Empirical Model for Estimation of the Residual

Strength of Liquefied Soil

Steven L. Kramer, M.ASCE 1; and Chwen-Huan Wang 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: An empirical model for the estimation of residual strength is proposed. The proposed model predicts residual strength as a nonlinear
function of both penetration resistance and initial effective stress. The model is consistent with steady-state concepts and behavior observed in
laboratory tests, but was calibrated on the basis of residual strengths back-calculated from flow-side case histories. The back-calculated
strengths considered inertial effects, hydroplaning, uncertainties, the conditions under which flow sides are known not to have occurred
in past earthquakes, and the relative quality of each case history. The proposed model predicts residual strengths that are generally between
those predicted by direct approaches and those predicted by normalized strength approaches. The proposed model also allows estimation of the
probability distribution of residual strength. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001317. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Castro (1969) investigated the response of triaxial specimens of

Liquefaction resulting from static or dynamic loading can cause
large permanent deformations of soil masses. In cases of earthquake-
induced liquefaction, permanent deformations most often occur
primarily during the period of ground shaking; these deformations
are driven by high dynamic shear stresses and occur through the
mechanism of cyclic mobility. In some cases, however, the liquefied
soil is weak enough that static shear stresses can drive permanent
deformations, which can become very large as in cases of flow sides.
Because they can be so devastating, evaluation of the potential for
flow side development is an important part of geotechnical earth-
quake engineering practice. Evaluation of that potential depends
critically on the shear strength that can be mobilized by the liquefied
soil in the field, i.e., the residual strength of the soil.
This paper presents reviews of the physical processes that lead
to liquefaction-induced permanent deformations, previous proce-
dures for estimation of residual strength, and issues involved in
the interpretation of case histories. It also develops a steady (critical)
state-based framework that illustrates the effects of characteristics
such as effective stress on the steady state strength. It then presents
the results of back-analyses that account for uncertainties inherent in
the flow-side case histories and presents an empirical model that
predicts behavior consistent with both flow-side and lateral spread-
ing case histories, with the steady (critical) state framework, and that
allows probabilistic estimation of residual strength.
Shear Strength Behavior of Liquefied Soil
The excess porewater pressures generated during liquefaction
generally reduce the stiffness and strength of coarse-grained soils.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2700 (corresponding author). E-mail:
kramer@u.washington.edu
2
Asia Branch Manager, Geopier UK Limited, 5 F, No. 10, SingYun St.,
Lane 33, Neihu District, Taiwan City 114, Taiwan (ROC). E-mail:
chwang@geopier.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 9, 2014; approved on
February 18, 2015; published online on May 6, 2015. Discussion period open
until October 6, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/04015038(15)/$25.00.
loose to medium dense sands under stress-controlled, monotonic,
triaxial loading conditions and observed three primary types of
behavior. Very loose specimens were observed to reach a peak
shearing resistance at a low strain level after which the shearing
resistance dropped to a constant, lower value at large strains. Dense
specimens were observed to dilate and reach high shearing resis-
tances that were still increasing when the capacity of the loading
equipment was reached. Specimens of intermediate density were
observed to mobilize a peak shearing resistance at low strain levels
followed by a reduction in shearing resistance, followed in turn
by an increase in shearing resistance. Eventually, all specimens
reached a constant shearing resistance at large strain levels; Castro
and Poulos (1977) and Poulos (1981) defined the state in which a
soil is shearing with constant shearing resistance, constant effective
stress, constant volume (i.e., constant void ratio), and constant
strain rate as the steady state of deformation, and postulated that the
steady state is a unique function of void ratio. Thus, the steady-
state effective stress and steady-state strength, Ssu , depend only
on the density of the soil. The steady state and critical state differ
in the steady-state requirement of a constant strain rate and in the
unproven steady-state postulate of a flow structure that develops
under stress-controlled loading conditions (Casagrande 1976).
For the purposes of this paper, the steady state and critical state
are considered to be equivalent; because of its long use in geotech-
nical earthquake engineering, the term steady state will be used in
the remainder of this paper.
Yoshimine and Ishihara (1998) presented a framework that
clearly describes the relationship between the quasi-steady state
(QSS) and ultimate steady state (USS) at different soil densities.
The QSS occurs at the local minimum effective stress (and shearing
resistance) between contractive and dilative behavior at intermedi-
ate strain levels, and the USS is mobilized at very high strain levels.
Fig. 1 illustrates this framework schematically, and also shows the
relative position of the initial consolidation line (ICL) as typically
observed in laboratory tests on liquefiable soils; the ICL is known
to not be unique for sands. The ultimate steady-state line (USSL)
is steeper than the ICL and crosses the ICL at a relatively low
effective stress level. If an element of soil is on the ICL at a lower
initial effective stress (Case A), the sample will initially contract but
then begin to dilate after reaching the quasi-steady state line
(QSSL); the sample will continue to dilate until it reaches the
USSL. Since there is no local minimum in the shearing resistance,

© ASCE 04015038-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Stress-strain and stress path behavior for elements of soil consolidated to three different initial states (adapted from Yoshimine and Ishihara
1998, soils and foundation, The Japanese Geotechnical Society, with permission)

Yoshimine and Ishihara (1998) refer to this as phase transformation 0

ψ ¼ ψ1 þ ðλss − λc Þ log σvo ð1Þ
behavior. An element of soil consolidated to a somewhat higher
0
initial effective stress (Case B), and hence lower void ratio, would When the vertical effective stress is σvo , the corresponding USS
exhibit similar behavior, but would exhibit a peak shearing resis- effective stress is given by
tance at low strain followed by a local minimum shearing resistance
σss0 ¼ σvo
0
10−ψ=λss ð2Þ
at the QSSL, followed then by dilation to the USSL. An element of
soil at higher initial effective stress (Case C) would show strain so the USS strength can be written as
softening following a low-strain peak shearing resistance but no
0 0
subsequent dilation due to coincidence of the QSS and USS lines Ssu ¼ σvo 10−½ψ1 −ðλss −λc Þ log σvo =λss ð3Þ
at high effective stress levels. Because the ICL is flatter than the
USSL, the soil becomes more contractive as the effective confining Eq. (3) indicates that the USS strength is proportional to vertical
pressure during consolidation increases. effective stress only if the USS line is parallel to the consolidation
These aspects of liquefiable (i.e., liquefaction-susceptible) soil curve (i.e., if λss ¼ λc ). The partial derivative of Eq. (3) with
respect to σvo0
behavior illustrate one of the most critical issues in the practical
estimation of residual strength—the definition of residual strength.
∂Ssu λc −½ψ1 −ðλss −λc Þ log σvo0 =λss
0 ¼ 10 ð4Þ
In many laboratory investigations (e.g., Sladen et al. 1985; Vaid and
Chern 1985; Mohammad and Dobry 1986), QSS and USS data ∂σvo λss
have been combined. In other investigations (e.g., Verdugo and can be seen to decrease monotonically with increasing σvo 0
Ishihara 1996; Yamamuro and Lade 1998; Yoshimine and Ishihara when λss > λc .
1998), QSS and USS strengths are treated separately. From a prac- For λss > λc, Eq. (4) indicates that the partial derivative,
tical standpoint, the relative significance of QSS and USS strengths 0 0
∂Ssu =∂σvo , decreases with increasing σvo , so the USS strength
depends on what level of deformation is considered to correspond of a soil at a particular SPT resistance should increase at a decreas-
to failure. If deformations consistent with shear strains on the order ing rate with increasing initial effective stress as shown in Fig. 2(b).
of 5–10% are unacceptable, then the QSS strength may be most Olson and Stark (2003) summarized laboratory data for a number
appropriate; if larger deformations are of greater concern, then of sands that showed the USS line slope, λss , to be an average of
the USS may govern. In this paper, residual strength will be inter- about 15% greater than the one-dimensional consolidation curve
preted as the shearing resistance that can be mobilized at very large slope, λc , with the difference greater for clean sands than for silty
strain levels. Under ideal conditions (constant volume, effective sands. While the relatively restrictive conditions of the ultimate
stress, shearing resistance, and velocity), this definition of residual steady state of deformation are, as discussed subsequently, rarely
strength would therefore correspond to USS conditions. It should met in actual flow sides, the type of behavior illustrated qualita-
be recognized, however, that strains associated with the QSS can tively in Fig. 2 provide a useful conceptual indication of how the
also lead to unacceptably large deformations. strength of a liquefied soil should be expected to vary with initial
effective stress.

Framework for Ultimate Steady-State Strength

Useful insight into the manner in which different factors can be
expected to affect ultimate steady-state (USS) strength can be ob-
tained from fundamental ultimate steady-state concepts. Assuming
the one-dimensional consolidation curve and USS line for a given
soil are both linear over the stress range of interest in e- log σv0 space
[Fig. 2(a)] with respective intercepts (at σv0 ¼ 1 kPa) of ec1 and
ess1 , and slopes of λc and λss , the state parameter will clearly vary
with σv0 if λc and λss are not equal, i.e.
Estimation of Residual Strength
Estimation of residual strength is a critical part of evaluating
flow-side potential. Over the years, two primary approaches to
residual strength estimation have developed. Experimental ap-
proaches based on the type of laboratory tests first used to identify
steady-state behavior were developed in the 1970s and 1980s.
Case history-based approaches were developed in the 1980s and
subsequently.

© ASCE 04015038-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. Conceptual illustration of ultimate steady-state strength: (a) relationship between one-dimensional normal consolidation line, ultimate steady-
state line, and state parameter; (b) resulting trend of ultimate steady-state strength with vertical effective stress
Laboratory Testing-Based Approach
Numerous laboratory investigations of the USS behavior of sands
have been undertaken (Olson and Stark 2003). Early experimental
investigations formed the basis for current understanding of the
behavior of liquefiable soils, and led to the development of a labo-
ratory testing-based procedure for evaluation of USS strength.
Procedures
Poulos et al. (1985) proposed a method for evaluation of USS
strength based on laboratory testing of carefully retrieved undis-
turbed specimens and testing of reconstituted specimens of the
same soil. The procedure involves determining the in situ void ratio
from one or more undisturbed specimens, measuring the USS
strength of undisturbed specimens consolidated to confining pres-
sures sufficiently high to ensure contractive behavior, determining
the slope of the USS line by testing specimens reconstituted at dif-
ferent void ratios, and correcting the measured USS strengths of the
undisturbed specimens by assuming the USS line of the undis-
turbed specimens is parallel to that of the reconstituted specimens.
Sadrekarimi (2013) used a framework similar to that described
in Eqs. (1)–(4) to express the normalized USS strength ratio as a
function of the state parameter, soil compressibility, and steady-
state friction angle. The relationship showed good agreement with
laboratory data for a number of sands with different relative com-
pressibilities, i.e., ratios of ψ to λss . The use of this procedure for
determination of USS strength, therefore, requires knowledge or
estimation of the state parameter and of the in situ compressibility
of the soil.
Experimental Issues
Experimental investigations have involved different soils prepared
in different manners and tested at different rates using different
types of equipment. In a number of instances, however, they have
produced conflicting and/or inconsistent results, which have iden-
tified important issues in the problem of estimating the strength of
liquefied soil.
The effects of sampling disturbance can be pronounced
for loose, saturated sands. Even with disturbance corrections
(e.g., Poulos et al. 1985), the flat slopes of typical USS lines
can lead to significant uncertainty in estimated USS strength
(Kramer 1989). Laboratory strength tests also may not be able to
reach the very large strains associated with the USS while main-
taining reasonable uniformity of stresses and strains; many labora-
tory tests (e.g., Verdugo and Ishihara 1996; Yamamuro and Lade
1998; Yoshimine and Ishihara 1998; Yamamuro and Covert 2001)
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
(b)
show shearing resistances continuing to change at shear strains of
30% or more. The rapid softening that occurs upon triggering of
liquefaction generally prevents testing equipment from maintaining
stress-controlled loading through the mobilization of the USS.
Although the steady-state concept postulates that USS strength
depends only on soil density (e.g., Poulos 1981; Been et al. 1991;
Ishihara 1993), a number of experimental investigations (e.g., Miura
and Toki 1982; Hanzawa 1980; Kuerbis et al. 1988; Vaid et al.
1990; Riemer and Seed 1997; Yoshimine and Ishihara 1998) have
concluded that USS strength is influenced by stress path. Given that
flow failures often involve multiple stress paths, estimation of the in
situ USS strength from tests performed using one particular stress
path may be inaccurate.
Discussion
Although conceptually useful, experimentally based procedures for
measurement of the residual strength mobilized in the field suffer
from a number of practical limitations that have tempered their use
in geotechnical engineering practice. While some of these limita-
tions could potentially be reduced by using, for example, frozen
samples and multiple stress path testing, a number of them still re-
main. Even more significantly, however, it must be recognized that
the USS conditions that can exist under idealized conditions in
laboratory tests usually do not exist in actual flow sides. As a flow
failure develops in the field, drainage can occur, leading to changes
in effective stresses, volume, and density; strain rates are variable as
the failing soil accelerates and then comes to rest; stresses and
stress paths are different; and different soils can be mixed together
during flow. All of these factors tend to limit the direct applicability
of laboratory-measured shear strengths to actual flow sides.
Case History-Based Approach
Even before all of the issues associated with the laboratory
testing-based approach were identified and explored, the notion
of using back-calculated strengths from flow failure case histories
was proposed (Seed 1987). In the case history–based approach,
back-calculated strengths are correlated to the penetration resis-
tance of the liquefied soil. Since actual flow failures frequently
involve drainage, pore pressure (or void) redistribution, mixing,
variable strain rates, and other factors that violate the assumptions
of the USS of deformation, back-calculated strengths are frequently
referred to as residual strengths. Two basic approaches, termed here
the direct approach and the normalized strength approach, have
been proposed. The primary versions of both approaches are de-
scribed in the following sections.
04015038-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Direct Approach
In the direct approach to case history-based residual strength
estimation, the residual strength is considered to be a function
of penetration resistance alone. To the extent that penetration resis-
tance can be considered directly related to soil density, this ap-
proach is consistent with classical USS concepts, which hold that
USS strength is a unique function of soil density. It implicitly
assumes that any effect of initial effective stress on the residual
strength of an element of soil is entirely accounted for by its mea-
sured ðN 1 Þ60 value.
Seed (1987) correlated the apparent residual strength from 12
case histories involving liquefaction with substantial soil deforma-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tions to standard penetration test (SPT) resistance. Only three of the
case histories (Calaveras Dam, Fort Peck Dam, and Lower San
Fernando Dam) were from case histories with clean sand SPT re-
sistances greater than 10. The residual strength was back-calculated
by varying the residual strength in a zone considered to have lique-
fied until limit equilibrium procedures produced a factor of safety
of unity. The postfailure slope geometry was analyzed for most of
the case histories, but the prefailure geometry was analyzed for
some. The back-calculated residual strength was plotted against a
representative clean sand SPT resistance, ðN 1 Þ60−cs , which was
defined using
ðN 1 Þ60−cs ¼ ðN 1 Þ60 þ ΔðN 1 Þ60 ð5Þ
where ΔðN 1 Þ60 is a fines correction (Fig. 3). The procedures by
which the representative SPT resistance or the fines correction were
obtained were not explicitly described, but the fines correction was
the same as that recommended for evaluation of liquefaction poten-
tial. The results of the back-calculation analyses fell within a band
that showed a trend of increasing residual strength with increasing
SPT resistance, as shown in Fig. 3.
Seed and Harder (1990) expanded (to 17 case histories) and re-
interpreted the case history database and developed an updated re-
lationship for residual strength estimation. Back-calculated residual
strengths were correlated to a representative clean sand SPT resis-
tance, with the fines correction identical to that of Seed (1987). The
variation of residual strength with clean sand SPT resistance is
shown graphically in Fig. 3. Seed and Harder (1990) recommended
use of “the lower-bound, or near lower-bound relationship” be-
tween residual strength and SPT resistance “owing to scatter and
Fig. 3. Variation of residual strength with equivalent clean sand SPT
resistance using direct approach residual strength models; upper and
lower bound curves are shown for Seed (1987) and Seed and Harder
(1990) models
© ASCE 04015038-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
uncertainty, and the limited number of case studies back-analyzed
to date.”
Idriss (1998) reinterpreted the case history database of Seed and
Harder (1990) and presented a graphical model for estimation of
residual strength (Fig. 3). The Idriss model removed a good deal
of the ambiguity in determining a representative SPT resistance in
previous models by explicitly correlating residual strength to the
median SPT resistance in the liquefied zone. Fig. 3 shows that
the Idriss (1998) curve is of similar shape to the curves of Seed
and Harder (1990) and is closer to the Seed and Harder lower bound
curve than to the upper bound curve. While the Idriss (1998) curve
was expressed graphically, it was consistent with a residual strength
(in atm) computed as
Sr ≈ 0.0236 exp½ðN 1 Þ60  ð6Þ
Wride et al. (1999) reviewed the case histories used by Seed
(1987), Seed and Harder (1990), and Stark and Mesri (1992), and
related their interpretations of the most reliable undrained strength
to the minimum SPT resistance, which was described as “a reason-
able lower bound ðN 1 Þ60in situ .” Wride et al. (1999) noted the diffi-
culty of expressing the conditions in a particular flow-side case
history by a single undrained strength and a single SPT resistance.
Gutierrez and Eddy (2011) back-calculated residual strengths
from postfailure geometries of 38 flow-side case histories, a num-
ber of which have been identified by others as lateral spreads. The
back-calculation did not consider inertial effects, and residual
strengths were correlated to minimum SPT resistances with no fines
correction. These analyses established the relationship
Sr ¼ 0.87ðN 1 Þ60 þ 0.1ðN 1 Þ260 ð7Þ
Gutierrez and Eddy (2011) also characterized uncertainties in
residual strengths using first-order reliability methods. Uncertainty
in the residual strength was characterized by a beta distribution and
only shown graphically; the 16th percentile curve is about 60% of
the 50th percentile curve, which would correspond to a σln Sr value
of 0.51 if Sr was a lognormally distributed quantity.
Normalized Strength Procedures
Castro (1987) observed that the density of a given soil increased
with increasing initial effective stress and that residual strength
increased with increasing density, and concluded that the USS
strength should be related to initial effective stress. As indicated
previously, the ratio of USS strength to effective stress should
be constant for a given soil if the USS line and consolidation curve
are parallel (λss ¼ λc ).
Castro (1987), Castro and Troncoso (1989), and Castro (1991)
investigated several tailings dams in South America and reported
ratios of USS strength to initial major principal effective stress,
0 , ranging from 0.12 to 0.19.
Sus =σ1c
Stark and Mesri (1992) developed a database of 20 case histor-
ies for which the ratios of residual strength to initial vertical effec-
tive stress, hereafter referred to as the normalized residual strength
0 , were computed. These stress ratios were found to
ratio, Sr =σvo
correlate better to a representative clean sand SPT resistance when
a different fines correction (Table 1) than that of Seed (1987) was
used. Noting that the strength of a liquefied soil at a given vertical
effective stress should increase with factors (e.g., gradation, particle
angularity, particle roughness) that also increase SPT resistance,
0 to representative clean sand
Stark and Mesri (1992) related Sr =σvo
SPT resistance. Supplementing the case history database with in-
terpreted laboratory test results, Stark and Mesri (1992) proposed
that the normalized residual strength ratio could be estimated as
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Back-Calculated Residual Strengths and Pertinent Characteristics for Flow-Slide Case Histories
Case history Weighting SPT Fines Initial vertical Residual
type Case history factor resistance content (%) effective stress (atm) strength (atm)
Primary Calaveras Dam 0.55 7.9 34 3.237 0.311
Fort Peck Dam 0.85 11.7 54 3.528 0.322
Hashiro-Gata 0.55 4.4 15 0.188 0.030
Lake Ackerman 1.00 4.8 0 0.396 0.045
Lower San Fernando Dam 1.00 12.6 25 1.672 0.240
Route 272 0.70 6.6 33 0.493 0.061
Shibeca-Cho 0.70 3.7 20 0.495 0.099
Uetsu 0.55 3.0 0 0.433 0.021
Wachusett Dam 1.00 7.3 8 1.209 0.164
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Secondary Asele road 0.20 8.9 32 0.310 0.060

Chonan 0.74 5.1 18 0.930 0.085
El Cobre Tailings Dam 0.60 1.2 95 4.608 0.092
Helsinki Harbor 0.39 6.1 0 0.417 0.025
Hokkaido 0.31 1.1 50 1.603 0.119
Kawagishi-cho 0.50 4.3 2 0.646 0.058
Koda Numa 0.44 3.05 40 0.504 0.023
La Marquesa D/S 0.72 8.2 20 0.874 0.163
La Marquesa U/S 0.76 4.1 30 0.795 0.087
La Palma Dam 0.80 2.9 15 0.745 0.092
Lake Merced 0.39 6.1 0 0.620 0.066
Metoki road 0.39 2.1 0 1.246 0.055
Mochi-Koshi 1 0.34 4 73 0.826 0.075
Mochi-Koshi 2 0.67 5.2 73 1.365 0.111
Nalbland 0.51 4 30 0.607 0.066
Nerlerk Berm 0.41 10.6 10 0.682 0.085
Sheffield Dam 0.37 5 40 1.099 0.047
Snow River 0.50 7 20 0.984 0.024
Solfatara 0.42 5.1 0 0.578 0.036
Soviet Tajik 0.22 7.6 15 1.948 0.158
Tar Island 0.32 8.2 13 2.966 0.172
Zeeland 0.39 7.7 11 2.225 0.107

Sr effective stress, Idriss and Boulanger (2007) produced relationships

0 ¼ 0.0055ðN 1 Þ60−cs
σvo
ð8Þ
with a different fines correction procedure than that introduced by
Seed (1987).
Olson and Stark (2002) developed a case history database of 33
flow-side case histories and performed detailed residual strength
back-calculation analyses on a number of them. These analyses ac-
counted for inertial effects and variable initial vertical effective
stresses within the liquefied zone of each case history. Other case
histories were not investigated or documented in sufficient detail to
warrant detailed analyses and were analyzed using a simple, infinite
slope approach. Olson and Stark (2002) proposed that the normal-
ized residual strength ratio could be estimated as
Sr
0 ¼ 0.03 þ 0.0075ðN 1 Þ60
σvo
ð9Þ
for ðN 1 Þ60 ≤ 12 and found that no fines correction was necessary
with this relationship.
Idriss and Boulanger (2007) considered a subset of 18 flow sides
from the case history database compiled by Olson and Stark
(2002). This group included 10 of the 12 cases considered by Seed
(1987), 13 of the 17 cases considered by Seed and Harder (1990),
and 18 of the 33 cases considered by Olson and Stark (2002). The
18 case histories were divided into three groups based on adequacy
of in situ measurements (i.e., SPT and/or CPT) and geometric in-
formation. Normalizing the average back-calculated strengths
(from as many as available) computed by Seed (1987), Seed
and Harder (1990), and Olson and Stark (2002) by initial vertical
for normalized residual strength ratio that can be expressed as

  
Sr ðN 1 Þ60−cs ðN 1 Þ60−cs − 16 3
0 ¼ exp þ − 3.0
σvo 16 21.2

 
ðN 1 Þ60−cs
× 1 þ β exp − 6.6 ≤ tan ϕ 0 ð10Þ
2.4
where β ¼ 0 or 1 when void redistribution effects are significant or
insignificant, respectively.
The residual strengths predicted by the normalized strength
models of Stark and Mesri (1992), Olson and Stark (2002), and
Idriss and Boulanger (2007) are shown for three effective stress
levels in Fig. 4. Due to the implicit assumption of proportionality,
the residual strengths at low effective stress levels are quite low
over a broad range of SPT resistances. The linear increase in
residual strength with increasing effective confining pressure is
inconsistent with the USS framework for typical liquefiable soils.
Case History Issues
Because flow sides do not occur frequently, relatively few case his-
tories are available. Since many occur in remote and undeveloped
locations, information on prefailure geometric and material proper-
ties is frequently unavailable or poorly known. A number of flow
sides have been investigated following failure, but such investiga-
tions are frequently limited to a small number of borings in areas
near, rather than on, the failure itself, and to limited measurements
of the postfailure geometry. Although generally analyzed assum-
ing sliding on distinct failure surfaces, some case histories have
involved slumping and distributed deformations. Measured SPT

© ASCE 04015038-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Residual strengths predicted by normalized strength models
of Stark and Mesri (S-M), Olson and Stark (O-S), and Idriss and
Boulanger (I-B) for three initial vertical effective stress levels
resistances, for example, are nonexistent, sparse, or obtained after
failure for many of the case histories. Values for Calaveras Dam, for
example, have been assigned based on estimated relative densities,
and others have been based on a single measurement. Lack of in-
formation leads to increased uncertainty in the parameters that go
into a residual strength back-analysis. This uncertainty, which is
larger for some parameters than others and larger for some case
histories than others, can lead to bias and/or uncertainty in the
back-calculated residual strength. The uncertain parameters typi-
cally include soil density or penetration resistance, strengths of
nonliquefied soils, surface and subsurface slope geometry, failure
surface geometry, phreatic surface location, hydroplaning, mixing,
and three-dimensional effects.
The different case history-based approaches to residual strength
estimation have used different measures of SPT resistance. Several
(e.g., Seed 1987; Seed and Harder 1990; Stark and Mesri 1992;
Idriss and Boulanger 2007) used a representative SPT resistance
that was not explicitly or uniformly defined but appears to be tar-
geted toward the looser soils involved in a flow side and determined
with considerable engineering judgment on a case-by-case basis.
Wride et al. (1999), however, interpreted representative SPT resis-
tances as being closer to the average SPT resistance, and proposed
the use of minimum SPT resistance for residual strength prediction.
Olson and Stark (2002) took representative SPT values as mean
values. The model of Idriss (1998) is explicitly based on median
SPT resistance. Because different users can consider different SPT
resistances to be representative, and those values can be inconsis-
tent with those used in the interpretation of case histories, this im-
precise definition of SPT resistance can contribute to uncertainty in
residual strength prediction beyond that associated with the number
and consistency of SPT measurements.
Back-analyses of flow-side case histories involving large or
rapid deformations can also be complicated by inertial effects.
The situation is analogous to the sliding block shown in Fig. 5.
At Point A, the shearing resistance between the block and the curv-
ing surface beneath it is insufficient to resist the gravity-induced
driving force, so the block begins to slide. The block accelerates
until it reaches Point B at which the driving and resisting forces
are equal and equilibrium could be achieved under static condi-
tions. At Point B, however, the block has some velocity and its
momentum causes it to continue sliding until it stops sliding at
Point C. Back-analysis of the apparent sliding resistance based on
the initial geometry (block at Point A) would overestimate the ac-
tual resistance (the apparent friction angle would be ϕapp ¼ θA ), and
© ASCE 04015038-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Fig. 5. Sliding block analog to the flow-side problem illustrating
inertial effects
back-analysis based on the final geometry (Point C) would under-
estimate the resistance (ϕapp ¼ θC ). The correct geometry at which
to back-analyze the resistance would be that at Point B, where the
inertial force (i.e., the acceleration of the block) is zero and for
which ϕapp ¼ θB ϕ. Methods for consideration of inertial effects
have been reported by Davis et al. (1988) and Olson et al. (2000).
These methods use a sliding block analog to account for the dy-
namics of the failure mass during flow. The sliding block is as-
sumed to have a weight equal to that of the failure mass and to
slide from the prefailure center of gravity to the postfailure center
of gravity along a path parallel to the failure surface. This requires
that the shape of the failure surface be known or estimated; the
sensitivity of the back-analyzed residual strength to the shape of
the failure surface has not been established.
The importance of pore pressure (and void ratio) redistribution
in the development of flow sides is becoming increasingly recog-
nized (Whitman 1985; Boulanger and Truman 1996; Kokusho
1999; Kulasingam et al. 2004; Boulanger and Idriss 2011). When
high pore pressures are generated within or beneath a slope,
hydraulic gradients cause flow of the porewater. If this flow is
impeded, as may occur at boundaries between liquefiable soils
and layers of silt or clay that may cap or exist within them, the
effective confining pressure decreases and the void ratio increases
(due to rebound of the soil skeleton). Because the residual strength
is sensitive to void ratio, the residual strength may drop signifi-
cantly due to this local rebound of the soil skeleton. Many of
the soils involved in the case history database are silty sands de-
posited in water; as such, some degree of segregation or banding of
coarser and finer particles existed prior to failure. In such cases, the
back-calculated strengths would be expected to include the effects
of void redistribution so that further correction for those effects
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 would not be necessary (Seed 1987). This phenomenon compli-
cates interpretation of case histories because the measured SPT re-
sistances do not reflect the local loosening that produces the
mobilized residual strength. Because the back-calculated strength
corresponds to a looser condition than that inferred by the meas-
urement of SPT resistance, the error can introduce a potential bias
into the relationship between residual strength and SPT resistance.
The extent to which subsurface density and permeability can be
characterized sufficiently to determine whether void redistribution
potential is or is not significant at a particular site is unclear.
The residual strength of layered soils can also be affected by the
mixing of constituent materials during flow. Naesgaard and Byrne
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2005) showed that the large-strain strength of a mixture of finer
and coarser soils can have a lower residual strength than that of
either constituent material at the same void ratio. To the extent that
layered soils exist in many of the case histories, this effect will be
reflected in back-calculated residual strengths.
A number of the case histories involved flow sides into bodies of
water. When such slides occur at high velocities, water in front of
the slide may become trapped under the leading edge of the flow,
resulting in hydroplaning (Horne and Joyner 1965; Mohrig et al.
1998). When hydroplaning occurs, the length of the failure surface
is effectively shortened, which can lead to underestimation of back-
calculated residual strength when not accounted for. Although hy-
droplaning may occur at displacement levels greater than those at
which residual strength is mobilized, it can affect final geometries
that are used in common inertial correction procedures.
Models using the normalized strength approach predict
extremely low residual strengths at low initial vertical effective
stresses (i.e., at shallow depths), regardless of SPT resistance. This
aspect of the model suggests that flow sliding should be expected
in moderately dense to dense soils subjected to very strong ground
shaking; while such soils may develop displacements due to lateral
spreading, the absence of flow slides in such events calls this aspect
of the normalized model into question.
Discussion
Estimation of residual strength is an extremely difficult problem.
Laboratory studies show that the physical phenomena are sensitive
to many factors that cannot be well characterized in available flow
slide case histories. The preceding sections have briefly described a
number of these issues that affect estimation of residual strength by
back-analysis of flow slide case histories. Because the effects of
these issues are embedded in the back-calculated residual strength
values, residual strength should be recognized as a system response
parameter rather than a soil property. Previous efforts at residual
strength estimation have recognized and dealt with some of these
issues explicitly, but have either not addressed or made assumptions
as to the potential effects of others.
At this time, two basic approaches have been taken to the
residual strength estimation problem. The direct approach, which
assumes residual strength to vary only with corrected SPT resis-
tance, predicts relatively high strengths at shallow depths and
relatively low strength at large depths. The normalized residual
strength approach, which considers residual strength to be affected
by corrected SPT resistance and to be directly proportional to ef-
fective confining pressure, predicts very low residual strength at
shallow depths and relatively high strengths at large depths.
Back-Analysis of Case Histories
In an attempt to consider the important issues described in the pre-
vious section, an alternative approach to the back-analysis of flow
slide case histories was developed. The goal of this approach was to
© ASCE 04015038-7
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
back-calculate average residual strengths that reflected the effects
of uncertainties in the inputs to a back-analysis. The alternative
back-analysis procedure attempted to characterize and account for
uncertainties in the various flow slide case histories, correct for
inertial effects for those case histories for which they were impor-
tant and data was available, and evaluate the quality of each case
history.
Identification and Characterization of Uncertain
Variables
The stability of slopes, like most other problems of geotechnical
and structural engineering, is a function of geometry and material
properties. Back-analysis of shear strength from a slope failure case
history, therefore, requires characterization of the geometry and
material properties of the slope. Geometric variables include those
that describe the external geometry of the slope, the geometry of
individual layers of soil/rock within the slope, the geometry of any
phreatic surface within the slope, and the position of the failure
surface used in the back-analysis. Material property variables in-
clude measures of density and available shearing resistance.
Prefailure and Postfailure Geometry
Uncertainties in slope coordinates were related to the manner in
which the prefailure and postfailure geometries were measured
and documented. For some case histories, the geometries were sur-
veyed with accurate instruments and reported in clear drawings; in
other cases they were measured more crudely and documented
in less detail. Standard deviations of external geometry points typ-
ically varied from 8 to 15 cm in the horizontal direction and from 30
to 60 cm in the vertical direction. For internal boundaries, standard
deviations ranged from 30 cm to 1.2 m in the horizontal and vertical
directions, respectively. Water table elevations were assumed to
vary with standard deviations ranging from 10 to 30 cm at the slope
surface and from 30 cm to 1.0 m within the slope.
Failure Surface Geometry
Previous procedures for correction of inertial effects have been
based on interpolating between the residual strengths back-
analyzed from the prefailure and postfailure geometries. Unlike
the rigid block in the sliding block model, however, the geometry
of a failing slope changes and often does so in a complex manner
that may affect the driving stress after inertial forces have been re-
moved. A new procedure was developed to improve the accuracy
with which inertia-free driving stresses could be estimated. The
procedure allows estimation of an inertia-corrected geometry for
selected case histories using the following steps:
1. Obtain the most accurate available cross-sections for the pre-
failure and postfailure conditions.
2. Identify, using those cross sections, both the prefailure and
postfailure positions of as many specific reference points on
the slope as possible.
3. Sketch, considering soil mechanics, kinematics, and all avail-
able descriptions of the failure, the anticipated paths taken by
the points identified in Step 2 in moving from their prefailure
to postfailure positions.
4. Using sliding block analyses similar to those reported by
Olson and Stark (2002), estimate the zero-inertia factor, ZIF,
for the case history. The zero-inertia factor is defined as the
fraction of total displacement corresponding to the zero-inertia
position; with reference to the schematic illustration of Fig. 5,
ZIF ¼ lAB =lAC .
5. Apply the ZIF to each of the kinematic paths developed in
Step 3 to estimate the locations of the various reference points
at the zero-inertia state.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 6. Construct the zero-inertia slope geometry to be consistent with
the positions of the points identified in Step 5 and with the
volumes of the various soil zones (i.e., maintaining constant
volume).
An example of this procedure is shown for the case of Wachusett
Dam in Fig. 6. The procedure is laborious and approximate but
does allow back-analysis of residual strength from a reasonable
geometry rather than interpolating between residual strength values
(those based on prefailure and postfailure geometries) that are
known to be incorrect.
This procedure, while applied objectively and consistently, must
be recognized as uncertain. The zero-inertia geometry depends on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Once the zero-inertia geometry was obtained, the position of
the failure surface was characterized by a best-estimate geometry
that was then altered by a half-sine function with a wavelength of
twice the length of the failure. The amplitude of this function was
assigned based on the nature of the apparent failure mechanism
and on the quality of the information with which that failure mecha-
nism could be deduced. The half-sine function used for the well-
documented, 30.5-m-high Lower San Fernando Dam case history,
for example, had a standard deviation of 80 cm (2.6% of the height
of the slope), while the corresponding value for the 4.6-m-high
Hachiro-Gata roadway embankment, which failed with a slumping
mechanism that produced no clear failure surface, was 1.1 m (24%

the ZIF, which was estimated from the sliding block model of
Olson (2001). Uncertainty in the zero-inertia geometry was taken
as a function of the level of documentation of the individual flow
slide and of the degree to which the failure mechanism was con-
sistent with the simplified sliding block model used in estimation of
the ZIF. A coefficient of variation ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 was as-
signed to the ZIF; lower values were used for block-type failures on
well-defined failure surfaces and higher values for slumping fail-
ures or failures with highly distributed zones of shear strain pro-
ducing poorly defined failure surfaces.
of the height of the slope). The nature of the failure mechanism also
affected the accuracy with which the position of the top of the fail-
ure surface could be determined; the horizontal position of this
point was taken to vary over a range related to the length of the
failure surface and the accuracy with which the available informa-
tion constrained that location; the range varied from 0 to 6% of the
length of the failure surface. Case histories with broadly distributed
failure zones, slumping mechanisms, and/or retrogressive deforma-
tion mechanisms were assigned higher levels of uncertainty in this
geometric parameter.

Fig. 6. Estimation of zero-inertia geometry for Wachusett Dam: (a) identification of reference points on prefailure and postfailure geometries;
(b) estimated geometry under zero-inertia conditions

© ASCE 04015038-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 The effects of hydroplaning were accounted for by an approxi-
mate procedure. Experimental studies have shown that hydroplan-
ing tends to occur when the densimetric Froude number exceeds
values of 0.3–0.5 (Mohrig et al. 1998). In the laboratory, water has
been observed to penetrate beneath a hydroplaning debris flow by
a distance of up to 10 times the thickness of the flow. For case
histories in which materials flowed into water, the distance to
which hydroplaning extended back from the head of the slide
was estimated based on an estimated Froude number (Wang
2003) and accounted for in the residual strength back-calculation.
The fraction of available residual strength on the hydroplaned por-
tion of the failure surface ranged from 0.5 (for silty sands and fi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ner-grained soils) to 0.9 (for coarse-grained soils). This procedure
was recognized as approximate, and was therefore randomized in
the Monte Carlo analyses, but was applied consistently to all pri-
mary case histories.
Material Variables
The primary material variables that affect back-analyzed residual
strengths are unit weight and shear strength. In nearly all flow slide
case histories, failure mechanisms involve nonliquefied as well as
liquefied soils. In the back-analyses described in this paper, the
properties of nonliquefied soils were assigned coefficients of varia-
tion equal to those recommended by Phoon and Kulhawy (1999)
unless case-specific information suggested that other values were
more appropriate.
Residual strengths have been most commonly correlated to
SPT resistance, which reflects soil density and other pertinent
characteristics of the soil. Estimation of the uncertainty in SPT
resistance was complicated by the widely varying amounts of mea-
sured SPT data in the various case histories. A procedure developed
to allow consistent and objective estimation of the uncertainty in
SPT resistance computed the standard deviation of SPT resistance
as the weighted average of standard deviations given by three
different procedures. The procedure, while approximate, was ap-
plied uniformly and consistently to the case histories for which
back-analyses were performed. It assigned very high uncertainties
to cases where SPT resistances were not measured or were only
measured at one or two locations, and assigned the statistically
calculated standard deviation to cases where a significant number
(30 or more) of SPT resistances were measured. In between, the
standard deviation was computed as a fraction of the range (maxi-
mum minus minimum) of measured SPT values using the approach
of Burlington and May (1970). In order to prevent negative pen-
etration resistances for cases where σSPT was large, the SPT resis-
tances were modeled as being lognormally distributed with
logarithmic mean, λ ¼ μln SPT , and logarithmic standard deviation,
ζ ¼ σln SPT .
Although sufficient data to characterize it on a case-specific
basis did not exist, spatial variability of SPT resistance was
modeled with two-dimensional, anisotropic random fields based
on the method of Yamazaki and Shinozuka (1988). In recognition
of the fact that soil properties vary more rapidly in the vertical
direction, the spatial variability was defined by scales of fluc-
tuation of 2.4 and 12 m in the vertical and horizontal directions,
respectively.
Discussion
The uncertainties assigned to various input variables were, due to the
wide variation in investigation/documentation of available flow slide
case histories, necessarily based on a combination of data and
judgment. Systematic procedures for assigning uncertainty values
were developed (Wang 2003) and applied consistently to all case
histories.
© ASCE 04015038-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Analyses of Case Histories
The flow-slide case history database of Olson (2001) has been
used for the development of several residual strength models,
and it forms the basis for the model described in this paper.
The database was divided into primary and secondary case histor-
ies. The primary group consisted of nine case histories for which
inertial effects were significant and sufficient data for detailed
back-analysis was available; the remainder were classified as sec-
ondary case histories. Monte Carlo simulations of the primary case
histories were used to account for the effects of uncertainties in
geometric and material parameters on back-calculated residual
strength. The secondary case histories were interpreted using a
procedure that relied in part upon previous residual strength
back-analyses.
Primary Case Histories
The primary case histories were back-analyzed using Monte Carlo
simulations that randomized initial and final geometry, failure
surface position, water table position, and SPT resistance. Each
uncertain parameter was characterized by a probability distribution
and the spatial variability of SPT resistance was also modeled.
For each primary case history, iterative limit-equilibrium stability
back-analyses were used to compute the residual strength along
the failure surface for each of a total of 50,000 Monte Carlo real-
izations. The fact that spatial variability of SPT resistance was
modeled meant that the SPT resistance varied over the length of
the failure surface, which required consideration of variable
residual strength over the failure surface. This aspect of the back-
analysis procedure was handled by assuming a relationship of the
form
Sr ¼ 0.0236 exp½kðN 1 Þ60  ð11Þ
where Sr is in atm [this relationship is of the same form as that
implied by Idriss (1998) and is similar to the Idriss curve shown in
Fig. 3 when k ¼ 0.16]. The value of k was then back-analyzed for
each Monte Carlo realization, and used with Eq. (11) to determine
the residual strength at all points along the particular failure sur-
face for that realization. Those strengths and the spatially variable
ðN 1 Þ60 values were then averaged over the length of the liquefied
portion of the failure surface. The average residual strengths given
by this procedure were insensitive to the coefficient (0.0236) used
in Eq. (11).
Secondary Case Histories
The secondary case histories have also been analyzed by previous
investigators but at a lower level of detail than the primary case
histories. These case histories generally involved smaller slopes
for which lower levels of investigation/documentation precluded
the type of detailed back-analyses performed for the primary case
histories. In many cases, simple infinite slope analyses were used
to back-analyze residual strength. It should be noted that back-
calculating residual strengths based on a noncritical failure surface
will tend to produce lower values than would be obtained using the
actual, critical surface. For these cases, the mean residual strength
was taken as the mean of the residual strength values obtained in
previous investigations. Given the relatively simple back-analysis
procedures used in the previous investigations, and the generally
good agreement between the residual strength values obtained in
those investigations, repetition of the same types of analyses was
not considered necessary. The mean SPT resistances for the secon-
dary case histories were obtained by the same procedure used for
the primary case histories.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 2. Values of σln Sr for Different Combinations of SPT Resistance and paper. It is an unfortunate fact that insufficient data is currently
Initial Vertical Effective Stress available to resolve all of those issues. In the absence of such data,
0 it is important to develop a model that is consistent with current
Initial vertical effective stress, σvo (atm)
SPT resistance
understanding of the basic mechanics of liquefiable soils and flow
ðN 1 Þ60 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0
slides, and also with the reliable empirical data that is currently
0 0.563 0.434 0.397 0.383 0.386 0.410 0.454 available.
2 0.570 0.432 0.390 0.371 0.370 0.389 0.431 A new model for estimating the residual strength of liquefied
4 0.581 0.438 0.391 0.367 0.361 0.375 0.414 soil was developed. The model is of a flexible form consistent with
6 0.597 0.449 0.399 0.371 0.361 0.370 0.404
expected soil behavior and capable of representing either direct
8 0.619 0.468 0.415 0.383 0.367 0.371 0.400
10 0.643 0.491 0.436 0.402 0.382 0.381 0.404 or normalized strength behavior. It was calibrated against back-
12 0.671 0.519 0.463 0.427 0.404 0.397 0.415 calculated residual strengths from case histories with consideration
14 0.702 0.550 0.493 0.457 0.431 0.421 0.432 of the uncertainties in, and quality of, those case histories. The cal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

16 0.736 0.585 0.528 0.491 0.463 0.449 0.455 ibration process also considered conditions under which flow slides
have been observed not to occur. The details of the model develop-
ment process are described in the following sections.

Back-Analysis Results
Each primary case history back-analysis produced a distribution of
50,000 average ðN 1 Þ60 and Sr values, each representing an individ-
ual Monte Carlo realization of the slope failure. The mean values of
the SPT resistances and residual strengths, along with mean fines
contents and initial vertical effective stresses, are given for each
case history in Table 2.
Direct comparison of the back-calculated residual strengths
for the primary case histories with those obtained by previous in-
vestigators is complicated by fundamental differences in the mod-
eling techniques. The consideration of spatial variability in the
back-analyses performed in this investigation results in average
residual strength values that are greater than the value that would
be obtained using the average SPT resistance with no spatial vari-
ability; this effect increases with increasing residual strength and
slope height. Fig. 7 shows the residual strengths from the primary
case histories that have been evaluated by other investigators. The
agreement is generally good with the average residual strengths
from the current back-analyses falling near the high ends of the
ranges obtained by others. This behavior results from consideration
of spatial variability and hydroplaning, and from differences in the
way inertial effects were calculated.
Development of an Empirical Model
The development of a model for evaluation of residual strength
must consider the many complex issues discussed earlier in this
Form of Predictive Equation
Multiple functional forms of equations relating residual strength
(direct approach) and residual strength ratio (normalized strength
approach) to SPT resistance were investigated. The former used
a relationship of the direct form
Sr ¼ a1 exp½a2 ðN 1 Þa603  ð12Þ
and the latter a normalized relationship
Sr b3
0 ¼ b1 þ b2 ðN 1 Þ60 ð13Þ
σvo
both of which are capable of producing models very similar to
those shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Calibration of both models using
nonlinear least-squares regression produced model coefficients that
fit the data well but had residuals that were heteroscedastic and/or
exhibited trends with respect to the predictor variables. The accu-
racy of the normalized strength model was somewhat better than
that of the direct model, and was found not to be improved by
the addition of fines content terms.
These preliminary results motivated the development of a model
of different form that has elements of both the direct and normal-
ized strength modeling approaches. The search for an appropriate
model form was guided by the following basic criteria:
1. Residual strength should increase with increasing SPT
resistance.
2. Residual strength should increase with increasing initial ver-
tical effective stress.
3. The sensitivity of residual strength to SPT resistance should
increase with increasing SPT resistance.
4. The residual strength need not vary in direct proportion to in-
itial vertical effective stress.
5. Residual strengths at low initial vertical effective stresses
should be consistent with lateral spreading activity observed
in actual earthquakes.
6. The model should allow probabilistic characterization of resi-
dual strength.
A number of potential predictive models satisfying as many of
these criteria as possible were investigated using nonlinear least-
squares regression. The results of these analyses showed that a
model of the basic form
0 Þ θ4 g
Sr ¼ θ1 expfθ2 ½ðN 1 Þ60  þ θ3 ðσvo ð14Þ

could potentially satisfy all of the criteria and produce a better fit to
Fig. 7. Comparison of back-calculated primary case history residual
the case history data than either the direct or normalized residual
strengths with residual strengths computed by others (LSFD = Lower
strength models. This basic equation was modified to include a
San Fernando Dam; FPD = Fort Peck Dam)
fines content term and an indicator variable for void redistribution

© ASCE 04015038-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 potential (set to 1 or 0 based on the presence or absence of potential
flow-impeding soil layers) in various stages of the model calibra-
tion process.
Case History Quality
As previously discussed, the case histories included small and large
slopes whose failures caused relatively small to very large losses.
Some of the case histories were investigated and documented in
great detail, while others were investigated quickly and/or incom-
pletely documented. As a result, the extent to which each case his-
tory should be allowed to influence the proposed residual strength
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
model was judged to be variable.
A procedure for rating the relative quality of the flow-slide case
histories was developed. The procedure rated each case history with
respect to three factors: (1) the level of detail with which each was
investigated; (2) the number of independent residual strength eval-
uations used to compute the average residual strength for the sec-
ondary case histories; and (3) the level of agreement between the
secondary case history residual strengths obtained by previous
investigators. The total case history weighting factor for each case
history (Table 2) was then computed as the product of the three
component weighting factors.
The procedures used to develop these weighting factors were
necessarily subjective, but they were judged to be reasonable and
were applied consistently to all of the case histories. Idriss and
Boulanger (2007) divided the case history database into four groups
on the basis of the adequacy of in situ measurements and com-
pleteness of geometric data. The mean values of the weighting
factors for the case histories in Idriss and Boulanger’s Groups
1–3 and the remaining case histories (implied as being excessively
poor) were 0.81, 0.64, 0.50, and 0.41, respectively. These values
indicate an overall consistency between the weighting factors origi-
nally reported by Wang (2003) and the independently determined
adequacy/completeness groups of Idriss and Boulanger (2007).
Given the paucity of available flow-slide case histories, it was con-
sidered preferable to use all of the case histories with appropriate
weighting factors than to eliminate any group entirely.
Influence of Lateral Spreading
Normalized residual strength models can predict extremely
low residual strengths at low initial vertical effective stress levels,
i.e., at shallow depths. While some of the flow sides in the case
history database included liquefiable soils at low initial vertical ef-
fective stresses, there is considerable case history data for lateral
spreads at low initial vertical effective stress levels. Given that
residual strength is taken to correspond to large-strain, flow con-
ditions in this paper, the shear stresses driving these lateral spreads
were generally too low to cause flow sliding and can therefore be
interpreted as a lower bound to residual strength. The lateral
spreading case history database of Youd et al. (2002) was used
to estimate a minimum driving shear stress for ground slope case
histories as
−1
τ min ¼ γ sat T 10 sin½tan ðS=100Þ ð15Þ
where γ sat = saturated unit weight assuming e ¼ 0.7 (approxi-
mately 50% relative density for typical uniform sands), T 10 is the
cumulative thickness of soils with SPT resistances less than or
equal to 10 bpf, and S is the ground slope in percent. This equation
implicitly assumes a water table at the ground surface and that all
layers comprising T 10 are contiguous from the surface.
© ASCE 04015038-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Model Calibration
The predictive model of Eq. (14) was calibrated using the maxi-
mum likelihood estimation assuming that residual strengths are log-
normally distributed. The assumption of lognormality is common
for strength parameters and is particularly appropriate for highly
uncertain parameters such as residual strength due to its inherent
elimination of negative parameter values. The likelihood func-
tion, which describes the likelihood of observing the case history
data given the parameters assigned to the proposed model, can be
written as
Yn
   
1 1 ln Sr;i − λ 2
Lðλ; ζjSr;i Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp − ð16Þ
i¼1 2πζSr;i 2 ζ
where λ ¼ μln Sr , ζ ¼ σln Sr ; and Sr;i = residual strength for the
0 to sim-
ith case history. Letting R ¼ Sr , N ¼ ðN 1 Þ60 , and S ¼ σvo
plify some of the succeeding equations
λi ¼ ln θ1 þ θ2 ½N i þ θ3 ðSi Þθ4  ð17Þ
Using a first-order, second-moment approximation, the contri-
butions of uncertainties in the input parameters to the total uncer-
tainty can be expressed as
ζ 2i ≈ θ22 σ2N;i þ θ22 θ23 σ2N;i þ Si2θ4 −2 σ2S;i þ θ5 ð18Þ
Maximizing the natural logarithm of the likelihood function
yielded a set of coefficients θ1 − θ5 that provided a very good fit
to the data, but implied residual strengths at low effective stress
levels that were lower than the minimum strengths implied by the
Youd et al. (2002) lateral spreading database. The residual strength
at low effective stress was determined to be most sensitive to the
stress exponent, θ4 . A series of parametric analyses indicated that
values of θ4 ≥ 0.1 would produce residual strengths at low effective
stresses that were consistent with the upper range of minimum
strengths inferred from the lateral spread case history database. The
maximum likelihood regression was then repeated with the con-
straint that θ4 ≥ 0.1, which yielded θ1 ¼ 0.000215, θ2 ¼ 0.109,
θ3 ¼ 49.35, θ4 ¼ 0.10, and θ5 ¼ 0.121. Analyses of modified
models indicated that neither the addition of fines content or void
redistribution indicator parameters improved the predictive capabil-
ities of the model.
The calibrated predictive model can then be written as
ln Sr ¼ −8.444 þ 0.109 N þ 5.379 S0.1 ð19Þ
subject to the constraint that the residual strength not exceed the
drained strength (which it may at shallow depths). Values of the
median residual strength, Sr ¼ expðln Sr Þ, are shown in Fig. 8(a).
The fit to the case history data is shown in Fig. 8(b).
The variance of can be expressed as
σ2ln Sr ¼ 1.627 þ 0.00073N 2 þ 0.0194N − 0.027NS0.1
− 3.099S0.1 þ1.621S0.2 þ 0.00073σ2N þ 4.935S−1.8 σ2S
ð20Þ
Fig. 9 illustrates the uncertainty in residual strength from the
proposed model. Because the flow-side case history data is so scat-
tered, the terms related to the uncertainty in N and S contribute
relatively little to the overall uncertainty in Sr , and can therefore
be neglected for practical purposes. With that simplification, the
values of σln Sr for various combinations of N and S are listed in
Table 2. The uncertainty can be seen to vary with both ðN 1 Þ60 , and
0
σvo and to be lower where case history data is more plentiful.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Sr ðPÞ ¼ exp½ln Sr þ Φ−1 ðPÞσln Sr  ð21Þ
where Φ−1 ðPÞ is the inverse standard normal variate for P.

Comparison with Other Residual Strength Models

Direct comparisons of residual strength models are complicated by
differences in SPT value definition (i.e., representative, median,
mean values, etc.), differences in case history databases, differences
in back-calculated strengths, and differences in the intents of the
models. Most models to date have been intended for deterministic
use and therefore include an inherent conservatism that tends to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

underpredict back-calculated strengths. The model described in this

Fig. 8. (a) Median residual strengths predicted by hybrid model;
(b) comparison of predicted residual strengths with those back-
calculated from flow-side case histories
The proposed model can be used to estimate percentile strength
values, i.e., values of residual strength with specific probabilities of
nonexceedance. For a percentile value, P, the corresponding per-
centile strength is given by
paper is a probabilistic model and hence seeks to be accurate rather
than conservative. Conservatism, in a deterministic sense, can be
achieved with the proposed model through the use of a low percen-
tile strength value.
As indicated by the exponential nature of the proposed model,
its variation of residual strength with SPT resistance [Fig. 8(a)] is
consistent with that assumed in the direct models of Seed (1987),
Seed and Harder (1990), and Idriss (1998). In contrast with those
models, however, the proposed model also makes use of initial
vertical effective stress, although not in the linear manner used
by Stark and Mesri (1992), Olson and Stark (2002), and Idriss and
Boulanger (2007). Figs. 10(a–c) illustrate the variation of residual
strength with initial vertical effective stress predicted by the Seed–
Harder, Idriss–Boulanger, and proposed models for ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 5, 10,
and 15, respectively. The proposed model predicts residual
strengths that are higher than normalized residual strength model
at low initial vertical effective stresses and lower at high initial ver-
tical effective stresses.
The higher residual strength at low effective stress levels results
from both the flow case history data and consideration of the mini-
mum strengths implied by shallow lateral spreading case histories.
Fig. 10(d) shows the combinations of minimum shear stress and
initial vertical effective stress from the lateral spreading ground
slope case histories. The average SPT resistances for each of the
lateral spreading case histories cannot be determined from the def-
inition of T 10 , but are obviously less than 10; therefore, a residual
strength model for a soil with ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 10 should predict residual
strengths greater than these values at low initial effective stress lev-
els. Fig. 10(d) also shows back-calculated residual strengths for the
flow-side case histories at low initial vertical effective stress levels.

1.2
N = 10 NN==10
10
S = 1 atm SS==11atm
atm
1.0 COVS = 0 COVNS==00
COV

COVN = 0 COVS = 0
0.8 COVN = 0.1 COVS = 0.01
COVN = 0.2 COVS = 0.05
fSr(Sr)

0.6 COVN = 0.5 COVS = 0.10

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a) Residual Strength, Sr (atm) (b) Residual Strength, Sr (atm)

Fig. 9. Probability density functions for residual strength: (a) different uncertainties in SPT resistance; (b) different uncertainties in initial vertical
effective stress

© ASCE 04015038-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Predicted variation of residual strength with initial vertical effective stress for (a) ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 5; (b) ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 10; (c) ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 15 bpf
(Idriss–Boulanger curves shown with and without void redistribution; (d) for ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 5 and 10 with minimum strengths implied by lateral spreading
case histories and back-calculated strengths from flow-side case histories at low initial vertical effective stress levels; Seed–Harder values taken at
lower-third point; shallow soil friction angle of 25° used for drained strength constraint

These case histories have ðN 1 Þ60 values ranging from 2.9 to 10.6
with an average of 5.2 and standard deviation of 2.2. It should
therefore be expected that the predicted strengths for ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 5
should be consistent with the strengths from those case histories.
Fig. 10(d) confirms that the proposed model predictions exceed the
lateral spreading data (gray circles) for ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 10 and are con-
sistent with the flow-side data (black circles) for ðN 1 Þ60 ¼ 5.
Discussion
The model described in this paper presents an alternative to residual
strength models currently used in engineering practice. It shares
some characteristics with the direct residual strength models and
some with normalized strength models; it was formulated in a
way that could have produced results consistent with either if the
data had indicated that either was most appropriate. The residual
strengths back-calculated from the flow-side case history database,
supplemented by relevant data from a lateral spreading case history
database, however, provided better support for the proposed model.
The manner in which the residual strength predicted by the
proposed model varies with SPT resistance and effective stress is
consistent with that predicted by a theoretical steady-state frame-
work that considers the relationship between soil compressibility
and ultimate steady-state line slope. While the theoretical frame-
work cannot be expected to accurately predict strengths that are
mobilized under field conditions that violate its basic assumptions,
the fact that the proposed model shows trends that are consistent
with those implied by the theoretical framework help support its
applicability. The direct and normalized strength approaches are
not consistent with the theoretical framework given available ex-
perimental data for typical liquefiable soils.
Several aspects of the proposed model are particularly note-
worthy. First, the model allows probabilistic characterization of
residual strength. As such, it does not attempt to be conservative
as most deterministic models do. Second, the model does not make
use of a fines correction; the addition of fines content-related terms
to the predictive model did not result in improved residual strength
predictions. This characteristic was also observed by Olson and
Stark (2002). Third, the use of a void redistribution potential indi-
cator term that would distinguish between cases where void redis-
tribution would and would not be expected also did not result in
improved predictions. This observation could be taken to indicate,
as some have suggested, that void redistribution effects occur to
some extent in virtually all flow-side case histories; the accuracy
of that interpretation, however, cannot be proven with available
data. Finally, the proposed model predicts residual strengths at low

© ASCE 04015038-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 initial vertical effective stresses that are significantly higher than
those predicted by the normalized strength models and similar
(slightly higher at low SPT resistance but significantly lower at high
SPT resistances) to those predicted by the direct models. The higher
strengths predicted by the proposed model are consistent with the
flow-side case histories at low initial vertical effective stresses and
are also greater than the shear stresses at which lateral spreading,
rather than flow sliding, has been observed in the field. Normalized
residual strength models tend to predict shallow flow sliding under
conditions where lateral spreading has been observed; while lat-
eral spreading can cause damaging deformations, it is a different
mechanism than that considered in this paper.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
Liquefaction-induced flow sides are complex events with many fac-
tors affecting the mobilized shearing resistance and deformation on
liquefied soils. The wide and generally unknown variability of these
factors from one case to another prevents back-calculated residual
strengths from being treated as properties of the soil alone but
rather as parameters that reflect the soil properties and character-
istics of the individual slopes. Further complicating matters, only a
small number of flow-side case histories have been identified and
investigated. The case histories encompass a range of soil types,
slope geometries, and failure mechanisms, and few have been thor-
oughly investigated and carefully documented. It is not surprising,
therefore, that different approaches have been taken to the difficult
problem of predicting the residual strength of liquefied soil.
Previous residual strength models have fallen into two main
categories: one that assumes that residual strength is a function
of penetration resistance alone, i.e., that it is independent of initial
effective stress, and another that assumes residual strength is pro-
portional to initial effective stress. The former models generally
predict higher residual strength at low effective stress levels (shal-
low depths) and the latter predict higher strengths at high effective
stress levels (greater depths).
A third type of residual strength estimation model has been pro-
posed. The proposed model predicts residual strength as a nonlinear
function of both penetration resistance and initial effective stress.
The proposed model is consistent with behavior observed in labo-
ratory tests, but was calibrated on the basis of residual strengths
back-calculated from flow-side case histories. The back-calculated
strengths considered inertial effects, hydroplaning, and uncertain-
ties in the individual case histories. The calibration process con-
sidered the potential effects of fines and of void redistribution, the
conditions under which flow sides are known not to have occurred
in past earthquakes, and the relative quality of each case history.
The proposed model allows estimation of the probability distri-
bution of residual strength. The median residual strengths predicted
by the proposed model are consistent with those of direct models
such as Seed and Harder (1990) at low initial effective stress levels,
and with normalized strength models such as Olson and Stark
(2002) and Idriss and Boulanger (2007) at higher initial effective
stress levels. At very high initial effective stress levels (>2–3 atm),
however, the proposed model predicts lower residual strengths than
the normalized strength models.
Given the lack of case history data, and the significant scatter in
the data that are available, the existence of different models for pre-
diction of residual strength is beneficial in allowing consideration
of epistemic uncertainty. When multiple plausible predictive mod-
els are available, expected values of the predicted quantities can be
computed as weighted averages of the values given by the different
models.
© ASCE 04015038-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Acknowledgments
The research described in this paper was supported by the
Washington State Department of Transportation and the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center; the support of Tony
Allen and Kim Willoughby is gratefully acknowledged. A portion
of the work was completed while the senior writer was on sab-
batical leave at the International Centre for Geohazards at the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the residual strength data made available by
Dr. Scott Olson and the lateral spreading data made available to
all researchers by Dr. T.L. Youd. The writers are also grateful to
Ross Boulanger, Liam Finn, and Tom Shantz for their constructive
comments on a draft of this paper.
References
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G., and Hachey, J. E. (1991). “The critical state of
sands.” Geotechnique, 41(3), 365–381.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2011). “Challenges in estimating the in-
situ strength of liquefied soil.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Urban Earth-
quake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 9–14.
Boulanger, R. W., and Truman, S. P. (1996). “Void redistribution in sand
under post-earthquake loading.” Can. Geotech. J., 33(5), 829–834.
Burlington, R. S., and May, D. C., Jr., (1970). Handbook of probability and
statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 463.
Casagrande, A. (1976). “Liquefaction and cyclic deformation of sands: A
critical review.” Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. 88, Harvard Univ.,
Cambridge, MA, 27.
Castro, G. (1969). “Liquefaction of sands.” Harvard soil mechanics series
87, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA.
Castro, G. (1987). “On the behavior of soils during earthquakes—
Liquefaction.” Soil dynamics and liquefaction, A. S. Cakmak, ed.,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 169–204.
Castro, G. (1991). “On the behavior of soils during earthquakes—
Liquefaction.” Proc., NSF/EPRI Workshop on Dynamic Soil Properties
and Site Characterization, EPRI NP-7337, Vol. 2, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1–36.
Castro, G., and Poulos, S. J. (1977). “Factors affecting liquefaction and
cyclic mobility.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 106(GT6), 501–506.
Castro, G., and Troncoso, J. (1989). “Effects of 1989 Chilean earthquake
on three tailings dams.” Proc., 5th Chilean Conf. on Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Chilean Association of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
Davis, A. P., Jr., Poulos, S. J., and Castro, G. (1988). “Strengths backfig-
ured from liquefaction case histories.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of Missouri and Rolla,
MO, 1693–1701.
Gutierrez, M., and Eddy, M. (2011). “Probabilistic analysis of liquefied
shear strength from case histories of slope and embankment failures.”
Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Chilean
Geotechnical Society, Santiago, Chile.
Hanzawa, H. (1980). “Undrained strength and stability of quick sand.”
Soils Found., 20(2), 17–29.
Horne, W. B., and Joyner, U. T. (1965). “Pneumatic tire hydroplaning and
some effects of vehicle performance.” Society of Automotive Engineers
Technical Paper 970 C, Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit.
Idriss, I. M. (1998). “Evaluation of liquefaction potential, consequences
and mitigation—An update.” Presentation Notes, Vancouver Geotech-
nical Society Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2007). “SPT- and CPT-based relation-
ships for the residual shear strength of liquefied soils.” Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering, 4th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotech-
nical Engineering—Invited Lectures, K. D. Pitilakis, ed., Springer,
Netherlands, 1–22.
Ishihara, K. (1993). “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes:
The 33rd Rankine lecture.” Géotechnique, 43(3), 351–414.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Kokusho, T. (1999). “Water film in liquefied sand and its effect on lateral
spread.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1999)125:10(817), 817–826.
Kramer, S. L. (1989). “Uncertainty in steady-state liquefaction evalu-
ation procedures.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)
115:10(1402), 1402–1419.
Kuerbis, R. H., Negussey, D., and Vaid, Y. P. (1988). “Effect of gradation
and fines content on the undrained response of sand.” Proc., Specialty
Conf. on Hydraulic Fill Structures, GSP No. 21, ASCE, New York,
330–345.
Kulasingam, R., Malvick, E. J., Boulanger, R. W., and Kutter, B. L. (2004).
“Strength loss and localization at silt interlayers in slopes of liquefied
sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Berkeley on 05/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2004)130:11(1192), 1192–1202.
Miuri, S., and Toki, S. (1982). “A sample preparation method and its effect
on static and cyclic deformation-strength properties of sand.” Soils
Found., 22(1), 61–77.
Mohamad, R., and Dobry, R. (1986). “Undrained monotonic and cyclic
triaxial strength of sand.” J. Geotech. Div., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1986)112:10(941), 941–958.
Mohrig, D., Whipple, K. X., Handzo, M., Ellis, C., and Parker, G. (1998).
“Hydroplaning of subaqueous debris flows.” GSA Bull., 110(3),
387–394.
Naesgaard, E., and Byrne, P. M. (2005). “Flow liquefaction due to mixing
of layered deposits.” Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Satellite Conf., TC4 committee ISSMGE, Japanese Geotechnical Soci-
ety, London, 103–108.
Olson, S. M. (2001). “Liquefaction analysis of level and sloping ground
using field case histories and penetration resistance.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ.
of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Olson, S. M., and Stark, T. D. (2002). “Liquefied strength ratio from lique-
faction flow slide case histories.” Can. Geotech. J., 39(3), 629–647.
Olson, S. M., and Stark, T. D. (2003). “Use of laboratory data to confirm
yield and liquefied strength ratio concepts.” Can. Geotech. J., 40(6),
1164–1184.
Olson, S. M., Stark, T. D., Walton, W. H., and Castro, G. (2000).
“Static liquefaction flow failure of the North Dike of Wachusett dam.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)
126:12(1184), 1184–1193.
Phoon, K.-K., and Kulhawy, F. H. (1999). “Characterization of geotechni-
cal variability.” Can. Geotech. J., 36(4), 612–624.
Poulos, S. J. (1981). “The steady state of deformation.” J. Geotech. Eng.
Div., 107(GT5), 553–562.
Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, J. W. (1985). “Liquefaction evaluation
procedure.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:
6(772), 772–792.
© ASCE 04015038-15
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Riemer, M. F., and Seed, R. B. (1997). “Factors affecting apparent position
of steady-state line.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(1997)123:3(281), 281–288.
Sadrekarimi, A. (2013). “Influence of state and compressibility on liquefied
strength of sands.” Can. Geotech. J., 50(10), 1067–1076.
Seed, H. B. (1987). “Design problems in soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(827), 827–845.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F. (1990). “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore
pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H. Bolton
Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, J. M. Duncan, ed., Univ. of California,
Berkeley, CA, 351–376.
Sladen, J. A., D’Hollander, R. D., and Krahn, J. (1985). “The lique-
faction of sands, a collapse surface approach.” Can. Geotech. J., 22(4),
564–578.
Stark, T. D., and Mesri, G. (1992). “Undrained shear strength of sands for
stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)
118:11(1727), 1727–1747.
Vaid, Y. P., and Chern, J. C. (1985). “Cyclic and monotonic undrained re-
sponse of saturated sands.” Advances in the art of testing soils under
cyclic conditions, V. Khosla, ASCE, Reston, VA, 120–147.
Vaid, Y. P., Chung, E. F. K., and Kuerbis, R. H. (1990). “Stress path and
ultimate steady state.” Can. Geotech. J., 27(1), 1–7.
Verdugo, R., and Ishihara, K. (1996). “The ultimate steady state of sandy
soils.” Soils Found., 36(2), 81–91.
Wang, C. H. (2003). “Prediction of the residual strength of liquefied soils.”
Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, 457.
Whitman, R. V. (1985). Liquefaction of soils during earthquakes, National
Academy Press, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 240.
Wride, C. E., McRoberts, E. C., and Robertson, P. K. (1999). “Reconsid-
eration of case histories for estimating undrained shear strength in sandy
soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 36(5), 907–933.
Yamamuro, J. A., and Covert, K. M. (2001). “Monotonic and cyclic lique-
faction of very loose sands with high silt content.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:4(314), 314–324.
Yamamuro, J. A., and Lade, P. V. (1998). “Steady-state concepts and static
liquefaction of silty sands.” J. Geotech. Environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(1998)124:9(868), 868–877.
Yamazaki, F., and Shinozuka, M. (1988). “Digital generation of non-
Gaussian stochastic fields.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9399(1988)114:7(1183), 1183–1197.
Yoshimine, M., and Ishihara, K. (1998). “Flow potential of sand during
liquefaction.” Soils Found., 38(3), 189–198.
Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. M., and Bartlett, S. F. (2002). “Revised multilinear
regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:
12(1007), 1007–1017.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.