EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL USING

FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA"

By H. Bolton Seed,1 F. ASCE, I. M. Idriss,2 and Ignacio Arango,3
Members, ASCE

ABSTRACT: The evolution of a simplified procedure for evaluating the lique-

faction potential of sand deposits using data obtained from standard penetra-
tion tests is reviewed. Field data for sites which are known to have liquefied
or not liquefied during earthquakes in the United States, Japan, China, Gua-
temala, Argentina, and other countries are presented to establish a criterion for
evaluating the liquefaction potential of sands in Magnitude 7-1/2 earthquakes.
The results of this study are then extended to other magnitude earthquakes
using a combination of laboratory and field data. Available information on the
liquefaction resistance of silty sands is also reviewed and a simple procedure
for considering the influence of silt content is proposed. A method is presented
for using the field data to evaluate the possible magnitude of pore water pres-
sure generation in sands and silty sands which remain stable during earthquake
shaking. Finally, the applicability of other in situ field tests, such as the static
cone penetrometer, shear wave velocity, and electrical measurements for eval-
uating the liquefaction resistance of soils is examined.

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

There are basically two methods available for evaluating the cyclic liq-
uefaction potential to a deposit of saturated sand subjected to earth-
quake shaking:

1. Using methods based on field observations of the performance of

sand deposits in previous earthquakes and involving the use of some
in situ characteristic of the deposits to determine probable similarities or
dissimilarities between these sites and a proposed new site with regard
to their potential behavior.
2. Using methods based on an evaluation of the cyclic stress or strain
conditions likely to be developed in the field by a proposed design earth-
quake and a comparison of these stresses or strains with those observed
to cause liquefaction of representative samples of the deposit in some
appropriate laboratory test which provides an adequate simulation of
'Presented at t h e October 2 6 - 3 1 , 1981, ASCE Convention a n d Exposition, h e l d
at St. Louis, M o .
'Prof, of Civ. Engrg., 440 Davis Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif. 94720.
Principal, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, Calif.
3
A s s o c , Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, Calif.
Note.Discussion o p e n until A u g u s t 1, 1983. To extend the closing date o n e
month, a written request m u s t b e filed with t h e ASCE Manager of Technical a n d
Professional Publications. The manuscript for this p a p e r w a s submitted for re-
view and possible publication on March 4, 1982. This p a p e r is part of the Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, N o . 3, March, 1983. ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9410/83/0003-0458/$01.00. Proc. N o . 17785.

458
field conditions or which can provide results permitting an assessment
of the soil behavior under field conditions.

These are usually considered quite different approaches, since the first
method is based on empirical correlations of some in situ characteristic
and observed performance, while the second method is based entirely
on an analysis of stress or strain conditions and the use of laboratory
testing procedures.
In fact, however, because of the manner in which field performance
data are often expressed, the two methods involve the same basic ap-
proach and differ only in the manner in which the field liquefaction
characteristics of a deposit are determined.
Thus, for instance, it has been found that a convenient parameter for
expressing the cyclic liquefaction characteristics of a sand under level
ground conditions is the cyclic stress ratio, i.e., the ratio of the average
cyclic shear stress jh developed on horizontal surfaces of the sand as a
result of the cyclic or earthquake loading to the initial vertical effective
stress v'0 acting on the sand layer before the cyclic stresses were applied.
This parameter has the advantage of taking into account the depth of
the soil layer involved, the depth of the water table, and the intensity
of earthquake shaking or other cyclic loading phenomena.
The cyclic stress ratio developed in the field due to earthquake shaking
can readily be computed from an equation of the form (27): i!

= 0.65 --u (1)

Co g "o j
in which amax = maximum acceleration at the ground surface; (T = total !,
overburden pressure on sand layer under consideration; o'0 = initial ef- I
fective overburden pressure on sand layer under consideration; and rd <,
= stress reduction factor varying from a value of 1 at the ground surface I' i
to a value of 0.9 at a d e p t h of about 30 ft (9.6 m). Values of this p a r a m -
eter have been correlated, for sites which have a n d have not liquefied [,
during actual earthquakes, with parameters indicative of soil character- |
istics, such as relative density based on penetration test data (30), some [i,
form of corrected penetration resistance (3,29), or the electrical charac- M
teristics of soil deposits (1). Thus, in evaluating the liquefaction resis- i
tance of a n e w site for a given level of shaking, the stress ratio induced j
by the earthquake can be determined b y Eq. 1, or a procedure similar |'
to that on which this equation is based, a n d compared with the stress
ratio required to cause liquefaction of the soil determined either: (1) By .
use of the field correlations discussed previously; or (2) by m e a n s of I,
laboratory tests on representative samples of the soil deposit involved. |
The evaluation procedure may be conducted in terms of stress ratio, f.
stress, or strain. However, n o matter which of these parameters is used, {,,
the in situ properties can only be evaluated reliably if appropriate tests J*
are performed on in situ deposits or on undisturbed samples. Because
of the great difficulty in obtaining undisturbed samples of sand deposits,
many engineers have preferred to adopt the field performance correla-
tion approach since it circumvents this aspect of the problem (22).
While in principle, soil liquefaction characteristics determined b y field

459
performance can be correlated with a variety of soil index parameters,
such as standard penetration resistance, cone penetration resistance,
electrical properties, shear wave velocity, and perhaps others, there is
little field data available to establish good correlations of field perfor-
mance with any soil characteristics other than the standard penetration
resistance. This situation will no doubt change with time, as other index
parameters are determined for soils whose liquefaction resistance has
been established by actual earthquakes, and possibly improved corre-
lations will be developed. Furthermore, other parameters can potentially
be measured more accurately, over a wider depth range, and in more
difficult environmental conditions than can the standard penetration re-
sistance (SPT).
However, because the SPT has been so widely used in the past, the
great bulk of available field performance data are currently only corre-
lated with this index of soil characteristics, and it is the purpose of this
report to summarize the available information concerning these cor-
relations.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Various studies in recent years have shown the potential variability in

the conditions utilized in this supposedly standardized test procedure
intended to measure the number of blows (of a 140-lb (63.5-kg) hammer
falling freely through a height of 30 in. (760 mm) required to drive a
standard sampling tube (2 in. (51 mm) OD and 1-1/2: ID) 12 in. (305
mm) into the ground. For instance, Kovacs, et al. (14,15) made careful
investigations of the energy in the hammer at its impact with the top of
the sampling rod-anvil system, when using the conventional practice of
lifting the hammer by means of a rope wrapped around a rotating drum,
as compared with an ideal triggering device giving a truly free fall to
the 140-lb (63.5-kg) drive weight. It was found that typically the energy
in the hammer at impact when using the rope and drum procedure with
two turns of the rope was only about 60% of that delivered by a free-
falling weight. For three turns, this was reduced to 40%; other minor
variations were introduced by using old or new rope and changing the
speed of the pulley. The writers concluded that an energy standard should
be adopted as a criterion for the SPT test and in the meantime, all per-
tinent test conditions should be made a standard part of the boring log
to aid in interpreting the results.
From recent comprehensive theoretical and field studies of the stan-
dard penetration test at the University of Florida (21,23), Schmertmann
(24) concluded that the results may be significantly influenced by such
factors as: (1) The use of drilling mud vs. casing for supporting the walls
of the drill hole; (2) the use of a hollow stem auger versus casing and
water; (3) the size of the drill hole; (4) the number of turns of the rope
around the drum; (5) the use of a small or large anvil; (6) the length of
the drive rods; (7) the use of nonstandard sampling tubes; and (8) the
depth range (0 in.-12 in. (0 mm-305 mm) or 6 in.-18 in. (152 mm-457
mm)) over which the penetration resistance is measured.
Both Schmertmann and Kovacs, et al. conclude that a necessary pre-
requisite to the satisfactory use of the standard penetration test as a
460
measure of any soil characteristic is an increased degree of standardiza-
tion. Schmertmann (24) suggests that this is particularly true with re-
spect to: (1) The amount of energy delivered into the drilling rods; and
(2) the use of rotary drilling methods and a drill hole continuously filled
with drilling mud.
If this approach is adopted, much of the variability can be eliminated
by adopting standard test conditions and applying correlations for oth-
ers. Thus, in the present report, the loss of driving energy, which results
from using a short length of rods, is corrected by multiplying the mea-
sured N values in the depth range 0 ft-10 ft (0 m-3.05 m) by a factor of
0.75, and other aspects of the test are standardized by using data from
tests performed under the following conditions: (1) The use of a rope
and drum system, with two turns of the rope around the drum, to lift
the falling weight; (2) drilling mud to support the sides of the hole; (3)
a relatively small diameter hole, approx 4 in. in diam; and (4) penetra-
tion resistance measured over the range 6 in.-18 in. (152 mm-457 mm)
penetration into the ground.
While it is recognized that these conditions do not represent the stan-
dard prescribed in the ideal test procedure, they represent conditions
widely used for many years, both in North America and in other coun-
tries throughout the world, and they have been used in establishing
much of the field data available for liquefaction correlations. Thus, their
adoption for the purposes of this report is justified for this reason alone.
Where test conditions deviate from those iisted, appropriate corrections
to the measured results should be made before using the correlation
charts presented herein.

CORRELATION OF SPT WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF SAND DEPOSITS IN

PREVIOUS EARTHQUAKES

It was not until the Alaska and Niigata earthquakes of 1964 that geo-
technical engineers took serious interest in the general phenomenon of
earthquake-induced liquefaction or cyclic mobility or the conditions re-
sponsible for causing them to occur in the field. Following the Niigata
earthquake, a number of Japanese engineers (12,13,19) studied the areas
in Niigata where liquefaction had and had not occurred and developed
criteria, based primarily on the standard penetration resistance of the
sand deposits, for differentiating between liquefiable and nonliquefiable
conditions in that city. The results of these studies for Niigata are shown
in Fig. 1. It should be recognized, however, that these results are not
likely to be applicable to other areas where shaking intensities may be
stronger or water tables may be at different depths than that in the Nii-
gata area.
Subsequently, a more comprehensive collection of site conditions at
various locations where some evidence of liquefaction or no liquefaction
was known to have taken place was presented by Seed and Peacock (30)
and used as a basis to determine the relationship between field values
of cyclic stress ratio ^/(T'O (in which ih = the average horizontal shear
stress induced by an earthquake; and u'0 = the initial effective overbur-
den pressure on the soil layer involved), and the relative density of the
sand, as determined from the standard penetration resistance and its
461
 Light domage-
no liquefaction

\ !

\
>
Heavy damage

and liquefaction
To-*
I N.

Boundary determined by field observation (Koizumi)

10 20 30 40
Standard Penetration Resistance, N - blows/foot

FIG. 1.Analysis of Liquefaction Potential at Niigata for Earthquake of June 16,

1964

correlation with relative density proposed by Gibbs and Holtz (9). This
collection of field cases, shown in Fig. 2, has subsequently been used
by others, often supplemented by a few additional site studies (3,4) to
determine other correlations between liquefaction-producing parameters
and penetration resistance. The most recently published form of this field
data collection is shown in Fig. 3(a) (after Seed, Mori, and Chan (29)).
Values of stress ratio known to be associated with some evidence of

Uquefo l i o n ; maximum ground occelerolt 30 recorded

e Uquefo tiofi; maximum ground aceeleroti n esti moled
O No Eque octioni maximurr ground acceler tion recorded
o No liqua action; maximum ground occeler fion estimated

*
O

frljo.

q.
>

0
G

ill " o O
^ *

Relative Density - percent

FIG. 2.Relationship between (Thv)J<j'0 and Relative Density for Known Cases
of Liquefaction and Nonllquefaction
462
 e Liquefoction; stress ratio based on estimated acceleration
# Liquefaction; stress rotio based on good acceleration dato
a No liquefaction) stress ratio based on estimated acceleration
O No liquefaction; stress ratio based on good acceleration data
1 1 1 1 1 1

Lower bound for sites - \ ^ ^ /

where liquefoction occurred ^~^-*

a /

;f

e
/ -
/

- s y -
o
"0 /
o 0.1
f

1 1' l I i i i
20 30
Ni - blows per foot
(")

n- 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1

1 1 1

05 -
1.0
ft.

** 1.5 -
ons

*"
Pressure

- -
ro

1"
o 35
/
1u
an
/
s" 1
45

1 l

(W

FIG. 3.(a) Correlation between Stress Ratio Causing Liquefaction in the Field
and Penetration Resistance of Sand; (b) Relationship between C, and Effective
Overburden Pressure
463
liquefaction or no liquefaction in the field are plotted as a function of
the normalized penetration resistance Ni of the sand deposit involved.
In this form of presentation, N1 is the measured penetration resistance
corrected to an effective overburden pressure of 1 ton/sq ft (4.8 kPa)
and can be determined from the relationship:
Ni = C N 'N (2)
in which CN = a function of the effective overburden pressure at the
depth where the penetration test was conducted. In early studies, values
of CN were read from the chart shown in Fig. 3(b), but more represent-
ative values are now determined from the chart shown in Fig. 4, which
is based on recent studies conducted at the Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion (2,17).
Thus, for any given site and a given value of maximum ground surface
acceleration, the possibility of cyclic mobility or liquefaction can be eval-
uated readily on an empirical basis with the aid of this chart by deter-
mining the appropriate values of N1 for the sand layers involved, read-
ing off a lower bound value of Tave/ai for sites where some evidence of
liquefaction is known to have occurred (such as the line shown in Fig.
3(a)), and comparing this value with that induced by the design earth-
quake for the site under investigation (computed from Eq. 1). One of
the greatest limitations of this plot at the time it was presented was the
limited number of reliable data points available to define the boundary
separating liquefiable from nonliquefiable sites. However, in the past six

0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

~~I 1 1 1 1 1 1

qc-volues by CPT-
(Dr = 40to 8 0 %

0.2 0.4 0.6 08 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

FIG. 4.Recommended Curves for Determination of CN

464
years, supplementary data has been provided from a variety of sources
to increase the data base greatly. Sources of this data include the fol-
lowing: data from the Chinese Building Code and data from the Hai-
cheng and Tangshan Earthquakes in China.
Data from Chinese Building Code (1974).Liquefaction studies in
mainland China, apparently conducted independently but along similar
lines to those developed in the United States, have also led to a corre-
lation between earthquake shaking conditions causing cyclic mobility or
liquefaction and the standard penetration resistance of sands (8). In this
correlation, the critical value of the standard penetration resistance, N crit ,
separating liquefiable from nonliquefiable conditions to a depth of ap-
prox 50 ft (15 m) is determined by
Ncrit = N[l + 0.125 (ds - 3) - 0.05 (dw - 2)] (3)
in which ds = depth to sand layer under consideration, in meters; dw =
depth of water below ground surface, in meters; and N = a function of
the shaking intensity as follows:

Modified Mercalli Intensity N, in blows per foot

=VH 6
=VIII 10
=XI 16

This correlation, for a water table depth of 2 m, reduced to the same

0.5 1 1 1

0.4 & -
*/
#y
- /

J!
/ - Relationship proposed by
Seedetal.{B75)-no Chinese data
Relationship proposed in
1974 Chinese code based
on Chinese data

i i i
10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N( - blows/ft

FIG. 5.Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Rec-

ommendations of 1974 Chinese Code
465
parameters as those used in Fig. 3, with the aid of the correlation be-
tween earthquake shaking intensity and maximum ground acceleration
developed by Trifunac and Brady (34), is plotted in Fig. 5 where it is
also compared with the lower bound line for sites showing evidence of
some degree of cyclic mobility or liquefaction shown in Fig. 3(a). It may
be seen that there is apparently a very high degree of agreement be-
tween the critical boundary determined in this way with that shown in
Fig. 3(a). It is significant and remarkable that such a great similarity both
in procedures and criteria should have evolved in countries with so little
technical communication at the time the individual plots were developed.
Data from the Haicheng and Tangshan Earthquakes in China.More
recent data for nine sites known to have liquefied and five for which
there was no apparent liquefaction in the Haicheng (1974) and Tangshan
(1976) earthquakes in China (Magnitudes 7.3 and 7.8, respectively) have
been presented by Xie (36). These data, reduced to the form shown in
Fig. 3 with the aid of the Trifunac and Brady correlation between inten-
sity and peak ground acceleration are shown in Fig. 6, together with the
boundary line from Fig. 3(a).
Data from the Guatemala Earthquake of 1976.During the Guate-
mala earthquake of 1976 (Magnitude 7.6) extensive liquefaction occurred
in the area of La Playa on the edge of Lake Amatitlan. A detailed report
of field and laboratory studies of the soil conditions in the area affected,
in the adjacent area where no liquefaction occurred, and just beyond the
boundary of the liquefaction zone has been presented by Seed, et al.
(26). The correlation between induced stress ratio Tave/ff^ and the nor-
malized SPT values for the different zones are shown in Fig. 7 where
they are again compared with the boundary line separating sites known
to have liquefied or not liquefied taken from Fig. 3(a).
Data from the Argentina Earthquake of 1977.In November, 1977, a
major earthquake with Magnitude 7.4 occurred in San Juan Province,
Argentina, and relationships between induced stress ratio determined
from ground acceleration and standard penetration test data for 11 sites
where liquefaction occurred and nine sites where liquefaction did not
occur have been presented by Idriss (10). Penetration data for the liq-
uefied sites was taken in adjacent areas where liquefaction was not ap-
parent. The results of these studies are presented in Fig. 8.
Data from Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake, Japan of 1978.An abundant
series of new data points, obtained primarily as a result of studies fol-
lowing the Miyagiken-Oki earthquake in Japan in June, 1978 (Magnitude
7.4), were presented by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (32). The data are pre-
sented in a slightly different form from that used in the plots shown in
Figs. 3-8, but they can readily be converted to the same form on the
basis of the information provided in the report.
For sands with a mean grain diameter, D50 > 0.25 mm, the corrected
data from this study are shown in Fig. 9 where they are compared with
the boundary line determined in Fig. 3. It may be seen that there is
generally good agreement although some sites where liquefaction ap-
parently did not occur are found to plot above the boundary line. It is
appropriate that this may occur since sites where liquefaction is not re-
ported cannot be considered with the same degree of confidence as sites
where evidence of liquefaction is clearly apparent. This is due to the fact
466
 0 10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N| -blows/ft

FIG. 6.Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Haicheng and Tangshan Earthquakes

1 1 I
Conditions cousin 3 liquefaction Guatemala Eq,,
o Conditions with no apparent liquefaction 1976 ,
o
/
o
XZ
*-' /
ex

s.
w
V
0.4 /
\L
a. V
8
</i
a)


t V 0.3 Liquefac ion f

Di

s
%O I-
O
1
V
- -

No Liq uefaction ~"

1 i
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetrdtion Resistance, N| - blows/ft.

FIG. 7.Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Guatemala Earthquake, 1976
467
 0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N|-biows/ft.

FIG. 8.Comparison of Empirical Chart for Predicting Liquefaction with Data from
Argentina Earthquake, 1977

@ Liquefaction
No apparent liquefoction

t 0.4

b-
p
I 0.2

ft O.I

10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, Ni -blows/ft.

FIG. 9.-~Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Sands (D50 > 0.25
mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance
468
that in the absence of surface evidence of liquefaction a site can only be
classified as one with "no apparent liquefaction" since there is some
possibility that liquefaction may have occurred at some depth below the
ground surface, but its effects were not evidenced at the ground surface.
Viewed in this light, the data points shown in Fig. 9 may be considered
good confirmatory evidence of the position of the boundary line shown
for sandy sites and Magnitude 7-1/2 earthquakes.

SUMMARY OF FIELD DATA FOR SANDS

The reliable field data from Fig. 3, together with the supplementary
data shown in Figs. 5-9, are plotted together in Fig. 10 where they pro-
vide a significantly greater data base from which to determine a bound-
ary line (or zone) separating sites known to have liquefied from sites
which have apparently not liquefied in a series of earthquakes, all of
which have magnitudes of about 7-1/2. The data for Niigata and Lake
Amatitlan are known to be at the boundary for such a line, and the
Chinese code results are also intended to define limiting conditions. Thus,
a revised position for the boundary line for sands can now be estab-
lished. Fortunately, this boundary is very close to that shown in Fig. 3,
but it is supported by a significantly greater data base and, thus, can be
drawn with a far greater degree of confidence than heretofore.

FIELD DATA FOR SILTY SANDS

The study of sites in the Miyagiken-Oki earthquake by Tokimatsu and

Yoshimi also presented an extensive set of field data points for silty sands
(D50 < 0.15 mm). Japanese engineers (e.g., Tatsuoka, Iwasaki, et al. (31)
have considered for the past several years, on the basis of laboratory
test data, that silty sands are considerably less vulnerable to liquefaction
than sands with similar penetration resistance values, and the site stud-
ies provided by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi provide good field corrobora-
tion that this is in fact the case. The data for silty sands, for sites which
liquefied and sites with no apparent liquefaction, are presented in the
same form as the data in Figs. 10 and 11. Also shown in the figure is a
reasonable boundary separating sites where liquefaction occurred and
sites where no liquefaction occurred for these silty sand deposits and
the boundary line for sands taken from Fig. 10. It may be seen that the
boundary line for silty sands is significantly higher than the boundary
line for sandy soils, although the two lines are essentially parallel. In
fact, for any value of stress ratio, the normalized standard penetration
resistance, N a , for sands with D50 > 0.25 mm is essentially equal to that
for silty sands (D50 < 0.15 mm) plus 7.5. It may be concluded, therefore,
that the boundary previously established for sands can be used for silty
sands, provided the N1 value for the silty sand site is increased by 7.5
before entering the chart. This correction can have a very significant ef-
fect on liquefaction evaluations for silty sand deposits.
It is interesting to note that Zhou (38) reached a similar conclusion on
the basis of field studies in China following the Tangshan earthquake.
From a comparison of the behavior of different types of soil, Zhou con-
cluded that correlations between penetration resistance (in this case static
469
 1 1 1
Limits set by Chinese Code (1974)
Liquefoct on
o No liquefo ction N./
*/
sr
Si 0 . 1
0
0
9 0
9
e 0 0
0
9 o G

_ e 9
9 G /
_
e 0 fO
9
/ oo
o
00
G 0
O /
GT 0
O
o o
e &>
e 0 O / O O O 0 0
0 08 9 0 0
0 0 9 O / O
90 t a GB-Z
- 9 S 0 % BQ J.6P .... . 0 0 o -
9 0o 0rJT'*~ Niigaio 0 G
a ft Z oo
00 o
0 O/ A> G 0 0
0 G o
0 j&to 9o o o
if 0 0 OD
. 8 BBO O 0
OG^I ?OGDO G O 0u 0 0
03G
O 0

1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N. -blows/ft.

FIG. 10.Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Sands (D5I1 > 0.25
mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance (All
Data)

I I 1
0 Site with liquefaction E
1
o Site with no apparent liquefaction !2

I AT/
3/

e
00 /// /
//
0 / o
00/
0 0 0
/// 0 o
/ G
.8 o
OO 3/ 0 / O ,
0 0OO / O O OO
//
0 0 / 0
0
o so o
%/
/
00/
o
0 0
/ o
/
'
/ / -
o co'0 y
J*L * o

/
/ /z/ o o
o o ^
_

I I 1
0 10 20 30
Modified Penetration Resistance, N| - blows/ft.

FIG. 11.Correlation between Field Liquefaction Behavior of Silty Sands (D50 <
0.15 mm) under Level Ground Conditions and Standard Penetration Resistance
(Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (33))
470
cone penetration resistance) and liquefaction characteristics for sands are
not applicable for silty sands unless they are modified to allow for the
fine content of the silty sands. Zhou proposed that for soils with the
same penetration resistance, this allowance might take the form of an
increase in penetration resistance, the magnitude depending on the fines
content. Interestingly, for soils with about 30% fines which would cor-
respond approximately to soils with D50 < 0.15 mm, the desirable in-
crease in static cone resistance was found to be about 27 kg/cm 2 , which
corresponds, for the site conditions involved, to an increase in an N1
value of about 6. This is in remarkably good agreement with the value
of 7.5 indicated by the results presented previously.

CORRELATIONS FOR DIFFERENT MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKES

The preceding results provide a realistic basis for developing corre-

lations between standard penetration tests and the liquefaction charac-
teristics of sands and silty sands for Magnitude 7-1/2 earthquakes. These
results can be extended to other magnitude events by noting that from
a liquefaction point of view, the main difference between different mag-
nitude events is in the number of cycles of stress which they induce.
Statistical studies (28) show that the number of cycles representative of
different magnitude earthquakes is typically as shown in Table 1.
A representative shape for the relationship between cyclic stress ratio
and number of cycles required to cause liquefaction is shown in Fig. 12.
If the number of cycles, (15) for a magnitude 7-1/2 event is selected as
a basis for comparison, then the relative values of stress ratio required
to cause liquefaction for other numbers of cycles may be expressed as

TABLE 1.Number of Cycles Representative of Different Magnitude Earthquakes

Magnitude Number of representative cycles at 0.65 Tmax
(D (2)
8-1/2 26
7-1/2 15
6-3/4 10
6 5-6
5-1/4 2-3

TABLE 2.Ratios of the Ordinates of the Curve in Fig. 12, Relative to the Ordinate
Corresponding to 15 Cycles
Earthquake Number of representative
magnitude, M cycles at 0.65, Tmax L 'ave

(1) (2) (3)

8-1/2 26 0.89
7-1/2 15 1.0
6-3/4 10 1.13
6 5 1.32
5-1/4 2-3 1.5

471
 % 7/ 2 8/2

6 10 15 26 100
Number of Cycles to Couse ru = 1 0 0 % and 5 % Strain

FIG. 12.Representative Relationship between T/T-! and Number of Cycles Re-

quired to Cause Liquefaction

ratios of the ordinates of the curve in Fig. 12, relative to the ordinate
corresponding to 15 cycles. These ratios are shown directly on the plot
and summarized in Table 2. Thus, by multiplying the boundary curves
in Fig. 11 by the scaling factors shown in Col. 3 of Table 2, boundary
curves separating sites where liquefaction is likely to occur or unlikely
to occur may be determined for earthquakes with different magnitudes.

I I
I I

I I 0.4 ^ ' "I S> */$?

i f /

J> -

j_
0 10 20 30 40
Modified Penetration Resistance, N( -blows/ft.
i :i i i i
0 600 800 D00 1200
Average Shear Wave Velocity in Top 50 ft. - fps (Approximate)

FIG. 13.Chart for Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential for Different Magnitude

Earthquakes

472
Such a family of curves for sands is shown in Fig. 13. The same curves
may be used for silty sands, provided the normalized SPT (Ni) for the
silty sand is increased by 7-1/2 before entering the chart.

LIQUEFACTION OF CLAYEY SOILS

Both laboratory tests and field performance data have shown that the
great majority of clayey soils will not liquefy during earthquakes. How-
ever, recent studies in China (35) have shown that certain types of clayey
materials may be vulnerable to severe strength loss as a result of earth-
quake shaking. These soils appear to have the following characteristics:
Percent finer than 0.005 mm <15%
Liquid Limit <35
Water Content >0.9 x Liquid Limit
If soils with these characteristics plot above the A-line on the plasticity
chart, the best means of determining their cyclic loading characteristics
is by test. Otherwise clayey soils may be considered nonvulnerable to
liquefaction.

DETERMINATION OF PORE PRESSURE INCREASE IN SANDY OR SILTY SOILS

In some cases it may be desirable to evaluate the potential pore pres-

sure increase due to a given intensity of earthquake shaking in sandy
soils. A simple approximate means for accomplishing this is to use the
normalized form of pore pressure increase curves proposed by Lee and
Albeisa (16) and DeAlba, et al. (5), shown in Fig. 14. Experience indi-
cates that for many sands under level ground conditions, the relation-
ship between induced pore pressure ratio (ug/a'0) and cycle ratio Ne/Ne
in which Ne = the number of equivalent cycles induced by the earth-
quake; and N( = the number of such cycles required to cause liquefac-
tion, will lie between the boundaries shown in Fig. 14. Thus, if for any
given site and any given earthquake magnitude, the factor of safety against
liquefaction is determined by the correlation charts to be greater than 1,
then the induced pore pressure may be estimated as follows:

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Cycle Ratio, N / N

FIG. 14.Rate of Pore Water Pressure Build Up in Cyclic Simple Shear Tests
(DeAlba, et al. (5))
473
 1. Determine the average cyclic stress ratio induced by the earthquake
and the factor of safety against liquefaction.
2. Determine the number of effective stress cycles (at 0.65 Tmax) in-
duced by the earthquake Ne.
3. Plot the induced effects (induced stress ratio expressed as the or-
dinate of the curve shown in Fig. 12 divided by the factor of safety) vs.
the number of cycles as a point on Fig. 12.
4. For the ordinate of the point determined in step 3, read from the
curve the number of cycles required to cause liquefaction, N(.
5. Thus, determine the cycle ratio = Ne/N(.
6. For the determined value of cycle ratio, read the induced pore pres-
sure ratio, ug/u'0, from Fig. 14.

In a recent study, Ishihara (11) measured the pore pressure build up in

a sand deposit in Tokyo Bay resulting from a Magnitude 6 earthquake
producing a maximum ground surface acceleration at the site of 0.1 g.
The normalized SPT value, N : , for the silty sand in which pore pres-
sures were measured was 10, and the pore pressure ratio induced by
the earthquake was about 0.15. The pore pressures induced in the de-
posit, computed by the procedure described previously lie in the range
0.07-0.15, indicating that the method provides useful results for cases
of partial pore pressure build-up.

USE OF SPT CORRELATION CHARTS WITH CPT DATA

While the standard penetration test (SPT) has been widely used for
many years, in many cases it may be more expedient to explore the
variability of conditions within an extensive sand deposit using the static
cone penetration test (CPT). In this test, a cone with a diameter of about
1.4 in. (35.6 mm) is pushed into the ground, and the resistance to pen-
etration of the conical tip is measured in units of kilograms per square
centimeter.
The main advantages of this procedure are that it provides data much
more rapidly than does the SPT, it provides a continuous record of pen-
etration resistance in any bore hole, and it is less vulnerable to operator
error than the SPT.
The main disadvantage of the test, from the point of view of predict-
ing the liquefaction resistance of a site, is that it has a very limited data
base to provide a correlation between soil liquefaction characteristics and
CPT values. This data base may remain meager for some time pending
the generation of new data from new earthquakes. In the meantime,
however, the test can be used in conjunction with the extensive data
base for the standard penetration test by either:

1. Conducting preliminary studies at each new site to establish a cor-

relation between CPT data and N values for the sand at the site (Doug-
las, et al. (7)).
2. Using available correlations between SPT test data and CPT test
data based on test programs previously conducted. Thus, the average
relationship between CPT data and N values in SPT tests are approxi-
474
mately (Schmertmann, (25)): (1) For clean sands, qc - 4 to 5 N; and (2)
for silty sands, qc 3.5 to 4.5 N.

Using such relationships the data obtained from CPT test programs can
readily be converted to equivalent N values for the sand and then used
in conjunction with the charts in Figs. 10-13 to evaluate liquefaction re-
sistance. By this means, full advantage can be taken of the advantages
of the CPT test procedure and the extensive data based of the SPT cor-
relation with field liquefaction characteristics.
Alternatively, the critical boundaries separating liquefiable from non-
liquefiable conditions shown in Figs. 10, 11, and 13 could be expressed
in terms of a Static Cone Penetration Resistance corresponding to an
overburden pressure of 1 ton/sq ft (4.8 kPa), qcl, by using the relation-
ships qA - 4 to 5 Nx for clean sands and qcl ~ 3.5 to 4.5 N] for silty sands.
This would lead to plots relating values of cyclic stress ratio causing liq-
uefaction with qA values, as shown in Fig. 15.
It is interesting to note that for any sand the value of qcl can be de-
termined from the value of qc measured at any depth using the relationship
qci = qc-cN (4)
in which values of CN are read off from the curve shown in Fig. 4, which
is based on the relationship between qc, effective overburden pressure
and relative density proposed by Schmertmann (25).
In view of the need to introduce a second correlation (between SPT
and CPT), this procedure would seem to be less desirable than use of
the SPT directly as an index of liquefaction. However, in view of the
other advantages of the CPT test (more continuous and extensive rec-
ords of soil characteristics) and the fact that site-specific correlations can
be developed where appropriate, this procedure may well prove advan-
tageous in many cases.

(a) Clean Sands

D 50 >0.25mm

J- (Based on q c /N =
4 lo 5 kg/cm 2 )

Liquefaction

No Liquefaction No Liquefaction

o OJ

0 1 1 1
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150
Modified Cone Penetration Resistance, o^i kg/cm2 Modified Cone Penetration Resistance, q c( kg/cm2

FIG. 15.Proposed Correlation between Liquefaction Resistance of Sands for Level

Ground Conditions and Cone Penetration Resistance
475
CORRELATION OF LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE WITH INDUCED STRAIN

In developing the correlation of field liquefaction performance with

Standard Penetration Resistance, an abundant data based has developed
because: (1) It is a simple matter to compute the average cyclic stress
ratio developed during an earthquake at any site where the ground sur-
face acceleration is reasonably well-known; and (2) the extensive use of
the standard penetration test in the past means that data obtained by
this test procedure are often available for sites subjected to earthquake
shaking.
In reality, however, liquefaction is a phenomenon which results from
a tendency for volume decrease in a sand due to the application of cyclic
shear strains (Martin, Finn and Seed, (18)), and volume changes are more
uniquely related to cyclic strains than cyclic stresses (Silver and Seed
(30)). It has often been suggested, therefore, that the development of a
correlation between the cyclic strain induced by an earthquake and field
performance might provide an improved basis for liquefaction assess-
ment (Dobry, et al. (6)).
There is no doubt that such an approach is appealing because of its
more fundamental basis, and the writers considered this possibility some
years ago. It is not difficult, for instance, to determine the level of cyclic
strain for which liquefaction is likely to occur in the field.
It may be seen from Fig. 11 that for clean sands and a Magnitude 7.5
earthquake:

U i It 90 90
for values of Ni up to about 30.
CN-N-a'0
Thus (Tave) = (6)

From previous studies, the writers have developed the relationship

Gmax - 65 N ton/sq ft (3,114 kPa)
- 13N x 104psf (6.2 x 106Pa) (7)
This is in good agreement with the correlation proposed by Ohaski and
Iwasaki (20):
G max = 120 N0'8 ton/sq ft = 24 N 0 8 x 104 psf (11.5 X 104 kPa) (8)
but it is somewhat simpler to use.
At the strain levels likely to develop during earthquakes producing
liquefaction, the effective shear modulus will be less than the maximum
shear modulus, and for practical purposes may be estimated as
Geff = 0.5 Gmax
= 0.5 13 N x 104 psf
- 0.65 JV X 105 psf (31 x 105 Pa) (9)
476
It follows .that the average strain level producing liquefaction, (yave)e,
may be expressed by
, > (Tave)l OrAT-p-p 1
(7avej<_
G^ " 90 0.65 N x l O 5
cr0 X C>/
6 x 10',6 (10)
in which cr'0 is in pounds per square foot units. From the chart shown
in Fig. 4, it may be shown readily that in the upper 50 ft (1,270 m) of a
soil deposit where liquefaction is most likely to occur, the product a'0 x
CN at any depth is equal to 1,800 psf (8.6 kPa) 30%.
1,800 30%
Thus (7ave)t , w 6
6 x 106
= 0.03% 30% ; (11)
This is the approximate strain level at which liquefaction can be expected
to occur in a Magnitude 7-1/2 earthquake. Earthquakes with lower mag-
nitudes would require greater induced strains to cause liquefaction.
If the factor of safety against liquefaction is about 1.5 for earthquakes
with magnitude 6-1/2 or greater, the pore pressures developed by the
shaking will be negligible. Thus, the average strain level at which pore
pressures will just begin to develop (termed the threshold strain by Dobry,
et al. (6)) will be about
0.03% 30%
(7ave)threshold = ~ - 0.015%-0.025% (12)
i.i>
It may be noted that threshold strains of these magnitudes are very
similar to those discussed by Dobry, et al. (6) based on experimental
evidence from laboratory tests. However, the aforementioned values are
based only on the field data presented in this paper, providing good
confirmation that the laboratory test results are of the right order of
magnitude.
As in the case of CPT data, it is not difficult to extend the correlation
between field Kquefaction characteristics and SPT results to include shear
wave velocity data. Eq. 7 provides a correlation between Gmax and N
which, since

v
s= J (13)
leads to the result that
/l3N X 104 x 32 2\
vs = I 1 = 185 VNfps (56 VNm/s) (13b)

Noting that N = NJCN leads to

185 V i ^
v. -=^ (14)

477
In the upper 50 ft (15 m) of a soil deposit, the effective overburden pres-
sure, a', will be less than 4,000 psf (192 kPa) and for values of u'0 below
this value, CN is typically in the range 0.7-1.3 (Fig. 4). The corre-
sponding values of V C N will be in the range of 0.85-1.15 so that a con-
servative average value might be about 0.9. Thus, from Eq. 14
185 VNi ,
vs = 200 VJVi
0.9
for depths up to about 50 ft (15 m). This approximate relationship can
be plotted along the abscissa of Fig. 13, to provide an approximate cor-
relation between values of stress ratio causing liquefaction in the field
and the average shear wave velocity of the upper 50 ft (15 m) of soil.
It may be noted that Fig. 13 indicates that liquefaction will never occur
in any earthquake if the shear wave velocity in the upper 50 ft (15 m)
of soil exceeds about 1,200 fps (366 m/s). This is in excellent agreement
with the finding of Youd and Hoose (37) that Holocene sand deposits,
typically having vs s 700 fps (214 m/s) have been more disturbed by
liquefaction than Pleistocene deposits for which vs 1,100 fps (336 m/s).
It would appear from the aforementioned analysis that liquefaction
resistance could be predicted equally well by stress ratio vs. Ni corre-
lations or by evaluations of average strain developed by earthquake mo-
tions. However there are several reasons why the stress ratio approach
might be more appealing than the strain approach:
1. It is based only on field testing and field case histories, and requires
no laboratory investigations.
2. The testing to determine penetration resistance is considerably sim-
pler and less expensive than shear wave velocity measurements in the
field.
3. The stress induced in a sand deposit by a given earthquake motion
can be computed with greater accuracy than the strains.
4. The critical yield strain is likely to vary with earthquake magnitude
and other parameters.
5. Cross-hole shear wave measurements are normally made in se-
lected portions of a site, whereas CPT or SPT investigations can cover
large areas of a site and, thus, be more indicative or the variability of
soil characteristics.
6. It is not easy to identify thin layers of loose sand using cross-hole
wave velocity measurements.
On the other hand, it should be noted that CPT and SPT studies can-
not be made in soils containing gravels, cobbles, or boulders, and a strain
approach to liquefaction evaluation offers a potential method for eval-
uating the liquefaction characteristics of such depositsan option not
offered by CPT, SPT, or other methods of in situ testing. For this reason
alone, it is desirable to develop the correlation of liquefaction resistance
of soils with induced strains, though care will be required to determine
the critical yield strains in these deposits.

CONCLUSION

The preceding pages have presented a review of the present status of

478
the empirical method for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands
and silty sands from measured values of the standard penetration re-
sistance. The method may be summarized in a series of steps, as follows:

1. For soils at depths shallower than 10 ft (3.05 m), multiply measured

N values by 0.75 to allow for energy loss in the drive rods.
2. Convert N values to Nx values using the CN correction curves shown
in Fig. 4.
3. For sands with D50 < 0.25 mm, use the standard correlation curves
for sand shown in Figs. 11 and 14.
4. For silty sands and silts plotting below the A-line and with D50 <
0.15 mm, use Nj = {Ni)measmed + 7.5, and then use the standard corre-
lation curves for sands.
5. If the confining pressure exceeds 1.5 ton/sq ft (72 kPa), reduce the
stress ratio causing liquefaction to allow for the reduction due to in-
creased confining pressure. Such reductions may be determined by lab-
oratory tests or on the basis of experience.
6. Consider some clay soils as being vulnerable to significant losses
in strength. Based on the Chinese data, these soils would appear to have
the following characteristics: percent finer than 0.005 mm < 15%, liquid
limit, LL < 35, and water content > 0.9 LL. The best way to handle
these soils, if they plot above the A-line, would be to determine their
liquefaction characteristics by tests.
7. If the clay content (determined by 0.005 mm) > 20%, consider the
soil nonliquefiable.
8. If the water content of any clayey soil (clay, sandy clay, silty clay,
clayey sand, etc.) < 0.9 LL, consider the soil nonliquefiable.

It should be noted that, in using this approach with the charts pre-
sented, the SPT should be determined in the standard method using a
rope and pulley system to lift the falling weight, as described previously.
If a free-falling weight is used or if there are other deviations from the
test procedure used in determining the Nt values used in the charts
shown, judgment must be exercised to evaluate an appropriate JVj value
for the soil before using the charts.
It may also be noted that the chart shown in Fig. 11 is based entirely
on field performance of deposits during actual earthquakes and is, thus,
based on a large number of field case studies. Its extension to silty sands
is similarly well-supported by field case data. Extension of the chart to
earthquakes with magnitudes other than M = 7-1/2 is based on a sta-
tistical analysis of many earthquake records and the characteristic shape
of a liquefaction curve determined by very large-scale cyclic simple shear
tests. As such, it is not believed that the use of the scaling factors in-
dicated by this curve will introduce any serious error in the positions of
the family of curves shown in Fig. 14.
Because this empirical approach is founded on such a large body of
field data, it is believed by the writers to provide the most useful em-
pirical approach available at the present time. However, it should be
noted that the standard penetration test cannot be performed conve-
niently at all depths (say deeper than 100 ft (30.5 m) or through large
depths of water) or in all soils (such as those containing a significant
479
proportion of gravel particles). Thus, it is desirable that it be supple-
mented by other in situ test methods which can also be correlated with
soil liquefaction potential. In m a n y cases, the static cone test, which can
be performed more rapidly a n d more continuously, m a y provide a good
means for evaluating liquefaction potential, especially if it is correlated
on a site d e p e n d e n t basis with SPT results. However, this procedure is
limited also to sands a n d silty sands. In dealing with soils containing
large particles, or in difficult environments, other in situ characteristics,
such as the shear wave velocity or the electrical characteristics of the soil
may provide a more suitable means for assessment of liquefaction p o -
tential. A n d , in d u e course, any or all of these in situ test m e t h o d s m a y
have their own detailed correlation with field performance to validate
their usefulness as meaningful indicators of liquefaction characteristics.
It seems likely, however, that for onshore sites a n d with deposits of
sand u p to 100 ft (30.5 m) deep or so, the correlation of liquefaction
characteristics with Standard Penetration Test data will provide the most
direct empirical m e a n s of evaluating field liquefaction potential for some
years to come. Other methods, however, have a significant role to play
and should be developed to the fullest extent possible to provide infor-
mation^ for different soil types and environments.

APPENDIX.REFERENCES

1. Arulmoli, et al., "A New Method for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential in

Situ," presented at the Oct., 1981 ASCE Annual Convention, held at St. Louis,
Mo. (Preprint 81-522/S-59).
2. Bieganousky, Wayne A., and Marcuson, William F., Ill, "Liquefaction Po-
tential of Dams and FoundationsReport 1: Laboratory Standard Penetra-
tion Test on Reid Bedford Model and Ottawa Sands," Report S-76-2, Water-
ways Experimental Station, Oct., 1976.
3. Castro, G., "Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility of Saturated Sands," Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT6, Proc. Paper
11388, June, 1975, pp. 551-569.
4. Christian, J. T., and Swiger, W. F., "Statistics of Liquefaction and SPT Re-
sults," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No.
GT11, Proc. Paper 11701, Nov., 1975, pp. 1135-1150.
5. DeAlba, Pedro, Seed, H. Bolton, and Chan, Clarence K., "Sand Liquefaction
in Large-Scale Simple Shear Tests," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Di-
vision, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. GT9, Proc. Paper 12403, Sept., 1976, pp. 909-
927.
6. Dobry, R., Stokoe, K. H., Ladd, R. S., and Youd, T. L., "Liquefaction Sus-
ceptibility from S-Wave Velocity," In Situ Testing to Evaluate Liquefaction Sus-
ceptibility, Preprint 81-544, ASCE, Oct. 26-31, 1981.
7. Douglas, Bruce J., Olsen, Richard S., and Martin, Geoffrey R., "Evaluation
of Cone Penetrometer Test for SPT Liquefaction Assessment," In Situ Testing
to Evaluate Liquefaction Susceptibility, Preprint 81-544, ASCE, 1981.
8. "Earthquake-Resistant Design Code for Industrial and Civil Buildings," TJ11-
74, State Capital Construction Commission Peoples' Republic of China, China
Building Publishing House, Peking, China, Dec. 1, 1974, (translated from
Chinese by Andrew C. S. Chang).
9. Gibbs, H. J., and Holtz, W. G., "Research on Determining the Density of
Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing," Proceedings, Fourth International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1957.
10. Idriss, I. M., Arango, I., and Grogan, G., "Study of Liquefaction in Novem-
ber 23, 1977 Earthquake, San Juan Province, Argentina," Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, San Francisco, Calif.

480
11. Ishihara, K., "Pore Water Pressure Rises during Earthquakes," Proceedings of
the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engi-
neering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 3, May, 1981, p p . 1-4.
12. Kishida, H., "Damage to Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Niigata City with
Special Reference to Foundation Engineering," Soil and Foundation, Vol. VII,
No. 1, Tokyo, Japan, 1966.
13. Koizumi, Y., " C h a n g e in Density of Sand Subsoil Caused by the Niigata
Earthquake," Soil and Foundation, Vol. VIII, N o . 2, Tokyo, Japan, 1966, p p .
38-44.
14. Kovacs, W. D., Velocity Measurement of a Free-Fail Hammer, 1978.
15. Kovacs, W. D., Evans, J. C , and Griffith, A. H., "Towards a More Stan-
dardized SPT," Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1977.
16. Lee, K. L., and Albeisa, A., "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated
Sands," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 100,
No. GT4, Proc. Paper 10496, Apr., 1974, p p . 387-406.
17. Marcuson, W. F., Ill, and Bieganousky, W. A., "Laboratory Standard Pen-
etration Tests on Fine S a n d s , " Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 103, N o . GT6, June, 1976, p p . 565-588.
18. Martin, G. R., Finn, W. D. K., and Seed, H. Bolton, "Fundamentals of Liq-
uefaction u n d e r Cyclic Loading," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, Vol. 101, N o . GT5, May, 1975, p p . 423-438.
19. Ohsaki, Y., "Niigata Earthquakes, 1964 Building D a m a g e and Soil Condi-
tions," Soils and Foundations, Vol. VI, N o . 2, p p . 14-37.
20. Ohsaki, Y., a n d Iwasaki, R., " O n Dynamic Shear Moduli a n d Poisson's Ratio ,,
of Soil Deposits," Soils and Foundation, Vol. 13, N o . 4, Tokyo, Japan, 1973, i
p p . 61-73.
21. Palacios, A., "The Theory a n d Measurement of Energy Transfer During SPT
Test Sampling," thesis, presented to the University of Florida, at Gainesville, I. i
Fla., in 1977, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doc- 11,
tor of Philosophy. 11,
22. Peck, Ralph B., "Liquefaction Potential: Science Versus Practice," Journal of ,i
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, N o . GT3, Mar., 1979, ,,'
p . 393. ;;;
23. Schmertmann, J. H., "Predicting the qc/N RatioInterpreting the Dynamics '
of the Standard Penetration Test," University of Florida, Report to the De-
partment of Transportation, Fla., Oct., 1976.
24. Schmertmann, J. H . , "Use the SPT to Measure Dynamic Properties?Yes, ,!,!
But . . .!" Proceedings of the American Society for Testing and Materials Sympo- ]],
slum on Dynamic Field and Laboratory Testing of Soil and Rock, June 29, 1977. [ [j
25. Schmertmann, J. H., "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance a n d J ]}
Design," Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal H i g h w a y Administration, Washington, D.C., July, 1978. 'V
26. Seed, H . Bolton, Arango, Igancio, Chan, Clarence K., Gomez-Masso, Al- 'I'1
berto, and Ascoli, Rebecca Grant, "Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction Near 'tjjj
Lake Amatitlan, Guatemala," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT4, Proc. Paper 16212, Apr., 1981, p p . 501-518. ul[
27. Seed, H. Bolton, and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil ;JI
Liquefaction Potential," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, n,'
ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, Sept., 1971, p . 1249. {jf1
28. Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Makdisi, F. a n d Benerjee, N . , "Representation of Jj|i
Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liq- ni
uefaction Analyses," Report No. EERC 75-29, Earthquake Engineering Re- '
search Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., Oct., 1975.
29. Seed, H. Bolton, Mori, Kenji, and Chan, Clarence K., "Influence of Seismic
History on the Liquefaction Characteristics of S a n d s , " Report No. EERC 75-
25, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berke- j
ley, Calif., Aug., 1975.
30. Seed, H. B., a n d Peacock, W. H., "Test Procedures for Measuring Soil Liq-

481
 uefaction Characteristics," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divi-
sion, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM8, Proc. Paper 8330, Aug., 1971, pp. 1099-1119.
31. Silver, M. L., and Seed, H. B., "Volume Changes in Sand During Cyclic
Loading," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.
97, No. SM9, Proc. Paper 8354, Sept., 1971, pp. 1171-1182.
32. Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., Yasuda, S., Hirose, M., Imai, T., and
Kon-no, M., "Standard Penetration Tests and Soil Liquefaction Potential
Evaluation," Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 4, Dec, 1980.
33. Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, H., "Field Correlation of Soil Liquefaction with
SPT and Grain Size," Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Ad-
vances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 1981.
34. Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G., "Correlation of Peak Acceleration, Ve-
locity and Displacement with Earthquake Magnitude, Distance and Site Con-
ditions," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics Journal.
35. Wang, Wenshao, "Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction," Water Conservancy
and Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research Institute, Beijing, China, Aug.,
1979.
36. Xie, Junfei, "Empirical Criteria for Sand Liquefaction," Proceedings of the 2nd
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Stanford University, Aug.,
1979.
37. Youd, T. L., and Hoose, S. N., "Liquefaction Susceptibility and Geologic
Setting," Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
Ill, pp. 2189-2194.
38. Zhou, S. G., "Influence of Fines on Evaluating Liquefaction of Sand by SPT,"
Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 2, 1981, pp. 167-172.

482