quite a large amount of shear
strain develops, lateral flow will occur even in the ground
with a slight gradient. The definition of a large strain level
is left to the discretion of the user.
As mentioned in the concept of the test, post-
liquefaction behavior can be classified by employing the
shear stress and strain criteria. The criteria in monotonic
loading are the shear stress (scriterion mono ) required to stop
the lateral flow of inclined liquefied ground and the shear
strain (ccriterion mono ) which represents allowable displace-
ment in the target ground, respectively. In some conditions,
the shear stress does not recover to scriterion mono until
ccriterion mono is reached. In such cases, the potential for
catastrophic deformation, such as lateral flow, must be
regarded as high (Fig. 3(b)). Ground classified as C.D. is
regarded as high priority when considering countermea-
sures against liquefaction. On the other hand, if shear stress
reaches scriterion mono before the development of ccriterion mono ,
no flow-like damage will occur even if some deformation
takes place (Fig. 3(c)). In such cases, a numerical analysis
is required to consider the boundary conditions and evalu-
ate the precise nature of deformation. Since the initial shear
stress imposed by the gradient of the ground affects the cyc-
lic and monotonic behavior of the ground, no precise
assessment of post-liquefaction deformation is intended
in this procedure.
3. Examples of the proposed test procedure using a torsional
shear test
3.1. Test apparatus
The proposed test procedure was performed using a tor-
sional shear test apparatus capable of applying axial stress
and shear stress independently (refer Fig. 4). The test appa-
ratus is composed of a loading part and a triaxial cell.
Axial and shear stresses are regulated by separate stepping
motors controlled by a personal computer, while a pore
water pressure controller regulates the back pressure and
pore water pressure. Injection and drainage are both con-
trolled by the pore water pressure controller which con-
verts the rotary motion of the motor to the linear motion
of a piston, and allows the amount of drainage to be pre-
cisely measured. The resolution of shear strain is
2  105 , and the pore water controller can regulate the
pore water volume with resolution of 6:3  105 cm3 .
3.2. Test procedure
This test used fine silica sand (Iide silica sand #7) and
sand-silt mixture prepared by mixing 10% of DL Clay to
the fine silica sand. The physical properties of sand and
sand-silt mixture are presented in Table 1. To make the
specimens as uniform as possible, each specimen, with an
outer diameter of 70 mm, an inner diameter of 30 mm,
and a height of 100 mm, was divided into 5 layers, and each
layer was compacted until the predetermined weight of soil
was satisfied. The specimens were pre-consolidated at a
pressure of 20 kPa, and CO2 gas was circulated from the
bottom to the top, followed by de-aired water, finally
applying back pressure to saturate the specimen. The spec-
imens with a B value of over 0.95 were consolidated to 100
kPa. The consolidated specimens were subjected to the two
types of cyclic loading, then monotonic loading and drai-
nage, in that sequence.
Constant stress amplitude cyclic shear was applied with a
shear stress ratio (SRdesign ) of 0.2 and 0.4 assuming design
earthquake motions of level 1 and 2, respectively. A stress
ratio of 0.2 was set referring to design earthquake motion
level 1 described in the Specifications for Highway Bridges
(Japan Road association, 2012). A design earthquake
motion of level 1 is defined as an earthquake with a peak
ground acceleration between 200 Gal and 300 Gal, and a
high possibility for in-service inspection. Earthquake
motion level 2 is defined as the strongest earthquake that
can occur in the future, in a certain place. According to
Yamazaki et al. (1998), soil deposits with a Standard Pene-
tration Test (SPT) N-value of over 25 rarely were liquefied,
suggesting that the critical equivalent N-value is 25 for a
large earthquake with an equivalent acceleration of about
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 911

Fig. 4. Torsional shear apparatus.

Table 1
Properties of soil.
should be noted that these stress ratios (SRdesign ) are exam-
ples utilized in this study, and are not part of a designated
Iide silica DL Clay Sand with
sand 7 DL Clay 10%
method.
Under cyclic loading, saturated specimens develop shear
Soil particle density qs ðg=cm3 Þ 2.69 2.67 2.69
Maximum void ratio emax 1.015 1.67 0.94
strain with increasing excess pore water pressure. Liquefac-
Minimum void ratio emin 0.626 0.82 0.5 tion has been assumed to occur when shear strain reaches a
Median grain size D50 (mm) 0.28 0.015 0.25 specific value during cyclic loading. In this study, liquefac-
Plasticity index N.P N.P N.P tion was assumed to take place at single amplitude of 2.5%
(ccriterion cyclic ) in accordance with a previous liquefaction
test conducted using a hollow torsional shear system
500 Gal. Referring to the above results, a soil deposit with (Yoshimi et al., 1989; Sharafi and Baziar, 2010). In the case
an SPT N-value of 25 can be assumed to be non- of dense soil, effective stress does not necessarily decrease
liquefiable against a level 2 design earthquake motion. and the stress-strain hysteresis loop converges while the
Based on the recommendations for Design of Building specimen is being subjected to cyclic loading. To classify
Foundations (Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001) and such cases, namely the non-liquefaction cases, the average
Specifications for Highway Bridges, the stress ratio corre- effective stress for each cycle was determined and compared
sponding to an SPT N-value of 25 was derived to be 0.4. with those from the former cycle. When the ratio of the two
Therefore, a stress ratio of 0.4 was employed as a represen- values is more than 99.5%, the stress-strain loop was con-
tative value for a level 2 design earthquake motion. It sidered to have converged, and drainage was carried out.
912 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
In this example, cyclic loading was conducted until a shear
strain of 2.5% was reached without employing the
N1design .
Specimens that experienced liquefaction during the first
step were subjected to 2.5% single amplitude cyclic loading
during constant strain amplitude cyclic shear in STEP 2.
Provided the stress-strain hysteresis loop is identical to
what it was during which the cyclic loading, the specimens
can be regarded to be at the apparent lower limit of the
shear modulus condition, which means no further reduc-
tion in the shear modulus occurs on the surface. In such
a case, STEP 2 can be terminated at the apparent lower
limit of shear modulus to evaluate the post-liquefaction
deformation potential. In the past, the post-liquefaction
deformation of diverse materials has been examined under
a constant loading history. However, the dependence on
the loading history makes it difficult to compare their
potential for post-liquefaction damage (Sento et al., 2004;
Unno et al., 2006). It is possible for all specimens to reach
the state of their apparent lower limit of shear modulus
regardless of the differences in their loading histories. That
is, the potential for post-liquefaction deformation can be
examined irrespective of the loading history. The loading
history of a specimen until it acquires the apparent lower
limit condition varies according to the type of material.
Thus, the number of cycles N2design was not employed.
The number of cycles until the shear strain reached 2.5%
during STEP 1 and the stress-strain hysteresis loop became
stable during STEP 2 was counted. It should be noted that
the apparent lower limit does not coincide with the genuine
lower limit of the shear modulus since additional cyclic
loading after the apparent lower limit has been reached
can induce larger deformation (this will be discussed in a
later section).
To judge whether the stress-strain loop was identical,
the shear stress was measured at every 0.25% change in
shear strain and compared to the value observed during
the same shear strain in the prior cycle. When more than
36 of a total of 40 locations measured indicated a difference
of less than 0.1 kPa, the stress-strain hysteresis loop was
considered identical and the next step was conducted.
The last cycle and the one before it during which cyclic
loading was terminated according to the criterion men-
tioned above are shown in Fig. 5. The small difference
between the loops smaller than 0.1 kPa was attributed to
the noise generated from the measuring.
Specimens with a shear modulus which decreased to
their apparent lower limits were continuously subjected
to monotonic shear unless one of two conditions was satis-
fied: the development of shear strain beyond 30%, or recov-
ery of a shear stress of 50 kPa before the former condition
was reached. Justification for these is described as follows:
according to the Recommendations for Design of Building
Foundations (Japan), displacement in excess of 40 cm is
considered likely to result in tremendous damage. A shear
strain of 30% (ccriterion mono ) was introduced as a criterion
0.6
n-1 cycle Under 0.1 kPa
n cycle
0.4
Shear stress (kPa)
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 5. Stress-strain hysteresis loop at last cycle (n cycle) and that of
former cycle (n-1 cycle) during constant strain amplitude cyclic shear.
for judging the potential of catastrophic damage such as
flow, assuming the existence of a 1–2 m thick liquefiable
layer. Post-liquefaction deformation depends mainly on
the small resistance regions where shear strain increases
sharply with extremely small shear stress (Yasuda et al.,
1999). It should be noted that gradient of the shear
stress-strain loop is almost constant when the shear stress
exceeds 50 kPa. In this study a shear stress of 50 kPa
(scriterion mono ) was designated the termination condition.
In practice, the shear stress criterion can be adjusted
according to the in-situ conditions, such as the gradient
of the slope and the height of the adjacent embankment.
In this example, the amount of shear strain required to
restore a shear stress of 50 kPa was evaluated. The unload-
ing of shear stress and drainage was performed when one
of the two abovementioned conditions was achieved.
3.3. Test cases
Details of the test cases adopted in this study are shown
in Table 2. The relative densities, stress ratios, and fines
contents differed from case to case. The relative density
of each sample was determined based on JIS A 1224, even
though it is restricted to soils with a fines content of less
than 5%, so that the test results can be compared with
those reported in other research which adopted the relative
density. Shear stress ratios of 0.2 and 0.4 were adopted for
cases 1 to 5 and 6 to 8, respectively, considering design
earthquake motion levels. Cases 9 to 11 contained 10%
of DL Clay, which is a non-plastic fines, by weight so that
the effect of the fines content could be evaluated. The par-
ticle size distribution of sand, DL Clay, and sand-silt mix-
ture is illustrated in Fig. 6. Since Yilmaz et al. (2008)
reported no clear relationship between the grading charac-
teristics and the cyclic resistance even among gap-graded
soils, the test results were examined without considering
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 913

Table 2
Test cases and results.
Case Dr (%) qd ðg=cm3 Þ FC (%) s=r0c N1 N2 c1 (%) c2 (%) cacm;1 (%) cacm;2 (%) ev (%)
1 34 1.43 0 0.2 0.5 2.25 – 6.6 25.5 78.9 5.4
2 46.5 1.47 0 0.2 1.5 3.25 30 4.6 35.7 91.1 3.5
3 54 1.49 0 0.2 3.5 3.25 20.6 3.0 38.3 76.5 3.0
4 63.5 1.52 0 0.2 12.5 3.5 13.3 2.8 44.4 68.3 2.1
5 72.6 1.55 0 0.2 7 – – – 1.2 1.2 0.1
6 35.6 1.43 0 0.4 0.13 2.75 – 4.7 30.0 85.4 4.3
7 53.3 1.49 0 0.4 0.22 3.75 17.6 2.4 40.0 72.7 2.7
8 75 1.56 0 0.4 4.5 6.25 7.5 2.4 80.6 93.2 1.6
9 34.8 1.53 10 0.2 1 4.75 – 5.0 51.3 106.1 5.0
10 56.3 1.61 10 0.2 7.5 6.25 16.1 4.2 76.5 104.5 3.4
11 74 1.68 10 0.4 4 10.25 8.0 4.0 121.9 134.0 2.1
12 54 1.49 0 0.2 5.5 3.25 – 4.0 242.3 298.3 3.9
13 54.5 1.49 0 0.2 5 2.75 – 7.0 437.7 490.7 4.0

Z t
the effect of gap-grading of the sand-silt mixture. In order
cacm ¼ jc_ ðtÞjdt ð1Þ
to determine the effect of earthquake duration, an addi- 0
tional cyclic loading of 20 and 40 cycles (cases 12 and 13)
were applied to the specimens, after which the apparent where c_ ðtÞ is the shear strain rate at time t. In this study, the
lower limit of shear modulus was reached. accumulated shear strain was employed as an index to rep-
resent the loading history.
4. Test results based on the proposed method
4.1. Cyclic shear process
The test cases and results are shown in Table 2. Dr , FC,
and s=r0c , refer to the relative density, fines contents, and The different results according to the density of the spec-
imens are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In Fig. 7, shear strain
stress ratios, respectively. N1 and N2 are the number of
developed and reached 2.5% in medium dense sand with
cycles during constant stress amplitude cyclic shear and
the application of cyclic loading. On the other hand, the
constant strain amplitude cyclic shear. c1 , c2 , cacm;1 , cacm;2 ,
stress-strain hysteresis loop converged with a slight
and ev are the levels of shear strain at which the shear stress
increase in the excess pore water pressure in dense soil
recovered to 50 kPa during monotonic shear, the residual
(Fig. 8). However, when the stress ratio was increased from
shear strain after the unloading process, the accumulated
0.2 to 0.4, the shear strain increased and liquefaction took
shear strain during the cyclic loading process, the accumu-
place (Fig. 9). The results indicate that specimens with a
lated shear strain of entire test process, and the residual
relative density over 75% can be regarded as not liquefiable
volumetric strain, respectively. The blanks for c1 in Table 2
at a stress ratio of 0.2, but liquefiable at a stress ratio of 0.4,
imply that shear stress was not regained to the value of 50
which suggests a stronger motion. Thus, case 5 is classified
kPa until 30% shear strain was reached. In the effective
as non-liquefaction when the design earthquake motion
stress analysis, the accumulated shear strain used as an
corresponds to a stress ratio of 0.2. As mentioned earlier,
index to represents the damage of soil was determined by
this step is not intended to directly evaluate the liquefaction
resistance, but a rough assessment is possible by taking the
100 number of cycles N1 into consideration. The results for the
Silica sand #7 sample containing a DL Clay content of 10% are shown in
DL Clay
Sand silt mixture Fig. 9(b). A comparison with Fig. 9(a) confirms that
80 (Silica sand #7 + DL Clay 10%) although the DL Clay does not affect the liquefaction resis-
Percent finer by weight (%)

tance, it does augment the ductility of liquefied soil. In

60
energy terms, ductility represents the energy dissipation
capacity. Cohesive and dense materials, in general, are
regarded as more ductile than sandy or loose materials
40 (Kazama et al. 2000; Yoshimi and Tokimatsu, 1991). By
comparing the number of cycles (N1 and N2), it was pos-
sible to roughly compare liquefaction resistance and post-
20
liquefaction ductility. Figs. 10 and 11 show the number
of cycles N1 and N2 versus the relative density. N1
0 increases as the relative density increases irrespective of
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1
whether it is a sand or sand-silt mixture. Though N1 can-
Particle size (mm)
not be understood as the liquefaction resistance, it was pos-
Fig. 6. particle size distribution of material. sible to compare specimens subject to identical stress ratios.
914 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919

Decrease of mean effective stress

20 20

10 10
Shear stress (kPa)

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20
(a) (b)
0 20 40 60 80 100 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Mean effective stress (kPa) Shear strain (%)

Fig. 7. (a) Effective stress path and (b) the stress-strain hysteresis loop (case-4, Dr = 63.5%, s=r00 ¼ 0:2).

20 20
Convergence of
stress-strain loop
Shear stress (kPa)

10 10

Convergence of
0 0
mean effective stress

-10 -10

-20 -20
(a) (b)
0 20 40 60 80 100 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Mean effective stress (kPa) Shear strain (%)

Fig. 8. (a) Effective stress path and (b) the stress-strain hysteresis loop (case-5, Dr = 72.6%, s=r00 ¼ 0:2).

The effect of DL Clay on the ductility of liquefied soil (N2)
is illustrated in Fig. 11. While N2 increases with relative
density irrespective of fines content, the specimens contain-
ing DL Clay were more ductile than clean sand. Using just
a small number of specimens, the proposed test procedure
makes it possible for the effect of fines on the potential for
liquefaction and the ductility of liquefied soil to be roughly
examined.
4.2. Monotonic shear process
The shear stress versus shear strain relationship during the
post-liquefaction undrained monotonic loading and the
unloading process is shown in Fig. 12. When the liquefied
specimen was subjected to monotonic loading, shear strain
increased sharply with extremely small shear stress until the
stiffness of the specimen recovered. Yasuda et al. (1999)
and Shamoto et al. (1997) referred to the range in which shear
strain developed without any increase in shear stress as the
‘‘small resistance region” and characterized it as ‘‘shear strain
independent of effective stress”. There is no doubt that this
region plays a crucial role in the post-liquefaction shear strain
development. In the case of a relative density of 35%, the
small resistance region remained at a shear strain of 30%
since shear stiffness was not recovered until a shear strain
of 30% was reached, while other specimens showed the recov-
ery of stiffness before the development of 30% shear strain.
Since the proposed method comprises several steps, non-
uniformities mentioned above, such as water film and strain
localization, may occur and affect the results of following
steps. However, the presence of non-uniformities above men-
tioned was not observed in this test.
Loading history additionally applied after the stress-
strain loop converged showed an observable clear effect
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 915

14
40
(a) Dr=75% Clean sand
'
/ c = 0.4 12 Sand silt mixture

FC=0% '
Shear stress (kPa)

20 / = 0.2

Number of cycles N1
10 c

8
0
6

-20 4

2
-40
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 30 40 50 60 70
Relative density (%)
40 Fig. 10. Relationship between relative density and number of cycles N1
(b) Dr=74%
' under stress ratio of 0.2.
/ c = 0.4
FC=10%
20 12
Shear stress (kPa)

Clean sand
10 Sand silt mixture
0
Number of cycles N2

-20
6

-40 4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2
Shear strain (%)
Fig. 9. The stress-strain hysteresis loop during cyclic loading; (a)
0
Dr = 75%, s=r0c ¼ 0:4 (case-8), (b) Dr = 74, s=r0c ¼ 0:4, and FC = 10% 30 40 50 60 70 80
(case-11).
Relative density (%)

on the post-liquefaction monotonic behavior, as can be
seen in Fig. 13. In the specimen (Case-3) without the addi-
tional loading, the shear stress of 50 kPa was restored dur-
ing undrained monotonic loading at a shear strain of 20%,
whereas in the two cases (Cases 12 and 13) with the addi-
tional loading, a shear stress of only 7 kPa was achieved
until the shear strain reached 30%, with almost no differ-
ence noted between the two specimens.
4.3. Residual volumetric strain
Volumetric strain is plotted against relative density in
Fig. 14. The residual volumetric strain correlates well with
relative density irrespective of the fines and the stress ratio.
The cases subjected to additional cycles are also plotted as
diamond in Fig. 14. After additional cyclic loading, the
residual volumetric strain was about 1% larger than cases
without any additional loading history. However, it should
Fig. 11. Relationship between relative density and number of cycles N2.
be noted that there was no difference in the volumetric
strain between cases where an additional 20 cycles were
applied and cases where 40 cycles were applied. It can be
therefore concluded that although loading history affects
the residual volumetric strain, its effect peaks out at some
point. According to Sento et al. (2004), post-liquefaction
volumetric strain depends on the accumulated shear strain
indicating loading history. The post-liquefaction volumet-
ric strain was plotted against the accumulated shear strain
as proposed by Sento et al. (2004) in Fig. 15. Although the
data corresponding to the relative density under 40% is
scattered, agreement is good when relative density is over
40% (using an accumulated shear strain for the entire test
process cacm;2 ). As mentioned, the effect of loading history
is gradually reduced and then peaks out. This can be
explained in terms of the margin of void ratio, which
916 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919

/
'
= 0.2 /
'
= 0.4 FC=10% /
'
= 0.2 FC=10%, /
'
= 0.4 6
70 c c c c

(1-1) Dr=34% (2-1) Dr=35.6% (3-1) Dr=34.8% (4-5) Dr=74%

(1-2) Dr=46.5% (2-3) Dr=53.3% (3-3) Dr=56.3% (Dr=34%)
Dr=40%

(%)
(1-3) Dr=54% (2-5) Dr=75%
60 (1-4) Dr=63.5%
5 (Dr=34.8%)

v
(Dr=35.6%)
(3-3) Dr=50%

Residual volumetric strain

50 4
Shear stress (kPa)

(2-5) (4-5) (Dr=54%) (Dr=54.5%)

(Dr=46.5%)
(2-3) (1-3) (Dr=56.3%) Dr=60%
40 (1-4) (1-2)
3 (Dr=54%)
(Dr=53.3%) Dr=70%
30
2 (Dr=74%)
(Dr=63.5%) Dr=80%
20 (Dr=75%)

1 Proposed lines by Sento et al. (2004)

10 Iide silica sand
(3-1) Iide silica sand with DL Clay of 10%
(2-1)
(1-1)
0
0 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Accumulated shear strain (%)
Shear strain (%) acm,2

Fig. 12. Test results of monotonic shear. Fig. 15. Relationship between accumulated shear strain and residual
volumetric strain.

indicates the capacity for deformation. This means that

50 there are restrictions to post-liquefaction deformation even
No loading history
if additional loading is applied indefinitely. The results in
additional 20 cycles Figs. 14 and 15 demonstrate that accumulated shear strain
40 additional 40 cycles can be designated as an index to represent the loading his-
Shear stress (kPa)

tory at least for clean sand, and silty sand with a little fines
30 content. In addition, comparable results to those reported
in earlier research indicate that the post-liquefaction volu-
20 metric strain obtained through the proposed test procedure
can be reasonably utilized.
10
5. Estimating the damage potential

0 The potential for damage was evaluated and is described

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
in Table 3. The results shown in Fig. 7 where the excess
Shear strain (%)
pore water pressure and the stress-strain loop converged
Fig. 13. Effect of additional loading history on post-liquefaction stress can be regarded as non-liquefaction. In these cases, the
recovery characteristic (case-3, 12, and 13). possibility that liquefaction would occur in the event of
the design earthquake motion is quite low. As such, it is
not necessary to carry out a detailed liquefaction assess-
ment or to implement any countermeasures. Examples of
6
the damage level potentials are provided in Fig. 16, where
*Additional loading was applied
after shear modulus reached to (a) represents catastrophic deformation and (b) represents
Residual volumetric strain (%)

5 its lowel limit(cases 12 and 13) limited deformation. Very loose samples and the two sam-
ples subjected to additional loading fell into the catas-
4 trophic deformation category, which means the potential
for flow is high. In this case, countermeasures are recom-
3 mended, and attention should be promptly paid to ensur-
ing these soils are strengthened. In the case of soils
2 '
deemed likely to undergo limited deformation, a numerical
Clean sand, / = 0.2
c
'
analysis should be used to assess precisely how much defor-
Clean sand, / = 0.4
1 c mation is likely.
*
Clean sand The normalized cumulated dissipation energy (Kazama
FC = 10%
0 et al., 2000) was also determined for use as an index to rep-
0 20 40 60 80 100 resent soil ductility using the following equation:
Relative density (%) Z t
0 0
Fig. 14. Residual volumetric strain versus relative density.
W=rm0 ¼ 1=rm0  sðcÞ  c_ ðtÞdt ð2Þ
0
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919 917

Table 3 0.014

Normalized cumulated dissipation energy

Damage assessment and normalized cumulated dissipation energy.
Case Damage level potential Normalized cumulated 0.012
dissipation energy W =r0m0
0.010
1 Catastrophic deformation 0.0023
2 Limited deformation 0.0052 End of cyclic loading
3 Limited deformation 0.0069 0.008
4 Limited deformation 0.0085
5 Non-liquefaction 0.0003 0.006
'
6 Catastrophic deformation 0.0041 Dr = 55%, c
= 100kPa
7 Limited deformation 0.0103 0.004 Clean sand, /
'
= 0.2
c
8 Limited deformation 0.0313 '
9 Catastrophic deformation 0.0069 Clean sand, / = 0.4
0.002 c
'
10 Limited deformation 0.0126 FC=10%, / = 0.2
c
11 Limited deformation 0.0360 0.000
12 Catastrophic deformation 0.0091 0 20 40 60 80
13 Catastrophic deformation 0.0117 Accumulated shear strain acm,1
(%)

Fig. 17. Normalized cumulated dissipation energy of relative density

of 55%
50
(a) Dr=34%
'
40 / c = 0.2 and the normalized cumulated dissipation energy during
cyclic loading is presented in Fig. 17. Even in cases where
30
the relative density of each specimen was the same, the dis-
Shear stress (kPa)

20
sipated energy during cyclic loading differed according to
the loading history and fines content. The energy dissipa-
10 tion of the specimen subjected to a stress ratio of 0.4 was
more rapid than that subjected to a stress ratio of 0.2 with
0 the same accumulated shear strain. Furthermore, the spec-
imen with a 10% DL Clay content demonstrated larger
-10 energy dissipation than clean sand, indicating that the
-20
DL Clay increased the ductility of the specimen. The values
taken at the end of cyclic loading for all the cases indicated
0 10 20 30 by the black circles in Fig. 17 are plotted against relative
density and accumulated shear strain cacm;1 in Fig. 18. A
comparison of the normalized cumulated dissipation
50
(b) Dr=63.5% energy and relative density indicated that dissipation
40 '
/ c = 0.2 energy varies with the stress ratio (Fig. 18(a)). Fig. 18(b)
also showed that dissipated energy varied with accumu-
30 lated shear strain depending on the material properties
and stress ratio.
Shear stress (kPa)

20 The relationship between residual volumetric strain and

residual shear strain is shown in Fig. 19, along with the
10
damage potential level of each specimen. Residual shear
0 strain was obtained when the shear stress reached zero dur-
ing the unloading process. The boundary of residual volu-
-10 metric strain and residual shear strain was shown to be
divided at the same point where the damage potential level
-20 is divided. The residual volumetric strain and residual shear
0 10 20 30 strain of about 4% obtained in this test represented the
Shear strain (%) boundary between catastrophic deformation and limited
deformation.
Fig. 16. The stress-strain hysteresis loop of the overall test procedure; (a)
case-1 and (b) case-4.
6. Conclusions

where r0m0 , ðsðcÞ, and c_ ðtÞ are the initial mean effective This study proposed a new liquefaction assessment pro-
stress, shear stress, and shear strain rate at time t, respec- cedure that indicates the potential for liquefaction damage
tively. The relationship between accumulated shear strain among an assortment of soil specimens as highly unlikely,
918 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919

Normalized cumulated dissipation energy

Clean sand, / c
'
= 0.2 (a) Clean sand, / c
'
= 0.2 (b)
0.035 0.035 '
' Clean sand, / = 0.4
Clean sand, / c
= 0.4 c
*
* Clean sand
0.030 Clean sand 0.030 '
' FC=10%, / = 0.2
FC = 10%, / c
= 0.2 c
'
' FC=10%, / = 0.4
0.025 FC = 10%, / = 0.4 0.025 c
c

0.020 0.020

0.015 0.015

0.010 0.010

0.005 0.005 Additional cyclic loading was applied

after shear modulus reached to
0.000 0.000 its lower limit(cases 12 and 13)

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Relative density (%) Acuumulated shear strain acm,1

(%)

Fig. 18. (a) Normalized cumulated dissipation energy versus relative density; (b) Normalized cumulated dissipation energy versus accumulated shear
strain cacm;1 .

6 residual volumetric strain. This effect was restricted, how-

Catastrophic deformation
ever, due to limitations imposed by the margin of the void
5 Limited deformation ratio.
Residual volumetric strain (%)

Non-liquefaction The observed residual volumetric stain was interpreted in

4 terms of accumulated shear strain, and compared to values
reported in a previous study. It was concluded that volumet-
3
ric strain obtained through the proposed test procedure can
be utilized reasonably and the introduction of accumulated
shear strain provided an acceptable interpretation of
2
liquefaction-induced volumetric strain. In addition, the rela-
tionship between residual volumetric strain and accumulated
1 shear strain was shown to be bilinear, not linear.

0 References
0 1
Fig. 19. Residual volumetric strain versus residual shear strain.
likely to deform to some extent, or likely to cause catas-
trophic damage. The proposed procedure took the con-
stant stress amplitude cyclic shear, constant strain
amplitude cyclic shear, monotonic shear, and drainage, in
that order, into consideration. The method used to classify
the post-liquefaction damage as non-liquefaction, limited
deformation, and catastrophic deformation was discussed.
An example of the proposed procedure was presented by
means of a hollow cylindrical torsional shear test appara-
tus. The test results of this procedure provided the
following:
It was shown that although a 10% DL Clay content in
clean sand increased the ductility of the soil after liquefac-
tion, no effect was found on the post-liquefaction mono-
tonic behavior or the residual volumetric strain.
Additional loading history applied after the shear stress-
strain reached its apparent lower limit of shear modulus
was found to affect the post-liquefaction behavior and
2 3 4 5
Residual shear strain (%)
6 7 8
Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001. Recommendations for Design of
Building Foundations. (in Japanese).
Arulmoki, K., Arulanandan, K., Seed, H.B., 1985. New method for
evaluating liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
ASCE 111 (1), 95–114.
Cubrinovski, M., Henderson, D. and Bradley, B. A., 2012. Liquefaction
impacts in residential areas in the 2010–2011 Christchurch earth-
quakes, International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned
From the Giant Earthquake 3–4 March 2012, 811–824.
Ishihara, K., Yoshimine, M., 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand
deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found. 32
(1), 173–188.
Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T., Tokida, K., 1984. Simplified procedures for
assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 3 (1), 49–58.
Japan Road Association, 2012. Specifications for Highway Bridges-Part 5
Seismic Design. (in Japanese).
Kazama, M., Noda, T., Mori, T., Kim, J., 2012. Overview of the
geotechnical damages and the technical problems posed after the 2011
off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. Geotechnical Engineering
Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA 43, 49–56.
Kazama, M., Yamaguchi, A., Yanagisawa, E., 2000. Liquefaction
resistance from a ductility viewpoint. Soils Found. 40 (6), 47–60.
Lee, K.L., Albaisa, A., 1974. Earthquake induced settlements in saturated
sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 100 (GT4), 387–
406.
 J. Kim et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 905–919
Nagase, H., Ishihara, K., 1988. Liquefaction-induced compaction and
settlement of sand during earthquake. Soils Found. 28 (1), 65–76.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., 1971. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil
liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division 97 (SM9), 1249–1273.
Sento, N., Kazama, M. and Uzuoka, R., 2004. Experiment and idealiza-
tion of the volumetric compression characteristics of clean sand after
undrained cyclic shear, Journal of JSCE, 764; III-67, 307–317. (In
Japanese).
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J.M., Goto, S., 1997. Mechanism of large post-
liquefaction deformation in saturated sand. Soils Found. 37 (2), 71–80.
Sharafi, S., Baziar, H.B., 2010. A laboratory study on the liquefaction
resistance of Firouzkook silty sands using hollow torsional system.
Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 15, 973–982.
Tatsuoka, F., Sasaki, T. and Yamada, S., 1987. Settlement of saturated
sand induced by cyclic undrained simple shear, Proc. 8th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 3, 398–405.
The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, 2009.
Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbor facilities
in Japan, The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan.
Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., Swada, S., 2004. Settlement of silty sand
deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found. 44
(5), 135–148.
Unno, T., Tani, S., 2008. The effect of test control and test condition on
the assessment of volume compressibility following liquefaction based
on the cyclic shear strain histories. Journal of JSCE 64 (4), 776–781 (in
Japanese).
919
Unno, T., Kazama, M., Uzuoka, R., Sento, N., 2006. Relation of
volumetric compression of sand between under drained cyclic shear
and reconsolidation after undrained cyclic shear. Journal of JSCE 62
(4), 757–766 (in Japanese).
Yamaguchi, A., Mori, T., Kazama, M., Yoshida, N., 2012. Liquefaction
in Tohoku district during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku
earthquake. Soils Found. 52 (5), 811–829.
Yamazaki, H., Zen, K. and Koike, F., 1998. Study of the liquefaction
prediction based on the grain distribution and the SPT N-value,
Technical Note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry
of Transport No. 914.
Yasuda, S., Yoshida, N., Adachi, K., Kiku, H., Gose, S. and Masuda, T.,
1999. A simplified practical method for evaluating liquefaction-
induced flow, Journal of JSCE; 638; III-49, 71–89. (in Japanese).
Yilmaz, Y., Mollamahmutoglu, M., Ozaydin, V., Kayabali, K., 2008.
Experiment investigation of the effect of grading characteristics on the
liquefaction resistance of various graded sands. Eng. Geol. 100 (3–4),
91–100.
Yoshimi, Y., Tokimatsu, K., 1991. Ductility criterion for evaluating
liquefaction remediation measures to increase liquefaction resistance of
sands. Soils Found. 31 (1), 162–168.
Yoshimi, Y., Kuwabara, F., Tokimatsu, K., 1975. One-dimension volume
change characteristics of sands under very low confining stress. Soils
Found. 15 (3), 51–60.
Yoshimi, Y., Tanaka, K., Tokimatsu, K., 1989. Liquefaction resistance of
a partially saturated sand. Soils Found. 29 (3), 157–162.