DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES

The discussers believe that these data, although limited to the case
Discussion of “Liquefaction Susceptibility PI⫽0, will provide useful insight into the subject.
Criteria for Silts and Clays” by
Ross W. Boulanger and I. M. Idriss
November 2006, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp. 1413–1426.
Experimental Procedure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:1共1413兲
Stress-controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted in
a GDS 2 Hz Dynamic Triaxial Testing System on dry-compacted
G. A. Athanasopoulos, M.ASCE1; and and then fully saturated mixtures of fine sand and nonplastic silt,
V. C. Xenaki, Ph.D.2 under conditions of constant void ratio. The grain size of sand is
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Patras, GR-26500, D50 = 0.12 mm with a uniformity coefficient Cu = 1.7. The corre-
Greece. sponding values for the nonplastic silt are D50 = 0.02 mm and
2
Soils Engineer, Edafomichaniki S.A., Athens, Greece. Cu = 10, 共Fig. 1兲. The tests were conducted on soil mixtures with
fines content ranging from 0% 共clean sand兲 to 100% 共pure silt兲.
The consolidation pressure of specimens was ␴⬘o = 200 kPa,
The authors’ study provides valuable insight into the stress-strain
whereas the value of void ratio was kept at e ⬇ 0.66 in all tests,
behavior of fine-grained soils 共silts and clays兲 under monotonic
with the exception of the tests conducted on silt specimens in
and cyclic undrained loading. The distinct behavioral features of
which the void ratio was e ⬇ 0.78. In all tests, the specimens were
sands versus clays under the aforementioned types of loading are loaded with uniform sinusoidal cycles with a frequency of 0.1 Hz.
first identified with regard to the shape of the hysteresis loops, the The cyclic stress, excess pore water pressure, and axial strain of
value of excess pore-water pressure ratio, and the magnitude of the specimen were continuously recorded during testing. The low
developed strains. Then, a classification of fine-grained soils into value of loading frequency used in the tests suggests a uniform
two classes of materials is proposed, namely, “sand-like” materi- distribution of pore water pressure in the specimens, and that
als that are susceptible to liquefaction 共in the classical meaning of initial liquefaction occurs when the pore water pressure ratio be-
the term兲, and “clay-like” materials that are susceptible to cyclic comes ru = 100%. The cyclic stress ratios, CSR, applied to tested
softening. In addition, the authors emphasize the critical impor- specimens range from 0.07 to 0.49.
tance of using the appropriate procedure for evaluating the cyclic
strength for each class of material.
Following the establishment of the above framework, the au- Test Results
thors review a database of test results compiled from the literature
and found that the plasticity index, PI, of fines is the single most Two typical examples of cyclic stress-strain curves from the dis-
important parameter for distinguishing between the two types of cussers’ test results 共accompanied by corresponding plots of ex-
behavior. They propose the use of a limit value of PI⫽7 as cess pore water pressure and axial strain as a function of number
follows: of cycles of loading兲 are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, for mixtures
1. for PI⬍ 7, the material is susceptible to liquefaction 共i.e., with fines content equal to 10 and 55%, respectively. In each of
exhibits “sand-like” behavior兲 and its liquefaction resistance these diagrams, two stress-strain loops are shown i.e., the loop for
should be evaluated using the available procedures for sands; the first cycle of loading 共N = 1兲, and the loop corresponding to
2. for PIⱖ 7, the soil behaves as a ‘clay-like’ material and its initial liquefaction 共N = NL兲. The observed behavior is in agree-
behavior should be analyzed using the procedures available
for evaluating the cyclic strength of cohesive soils.
A transition zone of plasticity index from 3 to 8 is proposed by
the authors, who also suggest discontinuing the use of the Chinese
criteria of liquefaction susceptibility. Finally, the authors discuss
the applicability of the liquefaction criterion proposed in the
paper to soils containing less than 50% fines 共coarse-grained ma-
terials兲. They argue that as long as the amount of fines is greater
than a threshold value, FCthr 共which is the limit above which the
fine grains constitute the loading-carrying matrix of soil兲, their
criterion could be extended to fines content FC ⬍ 50%.
The discussers have recently presented results of cyclic triaxial
tests on saturated mixtures of sand with different amounts of non-
plastic silt 共Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 2003兲. The tests were
conducted to investigate the effect of fines content on the lique-
faction resistance of sand-silt mixtures. In view of the authors’
study and other recently published data, the discussers would like
to present some related data 共not included in their previous pub- Fig. 1. Grain size curves for the sand and the nonplastic silt used in
lication兲 and compare them to the findings reported in the paper. this investigation

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1025

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. 共a兲 Stress-strain relationship for the first cycle 共N = 1兲 and the
liquefaction cycle N = NL of loading; 共b兲 excess pore water pressure
and axial strain versus number of load cycles for FC = 10%
ment with the behavior of “sand-like” soils described in the paper,
i.e., the stress-strain loops at initial liquefaction have a flat middle
portion combined with strain-hardening ends. In addition, the ex-
cess pore water pressure ratio reaches the value of ru = 100%, as
described in the paper.
The above diagrams also indicate that the liquefaction resis-
tance of these soils decreases with increasing fines content. Xe-
naki and Athanasopoulos 共2003兲 have shown that sand-silt
mixtures develop the lowest liquefaction resistance for a thresh-
old value of fines content, FCthr, above which the behavior is
reversed, with the resistance increasing slowly for increasing val-
ues of fines content. The diagrams of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 also indi-
cate that the pre-liquefaction strains of sand-silt mixtures increase
significantly with the fines content 共based on the discussers’ re-
sults the pre-liquefaction strains increase from 0.2% for the case
of clean sand to more than 8% for FC ⬎ 55%兲.
It is worth mentioning that cyclic triaxial tests recently con-
ducted by Ghahremani and Ghalandarzadeh 共2006兲 show trends
similar to the ones presented by the discussers, on plastic sand-
clay mixtures with PI values ranging 共according to the discussers’
estimations兲 from 2 to 11. They report decreasing liquefaction
resistance and increasing pre-liquefaction strains with increasing
fines content as well as the development of ru values equal to
100%. Thus, this type of soil could be classified as “sand-like,”
despite the fact that its plasticity index may take values higher
than the limit value PI⫽7.
Regarding the applicability of the proposed liquefaction sus-
ceptibility criterion 共PI⫽7兲 to coarse-grained soils containing
1026 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
Fig. 3. 共a兲 Stress-strain relationship for the first cycle 共N = 1兲 and the
liquefaction cycle N = NL of loading; 共b兲 excess pore water pressure
and axial strain versus number of load cycles for FC = 55%
fines, the authors emphasize the importance of evaluating the
threshold fines content, FCthr, for each particular soil type. For
the sand-silt mixtures tested by the discussers it was found that
FCthr ⬇ 42%, whereas the Ghahremani and Ghalandarzadeh
共2006兲 results for sand-clay mixtures indicate that FCthr ⬇ 30%.
The discussers agree with the authors on the importance of evalu-
ating a threshold fines content for a soil sample, and would like to
present some evidence on how the soil behavior changes depend-
ing on whether its fines content is lower or higher than the cor-
responding threshold value. In Fig. 4, the liquefaction resistance
of the sand-silt mixtures tested by the discussers 共expressed by
the number of cycles to liquefaction, NL兲 is plotted versus the
relative density, Dr, of each mixture. The diagram of Fig. 4 indi-
cates that the NL versus Dr curve is composed of two unique 共i.e.,
independent of FC兲 branches intersecting at a point correspond-
ing to the threshold value of fines content. One of the branches
describes the liquefaction behavior for fines content ranging from
0% to FCthr, whereas the other branch holds for FC ⬎ FCthr. The
differentiation of liquefaction behavior depending on FC vs FCthr
is evident in Fig. 4. Thus, the relative density of the soil 共appro-
priately evaluated for fines content greater than 15%兲 may be a
useful parameter for assessing the liquefaction susceptibility and
resistance, provided the fines content and its threshold values are
known. It is worth mentioning that the differentiation of the be-
havior of sand-silt mixtures in triaxial compression, depending on
whether FC is lower or higher than FCthr, has also been recently
demonstrated by Yang et al. 共2006a,b兲.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Number of cycles to liquefaction, NL, versus relative density
Dr of sand-silt mixtures with different fines content under conditions
of constant void ratio 共CSR ⬇ 0.23兲
Conclusions
This discussion is based on the discussers’ test results as well as
on other recently reported test results. The main conclusions of
the discussion may be summarized as follows:
1. The behavior of nonplastic silty sands having fines content
ranging from 0 to 100% under cyclic loading is consistent
with the behavior attributed by the authors to “sand-like”
materials.
2. The behavior of plastic clayey sands 共with fines content rang-
ing from 0 to 50%兲 under cyclic loading is consistent with
the behavior of “sand-like” materials, although their plastic-
ity index may take values higher than the limit value 共PI⫽7兲
proposed by the authors.
3. The evaluation of the threshold fines content of soils is im-
portant not only for verifying the applicability of the lique-
faction criterion proposed by the authors to coarse-grained
soils, but also for describing their liquefaction behavior in
terms of relative density.
4. Preliquefaction strains of sand-silt and sand-clay mixtures
共that behave similar to the “sand-like” materials described by
the authors兲 under cyclic loading increase significantly with
increasing fines content, FC, especially when FC ⬎ FCthr.
This behavior may negate the beneficial effect of post lique-
faction dilatancy of these soils
References
Ghahremani, M., and Ghalandarzadeh, A. 共2006兲. “Effect of plastic fines
on cyclic resistance of sands.” Proc., Soil and Rock Behavior and
Modeling (GSP No 150), R. Luna, Z. Hong, G. Ma, and M. Huang,
eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 406–412.
Xenaki, V. C., and Athanasopoulos, G. A. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction resis-
tance of sand-silt mixtures: an experimental investigation of the effect
of fines.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 23共2006兲, 183–194.
Yang, S. L., Sandven, R., and Grande, L. 共2006a兲. “Instability of sand-silt
mixtures.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 26, 183–190.
Yang, S. L., Sandven, R., and Grande, L. 共2006b兲. “Steady-state lines of
sand-silt mixtures.” Can. Geotech. J., 43, 1213–1219.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1027
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
Closure to “Liquefaction Susceptibility
Criteria for Silts and Clays” by
Ross W. Boulanger and I. M. Idriss
November 2006, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp. 1413–1426.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:11共1413兲
Ross W. Boulanger, M.ASCE1; and
I. M. Idriss, F.ASCE2
1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: rwboulanger@
ucdavis.edu
2
Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. E-mail: imidriss@
aol.com
The writers appreciate the discussers’ interest in the paper and
their experimental results contributing to the literature on the und-
rained stress-strain behavior of silt-sand mixtures. The discussers’
experimental results are consistent with previous findings for the
effects of fines content on the monotonic and cyclic undrained
responses of mixtures of sand and nonplastic silt, such as those by
Shen et al. 共1977兲, Troncoso and Verdugo 共1985兲, Kuerbis et al.
共1988兲, Vaid 共1994兲, Koester 共1994兲, Lade and Yamamuro 共1997兲,
Thevanayagam 共1998兲, Polito and Martin 共2001兲, Thevanayagam
et al. 共2002兲, and Carraro et al. 共2003兲. Applying these experi-
mental results to engineering practice, however, requires an im-
proved understanding of how fines content affects in situ tests,
such as has been explored by Carraro et al. 共2003兲, Huang et al.
共2005兲, and Thevanayagam et al. 共2006兲. The writers expect that
this is an area where additional research could produce significant
advances relative to current practice.
The writers would like to clarify the recommended liquefac-
tion susceptibility criteria in response to some of the discussers’
comments. The recommended criteria were developed solely for
the purpose of guiding the choice of engineering procedures to be
used in assessing the potential for strength loss and large strains
in different types of fine-grained soils due to earthquakes. For
current practice, this corresponds to the choice of evaluating seis-
mic behavior using:
共1兲 Standard Penetration Test 共SPT兲 and Cone Penetration Test
共CPT兲 based liquefaction correlations that were developed
primarily based on experiences with sands, silty sands, sandy
silts, and silts; or
共2兲 Information from in situ testing, laboratory testing of high-
quality field samples, and empirical correlations which are
similar to, or build upon established procedures for evaluat-
ing the monotonic undrained shear strengths of clays or plas-
tic silts.
It is useful to note that the historical move toward heavy reli-
ance on in situ test-based liquefaction correlations for sands was,
in large part, because the disturbance experienced by sands during
conventional sampling and testing rendered the results of cyclic
laboratory tests inapplicable 共e.g., Seed 1979兲. Issues of sample
disturbance for clays, while still important, are manageable
enough that practice routinely utilizes conventional sampling and
laboratory testing to improve the characterization of in situ
strength and compressibility properties for such soils. The plas-
ticity index 共PI兲 was used in the paper as a proxy for distinguish-
ing between “sand-like” soils that would be better evaluated by
the first methodology and “clay-like” soils that would be better
evaluated by the second methodology. The PI is not the “single
 most important parameter for distinguishing between” sand-like
and clay-like behavior, as the discussers wrote, but rather is only
a proxy to be used when there is insufficient in situ and laboratory
test data to characterize the soil behavior directly.
The recommended liquefaction susceptibility criteria are not
intended as a distinction between soils that will or will not gen-
erate an excess pore pressure ratio 共ru兲 of 100%, although this
point was perhaps not sufficiently emphasized in the paper. While
a sand may develop ru = 100% during undrained cyclic loading
and a high plasticity clay may not, the situation can be more
subtle for fine-grained soils of lower plasticity. For example, con-
sider the cyclic test results for the CWOC silt with liquid limit,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
LL= 41 and PI= 10 as listed in Table 1 and further described in
Boulanger and Idriss 共2004, 2007兲. This silt developed ru
= 100% during undrained cyclic loading 共Woodward-Clyde Con-
sultants 1992兲, and also exhibited all the features of the stress-
history normalized behavior associated with clays based on the
results of in situ vane shear tests, CPT soundings, and laboratory
tests 共consolidation, and monotonic and cyclic undrained triaxial
and simple shear兲 performed for that site. In contrast, the strength
and compressibility characteristics of that soil would have been
poorly predicted by reliance on SPT- or CPT-based liquefaction
correlations. Thus, this low-plasticity silt 共ML兲 was classified as
“clay-like” in the paper because its strength and compressibility
characteristics could be best evaluated using the types of proce-
dures associated with clays 关e.g., a stress history and normalized
soil engineering parameters 共SHANSEP兲 type approach兴, regard-
less of it having developed ru = 100% in cyclic laboratory tests. In
this regard, the discussers may have misunderstood our intentions
when they concluded that the sand-clay mixtures tested by Ghahr-
emani and Ghalandarzadeh 共2006兲, with estimated PI values of 2
to 11, could be classified as sand-like simply because they devel-
oped ru = 100%. For these types of soils, more detailed informa-
tion is needed before an informed choice of engineering
procedure can be made.
Effective communication regarding issues of liquefaction re-
quires a clear understanding of the technical definitions used by
different individuals. For the paper, definitions for terms were
chosen such that the names for soil type, soil behavior, and analy-
sis methodology were reasonably consistent: 共1兲 “liquefaction”
was reserved for describing the behavior of sand-like or cohesion-
less soils that would be appropriately evaluated using semiempir-
ical SPT- or CPT-based “liquefaction” correlations; 共2兲 “cyclic
softening” was used to describe the behavior of clay-like or co-
hesive soils that would be appropriately evaluated using proce-
dures developed for, or modified from those for clays; and 共3兲 the
recommended criteria were called “liquefaction susceptibility cri-
teria,” because they distinguished between these two cases.
References
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. 共2004兲. “Evaluating the potential for
liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays.” Rep. No. UCD/CGM-
04/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Dept. of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis, Calif.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. 共2007兲. “Evaluation of cyclic soften-
ing in silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133共6兲, 641–
652.
Carraro, J. A. H., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction
resistance of clean and nonplastic silty sands based on cone penetra-
tion resistance.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129共11兲, 965–976.
Ghahremani, M., and Ghalandarzadeh, A. 共2006兲. “Effect of Plastic Fines
on Cyclic Resistance of Sands.” Proc., Soil and Rock Behavior and
Modeling (GSP No 150), R. Luna, Z. Hong, G. Ma, and M. Huang,
1028 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 406–412.
Huang, A. B., Huang, Y. T., and Ho, F. J. 共2005兲. “Assessment of lique-
faction potential for a silty sand in central western Taiwan.” Proc.,
16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Millpress Science Publishers, Rotterdam, 2653–2658.
Koester, J. P. 共1994兲. “The influence of fines type and content on cyclic
strength.” Proc.,Ground Failures under Seismic Conditions, (Geotech.
Spec. Publ. 44), S. Prakash and P. Dakoulas, eds., ASCE, New York,
17–33.
Kuerbis, R., Negussey, D., and Vaid, Y. P. 共1988兲. “Effect of gradation
and fines content on the undrained response of sand.” Proc., Hydraul.
Fill Struct. Div., D. J. A. Van Zyl and S. G. Vick, eds., ASCE, Reston,
Va., 330–345.
Lade, P., and Yamamuro, J. A. 共1997兲. “Effects of non-plastic fines on
static liquefaction of sands.” Can. Geotech. J., 34共6兲, 918–928.
Polito, C. P., and Martin, J. R., II. 共2001兲. “Effects of nonplastic fines on
the liquefaction resistance of sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
127共5兲, 408–415.
Seed, H. B. 共1979兲. “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for
level ground during earthquakes.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 105共2兲,
201–255.
Shen, C. K., Vrymoed, J. L., and Uyeno, C. K. 共1977兲. “The effect of
fines on liquefaction of sands.” Proc., IX Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 381–385.
Thevanayagam, S. 共1998兲. “Effect of fines and confining stress on und-
rained shear strength of silty sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
124共6兲, 479–491.
Thevanayagam, S., Ecemis, N., Kanagalingam, T., and Martin, G. R.
共2006兲. “Effects of fines on liquefaction screening using penetration
resistance.” Proc., 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake En-
gineering, San Francisco.
Thevanayagam, S., Shenthan, T., Mohan, S., and Liang, J. 共2002兲. “Und-
rained fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and sandy silts.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共10兲, 849–859.
Troncoso, J. H., and Verdugo, R. 共1985兲. “Silt content and dynamic be-
havior of tailing sands.” Proc., XI Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 1311–1314.
Vaid, Y. P. 共1994兲. “Liquefaction of silty soils.” Proc., Ground Failures
under Seismic Conditions, (Geotech. Spec. Publ. 44), S. Prakash and
P. Dakoulas, eds., ASCE, New York, 1–16.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 共1992兲. “California Water Operations
Center—Site evaluation and remediation—Conceptual design.” Ap-
pendix E, CWOC Site Characterization Memo, Oakland, Calif.
Discussion of “Assessment of the
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained
Soils” by Jonathan D. Bray and
Rodolfo B. Sancio
September 2006, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165–1177.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:9共1165兲
G. A. Athanasopoulos, M.ASCE1; and
V. C. Xenaki, Ph.D.2
1
Professor, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Patras, Patras, Greece.
2
Soils Engr., Edafomichaniki S.A., Athens, Greece.
The authors present valuable test data on the liquefaction resis-
tance of fine-grained soils having fines content FC⬎70% and
plasticity index ranging from 0 to 25. Their research is based on
cyclic triaxial and simple shear testing conducted on undisturbed
specimens of natural soils sampled from liquefied sites in Ada-
pazari, Turkey, in the 1999 Kokaeli earthquake. Their results in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Grain size curves for the sand and nonplastic silt used in this
investigation
Fig. 2. 共a兲 Stress-strain relationship for the first cycle 共N = 1兲 and the
liquefaction cycle 共NL兲 of loading; 共b兲 excess pore water pressure and
axial strain versus number of load cycles for FC⫽10%
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1029
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
Fig. 3. 共a兲 Stress-strain relationship for the first cycle 共N = 1兲 and the
liquefaction cycle 共NL兲 of loading; 共b兲 excess pore water pressure and
axial strain versus number of load cycles for FC⫽55%
dicate clearly that the liquefaction resistance increases with
increasing plasticity of the soil and that the “Chinese criteria” are
unsafe and their use should be discontinued. New criteria are
proposed in the paper for assessing the liquefaction susceptibility
of fine-grained soils in terms of the plasticity index, PI, of the soil
and the ratio of its water content to the liquid limit, wc / LL.
The authors also provide examples of experimental stress-
strain curves for fine-grained soils of varying plasticity under uni-
form cyclic loading. Their diagrams indicate the development of
the characteristic “banana-shaped” hysteresis loops following ini-
tial liquefaction, which is the result of the dilatant behavior of
material during cyclic shearing. Finally, based on a literature re-
view, the authors recognize the complexity of the liquefaction
behavior of low-plasticity silty soils and the dependence of their
liquefaction resistance on the fines content, FC.
The discussers have recently presented results of cyclic triaxial
tests on a saturated sand mixed with different amounts of a non-
plastic silt 共Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 2003兲. The tests were
conducted to investigate the effect of fines content 共FC values
ranging from 0 to 100%兲 on the liquefaction resistance of silty
sands. In view of the authors’ findings and other recently pub-
lished data of other investigators, the discussers would like to
 present some data not included in their previous publication con-
cerning the shape of cyclic stress-strain loops and its dependence
on the value of fines content.
Test Results
Stress-controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted
on saturated mixtures of sand with a nonplastic silt under condi-
tions of constant void ratio 共e ⬇ 0.66兲, Fig. 1. In all tests, the
specimens were subjected to uniform sinusoidal cycles of load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with a frequency of 0.1 Hz and the cyclic stress, excess pore
water pressure, and axial strain of the specimens were continu-
ously recorded during testing. Initial liquefaction of the specimen
was considered to occur when the pore water ratio reached the
value ru = 100%.
The test results indicate that the liquefaction resistance of the
sand/silt mixtures decreases with increasing fines content, FC,
and reaches a minimum value at FCthr ⬇ 40%. For fines content
FC⬎FCthr, the liquefaction resistance starts to increase slowly
with increasing fines content, although it remains lower than that
of clean sand. A similar behavior has been recently reported by
Ghahremani and Ghalandarzadeh 共2006兲 for sand/clay mixtures,
of varying plasticity 共PI⫽2–11, based on the discussers’
estimation兲.
The above findings indicate that liquefiable silty/clayey soils
may be particularly susceptible to strength and stiffness loss, es-
pecially when containing some critical 共or threshold兲 amount of
plastic or nonplastic fines. This threshold fines content generally
seems to be less than 50% and it is reasonable to expect that its
value depends on the characteristics of the grains constituting the
“soil skeleton” 共see also Boulanger and Idriss 2006兲. It may be
thus concluded that when assessing the liquefaction hazard of
soils containing fines, due consideration should be given to their
fines content in addition to plasticity index, water content, and
liquid limit.
Stress-strain curves 共with corresponding pore water pressure
and axial strain variation兲 for two sand/silt mixtures having fines
content of 10 and 55% 共tested under CSR ⬇ 0.23兲 are shown in
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. In these figures, for each value of
fines content, the corresponding stress-strain plots depict the com-
plete or partial loop of the first cycle of loading 共N = 1兲, as well as
the loop developed at initial liquefaction, NL 共i.e., ru = 100%兲. The
behavior depicted in the above diagrams is similar to that de-
scribed by the authors for low-plasticity natural fine-grained soils,
i.e., a low-strength/stiffness middle part followed by strain hard-
ening at the ends of each loop. The discussers’ results, however,
reveal a behavioral feature that cannot be derived directly from
the authors’ results: the amplitude of pre-liquefaction strains in-
creases with fines content 共1% for FC⫽10% and ⬎ 8% for FC ⱖ
55%兲. Thus, it may be concluded that the amount of nonplastic
共or even plastic兲 fines contained in a soil play an important role
when assessing its mechanical behavior under cyclic loading.
Conclusions
The discussers have conducted undrained cyclic triaxial tests on
artificial soils containing increasing amounts of fines 共⬍ No 200
sieve兲. The stress-strain behavior recorded in these tests is very
similar to the one reported by the authors for natural fine-grained
soils, i.e., a behavior characterized by the development of loops
with a flattened middle part and strain hardening ends. In addi-
1030 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
tion, the discussers’ results indicate that the liquefaction suscep-
tibility and initiation of fine-grained soils depends on fines
content and further research is warranted for establishing reliable
values of FCthr for different types of silts and silty sands.
References
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. 共2006兲, “Liquefaction susceptibility
criteria for silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共11兲,
2006, 1413–1426.
Ghahremani, M., and Ghalandarzadeh, A. 共2006兲. “Effect of plastic fines
on cyclic resistance of sands.” ASCE GSP No 150: Soil and rock
behavior and modeling, R. Luna, Z. Hong, G. Ma, and M. Huang,
eds., 406–412.
Xenaki, V. C., and Athanasopoulos, G. A. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction resis-
tance of sand-silt mixtures: An experimental investigation of the effect
of fines.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 23, 183–194.
Discussion of “Assessment of the
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained
Soils” by Jonathan D. Bray and
Rodolfo B. Sancio
September 2006, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165–1177.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:9共1165兲
B. Tom Boardman, P.E., G.E., M.ASCE1
1
Assoc. Engr., East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, CA 94607.
E-mail: tboardma@ebmud.com
The authors have provided a thorough assessment of the seismic
performance of certain fine-grained soils during the disastrous
1999 Kocaeli earthquake. This type of paper is very helpful to the
design community as it approaches the problem in a familiar for-
mat that can be easily applied to future projects. The discusser’s
comments relate to using field exploration data as a preliminary
means to assess the liquefaction potential of cohesive soils.
On a previous heavy rail project in the United States, the dis-
cusser, along with numerous colleagues, was responsible for a
geotechnical field investigation consisting of 141 soil borings and
23 CPTs. The future rail line crosses over alluvial fan deposits
that experienced liquefaction during previous earthquakes. The
design team chose to incorporate the recommendations presented
by Seed et al. 共2005兲 and Bray et al. 共2004兲 when evaluating the
liquefaction susceptibility of cohesive soils. A brief summary of
the results are presented in Boardman and Rinne 共2006兲.
The discusser found that if the visual field classification was a
medium stiff 共or softer兲, wet, lean clay 共CL兲 or silt 共ML兲, then the
soil would generally be considered “liquefiable” per the Seed
et al. 共2005兲 and Bray et al. 共2004兲 criteria. Basically, any satu-
rated low-plasticity soils with SPT blow counts 共N1兲60 of approxi-
mately 8 or less were generally found to meet or exceed a water
content/liquid limit ratio of 80 to 85 percent. The authors make a
similar point when they note that “a soil’s normalized standard
penetration test 共N1兲60 value in combination with its plasticity
index were good indicators of the cyclic resistance of fine-grained
soils.”
The discusser attempted to find similar trends when evaluating
the CPT data for the rail project, but did not observe consistent
results. However, in one area of the project, medium stiff low-
 plasticity silts 共ML兲 and 共CL-ML兲 were encountered at a depth of
approximately 20 to 30 ft. These silty soils had fines contents
ranging from 54 to 82%, 共N1兲60 blow counts of 5 to 7, liquid limit
of 25, PI of 7 and water content/liquid limit ratios of approxi-
mately 0.6 to 1.0. These same soils had Ic values ranging from
approximately 2.6 to 2.8 in nearby CPTs. Thus, these soils would
be deemed to be not liquefiable per the Robertson and Wride
共1998兲 procedure, but would be potentially liquefiable using the
author’s procedures. This confirms the Youd et al. 共2001兲 recom-
mendation to take soil samples for layers with Ic values greater
than 2.4. The discusser is curious whether the authors found simi-
lar contradictory results when evaluating the SPT and CPT field
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
data from Turkey.
In closing, the discusser wants to note that these low SPT blow
count, low-plasticity soils are generally the type of subgrade ma-
terials that meet the liquefaction criteria being proposed by the
authors. As the SPT blow counts get higher, the saturated soils
usually do not meet the water content/liquid limit ratio criteria.
However, the discusser would also like to point out that if satu-
rated, medium stiff 共or softer兲 cohesive soils are encountered dur-
ing a field investigation, these soils will likely be problematic
whether the issue is static settlement or seismic response. In ad-
dition, just because the cohesive soils do not meet the currently
proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria does not mean that
they are immune to seismic strength and stiffness losses. Martin
and Olgun 共2006兲 thoroughly address this issue in their work for
the same 1999 Kocaeli earthquake.
References
Boardman, B. T., and Rinne, E. E. 共2006兲. “Recent database for liquefac-
tion susceptibility calculations in cohesive soils.” Proc., 8th U.S.
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, April 18–22, 2006,
Paper No. 524.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2004兲. “Subsurface characterization of ground failure
sites at Adapazari, Turkey.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲,
673–685.
Martin, J. R., and Olgun, C. G. 共2006兲. “Unanticipated seismic vulner-
ability of fine-grained plastic soils.” Proc., 8th U.S. Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, San Francisco, April 18–22, 2006, Paper No. 369.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Canadian Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering, 35共3兲, 442–459.
Seed, R. B., et al. 共2003兲. “Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineer-
ing: A unified and consistent framework.” Earthquake Engineering
Research Center Report 2003-06, Univ. of California, 72.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Report from
1996 and 1998 NCEER Workshops on Eval. of Liquef. Resist. of
Soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.
Closure to “Assessment of the Liquefaction
Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils” by
Jonathan D. Bray and Rodolfo B. Sancio
September 2006, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165–1177.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:9共1165兲
Jonathan D. Bray1 and Rodolfo B. Sancio2
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berke-
ley, CA 94720-1710.
2 dation to the in situ stress state resulted in relatively small
Sr. Proj. Engr., Golder Assoc. Inc., 500 Century Plaza Dr., Ste. 190,
Houston, TX 77073.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1031
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
General
The authors appreciate the discussers sharing their insights on the
liquefaction of fine-grained soils. Two discussions were submitted
in response to this paper. Each discussion will be addressed sepa-
rately, as they bring forth different issues. The first discusser, Mr.
Boardman, shared his experience in the application of our semi-
empirical criteria on a project in northern California. The discus-
sion points are the relationships of penetration resistance to
ground failure, soil plasticity to the soil behavior index, and the
seismic response of clayey soils. The second group of discussers,
Dr. Athanasopoulos and Mr. Xenaki, emphasizes the important
role of the amount of fines in a soil in terms of its cyclic response.
Penetration Resistance and Ground Failure
The primary aim of the authors’ paper was to evaluate existing
liquefaction susceptibility criteria for fine-grained soils, such as
the Chinese Criteria, and to offer improved criteria for identifying
fine-grained soils that could potentially lose strength or liquefy if
they were at the appropriate state and stress conditions, and
loaded cyclically at intense levels. The shallow, loose, saturated
fine-grained soils of Adapazari underwent cyclic mobility with
limited strain potential after the generation of large excess pore
pressures. In the paper, no attempt was made to develop a
liquefaction-triggering relationship for fine-grained soils based on
penetration resistance.
The penetration resistance of a soil deposit as measured in the
cone penetration test 共CPT兲 or standard penetration test 共SPT兲
depends primarily on soil type, soil state 共i.e., void ratio and soil
fabric兲, in situ stresses, and stress history, among other factors.
Likewise, liquefaction resistance has been shown to be affected
similarly by these same factors as well as others. Accordingly,
several correlations between a soil deposit’s penetration resistance
and its liquefaction resistance have been proposed by researchers,
with the state-of-practice being defined in Youd et al. 共2001兲 at
the time of the writing of the authors’ paper. Although the SPT-
based and CPT-based liquefaction-triggering correlations are ro-
bust for clean sand and sand with some fines, they are not as
reliable for fine-grained soils. For example, the liquefaction-
triggering database of the well-used Seed et al. 共1985兲 SPT-based
correlation contains only 13 cases involving soils with significant
fines 共i.e.,⬎35% fines兲. CPT procedures can be unreliable for
fine-grained soils with low tip resistances 共Youd et al., 2001兲. Use
of SPT blow counts to estimate the static undrained shear strength
of clayey soils is problematic, so dynamic shear strength is not
evaluated reliably through the SPT. CPT offers a more reliable
approach to estimating the undrained shear strength of clayey
soils, but its use in transitional soils 共i.e., nonplastic silts to clayey
silts to silty clays of low plasticity兲 is less well established.
Hence, its use in estimating liquefaction resistance of low-
plasticity soils is more promising, but still less reliable than its
use in evaluating the liquefaction of clean sands or sand with
some fines.
Fortunately, the fine-grained soils in Adapazari could be
sampled and tested effectively in the laboratory with minimal
effects of disturbance if extreme care was exercised in the field
sampling, transportation, and specimen preparation procedures.
As described in the authors’ paper, the Dames and Moore hydrau-
lic piston sampler was primarily used, and testing was quickly
performed in Turkey to minimize sample disturbance. Reconsoli-
changes in the specimen’s void ratio in comparison to its initial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Site F profile: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Sancio 2003兲

void ratio 共i.e., ⌬e / eo ⬍ 0.03兲. Cyclic laboratory testing provides a
viable means to evaluate the cyclic response of fine-grained soils
if sample disturbance effects are minimized. The authors contend
that field sampling and laboratory testing currently offer the most
reliable way to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility, resistance,
and response of fine-grained soils.
In examining the data developed by Bray et al. 共2004兲, how-
ever, it is clear that fine-grained soils with low penetration resis-
tances tend to be potentially liquefiable if they satisfy the authors’
proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria. Figs. 1共a and b兲 and
Figs. 2共a and b兲 present the CPT tip penetration resistance 共qt in
MPa兲 and the uncorrected SPT blow counts 共N60兲 for Site F and
Site A in Adapazari, respectively 共Bray et al. 2004兲. In terms of
liquefaction, the critical layers at these sites 共depths of 1.5 to
3.2 m at Site F and depths of 4.2 to 5.0 m at Site A兲 exhibit qt
ⱕ 2.5 MPa and N60 ⱕ 6 blows/ 30 cm. Consistent ground condi-
tions were measured at other locations throughout the city of
Adapazari 共Bray et al. 2004兲. In the authors’ experience, shallow
共depth⬍ 10 m兲, normally consolidated to slightly overconsoli-
dated, saturated fine-grained soils will typically have low penetra-
tion resistance 共qt ⬍ 2 MPa兲 in combination with high values of
water content to liquid limit ratio 共wc / LL兲. These soils should be
carefully studied for their ground failure potential under seismic
loading, regardless of the soil’s plasticity index 共PI兲. Soils that
meet these conditions also typically offer significant challenges
for static design.
Soil Plasticity and Soil Behavior Index
Although the authors found that the soil behavior index 共Ic兲 pro-
posed by Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 was useful in discriminat-
ing between different soil types preliminarily, it should be
remembered that it provides merely an indication of soil type. As
recommended by Youd et al. 共2001兲, soil samples should be re-
trieved to confirm its applicability on a site-specific basis. In Ada-
pazari, Ic was employed successfully to classify soil preliminarily
so that the companion boring and sampling program could focus
on retrieving soil from the potentially most critical layers. How-
ever, Ic was not used to evaluate soil susceptibility to liquefaction,
because it was not reliable. Instead, PI and wc / LL proved to be
the most reliable indices of liquefaction susceptibility.
Figs. 1共c–e兲 and Figs. 2共c–e兲 present Ic, PI, and wc / LL data for
Site F and Site A, respectively. The soils between depths of 1.6
and 5 m at Site F exhibit Ic ⬎ 2.6, but their PIs are typically
smaller than 10 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85. At Site A, the soils up to a

Fig. 2. Site A profile: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Sancio 2003兲

1032 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Potrero Canyon profile POT-12: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Bennett
et al. 1998兲
depth of 6.7 m below ground surface have Ic ⬎ 2.6, but their PIs
are typically between 10 and 15, and wc / LL⬎ 0.85. Four-story
buildings at both sites were affected by ground failure as a result
of the 1999 Kocaeli 共Mw = 7.5兲 earthquake. Although these values
of Ic would have rendered the soil nonsusceptible to liquefaction
according to Robertson and Wride 共1998兲, the PI and wc / LL data
classify the soil as liquefiable according to the criteria proposed
by the authors. Moreover, Ic ⬎ 2.6 at Site F identifies soils with
PI⬍ 10 共Figs. 1共c and d兲兲, whereas Ic ⬎ 2.6 at Site A identifies
soils with PI⬎ 10 共Figs. 2共c and d兲兲. The difference between the
PI values at Site F and Site A for similar values of Ic highlights
the importance of incorporating sampling within site investigation
programs.
As noted in the paper, evidence of liquefaction was also ob-
served in Potrero Canyon, California, after the 1994 Northridge
共Mw = 6.7兲 earthquake. Some field and laboratory testing by Ben-
nett et al. 共1998兲, which is shown in Fig. 3, provides data that
again indicates that Ic ⬎ 2.6 should not be used as a strict criterion
to evaluate a soil’s liquefaction susceptibility. Over depths from 4
to 5 m, for example, the soil’s PI⬍ 10 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85 even
though its measured Ic values are typically greater than 2.6.
The authors emphatically agree with the Youd et al. 共2001兲
recommendation that “. . . all soils with an Ic of 2.4 or greater
should be sampled and tested to confirm the soil type and to test
the liquefiability with other criteria.” The authors recommend that
liquefaction susceptibility be evaluated using their proposed PI
and wc / LL criteria.
Seismic Response of Clayey Soils
The discusser correctly notes that clayey soils that do not satisfy
the proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria are not “immune
to seismic strength and stiffness losses.” The authors stated in the
conclusions of the paper that “there may be cases where sensitive
soils with PI⬎ 18 undergo severe strength loss as a result of
earthquake-induced straining, so the proposed criteria should be
applied with engineering judgment.” Liquefaction of fine-grained
soils as defined by cyclic mobility with limited strain potential for
the shallow soils in Adapazari contributed significantly to ground
failure and poor building performance during the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake 共Bray et al. 2004兲. At some sites, sediment ejecta of
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1033
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
these fine-grained soils were observed. After extensive sampling
and testing, the problem soils were found to generally have PI
⬍ 12 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85.
Sites with shallow cohesive soil deposits of sufficient strength
in Adapazari did not undergo extensive ground failure 共Sancio
et al. 2002兲. However, this is not always the case, and there are
cases of weak, saturated cohesive soils that undergo significant
ground deformation as a result of earthquake shaking that could
lead to unsatisfactory building performance. The Martin and
Olgun 共2006兲 paper identifies one case, but there are many other
cases described in the literature 共e.g., Boulanger et al. 1998;
Holzer et al. 1999兲. The authors’ proposed liquefaction suscepti-
bility criteria should be used to identify fine-grained soils that
may undergo a seismic response with characteristics that are simi-
lar in many 共but not in all兲 ways to that exhibited by liquefiable
clean sands. It should not be used to eliminate from engineering
consideration soils that are screened by their criteria to not be
susceptible to the liquefaction phenomenon.
Fines Content
The second discussion emphasizes the importance of the amount
of fines in a soil in terms of its cyclic response. The authors agree
that the amount of fines is an important consideration. However,
the soils that the authors tested were fine-grained soils that had
nearly or in most cases had more than 50% fines. In all cases, the
soil’s fines content was greater than its threshold fines content as
defined by Thevanayagam et al. 共2002兲. Hence the authors’ data
do not allow them to comment on the effects of fines for soils
with fines contents that are below and above the threshold fines
content. For the soils tested, the soil’s interfine void ratio would
best describe the state of the soil. However, the soils tested con-
sistently contained about 10 to 30% sand-sized particles, so that
global void ratio, or water content, was found to be an adequate
descriptor of the state of the saturated soils, which also had con-
sistent mineralogy.
The discussers’ cyclic triaxial test results, which are described
in more detail in Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 共2003兲, indicate that
the amount of fines is important. One way that fines content is
important for the two tests shown in their discussion is that vastly
differing amounts of fines lead to significantly different “effec-
 tive” void ratios 共i.e., different intergrain contact densities as de-
fined by Thevanayagam et al. 2002兲. The test performed on the
共e = 0.68兲 sand-silt mixture with 10% fines had an intergranular
void ratio of 0.86. The test performed on the 共e = 0.68兲 sand-silt
mixture with 55% fines had an interfine void ratio of 1.24. Both
tests were performed at the same effective confining stress. The
latter test results exhibit cyclic mobility with unlimited strain po-
tential; whereas the former test results exhibit cyclic mobility
with limited strain potential. These observations are consistent
with the significantly higher “effective” void ratio of the speci-
men with 55% fines as opposed to 10% fines.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS on 06/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The amount of fines is a discriminating factor for this case,
because two different soils that are at the same global void ratio
have different intergrain contact densities. Each soil’s response is
controlled by its position relative to its respective critical state
line 共CSL兲. Although each test specimen was consolidated at the
same effective confining stress, each soil has a different intergrain
contact density, and each soil likely has a different CSL because
of their different fines contents. Critical state soil mechanics and
equivalent intergrain contact density concepts may be used to
explain the different cyclic responses of the two different sand-silt
mixtures that were reconstituted to the same global void ratio.
Closing Remarks
Through their research, the authors have found that recommend-
ing strict criteria to discern soil response is problematic, and they
have tried to emphasize that their semiempirical criteria should be
applied with judgment. Soil response is typically controlled by
soil type, initial conditions 共state and stress兲, stress history, and by
the loading path, among other factors. The application of simpli-
fied screening criteria, although useful, cannot replace the appli-
cation of sound geotechnical engineering principles and
experience.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0116006. Any opinions,
1034 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:1031-1034.
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the NSF.
References
Bennett, M. J., et al. 共1998兲. “Subsurface geotechnical investigations near
sites of ground deformation caused by the January 17, 1994,
Northridge, California, earthquake.” U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep.
98–373.
Boulanger, R. W., et al. 共1998兲. “Behavior of a fine-grained soil during
the Loma Prieta earthquake.” Can. Geotech. J., 35, 146–158.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2004兲. “Subsurface characterization at ground failure
sites in Adapazari, Turkey.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲,
673–685.
Holzer, T. L., et al. 共1999兲. “Liquefaction and soil failure during 1994
Northridge earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共6兲, 438–
452.
Martin, J. R., and Olgun, C. G. 共2006兲 “Unanticipated seismic vulnerabil-
ity of fine-grained plastic soils.” Proc., 8NCEE, EERI, San Francisco,
Paper No. 369.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J., 35共3兲,
442–459.
Sancio, R. B. 共2003兲. “Ground failure and building performance in Ada-
pazari, Turkey.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berke-
ley, Calif.
Sancio, R. B., et al. 共2002兲. “Correlation between ground failure and soil
conditions in Adapazari, Turkey.” Soil Dyn. & EQ Engrg., 22, 1093–
1102.
Seed, H. B., et al. 共1985兲. “Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefac-
tion resistance evaluation.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 111共12兲, 1425–1445.
Thevanayagam, S., et al. 共2002兲. “Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty
sands, and sandy silts.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共10兲, 849–
859.
Xenaki, V. C., and Athanasopoulos, G. A. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction resis-
tance of sand-silt mixtures: An experimental investigation of the effect
of fines.” Soil Dyn. & EQ Engrg., 23, 183–194.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.