For Volume 1:

Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation 5 – Lehane, Acosta-Martínez & Kelly (Eds)
Fines Content Correction Factors
© 2016 Australian for SPTSociety,
Geomechanics N Values – Liquefaction
Sydney, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9946261-1-0

Resistance Correlation
Fines Content Correction
For Volume 2: Factors for SPT N Values – Liquefaction
Resistance
M. M. ShahienCorrelation
Geotechnical
Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt and Geophysical Site Characterisation 5 – Lehane, Acosta-Martínez & Kelly (Eds)
© 2016 Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9946261-2-7
M. M. Shahien
Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

ABSTRACT: It is common practice to evaluate liquefaction potential from correlation between liquefaction
resistance as determined from field performance of soil deposits during past earthquake events and in-situ
pen-etration test results. Historically, Seed and co-workers started the correlation with SPT N values. In such
ABSTRACT: It isinfluence
cor-relations, the commonofpractice
non- ortolow-plastic
evaluate liquefaction
fines is takenpotential from by
into account correlation
correctingbetween
SPT N liquefaction
values with
resistance
fines content correcting factors. The correction factors are based on empirical data. The events
as determined from field performance of soil deposits during past earthquake and factors
correction in-situ
pen-etration
increases with the increase in fines content (FC) up to FC of about 35% and remains constant withsuch
test results. Historically, Seed and co-workers started the correlation with SPT N values. In any
cor-relations,
further increasethe influence of non- orlaboratory
in FC. However, low-plasticinvestigations
fines is taken into
showaccount by correcting
a significant SPT N
reduction in values with
the cyclic
fines content
resistance correcting
of sands factors.FCThe
contain-ing correction
greater factors
than 35%. are based after
Furthermore, on empirical
re-visitingdata. The
of the SPTcorrection factors
N –liquefaction
increases with the increase in fines content (FC) up to FC of about 35% and remains
case histories, Green et al. (2006) observed a trend consistent with the significant drop in the cyclic constant with any
further increase
resistance of soils in containing
FC. However, FC>laboratory
35%. Thisinvestigations
paper providesshow a significant
a new reduction factors
set of correction in the that
cyclic
is
resistance of sands contain-ing FC greater than 35%. Furthermore, after re-visiting of the SPT N
consistent with field and laboratory observa-tions. The correction factors are applicable to wide ranges of FC –liquefaction
case histories,
greater than 35%. Green et al. (2006) observed a trend consistent with the significant drop in the cyclic
resistance of soils containing FC> 35%. This paper provides a new set of correction factors that is
consistent with field and laboratory observa-tions. The correction factors are applicable to wide ranges of FC
1 INTRODUCTION
greater than 35%.
1.1 General
1TheINTRODUCTION
most common practice to evaluate liquefaction
potential
1.1 General (initiation or triggering) is to use correlation
between liquefaction resistance as determined from
The
field most commonofpractice
performance to evaluate
soil deposits during liquefaction
past earth-
potential
quake events and in-situ penetrationtotest
(initiation or triggering) is useresults.
correlation
His-
between liquefaction
torically, Seed resistancestarted
and co-workers as determined from
the correlation
field
with performance
SPT N values. of soil deposits
Such effort during
startedpast earth-
with the
quake events and in-situ penetration
“simplified” procedure by Seed and Idriss (1971). test results. His-
torically,
Using theSeed and co-workers
correlation started the correlation
between liquefaction resistance
with SPT N values. Such effort started
and penetration test results relies on an extensive with da-
the
“simplified” procedure by Seed and
tabase of field performance for soil deposits which Idriss (1971).
Using
did or the did correlation
not liquefy between liquefaction
during past earthquake resistance
events.
and penetration test results relies
Databases of such performances were developed on an extensive da-
tabase of field performance for soil
over the years (Tokimatsu and Yoshimi, 1983; Seed deposits which
did or 1984;
et al., did notJamiolkowski
liquefy duringetpast al., earthquake events.
1985; Ambraseys,
Databases of such performances
1988; Fear and McRoberts, 1995; Cetin et al., 2000;were developed
over
Idrisstheandyears (Tokimatsu
Boulanger, 2006;andandYoshimi,
Shahien, 1983;
2007).Seed
The
et al., 1984; Jamiolkowski et al., 1985;
developed correlation was in the form of cyclic re- Ambraseys,
1988;
sistance Fear
ratioand(CRR)
McRoberts,
versus 1995;
SPT NCetin et al.,
values 2000;
corrected
Idriss and Boulanger, 2006; and Shahien,
for both procedure and effective overburden pressure 2007). The
developed correlation was in the form
(N1)60. The correlation was presented for clean sand of cyclic re- Figure 1. CRR versus (N1)60 curves based on case histories for
sistance ratio (CRR) versus SPT N
base curve and for other values of fines content asvalues corrected various Fines Content (After Seed et al. (1984) modified by
for bothinprocedure
shown Figure (1).and effective
Similar overburden
correlations werepressure
devel- Youd et a. (2001)).
(N
oped )
1 60 .
for other in situ tests such CPT and Vs sand
The correlation was presented for clean (e.g.
Figure 1. CRR versus (N1)60 curves based on case histories for
base various Fines Content (After Seed et al. (1984) modified by
Youdcurve et al., and
2001).for other values of fines content as
Youd et a. (2001)).
shown in Figure (1). Similar correlations were devel-
oped for other in situ tests such CPT and Vs (e.g.
Youd et al., 2001).

663
1.2 Existing fines content correction factors
It has been common practice to correct (N1)60 to
equivalent clean sand (N1)60-CS using the following
expression:
N1 60  CS  N1 60  N1 60
was based on Peck (1997). It is interesting that such
correction lies within the range of the other correc-
tions. With the exception of the Shahien and Mesri
correction, all the other corrections have limiting
correction value for FC ≥ 35%. Further noted is the
(1) wide range of corrections.

The fines content correction factors (N1)60 have

been derived from Figure (1) by pairing the SPT
(N1)60 value that corresponds to a certain value of Shahien &Mesri (1999)

CRR on the base clean sand curve with (FC≤5%) to

the SPT (N’1)60 values corresponding to the same
CRR on the other curves for sand with FC (Figure 2)
(Shahien and Mesri, 1999).

Sand
Liquefaction Resistance, CRR

with
Fines
Base Curve
Clean Sand Figure 3. ∆(N1)60 versus FC relationships in the literature
(FC≤5%)

1.3 Motivation and aim of this paper

(N1)60
Most of the above mentioned correction factors sug-
gest an increase in penetration resistance with the in-
crease of FC until FC of about 35% after which no
(N1)60 (N1)60-CS
(N1)60 Values further increase in penetration resistance with in-
Figure 2. Schematic diagram showing the derivation of FC crease in FC above 35%.
correction factors using base clean sand curve (Figure 1) Green et al. (2006) used 98 case records of SPT
Table (1) lists the forms of existing correction fac- N with liquefaction/no liquefaction from 14 earth-
tors available in the literature. Figure (3) shows the quakes from existing databases to examine FC cor-
correction values of (N1)60 calculated from most of rection factors. The (N1)60 values obtained from the
the references in Table (1). Some of the corrections base curve “clean sand” with FC≤5% were corrected
were put in the form of (N1)60 such as Cetin et al. for FC using the correction factors of Youd et al.
(2004) for sake of comparison with other correc- (2001) to produce family of curves for FC of 10%,
tions. 20%, 30% and >35%. The data records were plotted
on these curves. Green et al. (2006) concluded that
Table 1. Summary of FC correction factors in literature
the Youd et al. (2001) corrected curves rationally di-
Form Reference
vided the liquefaction/no liquefaction data for
(N1)60-CS = (N1)60 + (N1)60 FC≤35%. Nevertheless, for FC>35% considerable
(N1)60 = constant Seed et al. (1983) chunk of “liquefied” number of data points fell well
(N1)60 = f(FC) Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) below the CRR curve in the "no liquefaction" zone
Seed et al.(1984) – (Figure 4). Such observation proved that the existing
Terzaghi et al (1996) FC correction factors could lead to un-conservative
Kayen and Mitchell (1997) liquefaction resistances. Green et al. (2006) suggest-
Shahien and Mesri (1999) ed that no FC correction (i.e. no increase in (N1)60)
Youd et al. (2001) should be applied in case of FC>35% until further in-
Idriss and Boulanger (2006) vestigations could better explain the concluded trend.
(N1)60=g[FC,(N1)60] Idriss and Seed (1996) Idriss and Boulanger (2010) developed updated
Robertson and Wride (1996) database of field liquefaction records and carried out
(N1)60-CS = Cfines(N1)60 similar exercise utilizing the Idriss and Boulanger
Cfines= k[FC,(N1)60] Cetin et al. (2004) (2006) correction factors. The conclusion of Idriss
It should be noted that the correction by Shahien and Boulanger (2010) contradicts the conclusion of
and Mesri (1999) was based on the conventional cor- Green et al.(2006).
rection by Terzaghi and Peck (1948) for SPT N val- It should be noted that both investigation teams
ues of fine and silty sands. The original correction used filtering process to include good quality rec-
was Ncs=a+0.5(N-a) with a = 15. A modification was ords. Green et al. (2006) used 98 cases, while Idriss
applied using a=20 instead of 15. Such modification and Boulanger (2010) used 230 cases. The contra-
diction between the two conclusions motivated the

664
author to investigate the matter. Thus the aim of this
paper is to provide a set of correction factors ob-
tained using different approach.
Figure 4. Results of re-analysis of SPT liquefaction case histo-
ries for FC > 35%. Numbers next to data points are the corre-
sponding FC. (After Green et al., 2006)
1.4 Proposed correction factors: Methodology
As discussed earlier, most of the FC correction fac-
tors existing in the literature are derived from field
performance correlation such as that in Figure 1. A
different approach is followed in this paper. The pro-
posed correction factors developed in this paper uti-
lizes two correction factors; (1) Correction factors to
correct influence of FC on penetration resistance,
and (2) Correction factors to correct influence of FC
on CRR. Combining both correction factors results
in correction factors to correct influence of FC on
CRR versus penetration resistance correlation.
2 CORRECTION FOR INFLUENCE OF FINES
CONTENT ON PENETRATION RESISTANCE
2.1 Influence of FC on penetration resistance
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a dynamic test.
Depending on the compressibility or contractiveness
of the tested soil, a penetration induced excess
porewater pressure tends to develop during penetra-
tion. The excess water pressure tends to dissipate
with a rate that depends on the permeability of the
soil. As non/low plastic fines content increases in the
soil, the contractiveness increases thus the excess
porewater pressure increases and the permeability
decreases thus the dissipation of the water pressure
tends to be slower. Both actions tend to decrease the
measured SPT N values. Thus, as FC increases, the
measured N value decreases and the deviation from
representing the original state of denseness of the soil
increases. Such deviation necessitates the correction
of the measured N. Figure (5) shows relationship be-
665
tween measured N values and FC using the data from
the database of Cetin et al. (2000).
Figure 5. Relationship between SPT N60 versus FC.
2.2 Penetration resistance versus Dr correlation
Meyerhof (1957) proposed a correlation between the
SPT N value and relative density, Dr, for clean sands
based on chamber data in the following form:
N
1  a  b  41 (2)
Dr 2
Skempton (1986) collected more data of the kind
for granular soils with different particle size charac-
teristics. Skempton (1986) followed the same form
and proposed that the relationship between (N1)60
and Dr to be in the following form:
 N1 
   ab (3)
 Dr 2 
 
where, a+b is constant that decreases with the in-
crease in mean particle size of the granular soil.
Cubrinovski & Ishihara (1999), (2000) & (2001)
used SPT measurements of field deposits along with
data of high-quality undisturbed samples to prove
that a+b defined as CD is dependent on grain charac-
teristics such as particle size, gradation and fines
content. It was further suggested that grain charac-
teristics can be well represented by void ratio range
(emax-emin) or the difference in the void ratio between
the loosest, emax, and densest, emin, packing states.
The following correlation was proposed by Cubri-
novski & Ishihara for gravelly, clean sand and sands
with fines:
N1 60 9
(4)
emax  emax 
C 
Dr 2
D 1.7
2.3 Relationship between void ratio range and FC
Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2002) proposed a relation-
ship between void ratio range and FC for natural
sandy and silty soils based on comprehensive data.
The range of data used, as well as the average corre-
lation by Cubrinovski & Ishihara, is shown in Figure

RNFC=N60 /N60-CS=(N1 )60/(N1)60-CS

(6). Shown also on Figure (6) back calculated values 1.0
of the void ratio range based on the Youd et al
0.8
(2001) correction. Figure (6) also shows the correla-
tion peoposed ans used in this paper. The proposed 0.6
relationship was influenced by the back calculated
values. 0.4
Cubrinovski & Ishihara identified that the rate of 0.2
increase in the void ratio range with the increase in
FC changed around the FC of 30%. This is related to 0.0
the difference in particle structure of sand in the two 0 20 40 60 80 100
ranges separated by FC=30%. In the lower range, the Fines Content, FC, %,
particle structure is governed by coarse-grained frac-
tion of the soil. On the other hand, in the upper range Figure 8. Correction for influence of FC on N.
of FC, the soil structure is governed by the fine-
grained fraction of the soil.
3 CORRECTION FOR INFLUENCE OF FC ON
1.0 Back calculated Based on Youd et al (2001)
CRR
Void Ratio Range emax-emin

0.8 Polito and Martin (2003) examined many of the la-

0.6 boratory parametric studies examining the influence
of FC on CRR of sandy soils. Such an examination
0.4 Proposed clarified the conflicting conclusions of these studies
0.2 Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2002) such as CRR increases, decrease and unaffected with
Rang e by Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2002) the increase in FC. Furthermore, Polito and Martin
0.0 (2001) introduced the concept of limiting fines con-
0 20 40 60 80 tent (LFC) showing that if the relative density of a
Fines Content, FC, % non/low-plastic silt-sand mix is kept constant, the
CRR of the mix is insensitive to FC up to the LFC, at
Figure 6. Relationship between emax-emin versus FC. which the CRR significantly reduces to a value that is
2.4 Proposed correction for influence of FC on N almost unaltered by further increase in FC. Thus the
LFC differentiate between two ranges of FC. The
Substituting values of the proposed correlation from first one is the range in which the mix behaves as
Figure (6) in Equation (4), the relationship in Figure coarse grained soil with no significant influence of
(7) is obtained between N values and FC for various fines presence. In the second range, the mix behaves
relative densities. as fine grained soil with no significant influence of
40 sand presence. Polito (1999) reported, confirmed by
Cubrinovski and Ishihara (2002), that the LFC oc-
30 curs in the range of 30% to 40%. Utilizing the data
Dr, % reported by Polito (1999) for Yatesville silt/sand
100 mixture having Dr of 30%, The correction factor,
SPT (N1 )60

20
80 RCRRFC, to correct CRR for FC is introduced in
10 65 Figure (9) based on Polito (1999) data. The correc-
50 tion factor has two values with a transition zone sep-
35
0
arating the above mentioned two ranges.
0 20 40 60 80 100 1.2 Limiting Fines Content
Fines Content, FC, %, Coarse grained
1.0
RCRRFC=CRR FC/CRR

Behavior
Figure 7. Correlation between (N1)60 versus FC for various Dr.
0.8
The range of data in Figure (7) resembles the 0.6
range of data in Figure (5) taking into consideration
the fact that in Figure (7) N values are corrected for 0.4 Non/Low Plastic Silt
Behavior
the influence of effective overburden pressure, while 0.2 Transition
in Figure (5) N values are not corrected for overbur- 0.0
Zone

den pressure. The data in Figure (7) or Equation (4)

0 20 40 60 80 100
is used to introduce correction factor for influence of
Fines Content, FC, %,
FC on N values, RNFC, that is shown in Figure (8).
Figure 9. Correction for influence of FC on CRR (Modified af-
ter Polito, 1999)

666
4 COMBINED CORRECTION FOR INFLUENCE with FC>35% used by Green et al. (2006) (Figure 4)
4 OF FC ON CRR-(N
COMBINED 1)60 RELATIONSHIP
CORRECTION FOR INFLUENCE are
withused in this
FC>35% section
used to evaluate
by Green the curves
et al. (2006) (Figureob-
4)
OF FC ON CRR-(N ) RELATIONSHIP
The correction factors in Figures (8) and (9) can be
1 60
tained using the approach presented in this
are used in this section to evaluate the curves paper and
ob-
shown in Figure
tained using (11). Those
the approach data are
presented in plotted in Fig-
this paper and
applied on the clean
The correction sandinbase
factors curve
Figures (8)shown
and (9)in can
Figure
be
(1). Figure (10) shows a clarifying sketch to explain ure (12) together with the relationships
shown in Figure (11). Those data are plotted in for FCFig-
of
applied on the clean sand base curve shown in Figure 35%, 50%, 60% and 80%thefrom Figure (11).for FC of
how Figure
(1). the CRR (10) versus
showspenetration
a clarifyingresistance
sketch tofor silty
explain ure (12) together with relationships
sand with FC can be obtained. For FC
how the CRR versus penetration resistance for silty ≤LFC, RN FC 35%, 50%, 60% and 80% from Figure (11).
0.6
<1 (Figure 8) and RCRR
sand with FC can be obtained. FC =1 (Figure 9). Thus
For FC ≤LFC, RNFC the 0.6 FC
resulting curve shallRCRR
be a shift to the left 9).
reducing
Thus the

CRRCRR
<1 (Figure 8) and =1 (Figure the 0.5 35 15
penetration resistance
FC
values. On the other hand, for FC ≤5%
resulting curve shall be a shift to the left reducing the 0.5 35 15 ≤5%

Ratio,
FC>LFC, RN <1 (Figure 8) and RCRR
penetration resistance values. On the other hand, for
FC FC <1 (Figure 0.4
9). Thus the RNresulting curve shall reflect reduction in

Ratio,
FC>LFC, FC<1 (Figure 8) and RCRRFC<1 (Figure 0.4 SPT Clean Sand
penetration resistance
9). Thus the resulting curve and reduction in CRR
shall reflect (Figure
reduction in

Resistance
0.3 Base Curve
10). Figure (11) shows the SPT clean
penetration resistance and reduction in CRR (Figure sand base SPT(Figure
Clean Sand
1)

Resistance
curve and CRR
10). Figure (11)versus
showspenetration
the SPTresistance
clean sand for base
var- 0.3 Base Curve
(Figure 1)
ious
curvevalues
and CRRof FC obtained
versus using the
penetration corrections
resistance for pre-
var- 0.2
sented in
ious values this
ofpaper.
FC obtained using the corrections pre- 0.2 50%

Cyclic
0.6
sented in this paper. 0.1
50%

Cyclic
0.6
0.1 80% 60%
0.5 FC≤5% 0.0 80% 60%
FC≤5%
CRR CRR

0.5 0.0 0 1
0 20 30 40 50
0.4
Ratio,

SPT Clean Sand 0 1

0 (N201)60 30 40 50
0.4
Ratio,

Correction Base
SPT Curve
Clean Sand (N1various
Figure 11. CRR versus (N1)60 for )60 FC
Resistance

0.3 for FC≤LFC

Correction Base Curve Figure 11.0.6
CRR versus (N1)60 for various FC
Resistance

0.3 for FC≤LFC

Figure (8)
0.6
0.2
Figure (8)
((N1)60-CS, CRR) Liquefaction
CRR CRR

0.5 No Liquefaction
Cyclic

(9) (9)

0.2 ((N1)60-CS, CRR) 35<FC ≤92%

Liquefaction
Green et al. (2006)
No Liquefaction
0.5
Ratio,
Cyclic

Figure

0.1 Correction 35<FC ≤92%

0.4 (ThisGreen
Paper)et al. (2006)
Ratio,

for FC>LFC
Figure

0.1 FC = 35%
Figure (8) Correction
Resistance

0.4 (This Paper)

0.0 Figure (8) for FC>LFC Youd
FC =and
35%Idriss (2001)
Resistance

0.3 FC ≥ 35%
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Youd and Idriss (2001)
0.3 FC ≥ 35%
Cyclic

0 10 20
(N1)60 30 40 50
0.2
Cyclic

Figure 10. Combined correction(N

for influence of FC on CRR
1)60 0.2 50
Proposed -This Paper
versus (N ) relationship
Figure 10. Combined correction for influence of FC on CRR
1 60
0.1 FC > 35%
50
Proposed -This Paper
It should
versus be noted that the CRR versus (N1)60
(N1)60 relationship 0.1 80
60 FC > 35%
curves
It should forbeFCnoted of 15% andCRR
that the 35%versus
are almost
(N1)60 0.0 60
80
identical
curves for FC of 15% and 35% areof almost
to and confirming the curves Youd 1 0 20 0.0 0
30 40 50
and Idriss (2001) or youd et al (2001)
identical to and confirming the curves of Youd showing (N1)60
higher cyclic(2001)
re-sistance withet the increaseshowing
in FC. 0 1 0 20 30 40 50
and Idriss or youd al (2001) Figure 12. CRR versus (N1)60 for (N1various
)60 FC and liquefaction/
The curves for FC of 50%, 60% and
higher cyclic re-sistance with the increase in FC. 80% are no liquefaction
different from what is currently known to be Figure 12. CRRcase records
versus forfor
(N1)60 35<FC≤92%
various FC and liquefaction/
The curves for FC of 50%, 60% and 80% are
grouped
different with
from thewhatcurve of FC≥35%.
is currently The curves
known to be It is interesting
no liquefaction to note
case records for that the liquefied case rec-
35<FC≤92%
tend to reflect lower cyclic re-sistance
grouped with the curve of FC≥35%. The curves close to or ordsIt could be welltobounded
is interesting note thatbythe
theliquefied
bundle of curves
case rec-
even lower than the curve for FC≤5%. The
tend to reflect lower cyclic re-sistance close to or curves for FC of 50%, 60% and 80% obtained
ords could be well bounded by the bundle of curves by the ap-
for
evenFClower
of 50%,
than 60% and 80%
the curve tend to be
for FC≤5%. Theclose to
curves proach
for FC presented
of 50%, 60% in this
andpaper. This is encouraging
80% obtained by the ap-
each other to the extent that a single
for FC of 50%, 60% and 80% tend to be close to relationship to
proach presented in this paper. Thisbeis proposed
the extent that a single curve can encouragingfor
can
each be proposed
other to the asextent
shownthatin aFig-ure (12) in the
single relationship FC>35% replacing the very close bundle
to the extent that a single curve can be proposed for of curves
next section.
can be proposed as shown in Fig-ure (12) in the for FC ofreplacing
FC>35% 50%, 60% theand
very80%.
closeIt bundle
should ofbe curves
noted
next section. that for FC in the range of 35 to 50%,
for FC of 50%, 60% and 80%. It should be noted there is a tran-
sition zone that can be conservatively ignored
that for FC in the range of 35 to 50%, there is a tran- for
5 FIELD CASE RECORDS CONSIDERATION practical purposes. Thus, based on the
sition zone that can be conservatively ignored forapproach pre-
AND PROPOSED
5 FIELD CASE RECORDS RELATIONSHIP
CONSIDERATION sented
practicalin purposes.
this paper,Thus,
the proposed
based onCRR the approach 1)60
versus (Npre-
AND PROPOSED RELATIONSHIP relationships
sented in this paper, the proposed CRR versus (N1are
for various non/low plastic FC )60
As mentioned earlier, Green et al. (2006) used shown in Figure
98 case recordsearlier,
of SPT N with relationships for(13). The proposed
various non/low curves
plastic are
FCiden-
are
As mentioned Green et al.liquefaction/no
(2006) used tical
showntoin Figure
those (13).
of Youd and Idriss
The proposed (2001)
curves for
are iden-
liquefac-tion from 14 earthquakes from existing
98 case records of SPT N with liquefaction/no
databases to examine tical to those of Youd and Idriss (2001) for
liquefac-tion from 14FC correction from
earthquakes factors. The
existing
case records
databases to examine FC correction factors. The
case records 667
FC≤35%. For FC≥35%, a single curve is proposed in
this paper.
0.6
FC
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR
0.5
1
35 5 ≤5%
0.4
0.3 SPT Clean Sand
Base Curve
0.2
0.1
FC > 35% - Proposed
0.0
0 1
0 20 30 40
(N1)60
Figure 13. CRR versus (N1)60 for various FC and liquefaction/
no liquefaction case records for 35<FC≤92%
6 CONCLUSION
This paper presents an alternative approach to obtain
fines contents correction to the liquefaction re-
sistance versus penetration resistance relationship.
The obtained correction confirmed the already exist-
ing one for fines content ≤ 35% (Youd et al., 2011).
However, it provided new correction for fines con-
tent > 35% that is consistent with field case records.
7 REFERENCES
Ambraseys NN, (1988). “Engineering seismology,” J of Earthquake
Eng. and Structural Dynamics, 17, 1, 1-105.
Cetin, K.O. (2000). Reliability-based assessment of seismic soil li-
quefaction initiation hazard, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Civil and En-
viron. Eng. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimats u, K., Harder,
L.F., Jr., Kayen, R.E., and Moss, R.E.S. (2004). “Standard pene-
tration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of
seismic soil liquefaction potential,” J. of Geotech and Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., ASCE, 130(12): 1314-1340.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (1999). «Empirical correlation bet-
ween SPT N-value and relative density for sandy soils, » Soils
and Found. 39(5): 61-71.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2000). Flow potential of sandy
soils with different grain compositions. Soils and Found., 40(4):
103-119.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2001). “Correlation between pene-
tration resistance and relative density of sandy soils, “ Proc. 15th
Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng., Istanbul.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2002). “Maximum and minimum
void ratio characteristics of sands,” Soils &Found., JGS, 42(6):
65-78.
Fear, C.E. and McRoberts, E.C. (1995). Report on liquefaction po-
tential and catalogue of case records (revised March 1995), Inter-
nal Research Report, Geotech. Eng. Library, Dept. of Civil En-
gineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Green, R.A., Olson, S.M. and C.P. Polito (2006). “A comparative
study of the influence of fines on the liquefaction susceptibility of
sands: Field versus laboratory,” Proc. of 8th U.S. Nat. Conf. on
Earthqu. Eng. San Francisco, California, USA , Paper No. 1251.
Idriss IM and Boulanger RW. (2006). “Semi-empirical procedures
for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes,” J. Soil
Dynam. and Earthqu. Eng., 26, 115-130.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2004). Semiempir ical procedures
for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes, Proc.,
Joint 11th Intl. Conf. on Soil Dynam and Earthqu. Eng.and the
3rd Intern. Conf. on Earthqu. Geotech. Eng. Berkeley, CA, 32-56.
Idriss, IM, and Boulanger, R.W. (2010). SPT- Based Liquefaction
Triggering Procedures. Centre for Geotech. Modeling, Dep. of
Civil and Environ. Eng., Univ. of California, Davis, California. .
Jamiolkowski M, Baldi G., Bellotti R., Ghionna V. and Pasqualini E.
(1985).“Penetration resistance and liquefaction of sands,”
Proceedings of 11th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng., San
Francisco, 3, 1891-1896.
Kayen, R.E. and Mitchell, J.K. (1997). “Assessment of liquefaction
potential during earthquakes by Arias intensity,” J. of Geotech.
and Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 123(12): 1162-1174.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957) Discussion on Research on determining the
density of sands by penetration testing. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on
50 Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg ., Vol. 1: 110.
Peck (1997) personal communication
Polito, C.P. (1999). The Effects Of Non-Plastic and Plastic Fines On
The Liquefaction Of Sandy Soils. PhD Thesis, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute.
Polito, C.P. and Martin, J.R., II (2001). “Effects of non- plastic fines
on the liquefaction resistance of sands,” J. of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering , ASCE, 127(5): 408-415.
Polito, C.P. and Martin, J.R., II (2003). “A reconciliation of the ef-
fects of non-plastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of sands
reported in the literature,” Earthquake Spectra , 19(3): 635-651.
Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. 1997. Cyclic liquefaction and its
evaluation based on the SPT and CPT. In:Proc. of the national
center for earthquake eng. research, NCEER. Report no. 970022.
Seed, HB. and Idriss, IM.(1971) "A simplified procedure for evalua-
ting soil liquefaction potential." Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 97, 9, 1249-1274.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I. (1983). “Evaluation of lique-
faction potential using field performance data, J. of Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, 109(3): 458-482.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., Chung, R.M. (1984). The
influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance eva-
luations, EERC Report No. UCB/EERC 84/15 , Earthqu. Eng.
Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, CA..
Skempton AW. (1986)."Standard penetration test procedures and the
effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle
size, aging and overconsolidation,"Geotechnique, 36, 3, 425-447.
Shahien, M. (2007). "New Procedure to Estimate Liquefaction Resis-
tance from Penetration Resistance Using Field Records," 4th Int.
Conf. on Earthqu. Geotech.Eng., Thessaloniki - Greece.
Shahien, M., and G. Mesri (1999). "Alternative SPT corrections for
fines content in liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlement
analyses," Abst. Vol. of 9th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and
Earthqu. Eng., Bergen, Norway.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice. 1st. Ed., J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K, Peck, RB and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in En-
gineering Practice. Third Edition, J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y. (1983). “Empirical correlation of
soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content, Soil
and Foundations , JSSMFE, 23(4): 56-74.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Chris-
tian, 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., Ro-
bertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II (2001). “Liquefac-
tion resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction
resistance of soils,” J.of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 127(10): 817-833.
668