Compressibility Characteristics of Low-Plasticity

Silt before and after Liquefaction

Shuying Wang, A.M.ASCE 1 and Ronaldo Luna, F.ASCE, P.E. 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Low-plasticity silt is known to have a potential to liquefy during earthquakes. The compressibility characteristics could change
before and after a dynamic event that produces liquefaction. This research investigates the liquefaction resistance and postliquefaction
reconsolidation characteristics of Mississippi River Valley (MRV) silt using laboratory cyclic triaxial compression testing. The MRV silt
experienced initial liquefaction under cyclic loading, and the results are presented as cyclic stress ratio versus loading cycle curve. After cyclic
loading, the liquefied specimens were reconsolidated. Permeability did not change significantly as a result of liquefaction. The reconso-
lidation curves are more parallel to the compression line than the recompression line in e- log σ30 space, suggesting reconsolidation behaved
more like preliquefaction compression. The postliquefaction compression and recompression indexes show less compressibility when com-
pared with preliquefaction conditions. These characteristics of MRV silt suggest that reconsolidation after liquefaction should be a consid-
eration during design of civil infrastructure. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000953. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Compressibility; Low-plasticity silt; Liquefaction; Reconsolidation.

Introduction number of transportation and other infrastructures are built on

Low-plasticity silt is widespread in many countries, particularly
in the United States, China, and India. The liquefaction of low-
plasticity silt, with the associated damage to infrastructure and
the potential loss of lives, is a common phenomenon observed dur-
ing earthquakes, such as the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake, the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake, the 2010
Chile earthquake, the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, among others
(Boulanger et al. 1998; Guo and Prakash 1999; Bray and Frost
2010; Cubrinovski et al. 2011). However, damage to infrastructure
and the potential loss of life does not occur only during earth-
quakes; they also occur during reconsolidation after an earthquake.
Some slopes have failed not particularly because of cyclic loading
during an earthquake, but also owing to large deformations during
reconsolidation and reduced shear strength or stiffness after an
earthquake (Soroush and Soltani-Jigheh 2009). For the purposes
of this paper, the term reconsolidation refers to the compressibility
(dissipation of excess pore pressure) after liquefaction.
Approximately 70% of the 600,000 bridges in the United States
were built before 1971 with little or no seismic design considera-
tions (Anderson et al. 2001). Many of the embankments of these
pre-1971 bridges are founded directly on liquefiable deposits. Since
executing mitigation measures on existing infrastructure is difficult,
an earthquake would likely cause significant damage to these rail-
way, highway, and bridge embankments. As an increasingly large
1
Associate Professor and Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Civil Engi-
neering, Central South Univ.; and Associate Professor, Key Laboratory
of Engineering Structure of Heavy Railway (Central South Univ.), Ministry
of Education, Changsha 410075, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
sywang@csu.edu.cn
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Architecture, and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO 65401. E-mail:
rluna@mst.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 6, 2013; approved on
October 8, 2013; published online on October 10, 2013. Discussion period
open until August 19, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014014(6)/$25.00.
alluvium deposits with significant silt content, investigating their
anticipated performance is of great interest to engineers. As noted
by Puri (1984), one type of low-plasticity silt, loess, occupies the
uppermost stratigraphic layer over extensive areas of the central
United States. Usually, the thickest deposits occur adjacent to the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to the leeward side of the prevail-
ing westerly winds. The United States has experienced many earth-
quakes in recorded history. Puri’s work points out that the New
Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) in the midwestern United States
may have as high as a 98% probability of experiencing a magnitude
6.0 or greater earthquake between 2000 and 2050.
Low-plasticity silt is a difficult material to characterize in the
laboratory. Low-plasticity silt specimens for laboratory tests are
difficult to prepare and handle. This difficulty arises as a result of
its apparent lack of cohesion compared with clay, which makes
low-plasticity silt very friable resulting in the tendency for its fabric
to break during sampling, trimming, and preparation (Izadi 2008).
The application of vibration does not densify silt as it does sand;
hence, the common moist tamping or water pluviation methods
used for sands are not effective in the preparation of silt specimens.
These difficulties have discouraged research on the behavior of
low-plasticity silt, resulting in a paucity of research findings on
the effect of cyclic loading on the compressibility of low-plasticity
silt.
Of the few published works, Thevanayagam et al. (2001) found
the reconsolidation line in the e- log σ 0 (in which e is the void ratio
and σ 0 is effective stress) space nearly parallel to the compression
line rather than the recompression line. For powdered limestone,
Hyde et al. (2007) found that the slope of reconsolidation line
was approximately 10 times steeper than that obtained from the
precyclic recompression line and rather similar to that of the com-
pression line. On the other hand, some researchers (e.g., Yasuhara
and Andersen 1991; Hyodo et al. 1994; Hyde et al. 1997) reported
opposite results for clays and plastic silts. Yasuhara and Andersen
(1991) found that the slopes of the reconsolidation lines after cyclic
loading were 1.5 times the recompression index for Drammen clay
(PI ¼ 27) and Ariake clays (PI ¼ 69 and 72). Hyde et al. (1997)
observed that the slope of the reconsolidation line of Keuper Marl

© ASCE 04014014-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014

 silt (PI ¼ 19) after cyclic loading was almost identical to that of the
recompression line without previous cyclic loading.
This paper is part of an extensive study on the behavior of low-
plasticity silt by the authors (Wang et al. 2011, 2013; Wang and
Luna 2012). It reports the results of a laboratory investigation into
the pre- and postliquefaction consolidation characteristics of MRV
silt, in which liquefaction resistance and permeability were also
evaluated. Voids within the soil specimen were redistributed as a
result of cyclic loading, and the specimen became less uniform
(Porcino and Caridi 2007). Thus, the compressibility of the whole
specimen rather than a portion of the specimen was compared with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
before and after liquefaction conditions.
Testing Program
Material Description
The silt material studied in this research was obtained from
Collinsville, Illinois, approximately 20.9 km (13 miles) east of
the Mississippi River. Collinsville, Illinois, is located within the
NMSZ. Multiple laboratory tests were conducted to determine in-
dex properties. The grain-size distribution shown in Fig. 1 was ob-
tained using sieve and hydrometer analysis according to the ASTM
standard D422 (2007) procedures. Fig. 1 indicates that the silt-sized
and clay-sized particles constitute approximately 80.5 and 14.5%
of MRV silt, respectively. The Atterberg limits were determined
using the Casagrande method (ASTM 2005). Because low-
plasticity silt paste easily cracks while using the Casagrande
cup, Atterberg limits were also determined using the fall cone
method [British Standards Institution (BSI) (1990)] to validate
the results from the Casagrande method. The plasticity index
was determined to be 5.8. Specific gravity of MRV silt was deter-
mined according to procedures of ASTM D854 (2006). Consolida-
tion tests were carried out using isotropic confining pressure in a
triaxial setup to determine the compression and recompression in-
dexes (Cc and Cr ), which were 0.0896 and 0.0090, respectively.
Thus, the compressibility (values are within an order of magnitude)
and plasticity properties of the MRV silt are similar to that
(Cc ¼ 0.0405 and Cr ¼ 0.0049) of powdered limestone (with
silt-sized particles of 69.2%) investigated by Hyde et al. (2007).
Index and compressibility properties of MRV silt are presented
in Table 1. Details on testing procedures and other issues are pre-
sented in Wang et al. (2011).
Gravel Sand Silt
100
80
% Finer than
60
40
20
0 effective confining pressure (σ30 ) increased from a range of
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
Grain Diameter (mm)
Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution of MRV silt
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014
Table 1. Index Properties and Compressibility of MRV Silt
Soil property Value
Clay content (<2 μm) 14.5%
Liquid limit 28.1
Plastic limit 22.3
Plasticity index 5.8
Specific gravity 2.71
Compression index (Cc ) 0.0896
Recompression index (Cr ) 0.0090
Testing Procedure
Specimens (target dimensions: 71 mm diameter by 142 mm height)
were prepared for triaxial tests using a slurry consolidation ap-
proach described in detail elsewhere in Wang et al. (2011). As a
result of the very high degree of repeatability of the slurry consoli-
dation approach adopted for the reconstitution of the test specimens
(Wang et al. 2011), test specimens were considered very similar.
First, vacuum and then high back-pressure was applied to the spec-
imens in a triaxial test chamber to produce a high degree of satu-
ration. The vacuum pressure was 45 kPa in magnitude. The
backpressure was increased in increments of 25 kPa until the B-
value attained a minimum value of 0.95. The maximum back pres-
sure was 400 kPa when the specimens became saturated. Each
specimen was normally consolidated to an effective consolidation
pressure (σc0 ) of 90 kPa. Specimens were tested under undrained
conditions. Cyclic loading was applied until the desired excess pore
pressure ratio (Ru ) was attained. The Ru is the ratio of excess pore
pressure (ue ) to effective consolidation pressure. For this study,
MRV silt is considered to have liquefied when Ru ¼ 1.0. Cyclic
loading, which was set by following a sine function, was applied
at a frequency of 0.1 Hz rather than the predominant frequency for
earthquake loading, which is usually in the range of 1 ∼ 5 Hz
(Kramer 1996; Izadi 2008). The predominant frequency range
(1 ∼ 5 Hz) is too high for laboratory tests on low-plasticity silt.
When cyclic loading is applied to low-plasticity silt in this fre-
quency range, there is usually insufficient time for the transmission
of the excess pore pressure from within the specimens to the pore
pressure transducer. Taking cognizance of this fact, lower frequen-
cies are generally used for low-permeability soils—0.1 Hz in this
case. Lefebvre and LeBoeuf (1987) and Boulanger et al. (1998)
evaluated results from cyclic tests conducted at lower frequencies
(<1 Hz) and recommended that whenever lower frequencies are
used in the laboratory evaluation of resistance to liquefaction,
the cyclic stress ratios (CSRs) be adjusted accordingly. The CSR
is defined as the ratio of half the maximum deviator stress (Δσmax )
Clay to the effective consolidation pressure. Considering that cyclic
strength has been found to increase at approximately 9% per log
cycle of the loading rate (Boulanger and Idriss 2007), the CSRs
investigated in this study were 0.35, 0.25, 0.18, and 0.10.
For the reconsolidation characteristics of MRV silt, after full
liquefaction (Ru ¼ 1), a period of approximately 10 min was al-
lowed for equilibrium of excess pore pressure within the specimen.
During this period, excess pore pressure decreased by 5–10 kPa,
and the effective confining pressure (σ30 ) correspondingly increased
by 5–10 kPa. Hence, at the start of reconsolidation, excess pore
pressure was 80–85 kPa, whereas the effective consolidation pres-
sure (σ30 ) was 90 kPa before cyclic loading. Correspondingly,
0.001 5–10 kPa to 90 kPa during reconsolidation. Then, the drainage
valves were opened to allow excess pore pressure to dissipate and
the time rate of dissipation of excess pore pressure was recorded.
To determine postliquefaction compression and recompression
04014014-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 1

0.8

0.6
Ru

0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(a) Time (Second)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40
30
20
10
q (kPa)

0 Fig. 3. Liquefaction resistance of MRV silt

-10 0 20 40 60 80
-20
-30
-40
(b) p' (kPa)
Fig. 2. Pore pressure ratio (Ru ) response and stress path with a CSR of
0.18: (a) Ru versus time; (b) q versus p 0
indexes, after effective confining pressure (σ30 ) attained a value of
90 kPa owing to dissipation of excess pore pressure, extra consoli-
dation pressure was incrementally applied on the specimen. Each
increment of the pressure was 90 kPa. The pressure was added until
the consolidation was finished on the specimen under the last
effective consolidation pressure.
Testing Results
Cyclic Loading
Cyclic shear behavior of the MRV silt was investigated using cyclic
triaxial tests at CSRs of 0.35, 0.25, 0.18, and 0.10, all at a confining
pressure of 90 kPa. The specimen tested at a CSR of 0.10 did not
liquefy and developed a cyclic strain of only 0.39% when subjected
to more than 100 load cycles. At higher CSRs, the excess pore pres-
sure ratio reached unity, indicating that initial liquefaction can de-
velop as a result of cyclic loading. Specimen MF1R2 was tested at a
CSR of 0.18 and is shown in Fig. 2 as an example of the stress paths
and pore pressure build up. As the number of load cycles (N cyc )
increased, the excess pore pressure increased, thereby reducing
the effective confining pressure. The specimen liquefied after ap-
proximately 31 cycles. The plot of CSR versus N cyc is presented in
Fig. 3. The curves in Fig. 3 are similar to liquefaction resistance
curves reported by other investigators (Boulanger et al. 1998;
Guo and Prakash 1999). In Fig. 3, the triangle symbol (Δ) repre-
sents the data point for CSR ¼ 0.10. For CSR ¼ 0.10, the specimen
did not liquefy.
Permeability
The permeability of MRV silt pre- and postliquefaction was inves-
tigated to evaluate the effect of liquefaction on permeability. Per-
meability was determined using the expression [Eq. (1)] proposed
by Terzaghi (1925) as cited in Holtz et al. (2011)
100
av ρw gcv
k¼ ð1Þ
1 þ e0
where av = coefficient of compressibility; ρw = density of water; g =
acceleration of gravity; cv = coefficient of consolidation; and eo =
initial void ratio. Permeability was evaluated for both pre- and post-
liquefaction at an effective confining pressure (σc0 ) of 90 kPa. Ad-
mittedly, this expression was developed for one-dimensional (1D)
compression. However, specimens were consolidated under iso-
tropic pressure and drainage was mostly 1D. The permeability
of preliquefaction MRV silt determined from a 1D oedometer
consolidation test was 8.603 × 10−7 cm=s, whereas it was 5.83 ×
10−7 cm=s under isotropic compression condition. Thus, as both
values are within the same order of magnitude, the permeability
of MRV silt determined from both the isotropic triaxial test and
the 1D oedometer test can be considered to be approximately equal.
The authors did not investigate this difference any further. Notwith-
standing the fact of the small difference in permeability values of
MRV silt determined from the isotropic triaxial test and the 1D oed-
ometer test, the values determined from isotropic compression tests
should be used with caution. These values were determined for the
sole purpose of comparison of the pre- and postliquefaction per-
meability of MRV silt specimens.
The preliquefaction permeability (k) and postliquefaction per-
meability (k 0 ) from seven tests run at CSRs of 0.18, 0.25, and
0.35 were determined and evaluated. Although various CSRs were
adopted, the CSR had no effect on postcyclic behavior, as presented
by Wang (2011). The results of the evaluation are presented in
Fig. 4. The average of pre- and postliquefaction permeability
was 5.83 × 10−7 cm=s and 5.50 × 10−7 cm=s, respectively. Per-
meability essentially remained constant, indicating that cyclic load-
ing had no significant effect on the permeability characteristics of
the MRV silt. Fig. 4 presents a plot of permeability before and after
liquefaction. Fig. 4 indicates that the variation (or spread of the
data) of preliquefaction permeability (k) was more than that of post-
liquefaction permeability (k 0 ). The difference between the maxi-
mum permeability and the minimum permeability was greater
for preliquefaction (Δk ¼ 2.85 × 10−7 cm=s) than that for postli-
quefaction (Δk 0 ¼ 0.88 × 10−7 cm=s). The smaller variation of k 0
indicates a smaller change in the soil fabric or porosity among spec-
imens after liquefaction. The application of cyclic loading on the
specimens, leading up to liquefaction (Ru ¼ 1), resulted in the rear-
rangement of the soil grains into similar microstructural state and
consequently led to similar permeability for the different
specimens.

© ASCE 04014014-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Compression and recompression indexes before and after

liquefaction
Fig. 4. Permeability of MRV silt before and after liquefaction

are indicated by dashed lines. The data points in the reconsolidation

Compression and Recompression Indexes
stage (σ30 ¼ 10–90 kPa) aligned well with the data points in the
The normal consolidation line (NCL) during isotropic consolida- normal compression stage (σ30 ¼ 90–360 kPa). This suggests that
tion was used to show compressibility characteristics of the the reconsolidation process is actually a process of compression
preliquefaction silt. The compressibility characteristics of the pre- rather than recompression. The postliquefaction compression index
liquefaction silt were presented in terms of the normal consolida- (Cc0 ) and recompression index (Cr0 ) was 0.0589 and 0.0071, which
tion line (NCL) during isotropic consolidation. The plot of the void were lower than the preliquefaction compression index (Cc ) and
ratio, e- log σ30 relationship for pre- and postliquefaction MRV silt recompression index (Cr ), respectively. Therefore, whereas the
is presented in Fig. 5. The preliquefaction compression index (Cc ) compressibility of MRV silt was improved (decreased) owing to
and recompression index (Cr ) was 0.0896 and 0.0090, respectively. the liquefaction, its magnitude remained significant. The change
In contrast, the slopes (= −de=d log σ30 ) of the reconsolidation in compressibility was primarily related to changes to the soil
lines, being nearly parallel to the NCL, ranged from 0.0502 to structure (fabric), besides grain-size distribution and density. As
0.0604—much closer to Cc than Cr . Similar findings have been presented in Fig. 7, the volumetric strain (4%) attributable to recon-
reported for silt and nonplastic silty materials by Thevanayagam solidation after liquefaction was low, indicating that the density did
et al. (2001) (for artificial soil mixtures of a sand and nonplastic
silt) and Hyde et al. (2007) [for a powdered limestone (silt-sized
particles = 69.2%; PI ¼ 6)]. Therefore, for sands and low-plasticity
silts, the postliquefaction reconsolidation line tends toward being
parallel to the compression line than the recompression line. How-
ever, as indicated by Yasuhara and Andersen (1991), Hyodo et al.
(1994), and Hyde et al. (1997), the reconsolidation lines of clays
and plastic silts are nearly parallel to their recompression lines.
Thus, cyclic loading has more effect on the fabric change of
low-plasticity soils than on that of high-plasticity soils.
The comparison of the compression and recompression indexes
of post- and preliquefaction MRV silt is presented in Fig. 6, in
which the postliquefaction compression and recompression indexes (a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Time history of axial strain to achieve Ru ¼ 1 during cyclic

loading and volumetric strain after liquefaction for selected specimen
Fig. 5. Reconsolidation curves of MRV silt after full liquefaction MF1R1: (a) axial strain versus time; (b) volumetric strain versus time

© ASCE 04014014-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014

 Table 2. Axial Strain (Ru ¼ 1) and Volumetric Strain after Liquefaction
Test ID CSR εa (%) εv (%)
MD2R 0.18 11.2 3.68
MD4 0.35 11.1 3.57
MD4R 0.35 11.4 3.45
MF1 <0.18 11.7 4.02
MF1R1 0.18 9.8 4.04
MF1R2 0.18 8.9 4.01
not change substantially. Thus, the small change in compressibility
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
indicates that there was unsubstantial change in the soil structure.
Magnitude of Compressibility after Liquefaction
Liquefaction induces some settlement on soil mass, especially
where there is an applied deviator stress, such as under foundations
or on slopes. The volumetric strain or settlement induced by cyclic
loading on the specimens was investigated for postliquefaction con-
solidation tests. The results of this investigation are presented in
Fig. 7 and Table 2. The axial displacement trajectories of a select
specimen (MF1R2) show a maximum 9.8% strain (when Ru ¼ 1.0)
and an associated volumetric strain after liquefaction for this same
specimen is also shown in Fig. 7. The summary of the volumetric
strain induced on the liquefied specimens is presented in Table 2.
Essentially, the contribution of the postliquefaction compression
(4%) is quite significant to ground settlement, and it should be
added to the deformations that will induce distress to the structure.
The reconsolidation of typical silt in the New Madrid seismic zone
may cause significant settlement after an earthquake event. When
compared with the cyclic mobility threshold criteria of 3% single
axial strain (Boulanger et al. 1998), the impact of the compression
that occurs after liquefaction can be considered significant.
Summary and Conclusions
The liquefaction resistance and postcyclic reconsolidation charac-
teristics of MRV silt were investigated using cyclic triaxial com-
pression tests. MRV silt (PI ¼ 5.8) reached liquefaction (Ru ¼ 1),
and a relationship of CSR versus N cyc was reported.
Liquefaction had no significant effect on the magnitude of
permeability. However, cyclic loading appears to remold the spec-
imens. Compared with preliquefaction specimens, the permeability
of postliquefaction specimens showed less scatter; they fell within a
narrow range.
The reconsolidation process of postliquefaction specimens
was similar to a process of compression rather than recompression.
Compared with the preliquefaction compression and recompression
indexes, MRV silt became less compressible in reconsolidation.
However, the degree of the compressibility of the specimens re-
mained significant. Because of the excess pore pressure generated
by liquefaction, the specimen produced significant volumetric strain
of approximately 4%.
The postliquefaction reconsolidation characteristics of MRV silt
indicate that the performance of infrastructure supported on the silt,
from the compressibility point of review, remains a concern. MRV
silt studied in this work was obtained near the NMSZ, and it is
evident that a high risk of damage related to earthquakes M >
7.0 continues in this seismic zone (Elnashai et al. 2009). Hence,
transport infrastructure, including embankments, within the NMSZ
may perform poorly as a result of liquefaction during an earthquake
and reconsolidation after the earthquake.
© ASCE 04014014-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014
Acknowledgments
The financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 51208516) and Postdoctoral Foundation Program of
Central South University are appreciated. Additionally, the authors
are grateful to the Department of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering at Missouri University of Science and
Technology for the excellent facilities for this research.
References
Anderson, N., Baker, H., Chen, G., Hertell, T., Hoffman, D., and Luna, R.
(2001). “Earthquake hazard assessment along designated emergency
vehicle access routes.” MoDOT Rep. DT98-043, Missouri Dept. of
Transportation, Jefferson City, MO.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils.” D4318-05, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2006). “Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by
water pycnometer.” D854-06, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2007). “Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.”
D422-63 (reapproved 2007), West Conshohocken, PA.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2007). “Evaluation of cyclic softening
in silts and clays.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2007)133:6(641), 641–652.
Boulanger, R. W., Meyers, M. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss, I. M. (1998).
“Behavior of a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta earthquake.”
Can. Geotech. J., 35(1), 146–158.
Bray, J. D., and Frost, D. (2010). “Geo-engineering reconnaissance of the
2010 Maule, Chile earthquake.” Rep. No. GEER-022, Geo-Engineering
Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association, Univ. of
California at Berkeley, CA.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1990). “Methods of test for soils for
civil engineering purposes: Classification tests.” 1377-2, British
Standards Institution, U.K.
Cubrinovski, M., Green, R. A., and Wotherspoon, L. (2011). “Geotechnical
reconnaissance of the 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake.”
Rep. No. GEER-027, Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance
(GEER) Association, Univ. of California at Berkeley, CA.
Elnashai, A. S., Jefferson, T., Fiedrich, F., Cleveland, L. J., and Gress, T.
(2009). “Impact of New Madrid seismic zone earthquakes on the
Central USA.” MAE Center Rep. No. 09-03, Mid-America Earthquake
Center, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Guo, T., and Prakash, S. (1999). “Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay
mixtures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(1999)125:8(706), 706–710.
Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., and Sheahan, T. C. (2011). An introduction to
geotechnical engineering, 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Hyde, A. F. L., Higuchi, T., and Yasuhara, T. (2007). “Postcyclic recom-
pression, stiffness, and consolidated cyclic strength of silt.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(416),
416–423.
Hyde, A. F. L., Marto, A., and Yasuhara, K. (1997). “Volumetric compres-
sion of periodically loaded silt.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Deformation and
Progressive Failure in Geomechanics, Pergamon, London, 629–634.
Hyodo, M., Yamamoto, Y., and Sugiyama, M. (1994). “Undrained cyclic
shear behavior of normally consolidated clay subjected to initial static
shear stress.” Soils Found., 34(4), 1–11.
Izadi, A. (2008). “Liquefaction and post-liquefaction behavior of low plas-
ticity silts using cyclic triaxial tests.” Ph.D. dissertation, Missouri Univ.
of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lefebvre, G., and LeBoeuf, D. (1987). “Rate effects and cyclic loading of
sensitive clays.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)
113:5(476), 476–489.
Porcino, D., and Caridi, G. (2007). “Pre- and post-liquefaction response of
sand in cyclic simple shear.” Dynamic response and soil properties,
ASCE, Reston, VA.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Puri, V. K. (1984). “Liquefaction behavior and dynamic properties of
loessial (silty) soils.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, MO.
Soroush, A., and Soltani-Jigheh, H. (2009). “Pre- and post-cyclic behavior
of mixed clayey soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 46(2), 115–128.
Terzaghi, K. (1925). Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalischer Grundlage,
Franz Deuticke, Leipzig und Wein.
Thevanayagam, S., Martin, G. R., Shenthan, T., and Liang, J. (2001). “Post-
liquefaction pore pressure dissipation and densification in silty soils.”
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake En-
gineering and Soil Dynamics, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology.
Wang, S., and Luna, R. (2012). “Monotonic behavior of Mississippi River
Valley silt in triaxial compression.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad on 10/30/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wang, S. (2011). “Postcyclic behavior of low-plasticity silt,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, Rolla,
MO.
Wang, S., Luna, R., and Stephenson, R. W. (2011). “A slurry consolidation
approach to reconstitute low-plasticity silt specimens for laboratory tri-
axial testing.” Geotech. Test. J., 34(4), 288–296.
Wang, S., Yang, J., and Onyejekwe, S. (2013). “Effect of previous cyclic
shearing on liquefaction resistance of Mississippi River Valley silt.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000698,
1415–1423.
Yasuhara, K., and Andersen, K. H. (1991). “Recompression of
normally consolidated clay after cyclic loading.” Soils Found., 31(1),

.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000603, 516–525. 83–94.

© ASCE 04014014-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2014, 26(6): 04014014