Soils and Foundations 2016;56(3):506–519

HOSTED BY The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

The relation between liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity for new
and old deposits
Roozbeh Safaeian Amolya,n, Kenji Ishiharab, Huriye Bilsela
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus, via Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Chuo University, Research and Development Initiative, Tokyo, Japan
Received 28 July 2015; received in revised form 11 October 2015; accepted 27 January 2016
Available online 4 June 2016

Abstract

Multiple series of cyclic triaxial tests were performed on undisturbed and reconstituted samples of sandy soils obtained from areas of known
liquefaction at the time of the 2011 East Japan Earthquake. In this test scheme, the shear wave velocity was firstly measured and then cyclic loads
were applied to determine the cyclic shear strength. The undisturbed samples were classified into two groups, namely, one from old alluvial
(Pleistocene) deep deposits and the other from near-surface shallow depths which had apparently been disturbed by the liquefaction in the 2011
event. The data thus obtained were plotted in terms of the cyclic strength versus the shear wave velocity, and two curved lines were drawn
through average points in the plot for the two groups of soils, that is, one for the undisturbed soils and the other for the liquefaction-disturbed
soils. It was found that for a given cyclic strength, the shear wave velocity does have the propensity to become larger for the undisturbed samples
from the old deposits in comparison to the undisturbed samples from the seemingly liquefaction-disturbed samples. Similar sets of laboratory
tests were also performed on several sand samples reconstituted to a completely disturbed state. The plots of the test results for these reconstituted
samples also showed a tendency in the relation between the cyclic strength and the shear wave velocity which is similar to that for the
liquefaction-disturbed samples recovered from the in-situ deposits. In order to understand the outcome of the above observations, the ratio
between the cyclic strength and the shear modulus from the shear wave velocity was taken as a parameter to distinguish the two different relations
as mentioned above. This ratio, which might be called the “reference strain” of the “yield strain”, is used to provide an interpretation of the
difference in correlation between the cyclic strength and the shear wave velocity.
& 2016 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One of the methods to this end would be to secure

The evaluation of the liquefaction potential during earth-
quakes has been an important subject for geotechnical engi-
neers in seismically active regions of the world. In fulfilling
this task, it is of critical importance to assess the cyclic
resistance of sandy soil deposits in the field.
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: safaeian.amoly@students.emu.edu.tr (R.S. Amoly),
kenji-ishihara@e-mail.jp (K. Ishihara), huriye.bilsel@emu.edu.tr (H. Bilsel).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
undisturbed samples of soils from in-situ deposits in question
and to test them in the laboratory under cyclic loading
conditions. This methodology is deemed to give sufficiently
accurate information regarding the cyclic strength of in-situ
soils reflecting their inherent characteristics formed during
depositional processes under their own environments. How-
ever, a shortcoming of this method would be the difficulty in
evaluating the levels of sample disturbance and the high costs
incurred in the sampling and testing operations.
Another method would be to assess the cyclic resistance of
in-situ soils via the use of some empirical formulae or charts

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.016
0038-0806/& 2016 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519 507

correlating the cyclic strength with the resistance of penetration

tests, such as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and cone
penetration resistance (CPT). The shortcoming of these meth-
odologies is the level of accuracy and the credibility of the
empirical formulae correlating the cyclic strength with the
penetration resistance which may change depending upon
several factors.
Still other method would be to use the shear wave velocity
which can be measured in-situ at a low cost by means of several
procedures without necessarily drilling boreholes. However, there
is suspicion regarding its use, because liquefaction is related to
medium to large shear strain in contrast to the infinitesimal shear
strain involved in the propagation of the shear wave. In spite of
such potential shortcomings, there have been a lot of works
promoting the use of the shear wave velocity and attempting to
establish some charts correlating the cyclic strength with the shear
wave velocity. Typical papers dealing with this subject include
Dobry et al. (1980), Stokoe et al. (1988), Tokimatsu and Uchida
(1990), Andrus and Stokoe (2000), Wang et al. (2006), Liu and
Mitchell (2006), Baxter et al. (2008), Kayen et al. (2013), Ahmadi
and Akbari Paydar (2014), and Dobry et al. (2014). Thus, if some
physical interpretation can be provided for the correlation, the shear
wave velocity will be regarded as a meaningful tool for assessing
the liquefaction resistance of the in-situ deposits of sandy soils.
It is an objective of this paper to obtain the results of multiple
series of test data in the laboratory and in the field, and to try to
seek for separate correlations for new and old deposits.

2. Recovery of undisturbed samples

With an aim to determine cyclic strength RL and shear wave

velocity Vs, multiple series of tests were conducted in the field
and in the laboratory using the cyclic triaxial test apparatus for
undisturbed and disturbed samples of sandy soils. The
undisturbed samples were secured from man-made fills and
alluvial deposits at two sites which were affected by liquefac-
tion at the time of the 2011 East Japan Earthquake. One area is
located in Asahi City, Chiba Prefecture, along the coastal line
of the Pacific Ocean. Its location is shown in Fig. 1. The other
area is the site of a tailing dam, south of Kesen-numa, which
suffered the breach and release of liquefied tailings at the time
of the 2011 event. Its location is also indicated in Fig. 1.
2.1. Asahi site
Man-made fills and alluvial (Holocene) deposits near the surface
suffered ground settlement and the tilt of private houses due to
liquefaction at the time of the 2011 earthquake. The individual
locations of the undisturbed samplings are indicated in Fig. 2. The
area of ground destruction is a broad flat plain surrounded by hills
in the north and west. Soil borings were conducted at six places, as
indicated in Fig. 2. Measurements of the shear wave velocity were
taken using the downhole method to depths 15–20 m and by
means of a suspension device for deeper deposits. More detailed
soil profiles for the three selected locations are shown in Fig. 3(a),
(b), and (c), where SPT N-values, shear wave velocity Vs, and the
depths of the samplings are also indicated. The recovery of the
Fig. 1. Locations of two sites for undisturbed sampling.
undisturbed samples was conducted by means of a thin-wall tube
sampler at medium shallow depths denoted by S-1, S-2, etc., by a
triple tube sampler for the medium soft soil deposits (T-1, T-2,
etc.), and by a Denison sampler for the stiff old deposits (D-1, D-2,
etc.). Note, however, that samples T-1, T-2, D-1, and D-2 were not
tested. The type of sampler used in each case is indicated on the
right-hand side column in each of the figures in Fig. 3. In the
practice of site investigations in Japan, it is common to make use of
these sampling techniques. The degree of disturbance during
sampling is difficult to quantify accurately. It is believed, however,
that despite some degree of disturbance, the recovered intact
samples still retain their inherent structures, such as a thinly
stratified complex matrix which was formed under respective
depositional environments. These structures in intact soils are
conceived to have more significant influence on the soil response
in cyclic loading than changes in density during sampling and
sample handling.
2.2. Tailing dam site
The location of the site of the tailings dam, which failed during
the 2011 earthquake, is indicated on the map in Fig. 1. The site,
about 60 km north of Sendai, was shaken strongly with a peak
508 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
Fig. 2. Locations of undisturbed sampling at Asahi, Chiba.
acceleration of 454 gal which was recorded at a nearby station. A
plan view of the failed tailings pond is shown in Fig. 4. A typical
soil profile at the centre of the disposal pond is shown in Fig. 5. A
detailed account of the soil conditions and the features of the
failure is described in a paper by Ishihara et al. (2015).
Undisturbed samples were secured by means of the triple tube
sampler which is said to be suitable for obtaining fairly good-
quality samples from silty sand deposits of low to medium
density.
3. Measurements of shear wave velocity and cyclic
resistance in laboratory
3.1. Test procedure and materials
Undisturbed samples from the tailings disposal pond con-
tained a fairy large amount of non-plastic fines up to a
maximum of 90%. Thus, the sampling tubes were transported
directly to the laboratory, and the vinyl chloride tubes were cut
crosswise and test specimens extruded. The specimens were
trimmed carefully to a cylindrical shape 5 cm in diameter and
10 cm in height. After consolidating the specimens to a
confining pressure circa 1.1 times the in-situ effective over-
burden, tests were performed using the cyclic triaxial test
apparatus. The reason for choosing 1.1 times was simply to
bring the specimens to a normally consolidated state as they
were in-situ. In this laboratory test scheme, on samples from
the tailings dam, shear wave measurements were not
carried out.
The tube samples from the Asahi site contained less than
30% fines, and thus, were hung vertically overnight at the site
to drain the excess water. The partially saturated sand in the
tubes was frozen in the field and then transported to the
laboratory of a consulting company in Chiba, referred to as Co.
A. About half of the samples were tested there, but
measurements were not performed for the shear wave velocity
in the laboratory tests. Thus, only the Vs-values measured in-
situ by the downhole method were included in the data
compilation file. The remaining half of the undisturbed
samples was transported to the laboratory of another consulting
company in Chiba, referred to as Co. B, and tested there.
Details of the tests are in this laboratory are as follows.
(1) The undisturbed specimens were put into a split tube with
a rubber membrane tightened inside by a vacuum, and then
put in place in the triaxial equipment. One end of the
membrane was rolled up to the top cap, while the other end
was rolled down to the pedestal while a vacuum was
applied inside of the specimen. The split tube was then
removed. Details of the frozen specimen preparation for
cyclic triaxial tests are described in the paper by Ishihara
(1985). Prior to applying a back pressure of 200 kN/m2,
carbon dioxide (Co2) and then de-aired water were
circulated through the specimen to achieve a B-value
exceeding 0.95. Once the specimen was isotropically
consolidated to pressures slightly higher (1.1 times) than
the in-situ effective overburden corresponding to the depth
at which the specimen had been obtained, shear wave
velocity measurements were carried out.
(2) The triaxial test apparatus is equipped with a device to apply
torsional impulses (step signals) at its top cap and a receiver
at the bottom to pick up the impulses transmitted through the
specimen. By dividing the length of the specimen by the time
of the transmission of the impulses, which were calculated by
the first arrival method, the shear wave velocity, Vs, was
obtained. It is to be noted that these impulses produce only an
infinitesimal strain in the specimen. Then, the phase of this
test can be considered as non-destructive.
(3) After the shear wave measurement is over, the cyclic axial
load is applied as many times as necessary to produce a state
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519 509

Fig. 3. (a) Soil profile at sampling site in Asahi (HG-S-1). (b) Soil profile at sampling site in Asahi (SN-S-1) (c) Soil profile at sampling site in Asahi (SN-S-2).

of liquefaction and continued even further until the progres-
sive development of axial strain is achieved up to about 10%
in single-amplitude under stress-controlled conditions. The
above tests were repeated 2–4 times by employing different
cyclic stress ratios to determine the cyclic strength, RL, for
each of the specimens from the same depth which are
conceived to have identical mechanical characteristics. Note
that this phase of the tests is apparently destructive. Follow-
ing the cyclic triaxial tests, index property tests were
conducted on all the undisturbed specimens to determine
the density, the limiting void ratios, and the specific gravity.
The grain size distribution curves are shown in Fig. 6.
510 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519

Fig. 4. Plan view of failed tailings dam at Ohya mine.

Fig. 5. Cross section of failed tailings dam at Ohya mine and locations of boring logs in 1979 and 2011.

4. Results of tests on undisturbed samples
4.1. Test results on samples from Asahi sites
The results of cyclic loading tests on the undisturbed
samples from the Asahi sites are shown in Table 1 together
with several associated key parameters. The tests on samples
denoted by S-1, S-4, S-6, S-7, S-8, and S-9 from sites HB-S-1,
JG-S-1, and NH-S-1 were conducted at the laboratory of Co. A
in Chiba. Shear wave measurements were not performed in
these laboratory tests, and therefore, only the Vs-values
obtained in the field by the downhole method are shown in
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
Fig. 6. Grain size distributions of undisturbed specimens from Asahi City.
the columns, Vs and Vs1. The value of Vs1 is the shear wave
velocity normalised to the confining stress of s00 correspond-
ing to the effective overburden pressure, using the following
relation:

  1=4
s0 '
V s1 ¼ V s  ð1Þ
Pa
where the law of normalisation through the minus quarter root
is the one proposed by Harden and Richart (1963) based on the
comprehensive test results. According to their work, the shear
wave velocity was shown also to be a function of the void
ratio. However, its dependence upon the void ratio is deemed
to be small particularly for clean sand, as compared to its
dependence upon the confining stress. Thus, only the effect of
the confining stress is considered in this paper to modify the
measured shear wave velocity. In the same context, shear
modulus G0 was normalised through the minus square root of
the confining stress, as follows:

  1=2
s0 '
G01 ¼ G0  ð2Þ
Pa
The values for G0 and G01 thus obtained are also shown in
Table 1. The cyclic stress ratio causing 2.5% single amplitude
axial strain in 20 cycles, RL, is shown in the second-from- the-
last column in Table 1. Since the value for RL is the ratio
between the amplitude of shear stress sd/2 and confining stress
s00 , the value for RL is multiplied by atmospheric pressure
Pa ¼ 1 kg/cm2 ¼ 98 kN/m2 so that it is expressed in the same
unit as the shear modules.
The outcome of the majority of the cyclic loading tests on
undisturbed samples conducted at the laboratory of Co. B in
Chiba is also shown in Table 1. The tests were performed by
first monitoring the shear wave velocity, Vs, and then applying
the cyclic load to the same sample. Thus, in columns Vs and
Vs1, the results are indicated with prescript “L” which implies
511
laboratory tests. The cyclic loading tests performed to deter-
mine the cyclic strength, RL, were performed 2–4 times by
varying the amplitude of cyclic axial stress. Each time, the
measured Vs-values were different. Thus, the average value
among the 2–4 samples is indicated in columns Vs and Vs1 with
the symbol “L” in Table 1. The ratio, RLPa/G01, was calculated
using the same value for RL but with the Vs1 values obtained in
the field and in the laboratory as well. These are shown in the
last column of Table 1 with the symbols “F” and “L”,
respectively.
On the basis of the soil profiles shown in Fig. 3, simple
liquefaction analyses were conducted using the method
stipulated in the Japanese design code for bridge design.
The analyses indicated that the recent man-made fills and
alluvial deposits near the surface did indeed experience
liquefaction at the time of the 2011 earthquake. Therefore,
these deposits are deemed to have been disturbed by the
strong shaking. The undisturbed samples recovered from
such deposits are denoted by “ℓ” in the third column of
Table 1. The data for the other samples from deeper deposits
are considered not to have liquefied and are labelled as “n” in
Table 1.
4.2. Test results on samples from Ohya site
The undisturbed samples from the Ohya tailings dam site
were tested in the laboratory of Co. B in Chiba using the
triaxial test apparatus. The test procedure was the same as that
described in the foregoing section. The results of the tests are
shown in Table 2 in the same fashion as in Table 1. In this
laboratory test series, no measurement was made for the shear
wave velocity. Thus, the Vs and Vs1 values, shown in Table 2,
are only those monitored in-situ by the downhole method. As a
result of the simple analysis, the near-surface deposits were
identified to have liquefied to depths of about 10 m during the
2011 earthquake. Thus, the symbol “ℓ” is given for such
 512
Table 1
Undisturbed samples from Asahi.
0
Site Sample number Age Depth (m) Void ratio (e) sv (kpa) N-value N1-value FC(%) Vs (m/s) Vs1 (m/s) G01 (Mpa) RL εay ¼ RL pa=G01

HB-S-1 HB-S-1(S-1) Fillℓ 1.0–3.8 0.673 30 7 9 0.9 F160 L168 L52.2 0.304 L** 5.82  10-4
F216 F86.3 F* 4.48  10-4
HB-S-1(S-4) Asn 7.0–10.9 1.409 87 25 27 1 F240 L189 L65.7 0.282 L 4.29  10-4
F248 F116.0 F 2.43  10-4
HB-S-1(S-7) Asn 15.0–16.9 1.094 150 21 26 10.7 F190 L201 L76.4 0.276 L 3.61  10  4
F172 F55.8 F 4.95  10  4
HB-S-1(S-9) Asn 22.0–23.7 1.166 215 12 8 9.6 F190 L208 L81.8 0.276 L 3.37  10  4
F157 F46.5 F 5.94  10  4
JG-S-1 JG-S-1(S-1) Asn 5.0–8.0 1.068 74 25 29 2.2 F180 L150 L42.9 0.176 L 4.10  10  4
F194 F71.1 F 2.48  10  4
JG-S-1(S-4) Asn 8.0–9.9 1.134 91 22 23 6.6 F150 L168 L53.1 0.268 L 5.05  10  4
F154 F44.5 F 6.02  10  4

R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519

JG-S-1(S-6) Asn 16.0–17.8 0.843 163 45 35 5.7 F270 L192 L69.6 0.28 L 4.02  10  4
F239 F108.0 F 2.59  10  4
JG-S-1(S-8) Dsn 26.0–27.8 0.959 248 11 7 28.7 F250 L179 L73.4 0.229 L 3.12  10  4
F199 F74.8 F 3.06  10  4
NH-S-1 NH-S-1(S-1) Fillℓ 2.0–5.8 0.884 53 4 6 20.5 F140 L121 L27.3 0.295 L 10.8  10  4
F164 F50.1 F 5.89  10  4
NH-S-1(S-4) Asn 10.0–11.9 0.847 112 31 30 9.6 F260 L199 L75.3 0.206 L 2.73  10  4
F253 F122.0 F 1.69  10  4
NH-S-1(S-6) Dsn 26.0–27.0 1.258 244 4 3 84 F150 L165 L51.4 0.246 L 4.78  10  4
F120 F27.2 F 9.04  10  4
HG-S-1 HG-S-1(S-1) Asℓ 2.0–3.0 0.967 25 4 6 11.8 L 127 L 180 L 59.5 0.23 L 3.86  10  4
F 110 F 156 F 47.6 F 4.83  10  4
HG-S-1 (S-4) Asℓ 4.0–5.0 0.967 60 6 8 12.1 L 115 L 131 L 31.5 0.30 L 9.52  10  4
F 115 F 131 F 31.5 F 9.52  10  4
HG-S-1 (S-1) Asn 4.0–6.0 0.967 60 6 8 25.4 F 110 F 125 F 28.7 0.299 F 10.4  10  4
HG-S-1 (S-5) Asn 7.0–10.0 0.967 87 18 19 26.2 F 170 F 176 F 45.4 0.281 F 4.80  10  4
HG-S-1 (S-11) Dsn 18.0–20.0 0.967 180 10 7 52.4 F 180 F 155 L 26.7 0.284 F 6.25  10  4
F 45.4
HG-S-1 (S-11) Dsn 18.0–20.0 0.967 180 10 7 42.3 L 138 L 119 L 61.9 0.28 L 10.5  10  4
F 180 F 155 F 45.4 F 6.17  10  4
SN-S-1 SN-S-1 (S-6) Fillℓ 1.0–2.0 0.967 20 5 11 1.9 L 121 L 181 L 61.9 0.35 L 5.65  10  4
F 100 F 149 F 41.7 F 8.39  10  4
SN-S-1 (S-10) Dsn 24.0–26.1 0.967 215 23 16 9 L 211 L 174 L 57.8 0.24 L 4.15  10  4
F 220 F 182 F 66.3 F 3.62  10  4
SN-S-2 SN-S-2(S-6) Asn 13.0–14.0 0.967 115 26 24 5 L 209 L 202 L 76.3 0.23 L 3.01  10  4
F 220 F 182 F 84.8 F 2.71  10  4
SN-S-2 (S-7) Asn 20.1–20.8 0.967 190 79 57 1.3 L 218 L 186 L 65.3 0.22 L 3.37  10  4
F 250 F 213 F 86.4 F 2.55  10  4
SN-S-2 (S-9) Asn 20.8–21.8 0.967 198 79 57 5 L 134 L 113 L 24.1 0.2 L 8.30  10  4
F 250 F 211 F 84.0 F 2.38  10  4
0
N1 ¼ 1.7/(sv þ 0.7), L: Laboratory, F: Field, ℓ: Liquefied Alluviumu or Fills.
n: non-liquefied, As: Alluvial sand, Ds: Diluvial sand (top half).
0
N1 ¼ 1.7/(sv þ 0.7), ℓ: Liquefied, n: non-liquefied, L: Laboratory, F: Field.
As: Alluvial sand, Ds: Diluvial sand (bottom half).
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519 513

Table 2
Undisturbed samples from tailings dam site at Ohya mine (Miyagi Prefecture).

Sampling time Age Depth (m) Void ratio (e) s0v (kpa) N-value N1-value FC (%) Vs (m/s) Vs1 (m/s) G01 (Mpa) RL εay ¼ RL Pa =G01

After the 2011 quake Newℓ 5.0–5.8 0.792 85 3 3.3 66 F140 F146 F40.2 0.18 F4.48  10  4
Newℓ 12.0–12.8 1.203 138 1 0.8 96 F170 F157 F46.5 0.173 F3.72  10  4
Newℓ 5.0–5.9 0.809 88 2 2.1 33 F140 F144 F39.1 0.197 F5.04  10  4
Newℓ 8.7–9.5 1.046 120 1 0.9 96 F150 F143 F38.6 0.179 F4.64  10  4
Newℓ 12.0–12.8 0.922 142 2 1.6 97 F170 F156 F45.9 0.208 F4.53  10  4
Newℓ 13.1–14.0 1.046 160 5 3.6 94 F200 F178 F61.4 0.307 F5.00  10  4
Before the 1977 quake Oldn 5.80–6.55 1.46 106 11 10.5 75 F120 F118 F27.0 0.207 F7.67  10  4
Oldn 18.0–18.8 0.73 226 0 0 89 F190 F155 F46.5 0.238 F5.12  10  4
Oldn 5.0–5.8 0.95 91 4 4.2 87 F120 F123 F29.3 0.268 F9.15  10  4
Oldn 10.0–10.8 1.02 128 3 2.5 92 F240 F226 F98.9 0.231 F2.34  10  4
0
N1 ¼ 1:7=ðsv Þþ 0:7 F: Field value, ℓ: Liquefied deposits, n : unliquefied deposits.

liquefied samples in the second column in Table 2. The

samples from deeper deposits, which supposedly did not suffer
liquefaction, are indicated by the symbol “n” in Table 2.

5. Relation between cyclic strength and shear wave velocity

for undisturbed soils

5.1. Plots of cyclic strength RL versus Vs1 for old unliquefied

sands

It is considered likely that the relationship between the

cyclic strength, RL  pa, and the shear wave velocity, Vs1, for
unliquefied old deposits would be different from that pertain-
ing to new or liquefied deposits of sands. Thus, the test data
shown in Tables 1 and 2 were plotted separately for each of
these two types of sandy soils, that is, one for the liquefied
deposits and another for the unliquefied deposits.
The undisturbed samples from the old deposits at the Asahi
site, denoted by As (Alluvial sand) and Ds (Diluvial sand), are
from depths deeper than 5–7 m, as seen in the soil profiles in
Fig. 3. As shown in Table 1, the cyclic stress ratio, causing
2.5% single amplitude in 20 cycles of load applications, RL, is
of the order of 0.2–0.35. The shear wave velocity, Vs1, is seen
to take relatively large values ranging from 120 to 250 m/s.
Each of the data sets, RL and Vs1, is shown in the plot in Fig. 7
by the open rectangle symbol, “⊡”.
Regarding the values for Vs1, no clearly discernible tendency
for differentiating between the data from the field and those Fig. 7. Relation between cyclic resistance and shear wave velocity for old
from the laboratory tests appears. Thus, the data from these unliquefied deposits.
two sources are shown jointly by a horizontal line connecting
two points in the diagram.
The data from the Ohya site are also plotted in Fig. 7 with The notations g and γ t indicate the gravity acceleration and
the open triangle symbol, “ ”. Looking over the whole data, a the unit weight of the soil, respectively. In Eq. (3), it should be
curved line in the form of RL ¼ εay V2s1 is drawn so that it passes noted that the effect of the confining stress on the cyclic
as far as possible through the average points in the scattered strength ratio, RL, has been taken in the definition of RL.
plots of the data, where the value for εay is defined as the ratio Note that the cyclic stress ratio is now expressed as the
of RL and G01 as follows: magnitude of cyclic stress at the atmospheric pressures, pa, in
# order to make εay non-dimensional. Individual values for
ϵ ay ¼ pγtg ϵay coefficient εay for each of the specimens tested are shown in
a
ð3Þ the last column of Tables 1 and 2. Parameter εay will be
ϵay ¼ RLGU01Pa ¼ γ =g
RL U Pa
UV 2
referred to as the “cyclic yield strain” or the “cyclic reference
t s1
514 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
strains.” Its physical implication will be discussed later. It may
be seen that the value for εay varies in a wide range, but an
average value representative of all unliquefied old deposits
may be obtained approximately as εay ¼ 3.6  10  4, as indi-
cated in Fig. 7. The line of equal εay thus established in the plot
of RL and Vs1 is regarded as indicating a correlation between
cyclic resistance RL and Vs1 for the old or aged deposits which
is expressed as
RL ¼ 0:68  10  5 V 2s1
where γ t /g is assumed equal to 18.5/9.8 ¼ 0.189 kN s /m . 2 4
5.2. Plots of cyclic strength versus Vs1 for fresh fills or
liquefied deposits
The test data in Table 1, pertaining to the undisturbed
samples from fresh artificial fills and liquefied deposits,
are plotted together in Fig. 8 in the same fashion as in Fig.
7. By drawing a curved line through the average data
points, the relation between R L and V s1 can be obtained as
follows:
RL ¼ 0:9  10  5 V s1 2
This relation is displayed in Fig. 8. In the same context as
mentioned above, this curve is a line of the constant value of
εay ¼ 4.6  10  4. It is to be noted that for the fresh or the once-
liquefied deposits, the value for εay as above, is found to be
Fig. 8. Relation between cyclic resistance and shear wave velocity for intact
samples from new fills and liquefied alluvium.
larger than εay ¼ 3.6  10  4 which is demonstrated in Fig. 7
for the old and unliquefied deposits.
6. Cyclic strength versus shear wave velocity for
reconstituted samples
6.1. Cyclic strength versus Vs1 for reconstituted samples from
Asahi sand
ð4Þ
After the series of tests were finished for the undisturbed
samples from Asahi, the same samples were once mixed, air-
dried, and reconstituted to test specimens having approximately
the same density. In this case, the tests were carried out only for
the samples from the HG-S-1, SN-S-1, and SN-S-2 sites. The
Vs-measurements and cyclic loading tests were performed
similarly on these reconstituted samples. The results of the tests
are shown in Table 3 and the data are plotted in Fig. 9 in terms
of RL versus Vs1 with the open triangular symbol “◬”. The line
of equal εay ¼ 4.6  10  4, established above in Fig. 8, is quoted
and displayed for comparison. Although there are some devia-
tions, the constant strain εay-line for the reconstituted samples
appears to approximately coincide with that from the in-situ
ð5Þ
samples disturbed by liquefaction.
6.2. Cyclic strength versus Vs1 for reconstituted samples from
Nagoya sand
To mainly examine the effects of the fines content, sandy
soil from a site in Nagoya was sorted out using the 74 μ
serve to separate the fines fraction from the silty sand. Then,
the fines was mixed with the sand to produce silty sand
having fines proportions of 10 and 30%. The artificial
materials thus produced were used to prepare specimens
with relative densities of 50% and 70% and tested in the
same fashion using the same apparatus. The results of the
tests are listed in Table 4 and plotted in Fig. 9 with the solid
reverse triangle symbol “ ” in terms of RL versus Vs1. It is
noted that with an increasing relative density, both RL and
Vs1 tend to increase, as seen from the measured values
plotted in the figure. In addition, no clearly discernible
difference in the plots between samples with zero and 30%
fines content appears. Thus, pending further detailed study,
all the samples reconstituted from Nagoya sand are likely, in
the present study, to exhibit seemingly identical character-
istics, at least in terms of the relation between RL and Vs1.
For reference, a line of equal cyclic strain, εay ¼ 4.6  10  4,
is drawn in the plot in Fig. 9. It is noted that the RL  Vs1
relation for the Nagoya sand is practically identical to that
for the Asahi sand.
6.3. Summary of RL versus VS1 relations for undisturbed
samples from new deposits and reconstituted samples
A comparison of the test data shown in Fig. 8 for undisturbed
samples from liquefied in-situ deposits and those in Fig. 9 for
reconstituted samples shows that there is no appreciable differ-
ence, as a whole, between these two groups of data. In light of the
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519 515

Table 3
Reconstituted specimens from Asahi sand.
0
Specimens FC (%) e s0 ðkPaÞ emax Dr (%) Vs1 (m/s) G01 (Mpa) RL εay ¼ RL pa
G01
emin

HG-S-1 (2.0–3.0 m) 11.8 0.967 100 1.486 83.3 177 59.1 0.19 3.21  10  4
0.863
HG-S-1 (4.0–5.0 m) 12.1 1.02 100 1.572 85.8 135 34.4 0.21 6.10  10  4
0.929
HG-S-1 (18.0–19.0 m) 43.9 1.053 100 1.803 86 115 24.9 0.12 4.82  10  4
0.931
HG-S-1 (19.0–20.0 m) 40.8 1.047 170 1.581 72 125 29.5 0.13 4.41  10  4
0.839
SN-S-1 (1.0–2.0 m) 13.6 1.152 100 1.597 67.6 149 41.9 0.12 2.86  10  4
0.939
SN-S-1 (25.3–26.1 m) 4.5 0.89 270 1.232 73.3 158 47.1 0.175 3.71  10  4
0.768
SN-S-2 (13.0–14.0 m) 5.3 0.837 150 1.298 86.3 168 53.2 0.18 3.38  10  4
0.764
SN-S-2 (20.1–20.8 m) 0.95 0.695 240 0.967 70.1 173 56.4 0.185 3.28  10  4
0.579
SN-S-2 (20.8–1.8 m) 5 1.073 240 1.46 61.3 105 20.8 0.12 5.77  10  4
0.829

Table 4
Reconstituted specimens of Nagoya sand.

Specimens e emax Dr (%) Vs1 G01 RL εay ¼ RL pa

G01
emin (m/s) (Mpa)

Fine content 0.85 1.077 50 149 41.9 0.22 5.25  0  4

0% 0.623
0.769 1.077 70 159 47.7 0.28 5.87  10  4
0.623
Fine content 0.867 1.118 50 123 28.5 0.14 4.91  10  4
10% 0.616
0.767 1.118 70 129 31.4 0.27 8.60  10  4
0.616
Fine content 0.979 1.288 50 110 22.8 0.1 4.38  10  4
30% 0.671
0.865 1.288 70 115 24.9 0.15 6.01  10  4
0.671

to assume, at the present stage of the study, that they represent

jointly the identical relationship between liquefaction resistance
RL and shear wave velocity VS1. Based on the above considera-
tion, the equal cyclic yield strain-line of εay ¼ 4.6  10  4,
displayed in Figs. 8 and 9, may be taken as being representative
of the correlation between RL versus VS1 for reconstituted or new
reclaimed sand deposits.

7. Relation between cyclic stress ratio and amplitude of

Fig. 9. Relation between cyclic resistance and shear wave velocity for
disturbed or reconstituted samples.
conception that new or once-liquefied deposits of in-situ sandy
soils have been once disturbed, they may be deemed to exhibit
cyclic behaviour which is approximately identical to that of
reconstituted samples in terms of the liquefaction resistance as
correlated with the shear wave velocity. Thus, it is within reason
cyclic strain
Parameter εay, that is, the cyclic yield strain or the cyclic
reference strain defined by Eq. (3), will be explained in
somewhat more detail in this section. Suppose that there are
typical results for the cyclic triaxial loading tests, as schema-
tically illustrated in Fig. 10(a). Assume, for example, that
cyclic stress ratio Rc ¼ 0.20 is applied to a sample, and the
single-amplitude axial strain, εa, then successively increases as
516 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
Fig. 10. Implication of yield strain in cyclic loading.
indicated by a0 , b0 , c0 , and d0 in the plot of the cyclic stress ratio
versus the number of cycles. By repeating similar tests with
different cyclic stress ratios, a series of points can be obtained
similarly for each axial strain amplitude. By connecting the
points of equal axial strain amplitude, a set of curved lines can
be obtained, as indicated in Fig. 10(a).
It is well-known that the cyclic stress ratio causing
liquefaction with 100% pore water pressure build-up takes
place almost concurrently with the development of an axial
strain of 2.5% in the single amplitude. Thus, it has been a
common practice to pay attention to the cyclic stress ratio
causing a single-amplitude axial strain of εa ¼ 2.5% as being a
state in which liquefaction is triggered. However, since the line
of equal axial strain, εa ¼ 2.5%, depends upon the number of
cycles, as shown in the plot in Fig. 10(a), it is necessary to
specify the number to determine a value for the cyclic stress
ratio at liquefaction. It has been customary to adopt 15 or 20
cycles of uniform loading as the number of the cyclic loads
representative of those typically experienced by large earth-
quakes with a magnitude of the order of M ¼ 7.5. In the present
study, the number of cycles, Nc ¼ 20, was taken for determin-
ing the cyclic stress ratio, RL, at liquefaction. If based on this
presumption, the cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction is read
off as RL ¼ 0.15, for instance, in the illustrative diagram shown
in Fig. 10(a).
When the equivalent number of cycles is fixed at Nc ¼ 20, it
becomes possible to read off the values of axial strain, εa, as a
function of the applied cyclic stress ratio, Rc, as illustrated by
points a-b-c-d in Fig. 10(a). It is then possible to establish a
plot of Rc versus εa as displayed by points a-b-c-d in Fig.
10(b). This curve, indicating the growing amplitude of axial strain
with the increase in cyclic stress ratio, is considered as a kind
of non-linear stress–strain relationship pertaining to cyclic
loading.
In the theory of elasto-plasticity, it is customary to approxi-
mately represent the non-linear stress–strain relation in terms
of bi-linear lines. In this case, one line is an asymptote towards
zero point representing the elastic behaviour and another line is
an asymptote towards a large strain bounding an upper limit of
stress, that is, the strength.
The same idea may be applied in the case of cyclic loading to
represent the relation between the cyclic stress ratio, Rc, and
amplitude of cyclic axial strain, εa, as indicated in Fig. 10(b).
Note that the upper limit is now chosen as the cyclic strength, RL,
which is defined as the cyclic stress ratio required to cause 2.5%
single-amplitude axial strain in 20 cycles of load application. The
asymptotic line towards zero point is taken as a straight line with
a slope, G01, indicating the elastic behaviour at very small strain
which is believed with reason to take the same value irrespective
of the number of cycles. Thus, the value for G01 can be
considered as being the elastic modulus pertaining to the cyclic
loading. These two asymptotic lines are indicated schematically
by BC and AB in Fig. 10(b).
Suppose the cyclic stress–strain curve of a sandy soil under
cyclic loading is enclosed by two straight lines, as above, it is
now possible to determine the axial strain corresponding to
point B in Fig. 10(b) which is an intersection between the two
asymptotic lines. Thus, this strain may be referred to as a kind
of “reference strain” or “yield strain” in cyclic loading. In order
to define this strain in a non-dimensional format, the cyclic
stress ratio multiplied by the atmospheric pressure, pa ¼ 1 kg/
cm2 ¼ 98 kN/m2, can be used. Therefore, both G01 and
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
the cyclic stress at liquefaction, RL  pa, are deemed as the
variables under cyclic loading conditions. It is in this context
that the ratio between them was referred to as the “cyclic yield
strain”.
A physical implication of the yield strain in cyclic loading,
εay, is illustrated in Fig. 10(c). If the value for εay is large, the
soil is deemed as a material exhibiting a flatter cyclic stress–
strain curve, which might be referred to as “soft” behaviour. In
contrast, if the yield strain, εay, is small, the soil is considered
as “stiff”. Thus, the cyclic yield strain defined by Eq. (3) can be
used as an index property to indicate the levels of softness or
stiffness of sandy soils under cyclic loading. It is well-known
that cyclic strength RL of a soil from a given deposit tends to
increase with increasing relative density, but that the initial
shear modulus, G01, also increases at the same time. However,
the rate of increase in RL  pa, and G01 would be in such a way
that the ratio between them, that is, yield strain εay, stays at a
constant value, if the level of softness or stiffness of a given
sand is identical. The idea of constant cyclic yield strain while
changing RL and G01 is illustrated in Fig. 10(d).
The idea of using a certain level of strain as an index
property was first introduced by Dobry et al. (1980) who
proposed the presence of a threshold strain separating condi-
tions between occurrence and no occurrence of the dilatancy-
induced volume change or pore water pressure build-up in
cyclic loading. The cyclic yield strain defined above is similar
in its vein to that by Dobry, but its interpretation and the
manner in which it is used would be different.
8. Factors affecting softness or rigidness of soils under
cyclic loading
Several factors may be envisaged to exert influence on the
softness or stiffness of soils as defined above. One of the
factors likely to be associated would be the aging of the soil
deposits. It is reasonable to infer that an in-situ soil having a
long history of deposition may show stiffer behaviour against
the softer response of a soil having a short history of
deposition. Thus, the effect of the aging of soil deposits may
be reflected on the cyclic yield strain, εay.
Another conceivable factor influencing the reference strain,
εay, would be the amount of fines, Fc, contained in the sands in
question. Sandy soils containing larger amounts of fines are
envisaged to exhibit softer behaviour against the rather stiff
characteristics exhibited by soils with lesser amounts of fines.
The reasoning is similar to the above one, and thus, may be
applicable for providing a physical interpretation for the RL
versus G01 relationship for soils with varying contents of fines.
It is known that, for a given soil at a given state with
identical density and stress history, the value of G01 remains
unchanged, whereas the cyclic strength tends to change
significantly with the number of cycles in question. Therefore,
the cyclic yield strain, εay, could also by a function of the
number of load cycles and ought to be specified properly by
reflecting on the duration of shaking during earthquakes.
517
9. Discussions on cyclic yield strain as related to
liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity
The yield strain or reference strain in cyclic loading, εay,
introduced in the present study, appears to have some features
which are common to the volumetric threshold strain, γtv,
proposed by Dobry (1985). It was defined as the strain where
the change in dilatancy-induced volume begins to manifest
itself in dry sand or pore water pressure starts to build up in
saturated sand in undrained loading. This aspect was more
thoroughly studied by Hsu and Vucetic (2004) who performed
comprehensive laboratory tests on various sandy soils using a
cyclic simple shear testing device. They showed that the
volumetric cyclic threshold strain tends to increase with the
plasticity index of fines from about (1–2)  10  4 for clean
sands up to (4–10)  10  4 for silty sands containing fines with
a Plasticity Index value of 30. An overview of the existing test
data, reported in 17 papers, was made by Dobry and Abdoun
(2011) who concluded that the value of γtv for normally
consolidated sands lies in the range of (0.5–2.0)  10  4 with a
representative value grouping close to around γtv ¼ 1  10  4.
The relationship between the pore water pressure build-up
and the cyclic shear strain was studied by Ladd. et al. (1989)
who performed a series of strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests
on saturated specimens of Monterey No. 0 sand. It was also
shown that the pore water pressure begins to build up at the
strain amplitude of γ ¼ 1.5εa≒1.0  10  4, which is coincident
with the threshold volumetric strain proposed by Dobry
(1985). The results of the data compilation made by Dobry
and Abdoun (2011) for the pore water build-up are reproduced
in Fig. 11, together with the data in a similar vein obtained by
Bhatia (1980) and Finn (1981). As indicated in Tables 1–4, the
range in cyclic yield strain, εay, obtainedin this study, is (2.0–
10)  10  4, and therefore, the cyclic yield strain in simple
shear mode, γy ¼ 1.5εa, is (3.0–15)  10  4. This range is also
indicated in Fig. 11. Looking over the dataplots in Fig. 11, one
can realise that in the range of the cyclic yield strain, that is,
(3.0–15)  10  4, the pore water pressure rises to values 10–
70% of the initially applied confining pressure. Thus, this
cyclic yield strain, γy, in the simple shear mode, is considered
Fig. 11. Amplitude of simple shear strain versus pore water pressure build-up
(Whitman, 1985) (Reproduced from figures by Dobry and Abdoun, 2011).
518 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519

to be a benchmark level of strain at which the pore water

pressure has arisen substantially to a value 10–70% of the
initial confining stress.
With the reported data in mind, regarding the threshold
strains marking the start of volumetric change and pore water
pressure build-up, the cyclic yield strain, γy ¼ 1.5 εay, defined
in this paper by Eq. (3) may be considered to have context
similar to that by Dobry (1985), but they are different in terms
of the following aspects:

1. The volumetric threshold strain, γtv, is an index property

associated with the start of residual volumetric strain or the
start of pore-water build-up resulting from the application of
cyclic strain. On the other hand, the cyclic yield strain is a
threshold value conceptionally marking the beginning of a
significant amount of cyclic shear strain before the onset of
liquefaction in sandy soils.
2. While the value of γtv typically takes a value of (0.5–2.0) 
10  4, the cyclic yield strain appears to take values which
are somewhat larger. In fact, in terms of the simple shear
mode of deformation, the value of cyclic yield strain is
given by γy ¼ 1.5 εay, and thus, takes values in a wider range
most likely between 1.5  (2.0–10)  10  4 ¼ (3.0  15) 
10  4, as presented in the test results shown in Tables 1–4
and plotted in Figs. 8–10. In this range of amplitude of
cyclic simple shear strain, a substantial amount of pore
water pressure must be developing.

10. Relationship between liquefaction resistance and shear
wave velocity for fresh and old deposits
There are several charts hitherto proposed for the relation-
ship between the cyclic strength and shear wave velocity VS1.
These are summarised by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and are
reproduced in the diagram in Fig. 12. The two lines proposed
in the present study are superimposed in Fig. 12. It appears that
the majority of the data sets complied hitherto are those from
field observations and measurements. In view of this, the
proposed curve pertaining to old deposits with
εay ¼ 3.6  10  4 seems to show a reasonable level of coin-
cidence particularly with the relations proposed by Tokimatsu
and Uchida (1990) and Robertson et al. (1992).
The interpretation for two different relations, with different
cyclic yield strains, may be made as follows:
1. For a given cyclic strength, RL, the older deposits will yield
larger values of shear wave velocity as compared to the new
deposits.
2. For a given shear wave velocity, the new deposits will give
stronger cyclic resistance, RL, than the old deposits.
This appears to contradict intuitive understanding, but if
interpreted in the context of cyclic yield strain, the new
deposits with that Vs-value are already considered to be in a
state which is potentially stronger.
Fig. 12. Comparison of liquefaction resistance versus shear wave velocity for
newly deposited and old deposits of sandy soils (Reproduced from figure by
Andrus and Stokoe (2000)).
11. Conclusions
It has been known that the cyclic resistance of sandy soils to
liquefaction is influenced by a number of factors, such as the
number of cycles, the fines content, stress histories, the age of
the depositions, etc. In comparison to these, the factors
affecting the shear wave velocity or the shear modulus at
small strains have not hitherto been targets of detailed
investigations. This trend appears to be the case because of
the relatively smaller degree of influence that the shear
modulus exerts on the damage associated with large deforma-
tions of soils during earthquakes. In light of the above
tendency, it is with good reason that the relationship between
the cyclic strength and the shear wave velocity is thought to
emerge mainly from the difference in the factors affecting the
cyclic strength.
With this in mind, an attempt has been made to examine
whether or not it is appropriate to make use of a single unique
relationship for the cyclic strength of sandy soils as correlated
with the shear wave velocity. As one of the factors, the effects
of aging were investigated in this paper by using a cyclic
triaxial test apparatus. Tests were performed on undisturbed
samples recovered from in-situ deposits of known liquefaction
and also on samples from deposits of known non-liquefaction
at the time of the 2011 East Japan Earthquake. In parallel to
 R.S. Amoly et al. / Soils and Foundations 56 (2016) 506–519
this, similar series of tests were carried out on reconstituted
samples of several sandy soils. The tests consisted of a non-
destructive type of measurements of shear wave velocity,
followed by cyclic loading to cause liquefaction. By taking
the ratio between the cyclic resistance to cause liquefaction in
20 cycles and the square of the shear wave velocity, what
might be called the “cyclic yield strain” or the “cyclic reference
strain” was defined. This is a kind of threshold shear strain at
which the soils begin to deform and yield significantly in the
cyclic stress–strain curve.
As a result of the multiple series of tests, undisturbed
samples from old aged alluvial deposits were found to
exhibit cyclic yield strain which is lower than that from
once-liquefied or artificial reclaimed soil deposits. Thus, the
relationship between these two quantities, as distinguished
via the relevant cyclic yield strain, is considered to be a
useful means for each kind of soil for assessing the
liquefaction resistance of in-situ deposits through measure-
ments of the shear wave velocity.
References
Ahmadi, M., Akbari Paydar, N., 2014. Requirements for soil-specific correla-
tion between shear wave velocity and liquefaction resistance of sands. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 57, 152–163.
Andrus, R.D., Stokoe II, K.H., 2000. Liquefaction resistance of soils from
shear-wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 126, 1015–1025.
Baxter, C., Bradshaw, A., Green, R., Wang, J., 2008. Correlation between
cyclic resistance and shear-wave velocity for providence silts. J. Geotechn.
Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (1), 37–46.
Bhatia, S., 1980. The Verification of Relationships for Effective Stress Method
to Evaluate Liquefaction Potential of Saturated Sands. University of British
Columbia, Canada.
Dobry, R., 1985. Unpublished Data Files of R. Dobry. Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, NY.
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., 2011. An investigation into why liquefaction charts
work: a necessary step towards integrating the states of art and practice. In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechni-
cal Engineering. San Tiago, Chile, pp. 13–44.
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., Stokoe II, K., Moss, R., Hatton, M., El Ganainy, H.,
2014. Liquefaction potential of recent fills versus natural sands located in
519
high-seismicity regions using shear-wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 141 (3), 04014112 (1–13).
Dobry, R., Powell, D.J., Yokel, F.Y., Ladd, R.S., 1980. Liquefaction potential
of saturated sand – the stiffness method. In: Proceedings of the 7th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, vol. 3, pp. 25–
32.
Finn, W.D.L., 1981. Liquefaction potential: developments since 1976. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol. II,
pp. 655–681.
Harden, B.O., Richart, F.E., 1963. Elastic wave velocities in granular soils. J.
Soil Mech. Found. ASCE 89, 33–65.
Hsu, Chu-Chung, Vucetic, M., 2004. Volumetric threshold shear strain for
cyclic settlement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 130, 58–70.
Liu, N., Mitchell, J., 2006. Influence of nonplastic fines on shear wave
velocity-based assessment of liquefaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
132 (8), 1091–1097.
Ishihara, K., 1985. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, vol. 2, pp. 321–376.
Ishihara, K., Ueno, K., Yamada, S., Yasuda, S., Yoneoka, T., 2015. Breach of
tailings dam in the 2011 earthquake in Japan. Int. J. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
68, 3–22.
Kayen, R., Moss, R., Thompson, E., Seed, R., Cetin, K., Kiureghian, A.,
Tanaka, Y., Tokimatsu, K., 2013. Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic
and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (3), 407–419.
Ladd., R.S., Dobry, R., Dutko, P., Yokel, F.Y., Chung, R.M., 1989. Pore water
pressure buildup in clean sands because of cyclic straining. ASTM
Geotech. Test. J. 12 (1), 77–86.
Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J., Finn, W.D.L., 1992. Seismic cone penetration
test for evaluating liquefaction potential under cyclic loading. Can.
Geotech. J. 29, 686–695.
Stokoe, L.H. II, Roesset, J.M., Biershwale, J.G., Aouad, M., 1988. Liquefac-
tion Potential of Sands from Shear Wave Velocity. In: Proceedings of the
9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. III, pp. 213–218.
Tokimatsu, K., Uchida, A., 1990. Correlation between liquefaction resistance
and shear wave velocity, soils and foundations. J. Jpn. Geotech. Soc. 30
(2), 33–42.
Wang, J.-H., Moran, K., Baxter, C.D.P., 2006. Correlation between cyclic
resistance ratios of intact and reconstituted offshore saturated sands and
silts with the same shear wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
ASCE 132 (12), 1574–1580.
Whitman, R.V. (Ed.), 1985. Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes,
Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.