Andrus et al.

2003

Comparing Liquefaction Evaluation Methods Using Penetration-VS Relationships

Ronald D. Andrus,* Paramananthan Piratheepan,1 Brian S. Ellis,2
Jianfeng Zhang, and C. Hsein Juang
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0911, USA
Ph: (864) 656-0488; Fax: (864) 656-2670; E-mail: randrus@clemson.edu
*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT
Three methods that follow the general format of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for
evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils are compared in this paper. They are compared by
constructing relationships between penetration resistance and small-strain shear-wave velocity
(VS) implied from cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) curves for the three methods, and by plotting
penetration-VS data pairs. The penetration-VS data pairs are from 45 Holocene-age sand layers in
California, South Carolina, Canada, and Japan. It is shown that the VS-based CRR curve is more
conservative than CRR curves based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone
Penetration Test (CPT), for the compiled Holocene data. This result agrees with the findings of a
recent probability study where the SPT-, CPT-, and VS-based CRR curves were characterized as
curves with average probability of liquefaction of 31 %, 50 %, and 26 %, respectively. New
SPT- and CPT-based CRR equations are proposed that provide more consistent assessments of
liquefaction potential for the Holocene sand layers considered.

Key words:

Cone Penetration Test, earthquake, liquefaction; in situ tests, probability, shearwave velocity, Standard Penetration Test.

1
2

Moved to Leighton and Associates, Inc., Chino, CA 91710-5770, USA

Moved to United States Air Force, Minot AFB, ND 58705-5000, USA

Andrus et al. 2003

INTRODUCTION
The occurrence of liquefaction in soils is often evaluated using the simplified procedure
originally proposed by Seed and Idriss [1] based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This
procedure has undergone several revisions and updates since it was first proposed in 1971,
including the development of methods based on the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), the Becker
Penetration Test (BPT), and small-strain shear-wave velocity (VS) measurements. Youd et al. [2]
provide a recent review of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure and the in situ test methods
commonly used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soils.
In situ VS measurements provide a promising alternative to the penetration tests, which
may be unreliable in some soils, such as gravelly soils, or may not be feasible at some sites, such
as capped landfills. In addition, VS is an engineering property, directly related to small-strain
shear modulus, and required for dynamic soil response analyses. On the other hand, some
factors that affect VS may not equally affect resistance to liquefaction, which is a medium- to
large-strain event. Also, VS testing usually does not produce samples for classification or may
not be conducted with sufficient detail to detect thin liquefiable strata. Youd et al. [2] and
Andrus et al. [3] provide further discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of the VS- and
penetration-based liquefaction evaluation methods.
The purpose of this paper is to compare the VS liquefaction evaluation method, or curves,
proposed by Andrus and Stokoe [4] and updated in Andrus et al. [3, 5] with the SPT and CPT
curves summarized in Youd et al. [2] using relationships between penetration resistance and VS.
The approach of using penetration-VS relationships to compare curves was applied earlier by
Andrus et al. [6] with data from 25 Holocene-age (< 10,000 years) sands with < 10 % fines
(particles < 0.075 mm). In this paper, the SPT-VS and CPT-VS databases are expanded to include

Andrus et al. 2003

20 additional sand data pairs. Regression analyses are performed on the expanded databases and
the resulting penetration-VS relationships are used to develop new, more consistent liquefaction
evaluation curves.
REVIEW OF LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION METHODS
The Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction resistance basically
involves the calculation of two parameters: 1) the level of cyclic loading on the soil caused by
the earthquake, expressed as a cyclic stress ratio; and 2) the resistance of the soil to liquefaction,
expressed as a cyclic resistance ratio. The cyclic stress ratio, CSR, at a particular depth in a level
soil deposit is calculated from (Seed and Idriss [1]):
CSR = 0.65(a max / g )( v / ' v )rd

(1)

where amax = peak horizontal ground surface acceleration, g = acceleration of gravity, v = total
vertical (overburden) stress at the depth in question, 'v = effective overburden stress at the
same depth, and rd = a shear stress reduction coefficient.
Three methods, or curves, for determining the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, are shown in
Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c.

In Figure 1a, the curve for determining CRR from energy- and

overburden stress-corrected SPT blow count, (N1)60, by Seed et al. [9] and modified by Youd et
al. [2] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with moment magnitude, Mw, of 7.5 and sands
with fines content, FC, < 5 %. To apply the curve to soils with FC > 5 %, I. M. Idriss with the
assistance of R. B. Seed developed the following correction of (N1)60 to an equivalent clean sand
value [2]:
( N1 ) 60cs = + ( N1 ) 60

(2)

where (N1)60cs = equivalent clean sand value of (N1)60, and and = coefficients determined
using the following relationships:

Andrus et al. 2003

= 0 .0

for FC < 5 %

(3a)

= exp[1.76 190 / FC 2 ]

for 5 % < FC < 35 %

(3b)

= 5 .0

for FC > 35 %

(3c)

= 1.0

for FC < 5 %

(4a)

= [0.99 + FC 1.5 / 1000]

for 5 % < FC < 35 %

(4b)

= 1.2

for FC > 35 %

(4c)

Equations 3 and 4 are suggested for routine liquefaction resistance calculations [2].
In Figure 1b, the curve for determining CRR from overburden stress-corrected CPT tip
resistance, qc1N, by Robertson and Wride [10] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with Mw
of 7.5, and sands with FC < 5 % and median grain size, D50, of 0.25-2.0 mm. To apply the curve
to soils with FC > 5 %, Robertson and Wride [10] developed the following correction of qc1N to
an equivalent clean sand value:
(q c1N ) cs = K c qc1N

(5)

where (qc1N)cs = equivalent clean sand value of qc1N, and Kc = a correction factor for grain
characteristics determined using the following relationships:
K c = 1.0

for Ic < 1.64

(6a)

K c = 0.403I c 4 + 5.581I c 3 21.63I c 2 + 33.75I c 17.88

for Ic > 1.64

(6b)

where Ic = soil behavior type index, defined by:

I c = [(3.47 log Q) 2 + (1.22 + log F ) 2 ]0.5

(7)

where
Q = [(q c v ) / Pa ][ Pa / ' v ] n
and
4

(8)

Andrus et al. 2003

F = [ f s /(qc v )]100%

(9)

where qc = measured cone tip resistance, fs = measured cone sleeve resistance, Pa = a reference
stress of 100 kPa (or 1 atm), and n = an exponent that depends on soil type. The values of qc, fs,
Pa, v , and 'v are all in the same units. The value of n ranges from 0.5 for clean sands to 1.0
for clays [11], and can be approximated through an iterative approach [10].
In Figure 1c, the curve for determining CRR from overburden stress-corrected shearwave velocity, VS1, by Andrus and Stokoe [4] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with Mw of
7.5 and young, uncemented sands and gravels with FC < 5 %. To apply the curve to soils with
FC > 5 % and/or older soils, VS1 can be corrected to an equivalent young, clean soil value by:
(V S1 ) csa1 = K a1 (V S1 ) cs = K a1 K csV S1

(10)

where (VS1)csa1 = equivalent young clean soil value of VS1, (VS1)cs = equivalent clean soil value not
corrected for age, Kcs = a fines content correction factor, and Ka1 = an age factor to correct for
high VS1 values caused by aging. Juang et al. [12] suggested the following relationships for
estimating Kcs:
K cs = 1.0

for FC < 5 %

(11a)

K cs = 1 + ( FC 5)T

for 5 % < FC < 35 %

(11b)

K cs = 1 + 30T

for FC > 35 %

(11c)

where
T = 0.009 0.0109(VS1 / 100) + 0.0038(VS1 / 100) 2

(12)

Andrus and Stokoe [4] assumed Ka1 = 1.0 for all Holocene-age soils.
Because the three CRR curves shown in Figure 1 are all for Mw = 7.5 earthquakes and
sands with FC < 5 %, they imply relationships between SPT, CPT and VS. One can obtain these

Andrus et al. 2003

relationships by plotting values of (N1)60cs, (qc1N)cs and (VS1)csa1 with the same CRR values. The
implied (N1)60cs-(VS1)csa1, (qc1N)cs-(VS1)csa1 and (qc1N)cs-(N1)60cs relationships are presented in
Figures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. One advantage of studying penetration-VS relationships is they
provide comparisons of the liquefaction evaluation methods without needing to calculate CSR.
Thus, data from sites not shaken by earthquakes can also be used to validate the consistency
between liquefaction evaluation methods.
HOLOCENE SAND DATA
Data from 45 Holocene-age sand layers with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25 are also plotted in
Figures 2, 3 and 4. The data are summarized in Table 1. They are from California, South
Carolina, Canada, and Japan, and are based on measurements performed by various investigators
[13-24]. The data were originally compiled by Andrus et al. [6], Piratheepan [25], and Ellis [26].
Three of their compiled Holocene sand data (Coyote Creek with depth of 3.6-6.0 m; Bay Bridge
Toll Plaza, SFOBB1 with depth of 10.0-12.8 m; and WPC 2000-344, SC1 with depth of 3.8-6.8
m) are not considered in this paper, because penetration or VS measurements are not consistent
with the data plotted in Figures 2, 3 and 4.
The reason for selecting sands with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25 is so that a significant number
of data points are available for regression analysis, while limiting the FC or Ic corrections.
According to a relationship proposed by Robertson and Wride [10], sands with Ic < 2.25 typically
have values of FC < 20 %. Average values of D50 for the sand layers listed in Table 1 range
from 0.08 mm to 1.68 mm. These sands classify as SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, and SM by the Unified
Soil Classification System.
The general criteria used for selecting the penetration and VS measurements are as
follows: 1) Measurements are from below the ground-water table where reasonable estimates of

Andrus et al. 2003

effective stress can be easily made.

2) Measurements are from thick, uniform soil layers

identified primarily using CPT measurements.

When no CPT measurements are available,

exceptions to Criterion 2 are allowed if there are several SPT and VS measurements within the
layer that follow a consistent trend. 3) Penetration test locations are within 6 m of the VS test
locations. 4) At least two VS measurements, and the corresponding test intervals, are within the
uniform layer. 5) Time history records used for VS determination exhibit easy-to-pick shear
wave arrivals. Thus, values of VS determined from difficult-to-pick shear-wave arrivals are not
used. When the time history records are not available, exceptions to Criterion 5 are allowed if
there are at least 3 VS measurements within the selected layer. The 45 Holocene-age sand layers
range in depth from 1.7 m to 13.0 m.
Of the 45 selected sand layers, 27 were tested by seismic cone, 7 by crosshole, 3 by both
seismic cone and crosshole, 6 by suspension logger, and 2 by downhole techniques. Values of
(VS1)cs are calculated using average FC values. Where no FC information is available, an
apparent FC value is calculated using the Ic value and the relationship suggested by Robertson
and Wride [10], where FC 1.75 I c 3 3.7 for 1.26 < Ic < 3.5. Calculated (VS1)cs values are 0 %
to 7 % higher than values of VS1.
SPT blow counts are available for 38 of the 45 selected sand layers. Values of (N1)60 are
determined from measured SPT blow counts using reported test equipment and procedure
information. Where no energy measurements are available, average corrections recommended
by Youd et al. [2] are assumed based on the type of hammer used. Calculated (N1)60cs values are
0 % to 76 % higher than values of (N1)60.

Andrus et al. 2003

CPT resistances are available for 41 of the 45 selected layers.

All of the CPT

measurements are from 10-cm2 cones. Values of qc1N and Ic are averaged over the interval of the
selected VS measurements. They are calculated using the electronic CPT data files, when
available. When the electronic files are not available, average values are determined from the
reported graphical profiles. Because values of Ic are not available for the six sand layers in
Canada, they are approximated using Robertson and Wrides [10] Ic-FC relationship. Calculated
(qc1N)cs values are 0 % to 77 % higher than values of qc1N.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Regression equations are determined for the Holocene sand data from nonlinear
regression analysis by power curve fitting. The decision to use power curve fitting is based
primarily on results of earlier studies. The regression equation developed for 38 (N1)60cs-(VS1)cs
data pairs is expressed as:
(V S1 ) cs = B1[( N1 ) 60cs ] B2

(13)

where B1 = 87.7 14.4 (95 % confidence interval) and B2 = 0.253 0.053, with (VS1)cs in m/s
and (N1)60cs in blows/0.3 m. These values of B1 and B2 are most similar to values obtained in
earlier SPT-VS regression studies by Yoshida et al. [27] for fine sand and Fear and Robertson
[28] for Ottawa sand. The coefficient of multiple regression, R2, and standard deviation of the
residuals (or errors), s, associated with this regression are 0.719 and 19 m/s, respectively.
The equation developed for 41 (qc1N)cs-(VS1)cs data pairs is expressed as:
(V S1 ) cs = B1[(q c1N ) cs ] B2

(14)

where B1 = 67.6 20.4 and B2 = 0.213 0.063, with (VS1)cs in m/s and (qc1N)cs is dimensionless.
These values of B1 and B2 are most similar to values obtained in earlier CPT-VS regression

Andrus et al. 2003

studies by Robertson et al. [29] for mainly quartz sands and Hegazy and Mayne [30] for various
sands. Values of R2 and s associated with this regression are 0.544 and 22 m/s, respectively.
The equation developed for 34 (qc1N)cs-(N1)60cs data pairs is expressed as:
( N1 ) 60cs = B1[(q c1N ) cs ] B 2

(15)

where B1 = 0.488 0.468 and B2 = 0.779 0.184 with (N1)60cs in blows/0.3 m and (qc1N)cs is
dimensionless. It should be noted that similar B1 and B2 values (0.357 and 0.842, respectively)
are obtained when Equations 13 and 14 are set equal to each other and solved for (N1)60cs,
indicating that the three equations are in general agreement. For this regression, R2 = 0.709 and s
= 7 blows/0.3 m.
This high s value of 7 blows/0.3 m associated with Equation 15 is not likely the result of
grain size characteristics. Robertson and Campanella [31] and Seed and de Alba [32] developed
relationships between median grain size, D50, and the ratio of CPT tip resistance to energycorrected SPT blow count. Their relationships exhibit penetration ratios increasing from about
2.5 at D50 = 0.01 mm to about 5.5-8 at D50 = 1 mm. This increasing trend is not seen in the
energy-, overbuden-, and fines content-corrected penetration resistances listed in Table 1.
Presented in Figure 5 are the ratios of corrected penetration resistances compiled for this study
versus corresponding values of D50. Because there is little or no increasing trend in the plotted
(qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs values, it appears that the fines content correction accounted for most, if not all,
of the effects of grain size characteristics.
Equations 13, 14 and 15 are also plotted in Figures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Although
somewhat better fits of the plotted data can be obtained using more complex regression models,
these equations appear to be adequate for the comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods.

Andrus et al. 2003

COMPARISON OF EVALUATION METHODS

As explained by Andrus and Stokoe [4], both the SPT and VS evaluation methods provide
similar predictions of liquefaction resistance when the data point lies on the implied curve in
Figure 2. When the data point plots below the implied curve, the VS method provides the more
conservative prediction. When the data point plots above the implied curve, the SPT method
provides the more conservative prediction. Because most of the data points plot below the
implied curve, the VS method provides an overall more conservative prediction of liquefaction
resistance than does the SPT method below (N1)60cs of 26 for the plotted Holocene sand data.
Above (N1)60cs of 26, both methods appear to provide similar predictions on average. This
finding agrees with the probability assessment of Juang et al. [12], where the SPT-based CRR
curve (see Figure 1a) and the VS-based CRR curve (see Figure 1c) are characterized with average
probability of liquefaction, PL, of 31 % and 26 %, respectively.
Both the CPT and VS evaluation methods provide similar predictions of liquefaction
resistance when the data point lies on the implied curve in Figure 3. When the data point plots
below the implied curve, the VS method provides the more conservative prediction. When the
data point plots above the implied curve, the CPT method provides the more conservative
prediction. Because the majority of the data points lie below the implied curve, the VS method
provides an overall more conservative prediction of liquefaction resistance than does the CPT
method for the plotted data. This finding also agrees with the assessment of Juang et al. [12],
where the CPT-based CRR curve (see Figure 1b) is characterized with average PL of 50 %.
The flatter slope exhibited by the implied curves below (N1)60cs of 6 (see Figure 2) and
(qc1N)cs of 30 (see Figure 3) can be explained by different assumed minimal values of CRR. A
minimum CRR value of 0.05 is assumed for the SPT and CPT curves, whereas 0.033 is assumed

10

Andrus et al. 2003

for the VS curve for the lowest VS1 value (100 m/s) of most soils with FC < 5 %. More
liquefaction/no liquefaction case histories are needed at these lower values of CSR, (N1)60cs,
(qc1N)cs, and (VS1)cs to fully assess these assumptions.
Both the CPT and SPT methods provide the same predictions of liquefaction resistance,
when the data point lies on the implied curve in Figure 4. When the data point plots below the
implied curve, the SPT method provides the more conservative prediction. When the data point
plots above the implied curve, the CPT method provides the more conservative prediction.
Because more of the data points between (qc1N)cs of 40 and 120 plot above the implied curve, the
CPT method provides more conservative predictions of liquefaction resistance than does the SPT
method in this range. Above (qc1N)cs of 120, the mean curve for the data points plots below the
implied curve, indicating the SPT method is more conservative in that range.
Liquefaction resistance curves that are consistent, on average, may be obtained using
Equations 13 and 14 and the VS-based CRR curve defined by [4]:
2

1
1
(V )

CRR7.5cs = 0.022 S1 csa1 + 2.8

100
215 (VS1 ) csa1 215

(16)

Substituting Equations 13 and 14 into Equation 16 leads to the following relationships:

1
1
CRR7.5cs = 0.0169[( N1 ) 60cs ]0.506 + 2.8

215 87.7[( N1 ) 60cs ]0.253 215

(17)

1
1

CRR7.5cs = 0.0101[(q c1N ) cs ]0.426 + 2.8

215 67.6[(qc1N ) cs ]0.213 215

(18)

Equations 17, 18 and 16 are compared with the original curves in Figures 6a, 6b and 6c,
respectively. The ranges where the VS-based CRR curve is more conservative than the SPT- and
CPT-based CRR curves can be clearly seen in these figures.

11

Andrus et al. 2003

Because Equation 16 is characterized with PL = 26 % [12], Equations 17 and 18 should

also define curves of similar PL. To verify this assumption, results of various probability studies
are plotted in Figures 7a, 7b and 7c. In Figure 7a, Equation 17 is compared with six PL = 26 %
curves determined from SPT-based liquefaction case histories. The curves by Liao et al. [33],
Youd and Noble [34], Toprak et al. [35], and Juang et al. [12] Model 1 are derived from logistic
regression analysis. The curves by Cetin et al. [36] and Juang et al. [12] Model 2 are derived
from Bayesian analysis. Five of the PL = 26 % curves suggest upper bounds for liquefaction
occurrence greater than (N1)60cs of 30, the value traditionally assumed as the limiting upper
bound [9]. These larger upper bound values could be real, or they could be the result of the
model assumed. Nevertheless, the agreement is remarkable given the fact that Equation 17 is
derived from VS-based liquefaction case histories and the SPT-VS regression equation.
In Figure 7b, Equation 18 is compared with three PL = 26 % curves determined from
CPT-based liquefaction case histories. The curves by Toprak et al. [35] and Juang et al. [12]
Model 1 are derived from logistic regression analysis. The Model 2 curve by Juang et al. [12] is
derived from Bayesian analysis. It can be seen that Equation 18 generally agrees with all three
curves below (qc1N)cs of 100. Above (qc1N)cs of 100, each curve suggests a different limiting
upper bound value of (qc1N)cs for liquefaction occurrence. Equation 18 and the Juang et al. [12]
Model 1 curve both suggest upper bounds for liquefaction occurrence greater than (qc1N)cs of 160,
the value traditionally assumed as the limiting upper bound [10]. These results support I. M.
Idriss suggestion [2, page 821] that the limiting upper value of 160 be increase by 10-15 %.
Nevertheless, the agreement between Equation 18 and the three PL = 26 % curves is remarkable.
In Figure 7c, Equation 16 is compared with three PL = 26 % curves determined by Juang
et al. [12]. Model 1 is derived from logistic regression analysis using a model similar in form to

12

Andrus et al. 2003

the logistic model equation assumed in the SPT and CPT probability studies [33-35]. Model 2 in
Figure 7c is also derived from logistic regression analysis, but is different from the Model 1
equation by an additional term. Model 3 is the Andrus and Stokoe [4] curve and is characterized
as a PL = 26 % curve from Bayesian analysis. It can be seen that all three curves are in general
agreement below (VS1)csa1 of 210 m/s. The high limiting upper (VS1)csa1 value of 235 m/s
suggested by Model 1 is believed to be the result of the form of the assumed logistic model
equation.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN EVALUATIONS
The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) [37] suggests a factor of safety of 1.2 to 1.5
is appropriate when applying the SPT-based CRR curve by Seed et al. [9] in engineering design
evaluations, where factor of safety, FS, is defined as CRR/CSR

Traditionally, liquefaction is

predicted to occur when FS < 1; and not occur with FS > 1. Juang et al. [12] characterize the
Seed et al. [9] curve as a PL = 31 % curve, and interpret FS values of 1.2 to 1.5 as corresponding
to PL of 20 % to 10 %.
The SPT-, CPT-, and VS-based CRR curves defined by Equations 16, 17 and 18,
respectively, are shown earlier in this paper to be approximately PL = 26 % curves. When
applying these equations in engineering practice, the appropriate range of FS values that
correspond to the BSSCs [37] suggested range is 1.1 to 1.4 [12].
Greater care should be exercised when applying the VS-based CRR curves to soils older
than Holocene age. Preliminary values of Ka1 for Pleistocene-age (10,000 to 1.8 million years)
sands are given in Andrus and Stokoe [4] and Andrus et al. [3, 5]. These values of Ka1 should be
used when applying the VS-based CRR curves to Pleistocene sands. Work is under way to
develop a continuous relationship between age and Ka1, and will be presented in another paper.

13

Andrus et al. 2003

CONCLUSIONS
Regression analyses were performed on penetration and VS data pairs from Holocene
sands, and the resulting equations were compared with relationships implied by CRR curves for
three liquefaction evaluation methods. Based on the comparisons, the following conclusions can
be made:
1. For the compiled Holocene sand data, the SPT-based CRR curve [9] between (N1)60cs
values of 8 to 20 was shown to be less conservative, on average, than the VS- and
CPT-based CRR curves [4, 10]. The CPT-based CRR curve above a (qc1N )cs value of
about 120 was shown to be less conservative than the SPT- and VS-based CRR curves.
These results are in general agreement with a recent probability study [12].
2. New equations were developed for estimating CRR from (N1)60cs and (qc1N )cs by
substituting the developed regression equations into the equation defining the VSbased CRR curve. These new equations compared well with PL = 26 % curves
developed by various investigators using SPT and CPT liquefaction case histories.
3. More high-quality penetration-VS data are needed from other deposit and soil types to
further compare the liquefaction evaluation methods. One advantage of studying
penetration-VS relationships is that they provide comparisons of the evaluation
methods without needing to calculate CSR. Thus, data from sites not shaken by
strong earthquakes, which have been largely ignored in the past, can be used in the
comparisons.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was funded in part by the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
under USGS award number 01HQGR0007; and by the South Carolina Department of

14

Andrus et al. 2003

Transportation (SCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration under SCDOT Research
Project No. 623. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors
and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or
implied, of the U.S. Government or the State of South Carolina. The authors acknowledge the
insights shared by K. H. Stokoe, II of The University of Texas at Austin during earlier
collaborative studies and by T. L. Holzer of USGS during parts of this work. The authors also
express their sincere thanks to the many individuals who generously assisted with data
compilation. In particular, T. L. Holzer, M. J. Bennett, J. C. Tinsley, III, and T. E. Noce of
USGS, S. Iai of the Port and Harbour Research Institute in Japan, R. Boulanger of the University
of California at Davis, and T. J. Casey and W. B. Wright of Wright Padgett Christopher.
REFERENCES
[1]

Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 1971; 97(9): 1249-1273.

[2]

Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R.,
Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C.,
Marcuson, W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson,
P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2001; 127(10): 817-833.

[3]

Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, and Juang, C.H. Guide for shear wave-based liquefaction
potential evaluation. Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 2004; 20(2): in press.

15

Andrus et al. 2003

[4]

Andrus, R.D., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave
velocity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2000;
126(11): 1015-1025.

[5]

Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, Chung, R.M., and Juang, C.H. Guidelines for evaluating
liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures.
NIST GCR 03-854, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,
2003.

[6]

Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, and Chung, R.M.

Draft guidelines for evaluating

liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures.
NISTIR 6277, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.
[7]

Chrisley, J.C. Consistency between liquefaction prediction based on SPT, CPT, and VS
measurements at the same site. M.S. Report, University of Texas at Austin, 1999.

[8]

Toprak, S., and Holzer, T.L. Liquefaction potential index: field assessment. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2003; 129(4): 315-322.

[9]

Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M. Influence of SPT procedures in
soil liquefaction resistance evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1985;
111(12): 1425-1445.

[10] Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E.. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the Cone
Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998; 35(3): 442-459.
[11] Olsen, R.S. Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetration test. Proceedings, NCEER
Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997; 225276.

16

Andrus et al. 2003

[12] Juang, C.H., Jiang, T., and Andrus, R.D.

Assessing probability-based methods for

liquefaction potential evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, ASCE, 2002; 128(7): 580-589.
[13] Mitchell, J.K., Lodge, A.L., Coutinho, R.Q., Kayen, R.E., Seed, R.B., Nishio, S., and
Stokoe, K.H., II. Insitu test results from four Loma Prieta earthquake liquefaction sites:
SPT, CPT, DMT, and Shear Wave Velocity. Report No. UCB/EERC-09/04, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1994.
[14] Youd, T.L., and Bennett, M.J. Liquefaction sites, Imperial Valley, California. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1983; 109(3): 440-457.
[15] Bierschwale, J.G., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Analytical evaluation of liquefaction potential of
sands subjected to the 1981 Westmorland earthquake. Geotechnical Engineering Report
GR-84-15, University of Texas at Austin, 1984.
[16] Boulanger, R.W., Mejia, L.H., and Idriss, I.M. Liquefaction at Moss Landing during Loma
Prieta earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2002; 123(5): 453-467.
[17] Fuhriman, M.D. Crosshole seismic tests at two northern California sites affected by the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1993.
[18] Hryciw, R.D.

Post Loma Prieta earthquake CPT, DMT and shear wave velocity

investigations of liquefaction sites in Santa Cruz and on Treasure Island. Final Report to
the U.S. Geological Survey, Award No. 14-08-0001-G1865, University of Michigan at Ann
Arbor, 1991.
[19] Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M.J., Noce, T.E., Padovani, A.C., Tinsley, J.C., III. Liquefaction
hazard and shaking amplification maps of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and

17

Andrus et al. 2003

Piedmont: A digital database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-296, 2002;
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-296.
[20] WPC.

Various unpublished project reports, Wright Padgett Christopher, Inc., Mount

Pleasant, SC, 2000-2001.

[21] Wride (Fear), C.E., Robertson, P.K., Biggar, K.W., Campanella, R.G., Hofman, B.A.,
Hughes, J.M.O., Kpper, A., and Woeller, D.J. Interpretation of in situ test results from the
CANLEX sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2000; 37: 505-529.
[22] Iai, S. Personal communication on sites in Hakodate Port, Japan, 1997.
[23] Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K. Response of a dense sand
deposit during 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake. Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1995; 35(1): 115-131.
[24] Ishihara, K., Kokusho, T., Yasuda, S., Goto, Y., Yoshida, N., Hatanaka, M., and Ito, K.
Dynamics properties of Masado fill in Kobe Port Island improved through soil compaction
method. Summary of Final Report by Geotechnical Research Collaboration Committee on
the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Obayashi Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
[25] Piratheepan, P. Estimating shear-wave velocity from SPT and CPT data. M.S. Thesis,
Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 2002.
[26] Ellis, B.S. Regression equations for estimating shear-wave velocity in South Carolina
sediments using penetration test data. M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC,
2003.
[27] Yoshida, Y., Ikemi, M., and Kokusho, T. Empirical formulas of SPT blow counts for
gravelly soils. Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, Orlando, FL, 1988; 2: 381-387.

18

Andrus et al. 2003

[28] Fear, C.E., and Robertson, P.K. Estimating the undrained strength of sand: a theoretical
framework. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1995; 32: 859-870.
[29] Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J., and Finn, W.D.L. Seismic CPT for evaluating liquefaction
potential. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1992; 29: 686-695.
[30] Hegazy, Y.A., and Mayne, P.W. Statistical correlations between VS and cone penetration
data for different soil types. Proceedings, International Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing, CPT 95, Linkoping, Sweden, Swedish Geotechnical Society, 1995; 2: 173-178.
[31] Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1988; 111(3): 384-403.
[32] Seed, H.B., and de Alba, P. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction
resistance of sands. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1986; 12491273.
[33] Liao, S.S.C., Veneziano, D., and Whitman, R.V.

Regression model for evaluating

liquefaction probability. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1988; 114(4): 389410.

[34] Youd, T.L., and Noble, S.K. Liquefaction criteria based on statistical and probabilisitic
analysis. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997; 201-216.
[35] Toprak, S., Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M.J., and Tinsley, J.C., III.

CPT- and SPT-based

probabilitistic assessment of liquefaction. Proceedings of the Seventh US-Japan Workshop

on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Counter-measures Against

19

Andrus et al. 2003

Liquefaction, Technical Report MCEER-00-0019, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1999; 69-86.
[36] Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., and Der Kiureghian, A. Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction
initiation hazard. Proceedings of the Twelth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.
[37] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulation for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA 368, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000; Part 2: page 196.

20

Andrus et al. 2003

Table 1. Data from Holocene soil deposits with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25.
Site Name

Depth
(m)

USCS
Soil
Type

D50
(mm)

FCa
(%)

VS Test
Typeb

VS1cs
(m/s)

(N1)60cs

California, USA
Bay Bridge, SFOBB1
5.4 - 7.2
SP-SM
0.26
12
CH
152
7
Bay Bridge, SFOBB1
8.0 - 9.9
SP-SM
0.27
8
CH
151
20
Bay Farm Island-Dike
3.7 - 5.0
SP-SM
0.23
8
CH
211
53
Bay Farm Island-Dike
5.0 - 7.8
SP-SM
0.28
12
CH
250
48
Heber Road, Point Bar
1.8 - 4.2
SM
0.11
18
CH
233
34
Port of Oakland, P007-2
3.0 - 5.1
SP-SM
0.29
7
CH/SCPT
183
22
Port of Oakland, P007-2
5.3 - 6.8
SP-SM
0.30
6
CH/SCPT
172
13
Port of Oakland, P007-2
6.8 - 9.1
SP-SM
0.30
3
CH/SCPT
167
16
Sandholt Road, UC-4
2.1 - 3.5
SP
0.85
2
SCPT
161
15
Sandholt Road, UC-4
6.3 - 10.1
SP
1.11
3
SCPT
216
43
State Beach, UC-15
2.0 - 3.8
SP
0.28
2
SCPT
137
7
State Beach, UC-15
3.8 - 5.5
SP
0.38
1
SCPT
156
9
State Beach, UC-15
5.6 - 8.7
SP
1.68
2
SCPT
231
39
State Beach, UC-16
2.4 - 4.6
SP
0.43
2
SCPT
192
22
State Beach, UC-16
4.6 - 6.7
SP
0.57
1
SCPT
175
17
State Beach, UC-16
6.7 - 8.6
SP
0.57
1
SCPT
197
30
Treasure Island, B1-B3
2.2 - 4.0
SP-SM
0.21
7
CH
162
21
Treasure Island, B1-B3
9.0 - 11.5
SM
0.21
14
CH
183
17
Treasure Island, UM-05
3.3 - 5.7
SP
0.33
4
SCPT
170
14
Treasure Island, UM-05
5.8 - 8.3
SP-SC
0.33
7
SCPT
188
18
Treasure Island, UM-06
2.2 - 5.0
SP
nac
3
SCPT
175
12
Treasure Island, UM-06
5.0 - 10.4
SP
1.41
3
SCPT
193
21
Treasure Island, UM-09
2.7 - 6.3
SP-SC
0.15
11
SCPT
161
9
USGS Alameda, ALC026
4.0 - 10.0
na
na
7d
SCPT
233
na
South Carolina, USA
WPC 2000-344, SC2
6.4 - 10.4
na
na
6d
SCPT
193
na
WPC 2000-344, SC3
4.5 - 8.5
na
na
6d
SCPT
160
na
WPC 2000-344, SC5A
3.8 - 8.8
SM
0.13
29
SCPT
224
29
WPC 2000-344, SC5B
3.8 - 10.8
SM
na
7d
SCPT
210
na
WPC 2000-344, SC10
7.4 - 10.4
na
na
20d
SCPT
247
na
WPC 2000-344, SC15
6.4 - 10.4
na
na
6d
SCPT
198
na
WPC 2001-211, SCPT4
1.7 - 4.7
na
na
9d
SCPT
253
na
Canada
Fraser River Delta, Kidd
12.0 - 17.0
SP
0.20
<5
SCPT
177
13
Fraser River Delta, Massey
8.0 - 13.0
SP
0.20
<5
SCPT
168
10
HVC Mine, LL Dam
6.0 - 10.0
SP-SM
0.25
8
SCPT
154
5
HVC Mine, Highmont Dam
8.0 12.0
SP-SM
0.25
10
SCPT
142
6
Syncrude, J-Pit
3.0 7.0
SM
0.17
15
SCPT
129
6
Syncrude, Mildred Lake
27.0 37.0
SP-SM
0.16
10
SCPT
157
19
Japan
Hakodate Port No. 1
2.5 5.5
SM
0.13
31
SL
163
14
Hakodate Port No. 1
8.5 11.4
SP-SM
0.24
7
SL
149
7
Hakodate Port No. 2
3.5 8.4
SP-SM
0.29
8
SL
171
7
Hakodate Port No. 3
6.5 - 11.8
SM
0.08
39
SL
152
24
Kushiro Port, No. 2 (PB-1)
3.5 - 5.5
SP-SM
0.17
7
SL
196
25
Kushiro Port, No. 2 (PB-1)
5.5 - 7.5
SP-SM
0.19
8
SL
298
56
Port Island, Common Factory
3.8 - 8.0
SP-SM
na
6
DH
208
29
Port Island, Common Factory
8.0 - 12.0
SP-SM
na
6
DH
212
28
a
FC = fines content (silt and clay)
b
CH = crosshole; SCPT = seismic CPT; SL = suspension logger; DH = downhole
c
na = not available
d
Estimated fines content or Ic from: FC = 1.75Ic 3.25-3.7 for 1.26 < Ic < 3.5 (Robertson and Wride [10])

21

Ic

qc1Ncs

Source

2.15
1.90
1.35
2.09
2.00
1.50
1.88
1.71
1.42
1.19
1.90
1.73
1.32
1.47
1.40
1.32
1.87
2.11
1.82
1.88
2.10
1.82
2.04
1.73

67
77
321
185
319
173
73
112
188
332
67
76
204
171
166
201
85
64
79
72
44
73
68
237

[13]
[13]
[13]
[13]
[14,15]
[13]
[13]
[13]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[17]
[17]
[18]
[18]
[18]
[18]
[18]
[19]

1.67
1.72
1.61
1.77
2.24
1.68
1.85

108
118
130
105
229
105
158

[20]
[20]
[20]
[20]
[20]
[20]
[20]

<1.64 d
<1.64 d
1.79 d
1.88 d
2.07 d
1.88 d

68
53
43
52
28
87

[21]
[21]
[21]
[21]
[21]
[21]

1.95
1.99
1.83
1.85
na
na
na
na

60
62
60
85
na
na
na
na

[22]
[22]
[22]
[22]
[23]
[23]
[24]
[24]

0.5
0.4

Liquefaction
Modified
Seed et al.
(1985)

0.3
0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0

0.6

Mw = 7.5
D50 = 0.25-2 mm

(a)
0.5
0.4

(b)

Liquefaction
Robertson
& Wride
(1998)

0.3
0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0
0

10

20

30

40

Corrected SPT Blow Count,

(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m

50

50

100

150

200

250

Corrected CPT Tip Resistance,

(qc1N)cs

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.6

Mw = 7.5

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

22

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.6

Mw = 7.5

(c)

0.5
0.4

Liquefaction

0.3

Andrus
& Stokoe
(2000)

0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0
100

125 150

175 200

225 250

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,

(VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 1. Liquefaction resistance curves based on SPT by Seed et al. (1985), CPT by Robertson and Wride (1998),
and VS by Andrus and Stokoe (2000)
Andrus et al. 2003

Andrus et al. 2003

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity, (VS1)cs

300
Mean curve:
(VS1)cs = 87.7 [(N 1)60cs]0.253
250
Curve implied from
CRR relationships
200

Location

150

California
Canada
Japan
So. Carolina

100
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Corrected SPT Blow Count, (N 1)60cs

Figure 2. Relationships between (VS1)cs and (N1)60cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity, (VS1)cs

300

Location
Curve implied from
CRR relationships

California
Canada
Japan
So. Carolina

250

(qc1N)cs
= 319
= 332
= 321

200

150
Mean curve:
(VS1)cs = 67.6 [(q c1N)cs]0.213
100
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, (qc1N)cs

Figure 3. Relationships between (VS1)cs and (qc1N)cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

23

Andrus et al. 2003

Corrected SPT Blow Count, (N 1)60cs

60

Location

(qc1N)cs
= 321

California
Canada
Japan
So. Carolina

50
40

= 332

= 319

Curve implied from

CRR relationships

30

20
Mean curve:
(N1)60cs = 0.488 [(q c1N)cs]0.779

10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, (qc1N)cs

Figure 4. Relationships between (N1)60cs and (qc1N)cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

24

Corrected Penetration Ratio, (qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs

Andrus et al. 2003

12

10
8

Location
(qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs = 12.5

California
Canada
Japan
So. Carolina

2
0
0.01

0.1

10

Median Grain Size, D50, mm

Figure 5. Relationship between corrected penetration ratio and median grain size for
uncemented, Holocene sands

25

0.5
Liquefaction
0.4
Modified
Seed et al.
(1985)

0.3

Eq. 17

0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0

0.6

Mw = 7.5
D50 = 0.25-2 mm

(a)
0.5

(b)

Liquefaction
0.4
Robertson
& Wride
(1998)

0.3

Eq. 18

0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0
0

10

20

30

40

Corrected SPT Blow Count,

(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m

50

50

100

150

200

250

Corrected CPT Tip Resistance,

(qc1N)cs

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.6

Mw = 7.5

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

26

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.6

Mw = 7.5

(c)

0.5
0.4

Liquefaction
Eq. 16
Andrus
& Stokoe
(2000)

0.3
0.2
0.1

No
Liquefaction

0.0
100

125 150

175 200

225 250

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,

(VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 6. Comparison of liquefaction resistance curves by Seed et al. (1985), Robertson and Wride (1998),
and Andrus and Stokoe (2000) with curves derived from penetration-VS equations
Andrus et al. 2003

0.5

Youd &
Noble
(1997)

Liao
et al.
(1988)

0.4

Cetin
et al.
(2000)

0.2

Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 1
Toprak
et al.
(1999)

0.3

Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 2

0.1
Eq. 17

0.6

(a)

0.0

Mw = 7.5
PL = 0.26

0.5
0.4

Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 2
Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 1

Toprak
et al.
(1999)

0.3
0.2
0.1

Eq. 18

0.0
0

10

20

30

40

Corrected SPT Blow Count,

(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m

50

0.6

(b)
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Mw = 7.5
PL = 0.26

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

27

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.6

0.5

Mw = 7.5
PL = 0.26

0.4

Eq. 16,
Andrus &
Stokoe
(2000);
Juang et al.
(2002)
Model 3

0.3
0.2

(c)
Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 2

Juang
et al.
(2002)
Model 1

0.1
0.0

50

100

150

200

250

Corrected CPT Tip Resistance,

(qc1N)cs

100

125 150

175 200

225 250

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,

(VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 7. Comparison of liquefaction resistance curves derived from the CRR curve by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and penetration-VS
equations with PL = 26 % curves developed by various invesitgators
Andrus et al. 2003