Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Technical Note

Postliquefaction behavior of low-plasticity silt at various degrees

of reconsolidation
Shuying Wang a,n, Ronaldo Luna b, Site Onyejekwe c
a
School of Civil Engrg., Central South University, Changsha City, Hunan Province, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, 63103, USA
c
Road Sector Development Team, Federal Ministry of Works, Abuja, Nigeria

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During earthquake events, low-plasticity silt undergoes a reduction in shear strength and stiffness due to
Received 16 April 2014 development of excess pore pressure induced by cyclic loading. With reconsolidation, during which process
Received in revised form excess pore pressure is dissipated, the shear strength and stiffness can be regained. However, due to the low
16 April 2015
permeability of silts (compared to sands), the dissipation of excess pore pressure and the reconsolidation of
Accepted 17 April 2015
low-plasticity silt takes much more time. This paper investigates the postliquefaction shear behavior of
Available online 15 May 2015
Mississippi River Valley (MRV) silt at various degrees of reconsolidation using triaxial tests. Test results indicate
Keywords: that there was a steady increase, in shear strength and stiffness, at both large and small deformations, with
Postliquefaction behavior increase in the degree of reconsolidation. The postliquefaction silt showed the effect of the apparent OCR,
Low-plasticity silt
which had a close effect on postcyclic shear behavior as did the OCR on the static behavior. The critical state
Reconsolidation
lines of MRV silt were different for pre- and post-liquefaction conditions.
Critical state line
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
For over thirty years, researchers have known that liquefaction
can occur in silty ground [1-4]. Damage and loss of property do not
occur only during actual earthquake events, but also after those
events. Some dams or slopes have failed not only because of cyclic
loading during earthquakes, but also due to reduced shear
strength or stiffness after earthquakes. Most failures of earth dams
have occurred from just a few hours to up to 24 h after an
earthquake event [5]. This phenomenon, called delayed failure or
delayed response, has motivated the study of postliquefaction
characteristics of soils, particularly silts.
Some researchers have studied the postliquefaction behavior of
sand [6–11]. A National Science Foundation Workshop held in April,
1997 also addressed the postliquefaction shear strength of granular
soils [12]. In the workshop, the need for direct tests to determine
postliquefaction strength under consolidated undrained conditions
was highlighted [12]. While these direct tests may be reasonable for
sand due to its high permeability, they may not appropriate for silts
which due to their low permeability can retain excess pore pressure
for much longer than sands. Additionally, the reconsolidation rate
depends on drainage boundary conditions in the field; with the
possible extension of the reconsolidation process due to the presence
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sywang@csu.edu.cn (S. Wang).
of a very low permeability layer, above or below, the liquefied zone.
The 2000 Tottoriken-Seibu earthquake in Japan gave an indication of
the time long duration (9 h) required for the dissipation of high pore-
water pressure after an earthquake. A ground boil that occurred in the
Takenouchi Industrial Park on a reclaimed island during the 2000
Tottoriken-Seibu earthquake lasted for 7.5 h, much longer than pre-
viously observed in the sandy deposit in Niigata. The ground at the
Industrial Park consists of nonplastic silt [13]. Liquefied ground may
undergo shearing before full reconsolidation is complete and will
remain unstable for longer periods and hence, more dangerous for
overlying structures.
This paper presents laboratory studies on the postliquefaction
behavior of MRV silt at various degrees of reconsolidation. The
variation in shear strength and stiffness with various degrees of
reconsolidation is reported. The effect of liquefaction on the shear
behavior is studied via the change in the critical state line. The
relationship of normalized shear strength ratio against apparent
overconsolidation ratio is also investigated.
2. Research background
Some work, primarily focused on sand or sandy materials, has
investigated the postliquefaction behavior of soil. Vaid and Tho-
mas [7] performed triaxial tests on Fraser River sand using water
pluviation method to reconstitute specimens. They found that the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.04.014
0267-7261/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
260 S. Wang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264

liquefied sand deformed at virtually zero stiffness over a large
range of axial strain (about 20%). With further straining, the sand
always responded in a dilative manner under static loading, even
though the initial sand was contractive under static loading. The
postliquefaction response represented continuously stiffening
behavior and an approach to any residual strength was not
observed, regardless of density or effective consolidation pressure
prior to cyclic loading, even after a postliquefaction strain of 32%.
Amini and Trandafir [9] also observed the dilation behavior in
Bonneville silty sand. Ashour et al. [11] found similar results for
sand, as did Liu et al. [14] for silt. Byrne et al. [15] hypothesized
that the steady state (or residual) strength of sand remains
unaltered under monotonic loading following liquefaction induced
by cyclic loading, if it is contractive under static loading. Wang
et al. [16] studied the reliquefaction behavior of MRV silt and
found that the liquefaction resistance of silt can be increased by
reconsolidation after the application of cyclic strain-induced axial
strain of 0.2% or more than 4 cycles of liquefaction tests.
Some work has also examined the effect of specific factors,
including density, axial strain induced by cyclic loading, and fines
content, on the postliquefaction behavior of silts and sands.
Wijewickreme and Sanin [17] reported that volumetric strain of
low-plasticity Fraser River silt due to postcyclic reconsolidation
generally increased with an increase in excess pore-water pressure
or cyclic strain. Vaid and Thomas [7] found that the recovery rate
of postliquefaction stiffness increased as relative density increased.
Liu et al. [14], similar to Vaid and Thomas [7], found that the
threshold strain after which stiffness increases quickly decreased
as dry unit weight increased and maximum double axial strain
decreased. Ashour et al. [11] presented equations to assess the
undrained response of liquefied sand based on drained test
behavior, indicating that the postcyclic excess pore pressure and
associated residual effective confining pressure govern the post-
liquefaction undrained behavior of sand.
Some other researchers have conducted some work to study
the postcyclic behavior after limited liquefaction (Ru o 1.0) rather
than after full liquefaction e.g., [5,6,11,18,19]. In particular, the
effect of excess pore pressure ratio or cyclic strain level on
postcyclic shear behavior was studied. The state-of-the-art on that
has been reviewed in Wang et al. [19]. Wang et al. [19] presented
the effect of limited excess pore pressures on MRV silt, indicating
that an excess pore pressure ratio (Ru) of greater than 0.70 was a
prerequisite for significant volume reduction and thus for an
increase in undrained shear strength due to reconsolidation after
cyclic loading.
This paper focuses on the postcyclic shear behavior of MRV silt
after full liquefaction (Ru ¼1). Most of the postliquefaction tests
were conducted after full reconsolidation or none at all. There is a
paucity of work on postliquefaction behavior of soils, especially of
silts, under various degrees of reconsolidation. This paper is an
attempt at closing this gap and advances the understanding of the
change in monotonic behavior of silts under postliquefaction
conditions.
A B-value of at least 0.95 was reached for saturation of each
specimen tested. Considering that MRV silt produced significant
dilation in previous testing [21], an additional backpressure of
100 kPa was applied to avoid cavitation. All specimens were
normally consolidated to effective confining pressure of 90 kPa
and liquefied completely (Ru ¼1.0) under dynamic loading by
uniform cycles. The cyclic triaxial tests were conducted using a
GCTS (i.e., Geotechnical Consulting and Testing Systems) auto-
matic pneumatic soil triaxial system, STX-050. The axial load was
applied pneumatically from the Belloframe actuator on the GCTS
load frame. A frequency of symmetrically cyclic stress with a sine
function of 0.1 Hz, which was lower than dominant frequency in
earthquake loading, was applied to ensure the uniformity of excess
pore pressure in the specimen. The cyclic stress ratios investigated
(CSRs, i.e. ratio of deviator stress to twice effective confining
pressure) are listed in Table 2.
After the specimens were liquefied, the specimens were recon-
solidated to various degrees (Ur ¼ 0%, 30%, 60% and 100%). The
process of reconsolidation was monitored until the desired degree
of reconsolidation is attained. The corresponding reconsolidation
time for the various degrees of reconsolidation were determined
by monitoring the full reconsolidation of several specimens, as
indicated in Fig. 2. Then, the postcyclic undrained compression
was conducted by displacement-controlled shearing. The defor-
mation rate was computed according to the time required for 50%
reconsolidation as shown in Fig. 1 of ASTM D4767. The postcyclic
triaxial test results are summarized in Table 2. The main testing
procedures are indicated via stress paths in Fig. 2.
4. Effect of CSR on postliquefaction shear behavior
The effect of CSR on the postcyclic monotonic shear behavior of
the MRV silt is addressed herein. As indicated in Table 2, specimen
Table 1
Index properties of Mississippi River Valley
(MRV) silt.
Index properties Values
Clay content ( o 2 μm) 14.5%
Liquid limit 28
Plastic limit 22
Plasticity index 6
Specific gravity 2.71
Maximum void ratio 1.604
Minimum void ratio 0.436
Compression index (λ) 0.0393
Recompression index (κ) 0.0037
Table 2
Summary of all postliquefaction triaxial compression tests on normally consoli-
dated MRV silt.

Test ID σ0 c (kPa) e CSR εcyc (%) Ur (%) e0 εv (%)

3. Experimental program MD2R 90.8 0.681 0.18 11.2 100 0.624 3.39
MD3 90.0 0.680 0.25 11.8 N.A. N.A. N.A.
MRV silt, the same material studied in Wang et al. [19], was MD4 90.0 0.676 0.35 11.1 100 0.618 3.46
MF1 90.6 0.665 o 0.18 11.7 100 0.598 4.02
used in this study. MRV silt was taken from Collinsville, Illinois,
MF1R1 90.4 0.660 0.18 9.8 100 0.593 4.04
which is about 13 mile east of the Mississippi River. The index MF1R2 89.9 0.669 0.18 8.9 100 0.602 4.01
properties and compressibility parameters are summarized in MF2 90.7 0.657 0.18 11.3 60 0.615 2.53
Table 1. Their determination methods can be found in Wang MF3 90.5 0.663 0.18 14.5 30 0.637 1.56
et al. [19]. The specimens were prepared in a split vacuum mold MF4 90.3 0.659 0.18 11.5 0 0.659 0.00

using a slurry consolidation approach. More details on the speci- Note: σ0 c—effective consolidation pressure, e—void ratio after consolidation, CSR—
men preparation procedure can be found in Wang et al. [20]. The cyclic stress ratio, εcyc—cyclic axial strain, Ur—degree of reconsolidation, e0 —void
specimens were saturated under vacuum and then back pressure. ratio after reconsolidation, εv—volumetric strain, N.A.—not available.
 S. Wang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264 261

0
500
t 0 = 1.2
MD2R 400
5 t 30 = 2.4

Δσ (kPa)
MD4 300
MD4R 200
Volume change (ml)

MF1
t 50 = 3.9 100
10
MF1R1
0
t 60 = 5.0 MF1R2 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
MF2 ε
15 t 100 = 13.0
MF3

60
40
20
20
0

u (kPa)
-200% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
25
0.1 1 10 100 1000 -40
-60
Time (min)
-80
Fig. 1. Time required to reach various reconsolidation levels after liquefaction (e.g., -100
t30 indicates time for 30% reconsolidation). ε

500
Legend:
400
500 MD4
MD4, CSR = 0.35
MF1R2_100%_Post Shearin q (kPa) 300 MF1
MF1, CSR < 0.18
MF2_60%_Post Shearin
400 MF1R1
MF1R1, CSR = 0.18
MF3_30%_Post Shearin 200
MF1R2, CSR = 0.18
MF1R2
MF4_0%_Post Shearin
300 100

0
200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
p'(kPa)
q(kPa)

100 Ur = 0% 4
Fig. 3. Postliquefaction monotonic shear behavior of MRV silt with full reconsoli-
p' (kPa)
dation with various CSRs: (a) Δσ vs. ε1, (b) ue vs. ε1, (c) q vs. p0 .
0
0 30% 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
60%
-100 3 Steps: 5. Effect of reconsolidation level on postliquefaction
100%
1. Consolidation monotonic shear behavior
-200 2 2. Cyclic loading to liquefaction
1 3. Reconsolidation
4. Postcyclic monotonic shearing
5.1. Undrained shear behavior
-300

Fig. 2. Testing procedure shown as stress paths.
MF1 with a CSR of less than 0.18 took 66.2 cycles of loading to
liquefy; specimens MF1R1 and MF1R2, both with CSRs of 0.18,
required an average of 29 cycles to liquefy; and specimen MD4
with a CSR of 0.35 required only one cycle to liquefy. All specimens
induced identical excess pore pressures of about 90 kPa to achieve
liquefaction. However, the development of cyclic strain (ε1) at the
end of cyclic loading varied slightly, and there was no obvious
relationship between cyclic strain and CSR. Fig. 3 shows the
postcyclic behavior of all four specimens. For specimens with CSRs
less than or equal to 0.18, the results of postcyclic shear tests
produced curves demonstrating that deviator stress, excess pore
pressure, and stress path were similar among all specimens. Thus,
the CSR has no significant effect on the postcyclic shearing
behavior of MRV silt.
Table 2 also shows the volumetric strain due to the reconsoli-
dation after full liquefaction. Specimen MD4 had a slightly smaller
volumetric strain than others, but the difference was not large.
This observation was similar to that of sand tested by [6]. Chern
and Lin [6] carried out postcyclic consolidation tests on loose,
clean sand and silty sand and found that the reconsolidation
volumetric strain was related to the residual pore pressure ratio
developed during cyclic loading, regardless of the cyclic stress
ratio or the number of loading cycles.
Fig. 4 shows the postliquefaction monotonic behavior of MRV
silt at various degrees of reconsolidation. At full reconsolidation,
specimen MF1R2 contracted initially then dilated continuously
(Fig. 4c). As indicated by the deviator stress–strain curve of Fig. 4a,
the deviator stress reached a peak value of about 437 kPa at an
axial strain of 14%. The deviator stress drops slightly after con-
tinued axial strain. On the other hand, the other three specimens
dilated continuously until they reached the critical state at the
axial strain greater than 25%.
Fig. 4b shows the excess pore pressure response. A higher
degree of reconsolidation resulted in a higher initial effective
confining pressure and a higher density at the beginning of
postcyclic monotonic shearing. It is known that under constant
effective confining pressure, soil with higher density dilates easier
and earlier. Considering density, the effect of reconsolidation is a
change of shear behavior from contraction to dilation. To the
contrary, from the perspective of effective confining stress, recon-
solidation leads to a change in shear behavior from dilation to
contraction. However, as shown in Fig. 4b, because all specimens
after liquefaction had a negative excess pore pressure at large
deformation, it was thought that the change in effective confining
stress due to reconsolidation was more pronounced. At large
deformation, however, all specimens almost dilated along the
same failure line (Fig. 4c), indicating that the degree of reconso-
lidation does not significantly change the slope of the failure line
(or the effective friction angle).
262 S. Wang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264

7
500

Su/Su,Ur = 0%, or Esec/Esec,Ur = 0%

6 Undrained Shear Strength
400
5.34
Secant Modulus
Ur=100% 5
60%
Δσ (kPa)

300

200 30% 4
4.21
100 0% 3

0 2
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
ε1 1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ur
60
Fig. 6. Recovery of undrained shear strength and secant modulus with
40
reconsolidation.
20
0
ue (kPa)

-20 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

-40 5
-60
-80
-100 4

(Su/ σ'3)OC/(Su / σ'3)NC

ε1

(Su /σ'c)OC /(Su/ σ'c) NC

-120

3 Postcyclic shearing with

or
500 various Ur after full
liquefaction
400 Legends: 2
Static shearing with
MF1R2_100%
MF1R2, Ur = 100%
q (kPa)

300 various OCRs

MF2,
MF2_60% U r = 60%
200 MF3,
MF3_30% U r = 30% 1
MF4,
MF4_0% U r = 0%
100
0
0 0 5 10 15 20
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
OCR app or OCR
p' (kPa)

Fig. 4. Postliquefaction undrained shear behavior of MRV silt under various Fig. 7. Effect of OCR or OCRapp on the normalized undrained shear strength.
reconsolidation levels after full liquefaction: (a) Δσ vs. ε1, (b) ue vs. ε1, (c) q vs. p0 .
Fig. 6, the Esec =Esec ;U r ¼ 0% increased as reconsolidation level
increased. The same was true of the Su =Su;U r ¼ 0% ; however, the
increase was not as large as that at Ur ¼100%. The undrained shear
Sy /Sy, Ur =0% , or E i/Ei,Ur=0%

7.0
6.0 Yield Strength
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0% 20% 40%
Ur
Fig. 5. Recovery of yield shear strength and initial stiffness with reconsolidation.
5.2. Shear strength and stiffness
The shear strength and stiffness at small deformation are
referred to as yield shear strength (Sy) and initial stiffness (Ei),
respectively. The shear strength and stiffness at large deformation
are referred to as undrained shear strength (Su) and secant
modulus (Esec), respectively. The procedure for determining shear
strength and stiffness at the small and large deformation are the
same as those in Wang et al. [19].
Fig. 5 shows the ratios of initial stiffness and yield shear
strength, each at various degree of reconsolidation, to those at
zero degree of reconsolidation (i.e., Sy =Sy;U r ¼ 0% , and Ei =Ei;U r ¼ 0% ).
The initial stiffness and yield shear strength increased steadily
with increase in the degree of reconsolidation. With full reconso-
lidation, yield shear strength and initial stiffness of the liquefied
silt were 6.3 times the yield shear strength and 5.9 times the initial
stiffness of unconsolidated liquefied silt, respectively. As shown in
strength of fully reconsolidated liquefied silt was 4.2 times larger
than that of unreconsolidated liquefied silt. The secant modulus of
Initial Stiffness
fully liquefied silt was 5.3 times larger than that of unreconsoli-
dated liquefied silt.
5.3. Apparent OCR
OCRapp is defined as the ratio of initial effective consolidation
60% 80% 100% pressure (σ0 c) before cyclic loading to effective confining pressure (σ0 3)
at the beginning of postliquefaction shearing. It is induced by excess
pore pressure during cyclic loading. Several researchers have used the
term apparent overconsolidation ratio (OCRapp) to study postcyclic
undrained shear strength [22,5,11]. This work computed OCRapp for
MRV silt at various degrees of reconsolidation.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of OCRapp on the normalized shear
strength (Su/σ0 3) of MRV silt. The undrained shear strength (Su) was
normalized by the effective confining pressure at the beginning of
postcyclic shearing. The normalized shear strength ratio [(Su/
σ0 3)OC/(Su/σ0 3)NC] is defined as the ratio of the normalized shear
strength of the overconsolidated specimen to that of the normally
consolidated specimen. For purposes of comparison, data on the
normalized shear strength ratio [(Su/σ0 c)OC/(Su/σ0 c)NC] of MRV silt
for static triaxial tests described in Wang and Luna [21] are also
included in Fig. 7. This comparison indicates no significant
difference between the static and postcyclic monotonic test in
the variation in the normalized shear strength ratio with the OCR
and OCRapp. Thus, the OCR and OCRapp have the same effect on the
increase in normalized shear strength ratio. With identical effec-
tive consolidation pressure, overconsolidation produces the same
increase in undrained shear strength regardless of how the
 S. Wang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264 263

500 MF1R2 MF4 MS2 become dense and had a void ratio relatively close to that of specimen
MS2. However, specimen MF4 had a lower initial effective confining
400 pressure than the static specimen MS2 due to the presence of some
R u = 1.0 and Ur = 100%
remainder of the excess pore pressure induced by cyclic loading. Thus,
300 the specimen MF4 was less stiff at the early stage of postcyclic
Δσ (kPa)

shearing. Although specimen MF4 dilated continuously with deforma-

200 tion, its undrained shear strength was not identical to that of specimen
R u = 0 (static) MS2. It is believed that the reduced undrained shear strength is
100 attributable to the change in the microstructure of the soil due to
R u = 1.0 and Ur = 0%
cyclic loading. Such limited recovery of deviator stress with deforma-
0 tion was also indicated in the work of Yasuhara et al. [22], who studied
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% the postcyclic degradation of strength and stiffness for low-plasticity
ε1
silt with a PI of 19.7. Undrained shear strength is usually not fully
Fig. 8. Comparison of undrained stress–strain behavior of MRV silt with and recovered after postcyclic reconsolidation.
without liquefaction. With full reconsolidation, specimen MF1R2 gained undrained
shear strength about 4 times that of the static specimen MS2.
Although the interlocking of soil particles in specimen MF1R2 was
weakened by cyclic loading, reconsolidation makes its void ratio
decrease (see Table 2) and its effective confining pressure increase
0.800
significantly. The large increase in the undrained shear strength is
attributable to the decrease in the void ratio and the increase in
0.750 the effective confining pressure.
NCL pre

0.700 CSLpre
0.0393
CSLpost 6.2. Critical state
e

0.650 0.0424 As presented in Fig. 9, the NCLpre is normally consolidated line

0.0235
0.0571
0.600
NCL post
0.550
1.0 2.7 7.3 19.7 53.1 143.5 387.4 1046.0
p' (kPa) - ln scale
Fig. 9. Critical state lines of MRV silt prior to and after liquefaction (the value next
to each line is the slope).
overconsolidation condition was developed. Actually, the OCR and
OCRapp represented two different overconsolidation processes. The
OCR was generated by reducing cell pressure while keeping pore
pressure constant so that the effective consolidation pressure was
reduced from the product of the OCR and σ0 c to σ0 c. Conversely, the
OCRapp was generated by increasing pore pressure while keeping
cell pressure constant to change effective consolidation pressure.
In other words, the OCR and OCRapp just represented two different
ways to induce overconsolidation, and they had the same effect on
normalized shear strength ratio.
6. Comparison with monotonic shear behavior
6.1. Undrained shear strength
Fig. 8 compares postcyclic monotonic behavior of liquefied silt to
that of silt not previously subjected to cyclic loading. As stated in Wang
and Luna [21], the static specimen MS2 had a slight drop in deviator
stress after the initial peak point, indicating a quasi-steady state
condition, but specimens previously subjected to cyclic loading
(MF1R2 and MF4) showed continuous strain-hardening behavior.
The undrained shear strength of the liquefied specimen MF4 was
lower than that of specimen MS2 which was not previously subjected
to cyclic loading. Specimen MF4 was sheared monotonically without
reconsolidation after its liquefaction; therefore, the specimen did not
of the preliquefaction silt. During cyclic loading, the positive
excess pore pressure developed and caused the data point to
move toward the left side of the e-lnp’ space. Thus, the normally
consolidated line of the postliquefaction silt (NCLpost) is on the left
of the NCLpre. Based on the results of undrained shearing tests, the
critical state line of the preliquefaction silt (CSLpre) and that of the
postliquefaction silt (CSLpost) were determined and plotted in
Fig. 9. The CSL of the postliquefaction soil (CSLpost) is not parallel
to the NCLpost, confirming that the MRV silt behaves partially like
sand, displaying one aspect of the unique static behavior described
in Wang and Luna [21].
The CSL of the liquefied specimens is different from that of the
soil specimens not previously subjected to cyclic loading, suggest-
ing that the CSL of the MRV silt may change as the soil fabric
changes due to cyclic loading, and that no unique CSL exists for the
MRV silt. As reported by Seed [23], Vaid and Chern [24], Stark and
Mesri [25], among others, the CSL may be influenced by the shear
mode, effective confining pressure, and sample preparation
method, all of which may vary the arrangement of soil grains (or
fabric). In particular, Nocilla et al. [26] observed that there are no
unique normal consolidation lines (NCLs) and CSLs for Italian silts
with PIs of 11 and 13. They concluded that specimens prepared
with slurries of different water content generate different fabrics
and hence different NCLs and CSLs. The different critical state lines
of MRV silt due to soil fabric can also be indicated in Fig. 8.
Without reconsolidation, undrained shear strength decreased due
to fabric modification compared to that of static specimen.
Further analysis of Fig. 9 suggests that the data points for
postliquefaction monotonic tests can be fitted with a straight line in
semi-logarithmic space more easily than those for static tests. A
reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that the fabric of
liquefied soil specimens is more similar than that of static specimens
not previously subjected to cyclic loading. During liquefaction, the soil
skeleton is completely remolded, and soil behaves as if it has been
freshly deposited [27]. More constant soil fabric among the liquefied
specimens was also reported by Wang and Luna [28], who found that
there was closer permeability among postliquefaction specimens than
among preliquefaction specimens.
264 S. Wang et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 75 (2015) 259–264
7. Summary of findings and conclusions
Based on the study of postliquefaction behavior of MRV silt at
various degrees of reconsolidation, this study supports the follow-
ing findings:
The shear strength and stiffness of MRV silt at both small and
large deformation increased steadily with an increase in the
degree of reconsolidation. For small deformations, yield strength
always increased slightly more than initial stiffness with an
increase in reconsolidation level. For large deformation, however,
undrained shear strength and secant modulus increased signifi-
cantly for low and high degrees of reconsolidation, respectively.
The normalized shear strength ratio increased with increasing
OCRapp. The relationship of the normalized shear strength ratio to
OCRapp after liquefaction was almost identical to that of normal-
ized shear strength ratio to OCR for specimens not subjected to
cyclic loading. The process of produce OCR and OCRapp repre-
sented two different ways to induce overconsolidation, and they
had the same effect on normalized shear strength ratio.
Specimens both subjected and not previously subjected to
cyclic loading with had different CSLs. It is noted that the
difference in CSL between pre- and postliquefaction MRV silt
cannot be supported by critical state soil mechanics, although it
was also proposed previously by other investigators. It is recom-
mended that more researches with different testing conditions be
required to continuously study the critical state line.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of National Natural Science Foundation of
China (no. 51208516) and Postdoctoral Science Foundation of
China (2014M550424) are appreciated. The authors are also grate-
ful to their colleague R.W. Stephenson at Missouri University of
Science and Technology and the reviewers for this paper. Without
input and comments from them, it would not be possible to get
this research to move forward smoothly. Additionally, the authors
are grateful to the Department of Civil, Architectural & Environ-
mental Engineering at Missouri University of Science and Technol-
ogy for the excellent facilities for this research.
References
[1] Wang WS. Some findings in soil liquefaction. Beijing: Water Conservancy and
Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research Institute; 1979.
[2] Boulanger RW, Meyers MW, Mejia LH, Idriss IM. Behavior of a fine-grained soil
during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Can Geotech J 1998;35:146–58.
[3] Bray JD, Sancio RB. Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine-
grained soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2006;132(9):1165–77.
[4] Bray JD, Frost D. Geo-engineering reconnaissance of the 2010 Maule, Chile
earthquake. Report no. GEER-022, Geo-engineering extreme events recon-
naissance (Geer) Association; 2010.
[5] Soroush A, Soltani-Jigheh H. Pre- and post-cyclic behavior of mixed clayey
soils. Can Geotech J 2009;46(2):115–28.
[6] Chern JC, Lin CC. Post-cyclic consolidation behavior of loose sands. Proceeding
of Settlement 94. Geotechnical Special Publication; 1994. p. 40.
[7] Vaid YP, Thomas J. Liquefaction and postliquefaction behavior of sand. J
Geotech Eng 1995;121(2):163–73.
[8] Porcino D, Caridi G. Pre- and post-liquefaction response of sand in cyclic
simple shear. Dynamic response and soil properties. Geotechnical Special
Publication; 2007. p. 160.
[9] Amini ZA, Trandafir AC. Post-liquefaction shear behavior of Bonneville silty-
sand. Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. Geotechnical
Special Publication; 2008. p. 181.
[10] Alba P de, Ballestero TP. Effect of fines on sand residual strength after
liquefaction. Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. Geo-
technical Special Publication; 2008. p. 181.
[11] Ashour M, Norris G, Nguyen T. Assessment of the undrained response of sands
under limited and complete liquefaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135
(11):1772–6.
[12] Stark TD, Kramer SL, Youd TL. Post-liquefaction shear strength of granular
soils. In: National science foundation workshop, University of Illinois-Urbana-
Champaign; 1997.
[13] Towhata I. Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Spring series in geomecha-
nics and geoengineering; 2008.
[14] Liu HL, Zeng CN, Zhou YD. Test study on post-liquefaction deformation
behavior of silt ground. Chin J Rock Soil Mech 2007;28(9):1866–70.
[15] Byrne PM, Jitno H, Jeremy H. A procedure for predicting the seismic response
of tailings impoundments. In: Proc., geotechnique and natural hazards:
geohazards 92, Vancouver Geotech. Soc., Vancouver, Canada, ; 1992:p. 281-
289.
[16] Wang S, Yang J, Onyejekwe S. Effect of previous cyclic shearing on liquefaction
resistance of Mississippi River Valley Silt. J Mater Civ Eng 2013;25
(10):1415–23.
[17] Wijewickreme D, Sanin M. Postcyclic reconsolidation strains in low-plastic
Fraser river silt due to dissipation of excess pore-water pressures. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2010;136(10):1347–57.
[18] Sanin MV, Wijewickreme D. Cyclic shear response of channel-fill Fraser River
Delta Silt. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2006;26(9):854–69.
[19] Wang S, Luna R, Yang J. Postcyclic behavior of low-plasticity silt with limited
excess pore pressures. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2013;54:39–46.
[20] Wang S, Luna R, Stephenson R. A slurry consolidation approach to reconstitute
low-plasticity silt specimens for laboratory triaxial testing. Geotech Test J
2011;34(4):288–96.
[21] Wang S, Luna R. Monotonic behavior of Mississippi River Valley Silt in triaxial
compression. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2012;138(4):516–25.
[22] Yasuhara K, Murakami S, Song BW, Yokokawa S, Hyde AFL. Postcyclic
degradation of strength and stiffness for low plasticity silt. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(8):756–69.
[23] Seed HB. Design problems in soil liquefaction. J Geotech Eng 1987;113
(8):827–45.
[24] Vaid YP, Chern JC. Cyclic and monotonic undrained response of saturated
sands. In: Proceedings of advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic
conditions, New York; 1985. p. 120–147.
[25] Stark TD, Mesri G. Undrained shear strength of liquefied sands for stability
analysis. J Geotech Eng 1992;118(11):1727–47.
[26] Nocilla A, Coop MR, Colleselli F. The mechanics of an Italian silt: an example of
‘transitional’ behavior. Geotechnique 2006;56(4):261–71.
[27] Thevanayagam S, Martin GR, Shenthan T, Liang J. Post-liquefaction pore
pressure dissipation and densification in silty soils. In: Proceedings of fourth
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, California; 2001.
[28] Wang S, Luna R. Compressibility characteristics of low-plasticity silt before
and after liquefaction. J Mater Civ Eng 2014;26(6) 04014014-1  6.