Andrus et al.

2003

Comparing Liquefaction Evaluation Methods Using Penetration-VS Relationships

Ronald D. Andrus,* Paramananthan Piratheepan,1 Brian S. Ellis,2

Jianfeng Zhang, and C. Hsein Juang
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0911, USA
Ph: (864) 656-0488; Fax: (864) 656-2670; E-mail: randrus@clemson.edu
*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

Three methods that follow the general format of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for

evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils are compared in this paper. They are compared by

constructing relationships between penetration resistance and small-strain shear-wave velocity

(VS) implied from cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) curves for the three methods, and by plotting

penetration-VS data pairs. The penetration-VS data pairs are from 45 Holocene-age sand layers in

California, South Carolina, Canada, and Japan. It is shown that the VS-based CRR curve is more

conservative than CRR curves based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone

Penetration Test (CPT), for the compiled Holocene data. This result agrees with the findings of a

recent probability study where the SPT-, CPT-, and VS-based CRR curves were characterized as

curves with average probability of liquefaction of 31 %, 50 %, and 26 %, respectively. New

SPT- and CPT-based CRR equations are proposed that provide more consistent assessments of

liquefaction potential for the Holocene sand layers considered.

Key words: Cone Penetration Test, earthquake, liquefaction; in situ tests, probability, shear-

wave velocity, Standard Penetration Test.

1
Moved to Leighton and Associates, Inc., Chino, CA 91710-5770, USA
2
Moved to United States Air Force, Minot AFB, ND 58705-5000, USA

1
 Andrus et al. 2003

INTRODUCTION

The occurrence of liquefaction in soils is often evaluated using the simplified procedure

originally proposed by Seed and Idriss [1] based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). This

procedure has undergone several revisions and updates since it was first proposed in 1971,

including the development of methods based on the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), the Becker

Penetration Test (BPT), and small-strain shear-wave velocity (VS) measurements. Youd et al. [2]

provide a recent review of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure and the in situ test methods

commonly used to evaluate liquefaction resistance of soils.

In situ VS measurements provide a promising alternative to the penetration tests, which

may be unreliable in some soils, such as gravelly soils, or may not be feasible at some sites, such

as capped landfills. In addition, VS is an engineering property, directly related to small-strain

shear modulus, and required for dynamic soil response analyses. On the other hand, some

factors that affect VS may not equally affect resistance to liquefaction, which is a medium- to

large-strain event. Also, VS testing usually does not produce samples for classification or may

not be conducted with sufficient detail to detect thin liquefiable strata. Youd et al. [2] and

Andrus et al. [3] provide further discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of the VS- and

penetration-based liquefaction evaluation methods.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the VS liquefaction evaluation method, or curves,

proposed by Andrus and Stokoe [4] and updated in Andrus et al. [3, 5] with the SPT and CPT

curves summarized in Youd et al. [2] using relationships between penetration resistance and VS.

The approach of using penetration-VS relationships to compare curves was applied earlier by

Andrus et al. [6] with data from 25 Holocene-age (< 10,000 years) sands with < 10 % fines

(particles < 0.075 mm). In this paper, the SPT-VS and CPT-VS databases are expanded to include

2
 Andrus et al. 2003

20 additional sand data pairs. Regression analyses are performed on the expanded databases and

the resulting penetration-VS relationships are used to develop new, more consistent liquefaction

evaluation curves.

REVIEW OF LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION METHODS

The Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction resistance basically

involves the calculation of two parameters: 1) the level of cyclic loading on the soil caused by

the earthquake, expressed as a cyclic stress ratio; and 2) the resistance of the soil to liquefaction,

expressed as a cyclic resistance ratio. The cyclic stress ratio, CSR, at a particular depth in a level

soil deposit is calculated from (Seed and Idriss [1]):

CSR = 0.65(a max / g )(σ v / σ ' v )rd (1)

where amax = peak horizontal ground surface acceleration, g = acceleration of gravity, σ v = total

vertical (overburden) stress at the depth in question, σ 'v = effective overburden stress at the

same depth, and rd = a shear stress reduction coefficient.

Three methods, or curves, for determining the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR, are shown in

Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c. In Figure 1a, the curve for determining CRR from energy- and

overburden stress-corrected SPT blow count, (N1)60, by Seed et al. [9] and modified by Youd et

al. [2] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with moment magnitude, Mw, of 7.5 and sands

with fines content, FC, < 5 %. To apply the curve to soils with FC > 5 %, I. M. Idriss with the

assistance of R. B. Seed developed the following correction of (N1)60 to an equivalent clean sand

value [2]:

( N1 ) 60cs = α + β ( N1 ) 60 (2)

where (N1)60cs = equivalent clean sand value of (N1)60, and α and β = coefficients determined

using the following relationships:

3
 Andrus et al. 2003

α = 0 .0 for FC < 5 % (3a)

α = exp[1.76 − 190 / FC 2 ] for 5 % < FC < 35 % (3b)

α = 5 .0 for FC > 35 % (3c)

β = 1.0 for FC < 5 % (4a)

β = [0.99 + FC 1.5 / 1000] for 5 % < FC < 35 % (4b)

β = 1.2 for FC > 35 % (4c)

Equations 3 and 4 are suggested for routine liquefaction resistance calculations [2].

In Figure 1b, the curve for determining CRR from overburden stress-corrected CPT tip

resistance, qc1N, by Robertson and Wride [10] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with Mw

of 7.5, and sands with FC < 5 % and median grain size, D50, of 0.25-2.0 mm. To apply the curve

to soils with FC > 5 %, Robertson and Wride [10] developed the following correction of qc1N to

an equivalent clean sand value:

(q c1N ) cs = K c qc1N (5)

where (qc1N)cs = equivalent clean sand value of qc1N, and Kc = a correction factor for grain

characteristics determined using the following relationships:

K c = 1.0 for Ic < 1.64 (6a)

K c = −0.403I c 4 + 5.581I c 3 − 21.63I c 2 + 33.75I c − 17.88 for Ic > 1.64 (6b)

where Ic = soil behavior type index, defined by:

I c = [(3.47 − log Q) 2 + (1.22 + log F ) 2 ]0.5 (7)

where

Q = [(q c − σ v ) / Pa ][ Pa / σ ' v ] n (8)

and

4
 Andrus et al. 2003

F = [ f s /(qc − σ v )]100% (9)

where qc = measured cone tip resistance, fs = measured cone sleeve resistance, Pa = a reference

stress of 100 kPa (or 1 atm), and n = an exponent that depends on soil type. The values of qc, fs,

Pa, σ v , and σ 'v are all in the same units. The value of n ranges from 0.5 for clean sands to 1.0

for clays [11], and can be approximated through an iterative approach [10].

In Figure 1c, the curve for determining CRR from overburden stress-corrected shear-

wave velocity, VS1, by Andrus and Stokoe [4] is shown. This curve is for earthquakes with Mw of

7.5 and young, uncemented sands and gravels with FC < 5 %. To apply the curve to soils with

FC > 5 % and/or older soils, VS1 can be corrected to an equivalent young, clean soil value by:

(V S1 ) csa1 = K a1 (V S1 ) cs = K a1 K csV S1 (10)

where (VS1)csa1 = equivalent young clean soil value of VS1, (VS1)cs = equivalent clean soil value not

corrected for age, Kcs = a fines content correction factor, and Ka1 = an age factor to correct for

high VS1 values caused by aging. Juang et al. [12] suggested the following relationships for

estimating Kcs:

K cs = 1.0 for FC < 5 % (11a)

K cs = 1 + ( FC − 5)T for 5 % < FC < 35 % (11b)

K cs = 1 + 30T for FC > 35 % (11c)

where

T = 0.009 − 0.0109(VS1 / 100) + 0.0038(VS1 / 100) 2 (12)

Andrus and Stokoe [4] assumed Ka1 = 1.0 for all Holocene-age soils.

Because the three CRR curves shown in Figure 1 are all for Mw = 7.5 earthquakes and

sands with FC < 5 %, they imply relationships between SPT, CPT and VS. One can obtain these

5
 Andrus et al. 2003

relationships by plotting values of (N1)60cs, (qc1N)cs and (VS1)csa1 with the same CRR values. The

implied (N1)60cs-(VS1)csa1, (qc1N)cs-(VS1)csa1 and (qc1N)cs-(N1)60cs relationships are presented in

Figures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. One advantage of studying penetration-VS relationships is they

provide comparisons of the liquefaction evaluation methods without needing to calculate CSR.

Thus, data from sites not shaken by earthquakes can also be used to validate the consistency

between liquefaction evaluation methods.

HOLOCENE SAND DATA

Data from 45 Holocene-age sand layers with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25 are also plotted in

Figures 2, 3 and 4. The data are summarized in Table 1. They are from California, South

Carolina, Canada, and Japan, and are based on measurements performed by various investigators

[13-24]. The data were originally compiled by Andrus et al. [6], Piratheepan [25], and Ellis [26].

Three of their compiled Holocene sand data (Coyote Creek with depth of 3.6-6.0 m; Bay Bridge

Toll Plaza, SFOBB1 with depth of 10.0-12.8 m; and WPC 2000-344, SC1 with depth of 3.8-6.8

m) are not considered in this paper, because penetration or VS measurements are not consistent

with the data plotted in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

The reason for selecting sands with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25 is so that a significant number

of data points are available for regression analysis, while limiting the FC or Ic corrections.

According to a relationship proposed by Robertson and Wride [10], sands with Ic < 2.25 typically

have values of FC < 20 %. Average values of D50 for the sand layers listed in Table 1 range

from 0.08 mm to 1.68 mm. These sands classify as SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, and SM by the Unified

Soil Classification System.

The general criteria used for selecting the penetration and VS measurements are as

follows: 1) Measurements are from below the ground-water table where reasonable estimates of

6
 Andrus et al. 2003

effective stress can be easily made. 2) Measurements are from thick, uniform soil layers

identified primarily using CPT measurements. When no CPT measurements are available,

exceptions to Criterion 2 are allowed if there are several SPT and VS measurements within the

layer that follow a consistent trend. 3) Penetration test locations are within 6 m of the VS test

locations. 4) At least two VS measurements, and the corresponding test intervals, are within the

uniform layer. 5) Time history records used for VS determination exhibit easy-to-pick shear

wave arrivals. Thus, values of VS determined from difficult-to-pick shear-wave arrivals are not

used. When the time history records are not available, exceptions to Criterion 5 are allowed if

there are at least 3 VS measurements within the selected layer. The 45 Holocene-age sand layers

range in depth from 1.7 m to 13.0 m.

Of the 45 selected sand layers, 27 were tested by seismic cone, 7 by crosshole, 3 by both

seismic cone and crosshole, 6 by suspension logger, and 2 by downhole techniques. Values of

(VS1)cs are calculated using average FC values. Where no FC information is available, an

apparent FC value is calculated using the Ic value and the relationship suggested by Robertson

and Wride [10], where FC ≈ 1.75 I c 3 − 3.7 for 1.26 < Ic < 3.5. Calculated (VS1)cs values are 0 %

to 7 % higher than values of VS1.

SPT blow counts are available for 38 of the 45 selected sand layers. Values of (N1)60 are

determined from measured SPT blow counts using reported test equipment and procedure

information. Where no energy measurements are available, average corrections recommended

by Youd et al. [2] are assumed based on the type of hammer used. Calculated (N1)60cs values are

0 % to 76 % higher than values of (N1)60.

7
 Andrus et al. 2003

CPT resistances are available for 41 of the 45 selected layers. All of the CPT

measurements are from 10-cm2 cones. Values of qc1N and Ic are averaged over the interval of the

selected VS measurements. They are calculated using the electronic CPT data files, when

available. When the electronic files are not available, average values are determined from the

reported graphical profiles. Because values of Ic are not available for the six sand layers in

Canada, they are approximated using Robertson and Wride’s [10] Ic-FC relationship. Calculated

(qc1N)cs values are 0 % to 77 % higher than values of qc1N.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Regression equations are determined for the Holocene sand data from nonlinear

regression analysis by power curve fitting. The decision to use power curve fitting is based

primarily on results of earlier studies. The regression equation developed for 38 (N1)60cs-(VS1)cs

data pairs is expressed as:

(V S1 ) cs = B1[( N1 ) 60cs ] B2 (13)

where B1 = 87.7 ± 14.4 (95 % confidence interval) and B2 = 0.253 ± 0.053, with (VS1)cs in m/s

and (N1)60cs in blows/0.3 m. These values of B1 and B2 are most similar to values obtained in

earlier SPT-VS regression studies by Yoshida et al. [27] for fine sand and Fear and Robertson

[28] for Ottawa sand. The coefficient of multiple regression, R2, and standard deviation of the

residuals (or errors), s, associated with this regression are 0.719 and 19 m/s, respectively.

The equation developed for 41 (qc1N)cs-(VS1)cs data pairs is expressed as:

(V S1 ) cs = B1[(q c1N ) cs ] B2 (14)

where B1 = 67.6 ± 20.4 and B2 = 0.213 ± 0.063, with (VS1)cs in m/s and (qc1N)cs is dimensionless.

These values of B1 and B2 are most similar to values obtained in earlier CPT-VS regression

8
 Andrus et al. 2003

studies by Robertson et al. [29] for mainly quartz sands and Hegazy and Mayne [30] for various

sands. Values of R2 and s associated with this regression are 0.544 and 22 m/s, respectively.

The equation developed for 34 (qc1N)cs-(N1)60cs data pairs is expressed as:

( N1 ) 60cs = B1[(q c1N ) cs ] B 2 (15)

where B1 = 0.488 ± 0.468 and B2 = 0.779 ± 0.184 with (N1)60cs in blows/0.3 m and (qc1N)cs is

dimensionless. It should be noted that similar B1 and B2 values (0.357 and 0.842, respectively)

are obtained when Equations 13 and 14 are set equal to each other and solved for (N1)60cs,

indicating that the three equations are in general agreement. For this regression, R2 = 0.709 and s

= 7 blows/0.3 m.

This high s value of 7 blows/0.3 m associated with Equation 15 is not likely the result of

grain size characteristics. Robertson and Campanella [31] and Seed and de Alba [32] developed

relationships between median grain size, D50, and the ratio of CPT tip resistance to energy-

corrected SPT blow count. Their relationships exhibit penetration ratios increasing from about

2.5 at D50 = 0.01 mm to about 5.5-8 at D50 = 1 mm. This increasing trend is not seen in the

energy-, overbuden-, and fines content-corrected penetration resistances listed in Table 1.

Presented in Figure 5 are the ratios of corrected penetration resistances compiled for this study

versus corresponding values of D50. Because there is little or no increasing trend in the plotted

(qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs values, it appears that the fines content correction accounted for most, if not all,

of the effects of grain size characteristics.

Equations 13, 14 and 15 are also plotted in Figures 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Although

somewhat better fits of the plotted data can be obtained using more complex regression models,

these equations appear to be adequate for the comparison of liquefaction evaluation methods.

9
 Andrus et al. 2003

COMPARISON OF EVALUATION METHODS

As explained by Andrus and Stokoe [4], both the SPT and VS evaluation methods provide

similar predictions of liquefaction resistance when the data point lies on the implied curve in

Figure 2. When the data point plots below the implied curve, the VS method provides the more

conservative prediction. When the data point plots above the implied curve, the SPT method

provides the more conservative prediction. Because most of the data points plot below the

implied curve, the VS method provides an overall more conservative prediction of liquefaction

resistance than does the SPT method below (N1)60cs of 26 for the plotted Holocene sand data.

Above (N1)60cs of 26, both methods appear to provide similar predictions on average. This

finding agrees with the probability assessment of Juang et al. [12], where the SPT-based CRR

curve (see Figure 1a) and the VS-based CRR curve (see Figure 1c) are characterized with average

probability of liquefaction, PL, of 31 % and 26 %, respectively.

Both the CPT and VS evaluation methods provide similar predictions of liquefaction

resistance when the data point lies on the implied curve in Figure 3. When the data point plots

below the implied curve, the VS method provides the more conservative prediction. When the

data point plots above the implied curve, the CPT method provides the more conservative

prediction. Because the majority of the data points lie below the implied curve, the VS method

provides an overall more conservative prediction of liquefaction resistance than does the CPT

method for the plotted data. This finding also agrees with the assessment of Juang et al. [12],

where the CPT-based CRR curve (see Figure 1b) is characterized with average PL of 50 %.

The flatter slope exhibited by the implied curves below (N1)60cs of 6 (see Figure 2) and

(qc1N)cs of 30 (see Figure 3) can be explained by different assumed minimal values of CRR. A

minimum CRR value of 0.05 is assumed for the SPT and CPT curves, whereas 0.033 is assumed

10
 Andrus et al. 2003

for the VS curve for the lowest VS1 value (100 m/s) of most soils with FC < 5 %. More

liquefaction/no liquefaction case histories are needed at these lower values of CSR, (N1)60cs,

(qc1N)cs, and (VS1)cs to fully assess these assumptions.

Both the CPT and SPT methods provide the same predictions of liquefaction resistance,

when the data point lies on the implied curve in Figure 4. When the data point plots below the

implied curve, the SPT method provides the more conservative prediction. When the data point

plots above the implied curve, the CPT method provides the more conservative prediction.

Because more of the data points between (qc1N)cs of 40 and 120 plot above the implied curve, the

CPT method provides more conservative predictions of liquefaction resistance than does the SPT

method in this range. Above (qc1N)cs of 120, the mean curve for the data points plots below the

implied curve, indicating the SPT method is more conservative in that range.

Liquefaction resistance curves that are consistent, on average, may be obtained using

Equations 13 and 14 and the VS-based CRR curve defined by [4]:

2
 (V )   1 1 
CRR7.5cs = 0.022  S1 csa1  + 2.8 −  (16)
 100   215 − (VS1 ) csa1 215 

Substituting Equations 13 and 14 into Equation 16 leads to the following relationships:

 1 
CRR7.5cs = 0.0169[( N1 ) 60cs ]0.506 + 2.8
1
−  (17)
 215 − 87.7[( N1 ) 60cs ]0.253 215 

 1 
CRR7.5cs = 0.0101[(q c1N ) cs ]0.426 + 2.8
1
−  (18)
 215 − 67.6[(qc1N ) cs ]0.213 215 

Equations 17, 18 and 16 are compared with the original curves in Figures 6a, 6b and 6c,

respectively. The ranges where the VS-based CRR curve is more conservative than the SPT- and

CPT-based CRR curves can be clearly seen in these figures.

11
 Andrus et al. 2003

Because Equation 16 is characterized with PL = 26 % [12], Equations 17 and 18 should

also define curves of similar PL. To verify this assumption, results of various probability studies

are plotted in Figures 7a, 7b and 7c. In Figure 7a, Equation 17 is compared with six PL = 26 %

curves determined from SPT-based liquefaction case histories. The curves by Liao et al. [33],

Youd and Noble [34], Toprak et al. [35], and Juang et al. [12] Model 1 are derived from logistic

regression analysis. The curves by Cetin et al. [36] and Juang et al. [12] Model 2 are derived

from Bayesian analysis. Five of the PL = 26 % curves suggest upper bounds for liquefaction

occurrence greater than (N1)60cs of 30, the value traditionally assumed as the limiting upper

bound [9]. These larger upper bound values could be real, or they could be the result of the

model assumed. Nevertheless, the agreement is remarkable given the fact that Equation 17 is

derived from VS-based liquefaction case histories and the SPT-VS regression equation.

In Figure 7b, Equation 18 is compared with three PL = 26 % curves determined from

CPT-based liquefaction case histories. The curves by Toprak et al. [35] and Juang et al. [12]

Model 1 are derived from logistic regression analysis. The Model 2 curve by Juang et al. [12] is

derived from Bayesian analysis. It can be seen that Equation 18 generally agrees with all three

curves below (qc1N)cs of 100. Above (qc1N)cs of 100, each curve suggests a different limiting

upper bound value of (qc1N)cs for liquefaction occurrence. Equation 18 and the Juang et al. [12]

Model 1 curve both suggest upper bounds for liquefaction occurrence greater than (qc1N)cs of 160,

the value traditionally assumed as the limiting upper bound [10]. These results support I. M.

Idriss’ suggestion [2, page 821] that the limiting upper value of 160 be increase by 10-15 %.

Nevertheless, the agreement between Equation 18 and the three PL = 26 % curves is remarkable.

In Figure 7c, Equation 16 is compared with three PL = 26 % curves determined by Juang

et al. [12]. Model 1 is derived from logistic regression analysis using a model similar in form to

12
 Andrus et al. 2003

the logistic model equation assumed in the SPT and CPT probability studies [33-35]. Model 2 in

Figure 7c is also derived from logistic regression analysis, but is different from the Model 1

equation by an additional term. Model 3 is the Andrus and Stokoe [4] curve and is characterized

as a PL = 26 % curve from Bayesian analysis. It can be seen that all three curves are in general

agreement below (VS1)csa1 of 210 m/s. The high limiting upper (VS1)csa1 value of 235 m/s

suggested by Model 1 is believed to be the result of the form of the assumed logistic model

equation.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN EVALUATIONS

The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) [37] suggests a factor of safety of 1.2 to 1.5

is appropriate when applying the SPT-based CRR curve by Seed et al. [9] in engineering design

evaluations, where factor of safety, FS, is defined as CRR/CSR Traditionally, liquefaction is

predicted to occur when FS < 1; and not occur with FS > 1. Juang et al. [12] characterize the

Seed et al. [9] curve as a PL = 31 % curve, and interpret FS values of 1.2 to 1.5 as corresponding

to PL of 20 % to 10 %.

The SPT-, CPT-, and VS-based CRR curves defined by Equations 16, 17 and 18,

respectively, are shown earlier in this paper to be approximately PL = 26 % curves. When

applying these equations in engineering practice, the appropriate range of FS values that

correspond to the BSSC’s [37] suggested range is 1.1 to 1.4 [12].

Greater care should be exercised when applying the VS-based CRR curves to soils older

than Holocene age. Preliminary values of Ka1 for Pleistocene-age (10,000 to 1.8 million years)

sands are given in Andrus and Stokoe [4] and Andrus et al. [3, 5]. These values of Ka1 should be

used when applying the VS-based CRR curves to Pleistocene sands. Work is under way to

develop a continuous relationship between age and Ka1, and will be presented in another paper.

13
 Andrus et al. 2003

CONCLUSIONS

Regression analyses were performed on penetration and VS data pairs from Holocene

sands, and the resulting equations were compared with relationships implied by CRR curves for

three liquefaction evaluation methods. Based on the comparisons, the following conclusions can

be made:

1. For the compiled Holocene sand data, the SPT-based CRR curve [9] between (N1)60cs

values of 8 to 20 was shown to be less conservative, on average, than the VS- and

CPT-based CRR curves [4, 10]. The CPT-based CRR curve above a (qc1N )cs value of

about 120 was shown to be less conservative than the SPT- and VS-based CRR curves.

These results are in general agreement with a recent probability study [12].

2. New equations were developed for estimating CRR from (N1)60cs and (qc1N )cs by

substituting the developed regression equations into the equation defining the VS-

based CRR curve. These new equations compared well with PL = 26 % curves

developed by various investigators using SPT and CPT liquefaction case histories.

3. More high-quality penetration-VS data are needed from other deposit and soil types to

further compare the liquefaction evaluation methods. One advantage of studying

penetration-VS relationships is that they provide comparisons of the evaluation

methods without needing to calculate CSR. Thus, data from sites not shaken by

strong earthquakes, which have been largely ignored in the past, can be used in the

comparisons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

under USGS award number 01HQGR0007; and by the South Carolina Department of

14
 Andrus et al. 2003

Transportation (SCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration under SCDOT Research

Project No. 623. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors

and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or

implied, of the U.S. Government or the State of South Carolina. The authors acknowledge the

insights shared by K. H. Stokoe, II of The University of Texas at Austin during earlier

collaborative studies and by T. L. Holzer of USGS during parts of this work. The authors also

express their sincere thanks to the many individuals who generously assisted with data

compilation. In particular, T. L. Holzer, M. J. Bennett, J. C. Tinsley, III, and T. E. Noce of

USGS, S. Iai of the Port and Harbour Research Institute in Japan, R. Boulanger of the University

of California at Davis, and T. J. Casey and W. B. Wright of Wright Padgett Christopher.

REFERENCES

[1] Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 1971; 97(9): 1249-1273.

[2] Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R.,

Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C.,

Marcuson, W.F., III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson,

P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report

from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction

resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,

2001; 127(10): 817-833.

[3] Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, and Juang, C.H. Guide for shear wave-based liquefaction

potential evaluation. Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 2004; 20(2): in press.

15
 Andrus et al. 2003

[4] Andrus, R.D., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave

velocity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2000;

126(11): 1015-1025.

[5] Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, Chung, R.M., and Juang, C.H. Guidelines for evaluating

liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures.

NIST GCR 03-854, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,

2003.

[6] Andrus, R.D., Stokoe, K.H., II, and Chung, R.M. Draft guidelines for evaluating

liquefaction resistance using shear wave velocity measurements and simplified procedures.

NISTIR 6277, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1999.

[7] Chrisley, J.C. Consistency between liquefaction prediction based on SPT, CPT, and VS

measurements at the same site. M.S. Report, University of Texas at Austin, 1999.

[8] Toprak, S., and Holzer, T.L. Liquefaction potential index: field assessment. Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2003; 129(4): 315-322.

[9] Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M. Influence of SPT procedures in

soil liquefaction resistance evaluations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1985;

111(12): 1425-1445.

[10] Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E.. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the Cone

Penetration Test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998; 35(3): 442-459.

[11] Olsen, R.S. Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetration test. Proceedings, NCEER

Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for

Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997; 225-

276.

16
 Andrus et al. 2003

[12] Juang, C.H., Jiang, T., and Andrus, R.D. Assessing probability-based methods for

liquefaction potential evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, ASCE, 2002; 128(7): 580-589.

[13] Mitchell, J.K., Lodge, A.L., Coutinho, R.Q., Kayen, R.E., Seed, R.B., Nishio, S., and

Stokoe, K.H., II. Insitu test results from four Loma Prieta earthquake liquefaction sites:

SPT, CPT, DMT, and Shear Wave Velocity. Report No. UCB/EERC-09/04, Earthquake

Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1994.

[14] Youd, T.L., and Bennett, M.J. Liquefaction sites, Imperial Valley, California. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1983; 109(3): 440-457.

[15] Bierschwale, J.G., and Stokoe, K.H., II. Analytical evaluation of liquefaction potential of

sands subjected to the 1981 Westmorland earthquake. Geotechnical Engineering Report

GR-84-15, University of Texas at Austin, 1984.

[16] Boulanger, R.W., Mejia, L.H., and Idriss, I.M. Liquefaction at Moss Landing during Loma

Prieta earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,

2002; 123(5): 453-467.

[17] Fuhriman, M.D. Crosshole seismic tests at two northern California sites affected by the

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1993.

[18] Hryciw, R.D. Post Loma Prieta earthquake CPT, DMT and shear wave velocity

investigations of liquefaction sites in Santa Cruz and on Treasure Island. Final Report to

the U.S. Geological Survey, Award No. 14-08-0001-G1865, University of Michigan at Ann

Arbor, 1991.

[19] Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M.J., Noce, T.E., Padovani, A.C., Tinsley, J.C., III. Liquefaction

hazard and shaking amplification maps of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and

17
 Andrus et al. 2003

Piedmont: A digital database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 02-296, 2002;

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of02-296.

[20] WPC. Various unpublished project reports, Wright Padgett Christopher, Inc., Mount

Pleasant, SC, 2000-2001.

[21] Wride (Fear), C.E., Robertson, P.K., Biggar, K.W., Campanella, R.G., Hofman, B.A.,

Hughes, J.M.O., KÜpper, A., and Woeller, D.J. Interpretation of in situ test results from the

CANLEX sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2000; 37: 505-529.

[22] Iai, S. Personal communication on sites in Hakodate Port, Japan, 1997.

[23] Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K. Response of a dense sand

deposit during 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake. Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1995; 35(1): 115-131.

[24] Ishihara, K., Kokusho, T., Yasuda, S., Goto, Y., Yoshida, N., Hatanaka, M., and Ito, K.

Dynamics properties of Masado fill in Kobe Port Island improved through soil compaction

method. Summary of Final Report by Geotechnical Research Collaboration Committee on

the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Obayashi Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.

[25] Piratheepan, P. Estimating shear-wave velocity from SPT and CPT data. M.S. Thesis,

Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 2002.

[26] Ellis, B.S. Regression equations for estimating shear-wave velocity in South Carolina

sediments using penetration test data. M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC,

2003.

[27] Yoshida, Y., Ikemi, M., and Kokusho, T. Empirical formulas of SPT blow counts for

gravelly soils. Penetration Testing 1988, ISOPT-1, Orlando, FL, 1988; 2: 381-387.

18
 Andrus et al. 2003

[28] Fear, C.E., and Robertson, P.K. Estimating the undrained strength of sand: a theoretical

framework. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1995; 32: 859-870.

[29] Robertson, P.K., Woeller, D.J., and Finn, W.D.L. Seismic CPT for evaluating liquefaction

potential. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1992; 29: 686-695.

[30] Hegazy, Y.A., and Mayne, P.W. Statistical correlations between VS and cone penetration

data for different soil types. Proceedings, International Symposium on Cone Penetration

Testing, CPT ’95, Linkoping, Sweden, Swedish Geotechnical Society, 1995; 2: 173-178.

[31] Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G. Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT.

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1988; 111(3): 384-403.

[32] Seed, H.B., and de Alba, P. Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction

resistance of sands. Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1986; 1249-

1273.

[33] Liao, S.S.C., Veneziano, D., and Whitman, R.V. Regression model for evaluating

liquefaction probability. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1988; 114(4): 389-

410.

[34] Youd, T.L., and Noble, S.K. Liquefaction criteria based on statistical and probabilisitic

analysis. Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance

of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering

Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1997; 201-216.

[35] Toprak, S., Holzer, T.L., Bennett, M.J., and Tinsley, J.C., III. CPT- and SPT-based

probabilitistic assessment of liquefaction. Proceedings of the Seventh US-Japan Workshop

on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Counter-measures Against

19
 Andrus et al. 2003

Liquefaction, Technical Report MCEER-00-0019, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1999; 69-86.

[36] Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., and Der Kiureghian, A. Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction

initiation hazard. Proceedings of the Twelth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.

[37] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic

Regulation for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA 368, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000; Part 2: page 196.

20
 Andrus et al. 2003
Table 1. Data from Holocene soil deposits with FC < 20 % or Ic < 2.25.

Site Name Depth USCS D50 FCa VS Test VS1cs (N1)60cs Ic qc1Ncs Source
(m) Soil (mm) (%) Typeb (m/s)
Type
California, USA
Bay Bridge, SFOBB1 5.4 - 7.2 SP-SM 0.26 12 CH 152 7 2.15 67 [13]
Bay Bridge, SFOBB1 8.0 - 9.9 SP-SM 0.27 8 CH 151 20 1.90 77 [13]
Bay Farm Island-Dike 3.7 - 5.0 SP-SM 0.23 8 CH 211 53 1.35 321 [13]
Bay Farm Island-Dike 5.0 - 7.8 SP-SM 0.28 12 CH 250 48 2.09 185 [13]
Heber Road, Point Bar 1.8 - 4.2 SM 0.11 18 CH 233 34 2.00 319 [14,15]
Port of Oakland, P007-2 3.0 - 5.1 SP-SM 0.29 7 CH/SCPT 183 22 1.50 173 [13]
Port of Oakland, P007-2 5.3 - 6.8 SP-SM 0.30 6 CH/SCPT 172 13 1.88 73 [13]
Port of Oakland, P007-2 6.8 - 9.1 SP-SM 0.30 3 CH/SCPT 167 16 1.71 112 [13]
Sandholt Road, UC-4 2.1 - 3.5 SP 0.85 2 SCPT 161 15 1.42 188 [16]
Sandholt Road, UC-4 6.3 - 10.1 SP 1.11 3 SCPT 216 43 1.19 332 [16]
State Beach, UC-15 2.0 - 3.8 SP 0.28 2 SCPT 137 7 1.90 67 [16]
State Beach, UC-15 3.8 - 5.5 SP 0.38 1 SCPT 156 9 1.73 76 [16]
State Beach, UC-15 5.6 - 8.7 SP 1.68 2 SCPT 231 39 1.32 204 [16]
State Beach, UC-16 2.4 - 4.6 SP 0.43 2 SCPT 192 22 1.47 171 [16]
State Beach, UC-16 4.6 - 6.7 SP 0.57 1 SCPT 175 17 1.40 166 [16]
State Beach, UC-16 6.7 - 8.6 SP 0.57 1 SCPT 197 30 1.32 201 [16]
Treasure Island, B1-B3 2.2 - 4.0 SP-SM 0.21 7 CH 162 21 1.87 85 [17]
Treasure Island, B1-B3 9.0 - 11.5 SM 0.21 14 CH 183 17 2.11 64 [17]
Treasure Island, UM-05 3.3 - 5.7 SP 0.33 4 SCPT 170 14 1.82 79 [18]
Treasure Island, UM-05 5.8 - 8.3 SP-SC 0.33 7 SCPT 188 18 1.88 72 [18]
Treasure Island, UM-06 2.2 - 5.0 SP nac 3 SCPT 175 12 2.10 44 [18]
Treasure Island, UM-06 5.0 - 10.4 SP 1.41 3 SCPT 193 21 1.82 73 [18]
Treasure Island, UM-09 2.7 - 6.3 SP-SC 0.15 11 SCPT 161 9 2.04 68 [18]
USGS Alameda, ALC026 4.0 - 10.0 na na 7d SCPT 233 na 1.73 237 [19]
South Carolina, USA
WPC 2000-344, SC2 6.4 - 10.4 na na 6d SCPT 193 na 1.67 108 [20]
WPC 2000-344, SC3 4.5 - 8.5 na na 6d SCPT 160 na 1.72 118 [20]
WPC 2000-344, SC5A 3.8 - 8.8 SM 0.13 29 SCPT 224 29 1.61 130 [20]
WPC 2000-344, SC5B 3.8 - 10.8 SM na 7d SCPT 210 na 1.77 105 [20]
WPC 2000-344, SC10 7.4 - 10.4 na na 20d SCPT 247 na 2.24 229 [20]
WPC 2000-344, SC15 6.4 - 10.4 na na 6d SCPT 198 na 1.68 105 [20]
WPC 2001-211, SCPT4 1.7 - 4.7 na na 9d SCPT 253 na 1.85 158 [20]
Canada
Fraser River Delta, Kidd 12.0 - 17.0 SP 0.20 <5 SCPT 177 13 <1.64 d 68 [21]
Fraser River Delta, Massey 8.0 - 13.0 SP 0.20 <5 SCPT 168 10 <1.64 d 53 [21]
HVC Mine, LL Dam 6.0 - 10.0 SP-SM 0.25 8 SCPT 154 5 1.79 d 43 [21]
HVC Mine, Highmont Dam 8.0 – 12.0 SP-SM 0.25 10 SCPT 142 6 1.88 d 52 [21]
Syncrude, J-Pit 3.0 – 7.0 SM 0.17 15 SCPT 129 6 2.07 d 28 [21]
Syncrude, Mildred Lake 27.0 – 37.0 SP-SM 0.16 10 SCPT 157 19 1.88 d 87 [21]
Japan
Hakodate Port No. 1 2.5 – 5.5 SM 0.13 31 SL 163 14 1.95 60 [22]
Hakodate Port No. 1 8.5 – 11.4 SP-SM 0.24 7 SL 149 7 1.99 62 [22]
Hakodate Port No. 2 3.5 – 8.4 SP-SM 0.29 8 SL 171 7 1.83 60 [22]
Hakodate Port No. 3 6.5 - 11.8 SM 0.08 39 SL 152 24 1.85 85 [22]
Kushiro Port, No. 2 (PB-1) 3.5 - 5.5 SP-SM 0.17 7 SL 196 25 na na [23]
Kushiro Port, No. 2 (PB-1) 5.5 - 7.5 SP-SM 0.19 8 SL 298 56 na na [23]
Port Island, Common Factory 3.8 - 8.0 SP-SM na 6 DH 208 29 na na [24]
Port Island, Common Factory 8.0 - 12.0 SP-SM na 6 DH 212 28 na na [24]
a
FC = fines content (silt and clay)
b
CH = crosshole; SCPT = seismic CPT; SL = suspension logger; DH = downhole
c
na = not available
d
Estimated fines content or Ic from: FC = 1.75Ic 3.25-3.7 for 1.26 < Ic < 3.5 (Robertson and Wride [10])

21
 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mw = 7.5 (a) Mw = 7.5 (b) Mw = 7.5 (c)
D50 = 0.25-2 mm
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 Liquefaction 0.4 Liquefaction 0.4 Liquefaction

Modified Robertson
0.3 Seed et al. 0.3 & Wride 0.3 Andrus
(1985) (1998) & Stokoe
0.2 0.2 0.2 (2000)
22

0.1 No 0.1 No 0.1 No

Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Corrected SPT Blow Count, Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,
(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m (qc1N)cs (VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 1. Liquefaction resistance curves based on SPT by Seed et al. (1985), CPT by Robertson and Wride (1998),
and VS by Andrus and Stokoe (2000)

Andrus et al. 2003

 Andrus et al. 2003

300

Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity, (VS1)cs

Mean curve:
(VS1)cs = 87.7 [(N 1)60cs]0.253

250
Curve implied from
CRR relationships

200

Location
150
California
Canada
Japan
So. Carolina
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Corrected SPT Blow Count, (N 1)60cs

Figure 2. Relationships between (VS1)cs and (N1)60cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

300
Location
Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity, (VS1)cs

Curve implied from

California CRR relationships
Canada
250 Japan
So. Carolina (qc1N)cs
= 319
= 332
= 321
200

150
Mean curve:
(VS1)cs = 67.6 [(q c1N)cs]0.213
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, (qc1N)cs
Figure 3. Relationships between (VS1)cs and (qc1N)cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

23
 Andrus et al. 2003

60
Location (qc1N)cs
Corrected SPT Blow Count, (N 1)60cs
California = 321
50 Canada
Japan
= 332
So. Carolina
40
= 319
Curve implied from
30 CRR relationships

20

Mean curve:
10 (N1)60cs = 0.488 [(q c1N)cs]0.779

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, (qc1N)cs
Figure 4. Relationships between (N1)60cs and (qc1N)cs for uncemented, Holocene sands

24
 Andrus et al. 2003

Corrected Penetration Ratio, (qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs 12

Location
(qc1N)cs/(N1)60cs = 12.5
California
10 Canada
Japan
So. Carolina
8

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Median Grain Size, D50, mm

Figure 5. Relationship between corrected penetration ratio and median grain size for
uncemented, Holocene sands

25
 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mw = 7.5 (a) Mw = 7.5 (b) Mw = 7.5 (c)
D50 = 0.25-2 mm
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.5 0.5 0.5
Liquefaction
Liquefaction
0.4 0.4 0.4 Liquefaction

Modified Robertson Eq. 16

0.3 Seed et al. 0.3 0.3
& Wride Andrus
(1985) Eq. 17
(1998) Eq. 18 & Stokoe
0.2 0.2 0.2 (2000)
26

0.1 No 0.1 No 0.1 No

Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Corrected SPT Blow Count, Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,
(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m (qc1N)cs (VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 6. Comparison of liquefaction resistance curves by Seed et al. (1985), Robertson and Wride (1998),
and Andrus and Stokoe (2000) with curves derived from penetration-VS equations

Andrus et al. 2003

 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mw = 7.5 Youd & (a) Mw = 7.5 (b) Mw = 7.5 (c)
PL = 0.26 Noble PL = 0.26 Juang PL = 0.26
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRR

0.5 Juang 0.5 0.5 Juang
(1997) et al.
et al. et al.
(2002)
Liao (2002) (2002)
0.4 Model 2
et al. Model 1 0.4 0.4 Model 2
Eq. 16,
(1988) Andrus &
Toprak Toprak Juang
0.3 et al. 0.3 0.3 Stokoe
Cetin et al. et al.
(1999) (2000);
et al. (1999) (2002) Juang
Juang et al.
0.2 (2000) 0.2 Model 1 0.2 et al.
(2002)
27

Juang Model 3 (2002)

et al. Model 1
0.1 0.1 0.1
(2002)
Eq. 17 Eq. 18
Model 2
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Corrected SPT Blow Count, Corrected CPT Tip Resistance, Corrected Shear-Wave Velocity,
(N1)60cs, blows/0.3 m (qc1N)cs (VS1)csa1, m/s

Figure 7. Comparison of liquefaction resistance curves derived from the CRR curve by Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and penetration-VS
equations with PL = 26 % curves developed by various invesitgators

Andrus et al. 2003