Analyzing Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads Using

Strength Ratios
Scott M. Olson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1; and Cora I. Johnson, S.M.ASCE2

Abstract: The writers backanalyzed 39 well-documented liquefaction-induced lateral spreads in terms of a mobilized strength ratio,
su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo using the Newmark sliding block method. Based on the inverse analyses results, we found that the backcalculated strength
ratios mobilized during lateral spreads can be directly correlated to normalized cone penetration test tip resistance and standard penetra-
tion test blow count. Remarkably, Newmark analysis-based strength ratios mobilized during these lateral spreads essentially coincide with
liquefied strength ratios backcalculated from liquefaction flow failures. The mobilized strength ratios appear to be independent of the
magnitude of lateral displacement 共at least for displacements greater than 15 cm兲 and the strength of shaking 共in terms of peak ground
acceleration兲. Furthermore, the mobilized strength ratios backcalculated from these cases appear to be consistent for a given depositional
environment and do not appear to be severely impacted by potential water layer formation.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:8共1035兲
CE Database subject headings: Liquefaction; Shear strength; Penetration resistance; in situ tests; Earthquakes; Lateral displacement.

Introduction documented case studies of seismic liquefaction-induced lateral

Ground failures triggered by earthquakes can take many forms
depending on the geologic setting and regional topography. In
particular, seismic liquefaction-induced lateral spreads are com-
mon in saturated, geologically young, relatively cohesionless de-
posits situated on essentially level ground if an incision exists in
the topography 共such as a river or channel兲 or on mild slopes as
gentle as about 0.5% even without such incisions. A liquefaction-
induced lateral spread generally involves large areas of ground
translating laterally for distances ranging from a few centimeters
to several meters along or through a layer of liquefied soil. These
ground failures are a major source of damage to bridges, build-
ings, and other structures during earthquakes, and in some cases
such as the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, they can account for the
majority of earthquake damage 共Youd 2003兲.
Because of its impact on transportation, lifeline, and building
infrastructure, understanding the displacement patterns and mag-
nitudes of lateral spreads is an important problem for geotechnical
engineers. A number of approaches are available to estimate lat-
eral spreading displacements, and several of these approaches re-
quire a practitioner to select a shear resistance mobilized during
lateral spreading for use in the analysis.
Recently, investigators have published a large number of well-
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 2230d Newmark Civil Engineer-
ing Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail:
olsons@uiuc.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2009. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on July 18, 2007; approved on December 10, 2007. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, August 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2008/8-1035–1049/$25.00.
spreads, allowing detailed study of this class of ground failure. In
this paper, we describe our backanalysis of mobilized shear resis-
tance from 39 well-documented case histories using the Newmark
共1965兲 sliding block analysis where cone penetration test 共CPT兲
and/or standard penetration test 共SPT兲 results are available. We
compare these backcalculated mobilized shear resistances to liq-
uefied shear strengths backcalculated from liquefaction flow fail-
ure case histories, and discuss the importance of factors such as
the consolidation stress, depositional environment, magnitude of
displacement, strength of shaking, and water layer formation on
the mobilized shear resistance. Lastly, we provide recommenda-
tions for estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spreading dis-
placements using the Newmark 共1965兲 sliding block analysis in
practice.
Approaches to Analyze Lateral Spreads
Lateral spreads are complex dynamic geotechnical problems that
require practitioners to assess liquefaction triggering, estimate lat-
eral displacements, and evaluate soil–foundation interaction
where structures are involved. A variety of techniques are avail-
able to analyze these problems, ranging from simple empirical
approaches to complex numerical techniques utilizing nonlinear
constitutive models. Table 1 provides an abridged list of some of
the available techniques used to evaluate lateral spreading dis-
placements. These methods are widely used in practice, particu-
larly the Youd et al. 共2002兲 procedure.
Newmark „1965… Sliding Block Analysis
In addition to methods specific to liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading 共e.g., Table 1兲, practitioners 共e.g., Miller and Roycroft
2004兲 and researchers 共e.g., Boulanger et al. 1997兲 have widely
employed the Newmark 共1965兲 sliding block analysis to evaluate
lateral spread displacements. The Newmark analysis simplifies a
potential sliding mass as a rigid block sliding on an inclined sur-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1035

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 1. Abridged List of Techniques Used to Estimate Lateral Spreading Displacements
Technique
Empirical approaches based on case histories
Laboratory studies of limiting shear strains
Semiempirical approaches using case histories and laboratory-based
limiting shear strains
Centrifuge studies
Numerical techniques
face, where sliding initiates when the earthquake-induced inertia
force exceeds the available resistance along the potential sliding
plane.
In this method, a pseudostatic limit equilibrium analysis is
used to estimate the horizontal acceleration 共termed the yield ac-
celeration, ky兲 required to bring the sliding mass to a state of
impending failure 共i.e., factor of safety of unity兲. This yield ac-
celeration is compared to the measured or assumed acceleration
time history at the site. When the seismic acceleration exceeds the
yield acceleration, the sliding mass accelerates relative to its base.
Sliding continues until the seismic acceleration falls below the
yield acceleration and the relative velocity of the sliding mass
reaches zero. By integrating the relative velocity with respect to
time, the accumulated downslope displacement can be computed.
The original Newmark 共1965兲 procedure assumed rigid block
behavior and a constant yield acceleration. Various researchers
have modified the method to account for the dynamic response of
the sliding mass 共Makdisi and Seed 1978; Lin and Whitman
1983; Kramer and Smith 1997; Rathje and Bray 2000兲, postpeak
loss of shear resistance 共i.e., strain softening兲 along the slip sur-
face with increasing displacement 共Houston et al. 1987; Mataso-
vic et al. 1997兲, and vertical accelerations 共Yan et al. 1996兲.
Taboada et al. 共1996兲 modified the Newmark procedure spe-
cifically for the purpose of analyzing liquefaction-induced lateral
spreads. They observed that many loose to medium dense lique-
fiable granular soils in the laboratory and field display dilative
behavior at the end of each strain cycle during shaking 共e.g.,
Arulmoli et al. 1992; Elgamal et al. 1995兲, and that this dilative
stress–strain response can arrest lateral straining during each
cycle of shaking and after shaking 共Elgamal et al. 1998兲. Prior to
dilating at the end of each cycle, laboratory specimens mobilize
very small values of shear resistance, during which time the ma-
jority of the shear strain accumulates. However, there are few data
from full-scale lateral spreads to confirm this stress–strain behav-
ior in the field or to constrain the “dilative” stress–strain consti-
tutive model parameters. For example, Yoshimine et al. 共1999兲
suggested that dilation may not occur in the field as the result of
kinetic effects, and it is also possible that local pore-water pres-
sure redistribution in the field may preclude dilative response.
More research is needed to clarify this issue.
Back-Analysis Framework
Despite the known limitations when applied to liquefaction-
induced lateral spreads 共e.g., assumptions of a constant yield ac-
celeration, concentrated sliding surface, and no postearthquake
movements may be violated in lateral spreads兲, the original New-
mark 共1965兲 sliding block method provides a consistent and
simple framework to evaluate lateral spread displacements and to
estimate an apparent shear resistance mobilized during sliding
1036 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008
Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Source
Youd and Perkins 共1987兲; Hamada and O’Rourke 共1992兲;
Bartlett and Youd 共1992兲; Rauch and Martin 共2000兲; Youd et al. 共2002兲
Seed et al. 共1985兲; Kuwano and Ishihara 共1988兲
Shamoto et al. 共1998兲; Zhang et al. 共2004兲
Taboada-Urtuzuastegui and Dobry 共1998兲; Sharp et al. 共2003兲;
Kutter et al. 共2004兲
Keane and Prevost 共1990兲; Byrne 共1991兲; Dobry and Baziar 共1992兲;
Chiru-Danzer et al. 共2001兲; Baziar and Ghorbani 共2005兲
共Davis et al. 1988兲. Therefore, we utilized the original Newmark
共1965兲 procedure in this study. Further, because lateral spreads
generally occur at shallow depths, we anticipate that the potential
for dynamic effects within the sliding mass are minimal for a
large majority of cases.
For each case, we performed multiple Newmark sliding block
analyses using the software developed by Jibson and Jibson
共2003兲 to develop a relationship between yield acceleration and
computed displacement as illustrated in Fig. 1. For each case, we
used a minimum of 20 acceleration time histories in the Newmark
analysis. We selected time histories using the following criteria:
共1兲 identical rupture mechanism 共e.g., reverse fault兲; 共2兲 moment
magnitude, M w, within approximately ⫾5% of the measured
magnitude; 共3兲 peak ground acceleration 共pga兲 within approxi-
mately ⫾30% of the measured or estimated value; and 共4兲 iden-
tical soil classification in the upper 30 m 共e.g., stiff soil兲. Lastly,
we linearly scaled each time history to the measured or estimated
pga for the site.
For later comparison to existing correlations, we evaluated the
mobilized shear resistance both as a single undrained shear
strength value 关su共mob兲兴 and as a strength ratio 关su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo兴,
where ␴⬘vo⫽prefailure vertical effective stress. As illustrated in
Fig. 1, we performed multiple pseudostatic limit equilibrium
analyses 关using Spencer’s 共1967兲 stability method and search
functions to locate the critical failure surface兴 for each case his-
tory to develop a relationship between yield acceleration and mo-
bilized strength ratio 共or mobilized shear strength兲. We then
estimated the median yield acceleration operative for each case
history by comparing the observed lateral spreading displacement
to the median computed displacement. Lastly, we estimated the
“median” mobilized strength ratio 共or shear strength兲 from the
Fig. 1. Newmark sliding block-based back-analysis for Juvenile Hall
lateral spread 共Case 1兲
median yield acceleration 共see Fig. 1兲. We repeated this procedure
for the 25th and 75th percentile relationships between yield ac-
celeration and computed displacement, as well as for the range of
displacements observed at each site to estimate a representative
range of mobilized strength ratios 共and shear strengths兲 for each
case.
Lateral Spread Case Histories and Back-Analysis
The writers analyzed 39 well-documented lateral spreads that oc-
curred during 12 earthquakes between 1971 and 2003. Table 2
identifies the lateral spreads, causative earthquakes, approximate
pga values, observed displacements, and references for each case
history. As indicated in Table 2, M w ranged from 6.5 to 7.6, pga
ranged from approximately 0.16 to 0.84 g, and lateral
displacements ranged from about 15 cm to 6 m for these case
histories.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the Newmark-based back-
analyses performed for this study, and includes the results from
previous studies to estimate mobilized shear resistances for sev-
eral lateral spreads. We note that many of the other estimates also
were obtained using Newmark analyses. Table 3 also includes
estimates of prefailure vertical effective stress from this study
共where the upper and lower bound values of ␴⬘vo are based on the
range of values observed along the predicted sliding surface兲 and
from previous investigators. Table 4 summarizes available pen-
etration resistance and grain properties for the soils that appar-
ently liquefied during the lateral spreads.
To supplement and extend the field case history results, we
collected a few results from laboratory shaking table tests and
centrifuge experiments where lateral spreads were induced and
mobilized shear resistances were computed by the investigators.
Table 5 provides some details for these select laboratory results,
as well as the backcalculated mobilized shear strengths. We esti-
mated normalized penetration resistances for these cases using
reported relative densities and estimated average vertical effective
stresses. Specifically, we estimated overburden stress-normalized
CPT tip resistance, qc1, from the average of the Jamiolkowski et
al. 共1985兲 and Tatsuoka et al. 共1990兲 correlations 共both as inter-
preted and reported by Yoshimine et al. 1999兲 and we estimated
overburden-stress normalized SPT blow count, 共N1兲60, from the
average of the Tokimatsu and Seed 共1987兲 and Kulhawy and
Mayne 共1990兲 correlations.
Results and Discussion
As discussed previously, practitioners commonly use liquefied
shear strengths mobilized from flow failures to evaluate potential
lateral spreading displacements using Newmark’s sliding block
procedure and researchers commonly compare mobilized shear
strengths backcalculated from lateral spreads using Newmark’s
su共mob兲
␴⬘vo
= 再 0.03 + 0.0143共qc1兲 ⫾ 0.03
0.03 + 0.0075关共N1兲60兴 ⫾ 0.03
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1037
Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
method to liquefied shear strengths backcalculated from flow fail-
ures. For clarity, the liquefied shear strength, su共liq兲, is the shear
strength mobilized at large deformation by a saturated, contrac-
tive soil following the triggering of liquefaction 共i.e., strain-
softening response兲, and is intended to describe the shear strength
actually mobilized during a liquefaction flow failure in the field,
including any potential effects of drainage, pore-water pressure
redistribution, soil mixing, etc. 共Olson and Stark 2002兲.
Figs. 2共a兲 and 3共a兲 present liquefied shear strengths backcal-
culated by Olson and Stark 共2002兲 from 33 flow failure case
histories and qc1 and 共N1兲60, respectively. Fig. 3共a兲 includes the
widely used correlation proposed by Seed and Harder 共1990兲.
More accurately, the Seed and Harder 共1990兲 correlation is based
on normalized SPT blow counts that are adjusted for fines content
as suggested by Seed 共1987兲. Therefore, Fig. 4共a兲 presents the
backcalculated liquefied shear strengths 共Olson and Stark 2002兲
with respect to equivalent clean sand normalized SPT blow count,
共N1兲60cs.
To test the reliability of using liquefied shear strengths to
evaluate lateral spreads, Figs. 2共b兲, 3共b兲, and 4共b兲 present mobi-
lized shear strengths backcalculated from lateral spreads versus
qc1, 共N1兲60, and 共N1兲60cs 共adjusted using the Seed 1987 fines con-
tent adjustment兲, respectively. As evident from Figs. 2共b兲, 3共b兲,
and 4共b兲, mobilized shear strengths backcalculated from lateral
spreads using the Newmark sliding block method generally plot
in the lower half of the backcalculated liquefied shear strengths
for qc1 values less than 5 or 6 MPa and for 共N1兲60 and 共N1兲60cs
values less than about 10. At larger penetration resistances, the
shear strengths backcalculated from lateral spreads generally fall
below the liquefied shear strengths. These results mirror those
reported by Mabey and Youd 共1998兲, and appear to justify the
assertion that strengths mobilized during dynamic lateral spreads
may differ significantly from shear strengths backcalculated from
flow failures 共e.g., Dobry and Abdoun 1998; Mabey and Youd
1998; Stark et al. 1998兲.
Olson and Stark 共2002兲, greatly expanding the work by Jeffer-
ies et al. 共1990兲, Stark and Mesri 共1992兲, and Ishihara 共1993兲,
backcalculated liquefied strength ratios, su共liq兲 / ␴⬘vo, mobilized
during 33 liquefaction flow failures. The liquefied strength ratio
accounts for increases in liquefied shear strength due to consoli-
dation under increased confining stresses. Figs. 5共a兲 and 6共a兲
present the relationships between liquefied strength ratio and qc1
and 共N1兲60, respectively, proposed by Olson and Stark 共2002兲.
Figs. 5共b兲 and 6共b兲 compare mobilized strength ratios backcal-
culated from lateral spreads with respect to qc1 and 共N1兲60, respec-
tively, to liquefied strength ratios backcalculated from
liquefaction flow failures. As illustrated in Figs. 5共b兲 and 6共b兲,
lateral spreads backanalyzed using the Newmark sliding block
procedure exhibit mobilized strength ratios essentially identical to
liquefied strength ratios backcalculated from flow failures. Fur-
ther, we tentatively can extend the Olson and Stark 共2002兲 corre-
lations to qc1 ⬃ 10 MPa and 共N1兲60 ⬃ 16 to nearly envelope the
lateral spreading case histories. These relationships are defined as
for
for
qc1 ⱕ ⬃ 10 MPa
共N1兲60 ⱕ ⬃ 16
共1兲
Table 2. Lateral Spreading Case Histories Analyzed for This Study
Approximate Observed
Case pga displacements
Earthquake number Location 共g兲 共m兲 References
1971 San Fernando 共M w 6.6兲 1 Juvenile Hall ⬃0.5 共0.4–0.6兲 1.5 共1.5–1.7兲 Youd 共1971兲, 1973兲;
Davis et al. 共1988兲;
Bennett 共1989兲; Castro 共1995兲
1979 Imperial Valley 共M w 6.5兲 2 Heber Road 0.47 2.3 共1.2–4.2兲 Bennett et al. 共1981兲;
Youd and Wieczorek 共1982兲;
Youd and Bennett 共1983兲;
Youd 共1985兲; Davis et al. 共1988兲;
Baziar et al. 共1992兲; Castro 共1995兲
1983 Borah Peaks 共M w 6.9兲 3 Whiskey Springs fan ⬃0.45 共0.4–0.6兲 0.75 共0.6–1.2兲 Youd et al. 共1985兲;
Andrus and Youd 共1987兲;
Seed 共1987兲;
Harder 共1988兲; Stokoe et al. 共1988兲;
Fear 共1996兲
1987 Edgecumbe, New 4 Landing Road bridge ⬃0.28 1.5 共0.5–2.0兲 Christensen 共1995兲; Moss 共2003兲
Zealand 共M w 6.5兲
5 James Street Loop ⬃0.28 1.0 共0.75–3.0兲
6 Whakatane Pony Club ⬃0.28 ⬃1.0
1987 Superstition Hills 共M w 6.5兲 7 Wildlife Site 0.21 0.18 共0.18–0.23兲 Bennett et al. 共1984兲;
Holzer et al. 共1989兲; Baziar et al. 共1992兲
1989 Loma Prieta 共M w 7.0兲 8 Moss Landing, ⬃0.25 共0.2–0.3兲 0.3 Bennett 共1990兲;
MBARI Bldg 4, O’Rourke et al. 共1992兲;
Sandholdt Rd 共SI-2兲 Taylor et al. 共1992兲;
Holzer et al. 共1994兲;
Bennett and Tinsley 共1995兲;
Boulanger et al. 共1997, 1998兲;
Mejia 共1998兲;
Charlie et al. 共1998兲;
Hryciw et al. 共1998兲;
Power et al. 共1998兲;
Rollins and McHood 共1998兲;
Tinsley et al. 共1998兲;
Toprak et al. 共1999兲
9 Moss Landing, ⬃0.25 共0.2–0.3兲 0.25 共0.16–0.25兲
MBARI Bldg 3,
Sandholdt Rd 共Sl-5兲
10 Moss Landing, ⬃0.25 共0.2–0.3兲 0.8 共0.5–1.4兲
MLML Bldg,
eastward spread
11 Moss Landing, ⬃0.25 共0.2–0.3兲 0.7 共0.6–0.8兲
MLML Bldg,
westward spread
12 Miller Farm ⬃0.36 0.16 共0.12–0.45兲
13 Farris Farm ⬃0.36 0.3 共0.24–0.82兲
14 Leonardini Farm ⬃0.21 0.23 共0.17–2.0兲
15 Sea Mist Farm ⬃0.21 0.47 共0.23–0.71兲
16 Marina District, ⬃0.16 0.45 共0.3–0.6兲
St. Francis Yacht Club
17 Treasure Island, 0.16 0.2 共0.1–0.3兲
4th and N St.
and 8th and N St.
1990 Luzon, Philippines 18 Magsaysay Bridge, ⬃0.20 ⬃5.0 Ishihara et al. 共1991, 1993兲;
共M w 7.6兲 E. bank, d/s 共A-A兲 Tokimatsu et al. 共1994兲
19 Nable Street West 共B-B兲 ⬃0.20 ⬃3.0
20 Nable Street East 共C-C兲 ⬃0.20 ⬃2.0
21 Magsaysay Bridge, ⬃0.20 ⬃5.0
E. bank, u/s 共D-D兲
22 Magsaysay Bridge, ⬃0.20 ⬃6.0
W. bank, u/s 共E-E兲
23 Pogo Chico W. bank ⬃0.20 ⬃3.0

1038 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. 共Continued.兲
Approximate Observed
Case pga displacements
Earthquake number Location 共g兲 共m兲 References
1990 Manjil, Iran 共M w 7.4兲 24 Rudbaneh town canal ⬃0.17 ⬃1.0 共0.8–2.0兲 Ishihara et al. 共1992兲;
Yegian et al. 共1995a,b兲
1994 Northridge 共M w 6.7兲 25 Balboa Blvd. ⬃0.84 0.5 Holzer et al. 共1996, 1998兲;
Bennett et al. 共1998兲
26 Wynne Ave. ⬃0.51 ⬃0.15 共0.1–0.2兲
27 Potrero Canyon ⬃0.43 ⬃0.15 共0.1–0.2兲
1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 共M w 7.6兲 28 Wufeng Site C 共A-A’兲 0.67 2.05 Chu et al. 共2006兲
29 Wufeng Site C 共B-B’兲 0.67 0.49
30 Wufeng Site C1 0.67 1.24
31 Wufeng Site B 0.67 2.96
32 Wufeng Site M 0.67 1.62
33 Nantou Site N 0.39 0.25
1999 Kocaeli, Turkey 共M w 7.4兲 34 Hotel Sapanca ⬃0.4 共0.35– ⬃2.0 Bray et al. 共2002兲; Cetin et al. 共2002,
0.45兲 2004b兲
35 Police Station ⬃0.4 ⬃2.4
36 Soccer Field ⬃0.4 ⬃1.2
37 Yalova Harbor ⬃0.3 ⬃0.3
2003 San Simeon 共M w 6.5兲 38 Norswing Drive ⬃0.25 共0.18– ⬃0.2– 0.3 Holzer et al. 共2004兲
0.32兲
39 Juanita Avenue ⬃0.25 共0.18– ⬃0.2– 0.3
0.32兲

The correlations shown in Figs. 5共b兲 and 6共b兲 can be used in
practice to empirically predict lateral spreading displacements
using the original Newmark 共1965兲 sliding block procedure. We
caution, though, that these correlations should not extend indefi-
nitely at a linear rate. As the initial state of a soil 共i.e., void ratio
and effective confining pressure兲 becomes denser, the penetration
resistance increases and the soil becomes increasingly more resis-
tant to pore-water pressure buildup and liquefaction. Concur-
rently, the shear strength mobilized during seismic shaking should
increase dramatically. As a result, the shear strength and strength
ratio mobilized at qc1 ⬎ 10 MPa or 共N1兲60 ⬎ 16 may be much
larger than that implied by extrapolating Eq. 共1兲. This is consis-
tent with Bartlett and Youd 共1992兲 and Youd et al. 共2002兲 who
suggested that saturated cohesionless soils with 共N1兲60 ⬎ 15
are not likely to experience significant displacements for M W
⬍ 8 earthquakes.
Additionally, we note that during our backanalysis of each
case, we used a suite of acceleration time histories to determine
the reported range for mobilized strength ratio. In a few cases, an
acceleration time history was recorded at a site located within a
few kilometers of the observed lateral spread. In these cases, the
backcalculated strength ratio from the Newmark analysis using
the “recorded” time history differed from the median strength
ratio, but fell between the 25th and 75th percentile values. For
consistency with the other case histories and because of potential
spatial incoherence even within a few kilometers, we did not give
preference to the strength ratio estimated using the proximate
ground motion. Therefore, for consistency with the backanalysis
approach used here, we recommend that mobilized strength ratios
estimated from Figs. 5共b兲 and 6共b兲 be used in a Newmark analysis
that employs a suite of appropriate time histories to compute a
range of potential lateral displacements.
To further substantiate the strength ratios backcalculated from
lateral spreads, we examined several variables that might affect or
bias the mobilized strength ratio, including the magnitude of con-
solidation stress, local depositional environment, magnitude of
lateral displacement, strength of shaking, and the development of
a water layer. Other variables, such as the duration of shaking,
may also influence the mobilized strength ratio, but there are in-
sufficient data to examine these variables.
Influence of Consolidation Stress
The strength ratio concept assumes that there is a direct relation-
ship between the mobilized shear strength and the consolidation
stress, defined here using the prefailure vertical effective stress.
Olson and Stark 共2002兲 illustrated that liquefied shear strengths
backcalculated from liquefaction flow failures vary nearly linearly
with prefailure vertical effective stress, with su共liq兲 ranging from
approximately 0.05 to 0.12␴⬘vo 关Fig. 7共a兲兴. Fig. 7共b兲 presents a
similar comparison for liquefaction-induced lateral spreads. As
illustrated in Fig. 7, the shear strength mobilized during lateral
spreads varies nearly linearly with prefailure vertical effective
stress over a wide range of effective stresses.
Influence of Local Depositional Environment
It is generally accepted that a soil’s local depositional environ-
ment strongly influences its grain and engineering properties.
Olson and Stark 共2002兲 implied that differences in depositional
environments between individual flow failure case histories con-
tribute to the scatter observed in liquefied strength ratio correla-
tions. The lateral spreads 共Cases 18–23兲 observed along the
Pantal River in Dagupan, Philippines during the 1990 Luzon
earthquake offer a unique opportunity to test this hypothesis. As
described by Ishihara et al. 共1991, 1993兲 and Tokimatsu et al.
共1994兲, the soils that experienced extensive liquefaction and lat-
eral spreading along a roughly 2 km reach of the Pantal River
were primarily very young point bar and abandoned channel de-
posits, consisting chiefly of loose, fine-grained silty sands.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1039

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 3. Results of Newmark Sliding Block-Based Backanalysis of Lateral Spreading Case Histories
Mobilized shear strength, su共mob兲 共kPa兲 Prefailure vertical effective stress ␴⬘vo 共kPa兲

Mobilized strength ratio,

ky 共g兲 su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo This study This study

Case 25th 75th 25th 75th 25th 75th Other Other

number Median percentile percentile Median percentile percentile Median percentile percentile estimates Reference Mean l/b u/b estimates References

1 0.020 0.008 0.030 0.05 0.04 0.06 5.5 4.1 6.8 6.7 Seed 115 75.3 158 92.9 Stark and
共1987兲 Mesri
共1992兲
9.6 Davis et al.
共1988兲
6.2⫾ 3.4 Seed and
Harder
共1990兲
2 0.012 0.005 0.050 0.04 0.03 0.08 2.1 1.6 4.3 4.8 Davis et al. 55.3 25.4 59.9 38.3 Stark and
共1988兲; Mesri
Castro 共1992兲
共1995兲
57.5 Castro
共1995兲
32.7⫾ 8.7 Cetin et al.
共2004a兲
3 0.048 0.022 0.080 0.07 0.05 0.10 6.9 4.5 11.7 6.2–7.7 Harder 94.8 22 168 125.9 Stark and
共1988兲 Mesri
共1992兲
7.2⫾ 0.5 Seed and
Harder
共1990兲
4 0.017 0.003 0.038 0.04 0.01 0.10 1.1 0.2 2.7 — 32.7 26.2 39.2 —
5 0.010 0.002 0.037 0.04 0.01 0.09 1.0 0.3 3.3 — 44.2 35.4 53.0 —
6 0.020 0.005 0.030 0.05 0.02 0.07 2.2 1.0 3.0 — 47.0 37.6 56.4 —
7 0.048 0.023 0.050 0.09 0.06 0.10 2.6 1.8 2.7 — 30.0 13.9 32.8 —
8 0.038 0.033 0.053 0.15 0.14 0.17 4.6 4.4 5.2 5 Boulanger 35.1 11.8 41.6 32.1⫾ 3.5 Cetin et al.
et al. 共2004a兲
共1997兲
4.8 Mejia
共1998兲
9 0.043 0.039 0.079 0.14 0.13 0.19 6.6 6.3 9.1 8 Boulanger 51.6 23.8 59.5 —
et al.
共1997兲
7.2⫾ 1.4 Mejia
共1998兲
10 0.018 0.006 0.040 0.09 0.07 0.11 3.2 2.6 4.3 3.3–4.8 Mejia 39.4 23.0 56.2 —
共1998兲
11 0.020 0.017 0.025 0.09 0.09 0.10 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.8⫾ 1.9 Mejia 47.4 21.0 69.5 —
共1998兲
12 0.087 0.028 0.110 0.13 0.06 0.16 14.7 6.3 18 7–9 Holzer 117 93.6 140.4 —
et al.
共1994兲
13 0.060 0.014 0.082 0.10 0.05 0.13 11.2 5.0 14.2 — 114 91.2 136.8 —
14 0.031 0.001 0.060 0.06 0.02 0.11 2.3 0.6 3.9 — 38 30.4 45.6 —
15 0.020 0.010 0.042 0.05 0.03 0.08 1.7 1.1 2.9 — 38 30.4 45.6 —
16 0.018 0.009 0.039 0.07 0.06 0.08 4.1 3.5 4.8 — 63 50.4 75.6 —
17 0.032 0.019 0.052 0.12 0.07 0.17 10.7 6.7 16.0 18.0–21.5 Power et al. 96 76.8 115.2 —
共1998兲a
18 0.003 0.001 0.020 0.05 0.03 0.09 7.8 3.5 14.6 5.8–9.7 Ishihara 179 167 191 174–193 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1991兲 共1991兲
19 0.010 0.003 0.022 0.06 0.03 0.09 7.5 4.2 14.7 12.0 Ishihara 158 152 164 157 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1991兲 共1991兲
20 0.015 0.005 0.055 0.06 0.04 0.12 7.3 3.8 10.4 11.0 Ishihara 155 149 161 154 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1991兲 共1991兲
21 0.003 0.001 0.006 0.06 0.04 0.06 4.5 1.6 4.7 4.5 Ishihara 74.6 70.6 78.6 74.6 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1993兲 共1993兲
22 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.08 0.06 0.08 7.7 3.1 7.8 10.2 Ishihara 112 106 118 112 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1993兲 共1993兲
23 0.009 0.003 0.014 0.09 0.07 0.09 5.5 2.5 5.8 7.4 Ishihara 74.6 70.6 78.6 74.6 Ishihara
et al. et al.
共1993兲 共1993兲
24 0.013 0.003 0.025 0.10 0.09 0.12 13.3 11.7 15.2 1.6 Ishihara et al. 139 111.2 166.8 ⬃35 Ishihara et al.
共1992兲b 共1992兲
21.2–28.7 Yegian et al. ⬃149 Yegian et al.
共1995b兲 共1995b兲

1040 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 3. 共Continued.兲
Mobilized shear strength, su共mob兲 共kPa兲 Prefailure vertical effective stress ␴⬘vo 共kPa兲

Mobilized strength ratio,

ky 共g兲 su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo This study This study

Case 25th 75th 25th 75th 25th 75th Other Other

number Median percentile percentile Median percentile percentile Median percentile percentile estimates Reference Mean l/b u/b estimates References
25 0.150 0.130 0.200 0.13 0.11 0.19 20.2 17.0 28.2 — 149 119.2 178.8 —
26 0.150 0.095 0.180 0.16 0.09 0.20 16.5 9.2 20.5 — 102 81.6 122.4 —
27 0.130 0.070 0.160 0.15 0.09 0.21 12.0 7.0 17.0 — 83 66.4 99.6 —
28 0.067 0.037 0.074 0.11 0.06 0.12 4.8 2.6 5.3 — 54.1 43.3 64.9 —
29 0.130 0.090 0.155 0.16 0.10 0.23 6.4 3.5 11.7 — 36.3 29.0 43.6 —
30 0.078 0.036 0.097 0.16 0.11 0.18 7.9 5.6 9.0 — 53.9 43.1 64.7 —
31 0.042 0.013 0.059 0.09 0.05 0.11 3.6 2.1 4.5 — 43.1 34.5 51.7 —
32 0.065 0.028 0.085 0.11 0.08 0.15 6.0 3.9 7.2 — 53.5 42.8 64.2 —
33 0.104 0.092 0.123 0.19 0.16 0.23 6.9 6.3 7.9 — 35.1 28.1 42.1 —
34 0.023 0.015 0.035 0.08 0.05 0.11 5.3 4.0 7.1 — 70.9 56.7 85.1 —
35 0.020 0.011 0.030 0.09 0.08 0.10 2.0 1.8 2.4 — 24.5 19.6 29.4 —
36 0.038 0.029 0.052 0.08 0.06 0.10 2.2 1.5 3.0 — 30.5 24.4 36.6 —
37 0.062 0.053 0.075 0.17 0.14 0.20 8.8 8.0 10.0 — 56.8 45.4 68.2 —
38 0.040 0.026 0.066 0.07 0.06 0.10 3.4 2.6 4.8 — 45.4 36.3 54.5 —
39 0.040 0.026 0.066 0.06 0.04 0.10 2.9 1.8 4.9 — 54.0 43.2 64.8 —
a
Power et al. 共1998兲 did not indicate which lateral spread共s兲 they used to estimate this range of mobilized shear strength.
b
Ishihara et al. 共1992兲 noted that reported value of mobilized shear strength is very likely to be smaller than liquefied shear strength for this soil.

Fig. 8 highlights the relationship between mobilized strength
ratio and qc1 for these case histories. These cases follow a clear
共and approximately linear兲 trend of increasing mobilized strength
ratio with increasing penetration resistance. The relationship be-
tween mobilized strength ratio and 共N1兲60 for this set of case
histories exhibits the same trend. These results strongly support
the assertion that a uniform depositional environment produces a
consistent increase in mobilized strength ratio with increasing
penetration resistance 共or increasing density兲.
may affect the correlations proposed in Figs. 5共b兲 and 6共b兲. How-
ever, the causative earthquakes for the lateral spreads that we
studied vary in M w from only 6.5 to 7.6, with over half of the
lateral spreading cases being triggered by earthquakes with M w
ranging from 6.5 to 7.0. More importantly, only a limited number
of cases have acceleration time histories measured in proximity to
the lateral spread. As a result, there are insufficient data to confi-
dently assess the role of shaking duration on mobilized strength
ratio.

Influence of Magnitude of Lateral Displacement

Fig. 9 highlights the mobilized strength ratios for two sets of
lateral spreading case histories with lateral displacements that dif-
fer by more than one order of magnitude. These two sets of data
follow the same general trend of increasing mobilized strength
ratio with increasing penetration resistance, and suggest that the
magnitude of lateral displacement has little impact on the strength
ratios backcalculated from lateral spreads using the Newmark
method 共at least for displacements of 15– 20 cm or greater兲.
This result is fortuitous, because as pointed out by Mabey and
Youd 共1998兲, if the shear strength backcalculated from lateral
spreads were correlated to displacement, the backanalysis frame-
work using Newmark’s method would produce a nonunique result
共where the displacement must be known prior to selecting a
strength ratio that then would be used to estimate the lateral
displacement兲.
Influence of Strength of Shaking
Fig. 10 highlights several lateral spreading case histories with pga
values varying from ⬃0.16 to ⬃0.84 g, a range of one-half of an
order of magnitude. As illustrated in Fig. 10, these case histories
follow the same trend of increasing mobilized strength ratio with
increasing penetration resistance, essentially independent of the
peak ground acceleration. The result generally agrees with the
statistical analysis performed by Mabey and Youd 共1998兲.
As mentioned previously, the duration of shaking potentially
Influence of Water Layer Formation
Recently, Kokusho 共2003兲, Kulasingam et al. 共2004兲, and other
researchers have clearly illustrated that a water layer can form
locally in laboratory shake table tests 共one and two dimensional兲
and centrifuge experiments, respectively, at soil interfaces where
a hydraulic conductivity contrast exists. The formation of a tran-
sient water layer during liguefaction-induced reconsolidation
sharply increased the magnitude of lateral displacements that
these investigators observed in their experiments. Based on these
experiments, Kokusho 共2003兲 also inferred the formation of ex-
tensive water layers at several very mildly sloping sites that ex-
perienced significant lateral spreading displacements during the
1964 Niigata earthquake.
The writers agree that water layers likely form locally in con-
ducive field settings and exacerbate some lateral spreads and flow
failures, and probably affected some of the lateral spreads exam-
ined in this study. In fact, Seed 共1987兲 first indicated that shear
strengths 共and strength ratios兲 backcalculated from field case his-
tories would inevitably incorporate this effect 共as well as other
effects兲 that were difficult to quantify and model. In cases where
water layers formed continuously over a substantial distance, we
would expect that the mobilized strength ratio and shear strength
would be markedly smaller than in cases where no water layers
formed.
To test this premise, Fig. 11 highlights a small number of
laboratory shake table and centrifuge tests that involved clean

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1041

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 4. Measured Penetration Resistance Values and Soil Grain Properties for Lateral Spreads Analyzed for This Study
Normalized penetration resistance

CPT tip resistance, gc1 共MPa兲 SPT blow count, 共N1兲60 共blows/ 0.3 m兲 Soil grain properties

This study This study

Available
Case penetration Other Other D50 FC
number data Mean l/b u/b estimates Reference Mean l/b u/b estimates Reference 共mm兲 共%兲

1 CPT; SPT 2.0 0.2 5.6 — 4.3 2.4 7.5 共N1兲60cs = 6a Seed 共1987兲 0.06 ⬃55– 60
共0.03–0.14兲 共38–85兲
4 Davis et al. 共1988兲
3–10 Bennett 共1989兲
共N1兲60cs = 10.5 Seed and Harder 共1990兲
共N1兲60cs = 13 Stark and Mesri 共1992兲
共N1兲60cs = 6 Wride et al. 共1999兲
2 CPT; SPT 2.1 1.0 6.3 qc = 1.0– 4.9 Youd and Bennett 共1983兲 1.8 1 5 1.4 Davis et al. 共1988兲 0.10 ⬃20– 25
共0.08–0.12兲 共14–58兲
共N1兲60cs = 5 Stark and Mesri 共1992兲
0–1 Castro 共1995兲
共N1兲60cs = 3 Wride et al. 共1999兲
3 CPT; SPT; 2.9 2.1 3.7 qc = 4.9– 7.3 Andrus and Youd 共1987兲 7 4.3 9.6 5–13 Andrus and Youd 共1987兲 1.6–21 20
Becker 共15–30兲
hammer
qc = 2.0– 5.9 Stokoe et al. 共1988兲 11 Seed and Harder 共1990兲
共N1兲60cs = 15 Stark and Mesri 共1992兲
共N1兲60cs = 8 Wride et al. 共1999兲
4 CPT; SPT 3.3 1.4 5.8 — 6 5 10 — 0.3 10
共0.2–0.5兲 共8–18兲
5 CPTb 3.5 2.4 4.6 — 6 5 10 — n/a ⬃10
6 CPT; SPT 4.7 3.9 5.9 — 8 3 12 — 0.24 15–18
共0.2–0.3兲
7 CPT; SPT 3.3 1.8 6.7 — 8 5 11 N60 = 5 Bennett et al. 共1984兲 ⬃0.055 63
nonplastic
8 CPT; SPT 9.5 8.6 13.4 12.4 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲 16.5 15.1 17.1 17 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲 0.8 2
8–12 Mejia 共1998兲
16.1⫾ 1.0 Cetin et al. 共2004a兲
9 CPT; SPT 10.0 9.0 13.0 11.4 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲 15 10 20 10 Boulanger et al. 共1997兲 0.8 ⬍5
20–21 Mejia 共1998兲
10 CPT; SPT 7.0 6.0 9.7 — 11 10 16 16–18 Mejia 共1998兲 0.35–0.5 3–5
11 CPT; SPT 7.4 6.0 9.7 — 11.5 10 16 16–19 Mejia 共1998兲 0.35–0.5 3–5
12 CPT; SPT 5.3 2.6 10.4 8.2 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 10.5 7 18 14⫾ 7 Holzer et al. 共1994兲 0.16 22
共0.05–0.30兲 共14–41兲
11.1 Toprak et al. 共1999兲
13 CPT; SPT 6.1 3.3 11.2 3.3 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 11.5 9 16 18⫾ 6 Holzer et al. 共1994兲 0.21 8
共0.09–0.30兲 共5–38兲
10.3 Toprak et al. 共1999兲
14 CPT; SPT 3.7 2.2 5.2 4.7 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 10.3 9 16 10.3 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 0.17 11
共0.11–0.23兲 共8–14兲
15 CPT; SPT 2.7 1.6 3.9 1.8 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 8 7 11 7.7 Toprak et al. 共1999兲 0.10–0.12 16–29
16 CPT; SPT 4.2 3.6 7.0 — 6 1 12 — 0.18 10
共0.15–0.2兲 共3–21兲
17 CPT; SPT 6.6 4.3 8.4 — 9 4 15 — 0.2–0.26 2–8
共0.08–2.5兲 共2–46兲
18 Swedish 2.2 0.9 3.9 — 5 2 9 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone; SPT 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
19 Swedish 3.1 1.8 4.3 — 7.2 4.2 10 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone; SPT 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
20 Swedish 2.4 1.7 3.7 — 5.5 4 8.5 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone; SPT 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
21 Swedish 2.6 1.7 3.2 — 6 4 7.5 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
22 Swedish 3.9 3.0 4.7 — 9 7 11 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone; SPT 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
23 Swedish 3.4 2.6 4.7 — 8 6 11 — ⬃0.14 15–20
cone 共0.11–0.2兲 共0–30兲
24 SPT 4.3 4 4.5 — 8.5 8 9 — ⬃0.25 2–10
共0.1–0.5兲

1042 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 4. 共Continued.兲
Normalized penetration resistance

CPT tip resistance, gc1 共MPa兲 SPT blow count, 共N1兲60 共blows/ 0.3 m兲 Soil grain properties

This study This study

Available
Case penetration Other Other D50 FC
number data Mean l/b u/b estimates Reference Mean l/b u/b estimates Reference 共mm兲 共%兲
25 CPT; SPT 5.6 4.0 7.6 qc1,cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 14 10 19 共N1兲60cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 ⬃0.11 52⫾ 17
= 8.3⫾ 3.0 = 21⫾ 4 CF
18⫾ 8c
26 CPT; SPT 6.4 3.8 9.0 qc1,cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 13.5 8 19 共N1兲60cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 ⬃0.15 38⫾ 23
= 13.5⫾ 5.8 = 20⫾ 6 CF 10⫾ 7
27 CPT; SPT 5.8 4 9 qc1,cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 9 5 12 共N1兲60cs Holzer et al. 共1998兲 ⬃0.1 57⫾ 18
= 12.5⫾ 3.3 = 15⫾ 2 CF 11⫾ 3
28 CPT; SPT 4.3 3.2 6.0 qc ⬃ 2 – 5 Chu et al. 共2006兲 6.5 1.5 11.6 — ⬃0.11 21
共8–43兲
29 CPT; SPT 4.7 2.6 7.5 qc ⬃ 2 – 5 Chu et al. 共2006兲 4.5 1.5 7 ⬃2 – 5 Chu et al. 共2006兲 ⬃0.18 13
共8–43兲
30 CPT; SPT 7.9 6.2 9.6 qc ⬃ 2 – 5 Chu et al. 共2006兲 13.8 11 18 ⬃11– 18 Chu et al. 共2006兲 ⬃0.13 30
共8–43兲
31 CPT; SPT 4.7 2.6 6.9 qc ⬃ 1 – 4 Chu et al. 共2006兲 9.3 5 15 ⬃5 – 15 Chu et al. 共2006兲 ⬃0.10 31
32 CPT; SPT 2.3 1.4 7.1 qc ⬃ 1 – 5 Chu et al. 共2006兲 8.8 5 18 ⬃5 – 18 Chu et al. 共2006兲 ⬃0.10 49
33 CPT; SPT 6.4 4.8 7.7 qc ⬃ 5 – 20 Chu et al. 共2006兲 11.3 4.5 16 ⬃4 – 14 Chu et al. 共2006兲 ⬃0.12 22
34 CPT; SPT 5.6 3.7 8.9 — 11.5 8 15 ⬃8 – 20 Cetin et al. 共2002兲 1.6–4.5 4–14
35 CPT; SPT 2.0 1.8 2.2 — 5.5 4 7 N60 ⱖ 3 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲 ⬃0.13 ⬃36
36 CPT; SPT 3.3 1.9 4.8 — 4.5 3 6 N60 ⬃ 3 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲 — 16–52
37 CPT; SPT 7.4 4.5 10.6 — 13.5 9.5 16 N60 ⬃ 5 – 10 Cetin et al. 共2004b兲 0.10–0.33 10–33
38 CPTb 3.6 3.2 4.1 — 7.2 6.4 8.2 — — —
39 CPTb 4.6 3.4 7.4 — 9.2 6.8 14.8 — — —
a
共N1兲60cs⫽equivalent clean sand 共N1兲60 value reported by the investigators 共using their selected fines content adjustment兲.
b
SPT 共N1兲60 values converted from measured CPT qc1 values using the approximate relationship, qc / N60 = 0.5 共where qc is in mega Pascals
c
CF⫽clay fraction 共percent by weight passing 0.005 mm兲.

sands that were deposited under controlled laboratory conditions.
As illustrated in Fig. 11, mobilized strength ratios backcalculated
using the Newmark procedure for these laboratory cases follow
the same trend as the field case histories, and importantly, the
values vary from the lower-bound to the upper-bound relation-
ship. 关Note that the centrifuge test series reported in Table 5 in-
volved three separate shaking events on a soil model that
experienced lateral spreading on both sides of the model 共both
toward the center of the container兲. The initial relative density of
the sand that liquefied was 50%; however, each shaking event
triggered liquefaction, lateral displacement, and settlement. As a
result, although not measured, the relative density should have
increased following each shaking event. In turn, the penetration
resistance estimated using the correlations described previously
should increase following each shaking event. The exact increase
is unknown because of the unknown change in relative density.
Therefore, these data actually should not form a vertical line, but
rather the data with larger mobilized strength ratios 共correspond-
ing to the latter shaking events兲 should plot to the right of the
locations shown in Fig. 11兴.
We highlighted these cases for two primary reasons: 共1兲 they
appear to illustrate that lateral spreads can be analyzed using
strength ratios regardless of the consolidation stress level 共i.e., the
average vertical effective stress for the shake table tests was less
than 5 kPa兲; and 共2兲 continuous water layers were unlikely to
form in these cases, yet the backcalculated strength ratios are
consistent with the range of strength ratios backcalculated from
the field case histories. Intriguingly, the second point given above
implies that water layer formation may have been fairly limited in
the case histories that we examined, despite some cases exhibiting
apparent hydraulic conductivity contrasts over some lateral dis-
tance. Of course, this does not preclude water layer formation at a
given site. This could simply imply that although water layers
may have formed locally during or after shaking, they may not
persist simultaneously 共or continuously兲 over significant lateral
distances. And while these few data are not conclusive, they do
suggest that more research is needed to understand water layer
formation in various field settings in order to establish design
recommendations for engineering practice.
Conclusions
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreads are complex dynamic
ground failures that involve assessing liquefaction triggering, es-
timating lateral displacements, and evaluating soil–structure inter-
action 共where structures are present兲. Despite many advances over
the past two decades to understand and predict lateral spreads
using empirical and semiempirical approaches, laboratory and
centrifuge studies, and numerical techniques, many practitioners
utilize Newmark’s 共1965兲 sliding block analysis to evaluate lat-
eral spreading displacements on a site-specific basis. However,
estimating the yield acceleration for a Newmark analysis depends
greatly on selecting an appropriate shear resistance for the lique-
fiable soil. Although some simplified stress–strain models are
available to evaluate liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using
Newmark’s method 共e.g., the dilative sliding block model by Ta-

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1043

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Centrifuge tests performed in series on single soil model. Each shaking event in the series triggered liquefaction, lateral displacement, and settlement. Therefore, although not measured, the relative density
Balakrishnan et al. 共1998兲
Ishihara et al. 共1991兲

Ishihara et al. 共1991兲

Reference
共blows/ 0.3 m兲
Estimated penetration

共N1兲60

11.3

7.3
resistance

11
共MPa兲
5.8

4.2

5.8
qc1
共%兲
FC
Soil grain properties

0
共mm兲

0.17
D50

0.3

0.3
共%兲
Dr

50

40

50
Prefailure vertical effective stress,

u/b
6.0

4.7

Fig. 2. Relationships between normalized CPT tip resistance and 共a兲

liquefied shear strength backcalculated from liquefied flow failures;
␴⬘vo 共kPa兲

共b兲 mobilized shear strength backcalculated from liquefaction-

l/b
2.2

4.0

induced lateral spreads

boada et al. 1996兲, these models have not seen widespread use in
Mean
3.4

4.4

16.8

30.7
16.8
30.7
16.8
30.7

practice. Similarly, some sophisticated constitutive models are

available for use in numerical analysis; however, there are only
Table 5. Results of Select Laboratory Shaking Table Tests and Centrifuge Experiments

limited field and laboratory data available to establish input pa-

rameters for these models.
Mobilized shear strength,

u/b

2.1

4.5

3.2

and penetration resistance should increase slightly following each shaking event.
3
6

As an alternative, some investigators have attempted to back-

0.11 g measured at base of shaking table, and 0.4 g measured at soil surface.

analyze documented lateral spreads 共typically using a Newmark

su共mob兲 共kPa兲

l/b

1.4

1.5

1.5

analysis兲 to estimate the shear resistance mobilized during failure.

3

Many of these efforts have compared the shear resistance mobi-

lized during lateral spreads to liquefied shear strengths backcal-
estimate

culated from liquefaction flow failures, and have found that shear
Best

0.28

0.5

1.7

3.7
2.1
4.2
2.2
4.6

resistances mobilized during lateral spreads are generally smaller

than the liquefied shear strength at the same value of normalized
penetration resistance. This has led some investigators to con-
0.125

0.125

0.195
Mobilized strength ratio,

u/b
0.13

0.15
0.18

0.19
0.23

clude that the backcalculated shear resistances from these two

types of ground failures should not be considered together.
su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo

Recently, a number of well-documented lateral spreading case

0.047

0.083
l/b

0.10
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.11

histories have been published, allowing detailed study of this

class of ground failure. For this study, we backanalyzed 39 well-
estimate

documented liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using the New-

0.082

0.115
Best

0.10

0.12
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.15

mark 共1965兲 sliding block method. In contrast to previous studies,

we estimated shear strength ratios, su共mob兲 / ␴⬘vo, mobilized during
these failures.
a

0.13

0.13
0.31
0.31
0.73
0.73
0.11
pga

0.4a
共g兲

Our results indicate that the Newmark analysis-based shear

strengths mobilized during lateral spreads, su共mob兲, are propor-
shake table test

tional to the prefailure vertical effective stress, ␴⬘vo, for a wide

Okumura Co.
PWRI shake

range of effective stresses 共from approximately 4 to 180 kPa兲.

UCD BAM
centrifuge
table test

Remarkably, the strength ratios mobilized during lateral spreads

testsb

follow a trend of increasing mobilized strength ratio with increas-

Test

ing penetration resistance identical to that of liquefied strength

b
a

1044 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 3. Relationships between normalized SPT blow count and 共a兲 Fig. 5. Relationships between normalized CPT tip resistance and 共a兲
liquefied shear strength backcalculated from liquefied flow failures; liquefied strength ratio backcalculated from liquefied flow failures;
共b兲 mobilized shear strength backcalculated from liquefaction- 共b兲 mobilized strength ratio backcalculated from liquefaction-induced
induced lateral spreads lateral spreads

Fig. 4. Relationships between equivalent clean sand normalized SPT Fig. 6. Relationships between normalized SPT tip resistance and 共a兲
blow count and 共a兲 liquefied shear strength backcalculated from liq- liquefied strength ratio backcalculated from liquefied flow failures;
uefied flow failures; 共b兲 mobilized shear strength backcalculated from 共b兲 mobilized strength ratio backcalculated from liquefaction-induced
liquefaction-induced lateral spreads lateral spreads

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1045

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 9. Influence of magnitude of lateral displacement on relationship
between normalized penetration resistance and mobilized strength
ratio

water layers likely formed during some of these lateral spreads,

but their formation does not appear to be a significant factor in
the backanalyses using the Newmark method, although many
sites involved a stratigraphy that would be conducive to their
formation.
Based on the results of this study, we present correlations be-
tween mobilized strength ratio and normalized CPT and SPT pen-
etration resistance that can be used to estimate lateral spreading
displacements in a Newmark 共1965兲 sliding block analysis. We

Fig. 7. Relationship between prefailure vertical effective stress and

共a兲 liquefied strength ratio backcalculated from liquefied flow fail-
ures; 共b兲 mobilized strength ratio backcalculated from liquefaction-
induced lateral spreads

ratios backcalculated from liquefaction flow failures. That is, liq-

uefied soils that undergo lateral spreads 共when backanalyzed
using the Newmark method兲 exhibit mobilized strength ratios that
essentially coincide with liquefied strength ratios exhibited by
soils that undergo liquefaction flow failures, despite the fact that
the Newmark method may not properly model the failure mecha-
nisms that affect lateral spreads. The strength ratios mobilized
during these lateral spreading case histories appear to be essen-
tially independent of the magnitude of displacement 共at least for Fig. 10. Influence of strength of shaking on relationship between
displacements of 15 cm or greater兲 and the strength of shaking, normalized penetration resistance and mobilized strength ratio
and are consistent for a given depositional environment. Lastly,

Fig. 11. Influence of potential pore-water pressure redistribution on

Fig. 8. Influence of geologic setting on relationship between normal- relationship between normalized penetration resistance and mobilized
ized penetration resistance and mobilized strength ratio strength ratio

1046 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008

Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
caution, though, that these correlations should not be extrapolated
linearly beyond the available data, and that a suite of appropriate
time histories should be used in future Newmark analyses in order
to be consistent with the backanalysis framework used here.
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their constructive comments that greatly improve this paper.
References
Andrus, R. D., and Youd, T. L. 共1987兲. “Subsurface investigation of a
liquefaction-induced lateral spread Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho.”
Miscellaneous Paper No. GL-87-8, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Arumoli, K., Muraleetharan, K. K., Hossain, M. M., and Fruth, L. S.
共1992兲. “VELACS-laboratory testing program—soil data report.”
Project No. 90-0562, The Earth Technology Corporation.
Balakrishnan, A., Kutter, B. L., and Idriss, I. M. 共1998兲. “Remediation
and apparent shear strength of lateral spreading centrifuge models.”
Proc., 5th CALTRANS Seismic Research Workshop, Sacramento,
Calif.
Bartlett, S. F., and Youd, T. L. 共1992兲. “Empirical analysis of horizontal
ground displacement generated by liquefaction-induced lateral
spreads.” Technical Rep. No. NCEER-92-0021, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at Buf-
falo, Buffalo, N.Y.
Baziar, M. H., Dobry, R., and Elgamal, A.-W. M. 共1992兲. “Engineering
evaluation of permanent ground deformations due to seismically-
induced liquefaction.” Technical Rep. No. NCEER-92-0007, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.
Baziar, M. H., and Ghorbani, A. 共2005兲. “Evaluation of lateral spreading
using artificial neural networks.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 25, 1–9.
Bennett, M. J. 共1989兲. “Liquefaction analysis of the 1971 ground failure
at the San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall, California.” Bull. Assoc.
Eng. Geol., 26共2兲, 209–226.
Bennett, M. J. 共1990兲. “Effects of the Loma Prieta earthquake on the
Marina District San Francisco, California.” USGS Open-File Rep. No.
90-253, Washington, D.C.
Bennett, M. J., McLaughlin, P. V., Sarmiento, J. S., and Youd, T. L.
共1984兲. “Geotechnical investigation of liquefaction sites, Imperial Val-
ley, California.” USGS Open-File Rep. No. 84-252, Washington, D.C.
Bennett, M. J., Ponti, D. J., Tinsley, J. C., Holzer, T. L., and Conaway, C.
H. 共1998兲. “Subsurface geotechnical investigations near sites of
ground deformation caused by the January 17, 1994, Northridge, Cali-
fornia, earthquake.” USGS Open-File Rep. No. 98-373, Washington,
D.C.
Bennett, M. J., and Tinsley, J. C. 共1995兲. “Geotechnical data from surface
and subsurface samples outside of and within liquefaction-related
ground failures caused by the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta earth-
quake, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, California.” USGS Open-
File Rep. No. 95-663, Washington, D.C.
Bennett, M. J., Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., and Wieczorek, G. F. 共1981兲.
“Subsurface investigation of liquefaction, Imperial Valley earthquake,
California, October 15, 1979.” USGS Open-File Rep. No. 81-502,
Washington, D.C.
Boulanger, R. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss, I. M. 共1997兲. “Liquefaction at
Moss Landing during Loma Prieta earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 123共5兲, 453–467.
Boulanger, R. W., Meyers, M. W., Mejia, L. H., and Idriss, I. M. 共1998兲.
“Behavior of a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta earthquake.”
Can. Geotech. J., 35, 146–158.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2002兲. “Documenting incidents of ground failure re-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1047
Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
sulting from the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake, May
2003, data report characterizing subsurface conditions.” Geoengineer-
ing Research Rep. No. UCB/GE-03/02, Univ. of California at Berke-
ley, Berkeley, Calif.
Byrne, P. M. 共1991兲. “A model for predicting liquefaction induced dis-
placement.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Mo., Paper
No. 7.14.
Castro, G. 共1995兲. “Empirical methods in liquefaction evaluation.” Proc.,
1st Annual Leonardo Zeevaert Int. Conf., Vol. 1, National Autono-
mous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, 1–41.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.
F., Jr., Kayen, R. E., and Moss, R. E. S. 共2004a兲. “Standard penetra-
tion test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic
soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共12兲,
1314–1340.
Cetin, K. O., Youd, T. L., Seed, R. B., Bray, J. D., Sancio, R., Lettis, W.,
Yilmaz, M. T., and Durgunoglu, H. T. 共2002兲. “Liquefaction-induced
ground deformations at Hotel Sapanca during Kocaeli 共Izmit兲, Turkey
earthquake.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 22, 1083–1092.
Cetin, K. O., Youd, T. L., Seed, R. B., Bray, J. D., Stewart, J. P., Dur-
gunoglu, H. T., Lettis, W., and Yilmaz, M. T. 共2004b兲. “Liquefaction-
induced lateral spreading at Izmit Bay during the Kocaeli 共Izmit兲-
Turkey earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共12兲, 1300–
1313.
Charlie, W. A., Doehring, D. O., Brislawn, J. P., and Hassen, H. 共1998兲.
“Direct measurement of liquefaction potential in soils of Monterey
County, California.” The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of Oc-
tober 17, 1989—Liquefaction, T. L. Holzer, ed., USGS, Washington,
D.C., Professional Paper No. 1551-B, B181–B221.
Chiru-Danzer, M., Juang, C. H., Christopher, R. A., and Suber, J. 共2001兲.
“Estimation of liquefaction-induced horizontal displacements using
artificial neural networks.” Can. Geotech. J., 38, 200–207.
Christensen, S. A. 共1995兲. “Liquefaction of cohesionless soils in the
March 2, 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand,
and other earthquakes.” MS thesis, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Chu, D. B., Stewart, J. P., Youd, T. L., and Chu, B. L. 共2006兲.
“Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in near-fault regions during
the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
132共12兲, 1549–1565.
Davis, A. P., Jr., Poulos, S. J., and Castro, G. 共1988兲. “Strengths backfig-
ured from liquefaction case histories.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Rolla, Mo., 1693–1701.
Dobry, R., and Abdoun, T. 共1998兲. “Post-triggering response of liquefied
sand in the free field and near foundations.” Proc., Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE Geotechnical
Specialty Publication No. 75, Vol. 1, ASCE, Reston, Va., 270–300.
Dobry, R., and Baziar, M. H. 共1992兲. “Modeling of lateral spreads in silty
sands by sliding soil blocks.” Stability and performance of slopes and
embankments—II, Geotechnical Specialty Publication No. 31, Vol. 1,
ASCE, Reston, Va., 25–652.
Elgamal, A. W., Dobry, R., Parra, E., and Yang, Z. 共1998兲. “Soil dilation
and shear deformation during liquefaction.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, S. Prakash, ed., Rolla,
Mo.
Elgamal, A. W., Zeghal, M., and Parra, E. 共1995兲. “Identification and
modeling of earthquake ground response.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, Tokyo, Japan, 1369–
1406.
Fear, C. E. 共1996兲. “In-situ testing for liquefaction evaluation of sandy
soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada.
Hamada, M., and O’Rourke, T. D., eds. 共1992兲. “Large ground deforma-
tions and their effects on lifelines: 1979 San Fernando earthquake.
Case studies of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past
earthquakes.” Tech. Rep. No. NCEER-92-0001, Vol. 1, National Cen-
 ter for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of New York at
Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., .
Harder, L. F. 共1988兲. “Use of penetration tests to determine the cyclic
loading resistance of gravelly soils during earthquake shaking.” Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Ponti, D. J., and Tinsley, J. C. 共1998兲.
“Liquefaction and soil failure during 1994 Northridge earthquake.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共6兲, 438–452.
Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., Tinsley, J. C., Ponti, D. J., and Sharp, R. V.
共1996兲. “Causes of ground failure in alluvium during the Northridge,
California, earthquake of January 17, 1994.” Proc., 6th U.S.—Japan
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, Tech. Rep. No. NCEER
96-0012, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., 345–360.
Holzer, T. L., Noce, T. E., Bennett, M. J., Di Alessandro, C., Boatwright,
J., Tinsley, J. C., Sell, R. W., and Rosenberg, L. I. 共2004兲.
“Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in Oceano, California during
the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.” USGS Open-File Rep. No. 2004-
1269, Washington, D.C.
Holzer, T. L., Tinsley, J. C., Bennett, M. J., and Mueller, C. S. 共1994兲.
“Observed and predicted ground deformation–Miller Farm lateral
spread, Watsonville, California.” Proc., 5th U.S.—Japan Workshop on
Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermea-
sures against Soil Liquefaction, Technical Rep. NCEER 94-0026, Na-
tional Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ. of
New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.
Holzer, T. L., Youd, T. L., and Hanks, T. C. 共1989兲. “Dynamics of lique-
faction during the 1987 Superstition Hills, California earthquake.”
Science, 244, 56–59.
Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., and Padilla, J. M. 共1987兲.
“Microcomputer-aided evaluation of earthquake-induced permanent
slope deformations.” Microcomput. Civ. Eng., 2共3兲, 207–222.
Hryciw, R. D., Shewbridge, S. E., Kropp, A., and Homolka, M. 共1998兲.
“Postearthquake investigations at liquefaction sites in Santa Cruz and
on Treasure Island.” The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of Oc-
tober 17, 1989—Liquefaction, T. L. Holzer, ed., USGS, Washington,
D.C., Professional Paper No. 1551-B, B165–B180.
Ishihara, K. 共1993兲. “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes.”
Geotechnique, 43共3兲, 351–415.
Ishihara, K., Acacio, A. A., and Towhata, I. 共1993兲. “Liquefaction-
induced ground damage in Dagupan in the July 16, 1990 Luzon earth-
quake.” Soils Found., 33共1兲, 133–154.
Ishihara, K., Haeri, S. M., Moinfar, A. A., Towhata, I., and Tsujino, S.
共1992兲. “Geotechnical aspects of the June 20, 1990 Manjil earthquake
in Iran.” Soils Found., 32共3兲, 61–78.
Ishihara, K., Verdugo, R., and Acacio, A. A. 共1991兲. “Characterization of
cyclic behavior of sand and postseismic stability analyses.” Proc., 9th
Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Vol. 2, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–40.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T., and Lancellotta, R.
共1985兲. “New developments in field and laboratory testing of soils.”
Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 1, San Francisco, Calif., 57–153.
Jefferies, M. G., Been, K., and Hachey, J. E. 共1990兲. “Influence of scale
on the constitutive behavior of sand.” Proc., 43rd Canadian Geotech-
nical Engineering Conf., Vol. 1, Quebec, Canada, 263–273.
Jibson, R. W., and Jibson, M. W. 共2003兲. “Java programs for using New-
mark’s method and simplified decoupled analysis to model slope per-
formance during earthquakes.” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Rep. No. 03–005, Washington, D.C.
Keane, C. M., and Prevost, J. H. 共1990兲. “Preliminary results of numeri-
cal technique to model flow failure induced by soil liquefaction.”
Proc., 3rd Japan—U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of
Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, San
Francisco, Calif., 253–267.
Kokusho, T. 共2003兲. “Current state of research on flow failure considering
void redistribution in liquefied deposits.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng.,
1048 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008
Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
23, 586–603.
Kramer, S. L., and Smith, M. W. 共1997兲. “Modified Newmark model for
seismic displacements of compliant slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 123共7兲, 635–644.
Kulasingam, R., Malvick, E. J., Boulanger, R. W., and Kutter, B. L.
共2004兲. “Strength loss and localization at silt interlayers in slopes of
liquefied sand.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共11兲, 1192–1202.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. 共1990兲. “Manual on estimating soil
properties for foundation design.” Electric Power Research Institute
EL-6800, Project No. 1493-6.
Kutter, B. L., Gajan, S., Manda, K. K., and Balakrishnan, A. 共2004兲.
“Effects of layer thickness and density on settlement and lateral
spreading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共6兲, 603–614.
Kuwano, J., and Ishihara, K. 共1988兲. “Analysis of permanent deformation
of earth dam due to earthquakes.” Soils Found., 28共1兲, 41–55.
Lin, J.-S., and Whitman, R. V. 共1983兲. “Decoupling approximation to the
evaluation of earthquake induced plastic slip in earth dams.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 11, 667–678.
Mabey, M. A., and Youd, T. L. 共1998兲. “Development of a correlation
between residual strength and 共N1兲60 for lateral spreads in natural
materials.” Proc., Workshop on Post-Liquefaction Shear Strength of
Granular Soils, T. D. Stark, S. M. Olson, S. L. Kramer, and T. L.
Youd, eds., University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign, Urbana, Ill.,
194–199.
Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B. 共1978兲. “Simplified procedure for estimat-
ing dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations.” J. Geo-
tech. Engrg. Div., 104共7兲, 1427–1434.
Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E., and Yan, L. 共1997兲. “Newmark deforma-
tion analysis with degrading yield acceleration.” Proc., Geosynthetics
’97, Long Beach, Calif.
Mejia, L. H. 共1998兲. “Liquefaction at Moss Landing.” The Loma Prieta,
California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction, T. L.
Holzer, ed., USGS, Washington, D.C., Professional Paper No.
1551-B, B129–B150.
Miller, E. A., and Roycroft, G. A. 共2004兲. “Seismic performance and
deformation of levees: four case studies.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 130共4兲, 344–354.
Moss, R. E. S. 共2003兲. “CPT-based probabilistic assessment of seismic
soil liquefaction initiation.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California at Ber-
keley, Berkeley, Calif.
Newmark, N. M. 共1965兲. “Effects of earthquakes on dams and embank-
ments.” Geotechnique, 15共2兲, 139–160.
Olson, S. M., and Stark, T. D. 共2002兲. “Liquefied strength ratio from
liquefaction flow failure case histories.” Can. Geotech. J., 39, 629–
647.
O’Rourke, T. D., Pease, J. W., and Stewart, H. E. 共1992兲. “Lifeline per-
formance and ground deformation during the earthquake.” The Loma
Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Marina District,
T. D. O’Rourke, ed., T.L. Holzer, coord., USGS, Washington, D.C.,
Professional Paper 1551-F, F155–F179.
Power, M. S., Egan, J. A., Shewbridge, S. E., deBecker, J., and Faris, J.
R. 共1998兲. “Analysis of liquefaction-induced damage on Treasure Is-
land.” The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17,
1989—Liquefaction, T. L. Holzer, ed., USGS, Washington, D.C., Pro-
fessional Paper 1551-B, B87–B119.
Rathje, E. M., and Bray, J. D. 共2000兲. “Nonlinear coupled seismic sliding
analysis of earth structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 126共11兲,
1002–1014.
Rauch, A. F., and Martin, J. R., II. 共2000兲. “EPOLLS model for predicting
average displacements on lateral spreads.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 126共4兲, 360–371.
Rollins, K. M., and McHood, M. D. 共1998兲. “Comparison of computed
and measured liquefaction-induced settlements in the Marina District,
San Francisco.” The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October
17, 1989—Liquefaction, T. L. Holzer, ed., USGS, Washington, D.C.,
Professional Paper 1551-B, B223–B239.
Seed, H. B. 共1987兲. “Design problems in soil liquefaction.” J. Geotech.
Engrg., 113共8兲, 827–845.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F., Jr. 共1990兲. “SPT-based analysis of cyclic
pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H.B.
Seed Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, Bi-Tech Publishing Ltd., 351–376.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. 共1985兲. “Influ-
ence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., 111共12兲, 861–878.
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J.-M., and Tokimatsu, K. 共1998兲. “Horizontal re-
sidual postliquefaction deformation of level ground.” Proc., 3rd Int.
Conf. on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
ASCE Special Publication No. 75, Vol. 1, ASCE, Reston, Va., 373–
384.
Sharp, M. K., Dobry, R., and Abdoun, T. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction centrifuge
modeling of sands of different permeability.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 129共12兲, 1083–1091.
Spencer, E. 共1967兲. “A method of analysis of the stability of embank-
ments assuming parallel inter-slice forces.” Geotechnique, 17共1兲, 11–
26.
Stark, T. D., and Mesri, G. 共1992兲. “Undrained shear strength of liquefied
sands for stability analysis.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 118共11兲, 1727–1747.
Stark, T. D., Olson, S. M., Kramer, S. L., and Youd, T. L. 共1998兲. “Shear
strength of liquefied soil.” Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE Geotechnical Specialty Publication
No. 75, Vol. 1, ASCE, Reston, Va., 313–324.
Stokoe, K. H., Andrus, R. D., Rix, G. J., Sanchez-Salinero, I., Sheu, J.-C.,
and Mok, Y.-J. 共1988兲. “Field investigation of gravelly soils which did
and did not liquefy during the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake.”
Geotechnical Engineering Rep. No. GR87-1, Univ. of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Tex.
Taboada, V. M., Abdoun, T., and Dobry, R. 共1996兲. “Prediction of
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by dilatant sliding block model
calibrated by centrifuge tests.” Proc., 11th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1037.
Taboada-Urtuzuastegui, V. M., and Dobry, R. 共1998兲. “Centrifuge mod-
eling of earthquake-induced lateral spreading in sand.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 124共12兲, 1195–1206.
Tatsuoka, F., Zhou, S., Sato, T., and Shibuya, S. 共1990兲. “Evaluation
method of liquefaction potential and its application.” Rep. on Seismic
Hazards on the Ground in Urban Areas, Ministry of Education of
Japan, Tokyo, 75–109 共in Japanese兲.
Taylor, H. T., Cameron, J. T., Vahdani, S., and Yap, H. 共1992兲. “Behavior
of the seawalls and shoreline during the earthquake.” The Loma Pri-
eta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Marina District, T.
D. O’Rourke, ed., T.L. Holzer, coord., USGS, Washington, D.C., Pro-
fessional Paper 1551-F, F141–F153.
Tinsley, J. C., Egan, J. A., Kayen, R. E., Bennett, M. J., Kropp, A., and
Holzer, T. L. 共1998兲. “Appendix: maps and descriptions of liquefac-
tion and associated effects.” The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake
of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction, T. L. Holzer, ed., USGS, Wash-
ington, D.C., Professional Paper 1551-B, B287–B314.
Tokimatsu, K., Kojima, H., Kuwayama, S., Abe, A., and
Midorikawa, S. 共1994兲. “Liquefaction-induced damage to buildings in
1990 Luzon earthquake.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 120共2兲, 290–307.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B. 共1987兲. “Evaluation of settlements in
sands due to earthquake shaking.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 113共8兲, 861–
878.
Toprak, S., Holzer, T. L., Bennett, M. J., and Tinsley, J. C. 共1999兲. “CPT-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2008 / 1049
Downloaded 12 Apr 2010 to 133.11.81.74. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
and SPT-based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential.”
Proc., 7th U.S.—Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of
Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, T.
D. O’Rourke, J.-P. Bardet, and M. Hamada, eds., Technical Rep.
MCEER 99-0019, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y.,
69–86.
Wride 共Fear兲, C. E., McRoberts, E. C., and Robertson, P. K. 共1999兲.
“Reconsideration of case histories for estimating undrained shear
strength in sandy soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 36, 907–933.
Yan, L., Matasovic, N., and Kavazanjian, E., Jr. 共1996兲. “Seismic re-
sponse of rigid block on inclined plane to vertical and horizontal
ground motions acting simultaneously.” Proc., 11th ASCE Engineer-
ing Mech. Conf., ASCE, Reston, Va., 1111–1113.
Yegian, M. K., Ghahraman, V. G., Nogole-Sadat, M. A. A., and Daraie,
H. 共1995a兲. “Liquefaction during the 1990 Manjil, Iran, earthquake, I:
Case history data.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 85共1兲, 66–82.
Yegian, M. K., Ghahraman, V. G., Nogole-Sadat, M. A. A., and Daraie,
H. 共1995b兲. “Liquefaction during the 1990 Manjil, Iran, earthquake,
II: Case history analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 85共1兲, 83–92.
Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P. K., and Wride 共Fear兲, C. E. 共1999兲. “Und-
rained shear strength of clean sands to trigger flow liquefaction.” Can.
Geotech. J., 36共5兲, 891–906.
Youd, T. L. 共1971兲. “Landsliding in the vicinity of the Van Norman
Lakes.” The San Fernando, California, Earthquake of February 9,
1971, USGS Professional Paper 733, U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 105–109.
Youd, T. L. 共1973兲. “Ground movements in Van Norman Lake vicinity
during San Fernando earthquake.” San Fernando, California, Earth-
quake of February 9, 1971, L. M. Murphy, ed., Vol. 3, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
197–206.
Youd, T. L. 共1985兲. “Liquefaction studies in the Imperial Valley, Califor-
nia.” Proc., Workshop on In-Situ Testing Methods for Evaluation of
Soil Liquefaction Susceptibility, San Francisco, Calif., 109–139.
Youd, T. L. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction mechanisms and induced ground fail-
ure.” International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismol-
ogy, Academic, New York, Part B, Chap. 70, 1159–1173.
Youd, T. L., and Bennett, M. J. 共1983兲. “Liquefaction sites, Imperial
Valley, California.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 109共3兲, 440–457.
Youd, T. L., Hansen, C. B., and Bartlett, S. F. 共2002兲. “Revised multilin-
ear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displace-
ment.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共12兲, 1007–1017.
Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., Keefer, D. K., and Wilson, R. C. 共1985兲. “The
Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1983—liquefaction.”
Earthquake Spectra, 2共1兲, 71–89.
Youd, T. L., and Perkins, D. M. 共1987兲. “Mapping of liquefaction severity
index.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 113共GT11兲, 1374–1391.
Youd, T. L., and Wieczorek, G. F. 共1982兲. “Liquefaction and secondary
ground failure.” The 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquakes, USGS, Wash-
ington, D.C., Professional Paper 1254, 223–246.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. 共2004兲. “Estimating
liquefaction-induced lateral displacements using the standard penetra-
tion test or cone penetration test.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
130共8兲, 861–871.