493

Yield strength ratios, critical strength ratios, and

brittleness of sandy soils from laboratory tests
Abouzar Sadrekarimi and Scott M. Olson

Abstract: In this study, we performed 26 undrained triaxial compression and 32 constant-volume ring shear tests on two
clean sands and one silty sand. We then used these results to evaluate the critical states, and shear strength ratios mobi-
lized at yield and at critical state. We obtained yield strength ratios that ranged from 0.16 to 0.32 and from 0.20 to 0.35 in
triaxial compression and ring shear, respectively. Critical strength ratios mobilized prior to particle damage ranged from
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

0.01 to 0.26 in triaxial compression and from 0.04 to 0.22 in ring shear. Particle damage and shear displacement increased
the slopes of the critical-state lines during ring shear testing, and consequently the critical strength ratios incorporating par-
ticle damage decreased from 0.02 to 0.12. In addition, specimen brittleness (before particle damage) increases with initial
void ratio and state parameter and is affected by initial fabric and particle shape. However, particle damage and crushing
considerably increases sand brittleness, making it essentially independent of initial void ratio. A unique relation is found
between sand brittleness and critical strength ratio independent of sand type, mode of shear, fabric, and particle damage,
which indicates an upper bound critical strength ratio of about 0.3 for mildly contractive sands.
Key words: undrained shear strength, liquefaction, particle damage, critical state, ring shear tests, brittleness.
Résumé : Dans cette étude nous avons réalisé 26 essais en compression uniaxiale non drainée et 32 essais en cisaillement
circulaire à volume constant sur deux sables propres et un sable silteux. Nous avons ensuite utilisé ces résultats pour éva-
luer les états critiques et les ratios de résistance au cisaillement mobilisés à la limite élastique et à l’état critique. Les ratios
de limites d’élasticité variaient entre 0,16 et 0,32 et entre 0,20 et 0,35 en compression triaxiale et en cisaillement circu-
For personal use only.

laire, respectivement. Les ratios de résistance critique mobilisée avant les dommages aux particules variaient entre 0,01 et
0,26 en compression triaxiale et entre 0,04 et 0,22 en cisaillement circulaire. Cependant, les dommages aux particules et le
déplacement en cisaillement augmentent les pentes des lignes de l’état critique durant l’essai en cisaillement circulaire, et
ainsi les ratios de résistance critique incluant le dommage aux particules a diminué jusqu’à 0,02–0,12. De plus, la fragilité
(avant les dommages aux particules) augmente avec l’indice des vides initial et le paramètre de l’état, et est affectée par la
structure initiale et la forme des particules de sable. Cependant, le dommage aux particules et le concassage augmentent
considérablement la fragilité du sable, la rendant essentiellement indépendante de l’indice des vides initial. Une relation
unique est déterminée entre la fragilité du sable et le ratio de résistance critique indépendante du type de sable, du mode
de cisaillement, de la structure et des dommages aux particules, qui indique un ratio de résistance critique d’une valeur li-
mite supérieure d’environ 0,3 pour des sables moyennement contractants.
Mots-clés : résistance au cisaillement non drainé, liquéfaction, dommage aux particules, état critique, essai en cisaillement
circulaire, fragilité.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction both shear strengths measured in laboratory shear tests and

Researchers have normalized yield (or peak) and critical
shear strengths, su(yield) and su(critical), respectively, mobi-
lized during undrained shearing of saturated, contractive
0 stress (s c0 ) and found that su(yield)/s c0 decreased with in-
soils to various consolidation stresses (mean, s mean;c ; nor-
0 0
mal, s nc ; or vertical, s vc ) to define shear strength ratios.
The resulting yield and critical strength ratios, su(yield)/s c0
and su(critical)/s c0 , respectively, have been investigated using
Received 7 November 2009. Accepted 24 August 2010.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cgj.nrc.ca on
11 March 2011.
A. Sadrekarimi1,2 and S.M. Olson. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
1Correspondingauthor (e-mail: asadrekarimi@gmail.com).
2Present
address: Golder Associates Ltd., Vancouver, BC
V5C 6C6, Canada.
back-calculated from field case histories. For example, Bjer-
rum et al. (1961) normalized su(yield) of sands involved in
Norwegian flow slides with respect to the consolidation
creasing consolidation void ratio (ec). Hanzawa (1980)
measured su(yield) of undisturbed sand samples from the
Persian Gulf in isotropically consolidated triaxial compres-
sion (TxC) tests and found that su(yield)/s c0 was approximately
0.31. Hanzawa also measured su(yield)/s c0 = 0.11–0.27, 0.23–
0.41, and 0.18–0.32 for Valgrinda, Sengenyama, and Kisar-
azu sands tested in TxC. Been and Jeffezries (1985) per-
formed TxC tests on reconstituted specimens of Kogyuk
sand and obtained su(yield)/s c0 = 0.21–0.51, with the in-
crease corresponding to a decrease in ec. Similarly, Ishi-
hara (1993) measured su(yield)/s c0 = 0.21–0.34 and
su(critical)/s c0 = 0.21–0.28 in TxC on moist tamped
Toyoura sand specimens, again with the increase in
strength ratio corresponding to a decrease in ec. Vaid and

Can. Geotech. J. 48: 493–510 (2011) doi:10.1139/T10-078 Published by NRC Research Press
 494 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Sivathayalan (1996) measured su(critical)/s c0 = 0.10–0.25 in
direct simple shear (DSS) tests on Fraser River sand and
also found that su(critical)/s c0 increased with decreasing ec.
Olson and Stark (2003a) compiled a database of 245 iso-
tropically consolidated TxC test results for 46 sands, silty
sands, and sandy silts and found that su(yield)/s c0 ranged
from about 0.29 to 0.42, while su(critical)/s c0 ranged from
about 0.02 to 0.22. More recently, Olson and Mattson
(2008) updated the database of the test results compiled by
Olson and Stark (2003a), adding data from 13 new sands,
as well as adding DSS, ring shear (RS), and triaxial exten-
sion (TxE) tests to the database. They found that su(yield)/
s c0 = 0.18–0.43, 0.13–0.29, and 0.11–0.24 in TxC, RS or
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
Stark 2003a). After mobilizing su(yield), excess pore-water
pressure increases at a greater rate, and strain softening oc-
curs, continuing until the soil has exhausted its (negative)
dilatancy potential and all net particle reorientation and
damage are complete. At this ‘‘critical state’’, the soil de-
forms with a constant volume, constant shear stress, and
constant effective stress (Casagrande 1936; Taylor 1948).
0
The locus of the void ratio (ecs) and effective stress (s cs )
pairs at the critical state is termed the critical-state line
(CSL), which can be expressed as
 s0 
cs
½1 ecs ¼ G cs  lcs log
1 kPa
0

DSS, and TxE, respectively, and su(critical)/s c0 = 0.01–0.23,
0.01–0.16, and 0.01–0.11 in TxC, RS or DSS, and TxE, re-
spectively. Furthermore, both su(yield)/s c0 and su(critical)/s c0
increased as state parameter (as defined by Been and Jeff-
eries 1985) decreased.
Of course, there are difficulties with using laboratory tests
to assess shear strengths mobilized in the field, including
(i) retrieving and preparing undisturbed samples of sand;
(ii) limitations of the testing equipment (e.g., limited dis-
placement capacity, stress and strain nonuniformities, varia-
ble cross-sectional dimensions, local volume changes, end
cap and membrane restraining effects); and (iii) inability of
element tests to capture void redistribution, water-layer for-
For personal use only.
where Gcs = ecs at s cs = 1 kPa and lcs is the CSL slope. The
shearing resistance mobilized at this condition is the undrained
critical shear strength, su(critical) (Terzaghi et al. 1996).
In the field, void redistribution, water-layer formation,
soil mixing, and hydroplaning may occur, potentially violat-
ing the constant-volume condition. Therefore, Olson and
Stark (2002) termed the shear strength mobilized during
field flow failures the liquefied shear strength, su(liq). Olson
and Stark (2002, 2003a) defined yield and liquefied strength
ratios, respectively, as the yield and liquefied shear strengths
0
normalized by the initial vertical effective stress, s vo , which
0
equals the major principal consolidation stress, s 1c , in TxC
and RS tests. In the isotropically consolidated (i.e., equal

mation, hydroplaning, or other scale effects. In particular, all-around consolidation) TxC tests performed in this study,
0 0 0 0
the limited displacement capacity of triaxial and DSS tests the mean consolidation stress (s mean;c = (s 1c + s 2c + s 3c )/3,
0 0
suggests that potential particle reorientation and particle where s 2c and s 3c are the intermediate and minor principal
damage may be incomplete at the end of the test. These lim- 0
consolidation stresses, respectively) and s 1c are the same;
itations have led some researchers to evaluate yield and crit- while in the anisotropically consolidated RS tests described
ical strength ratios measured in situ or back-calculated from 0
subsequently, the normal consolidation stress (s nc ) equals
0
field liquefaction flow failures (e.g., Castro and Troncoso s 1c . Therefore, we use s c0 to represent both s 1c 0 0
and s mean;c
1989; Jefferies et al. 1990; Stark and Mesri 1992; Ishihara in TxC and s nc 0
in RS. Using this nomenclature, the yield
1993; Baziar and Dobry 1995; Olson and Stark 2002, strength ratio becomes
2003b; Idriss and Boulanger 2006; Jefferies and Been
2006). Nevertheless, laboratory tests provide a useful frame- su ðyieldÞ ðs 10  s 30 Þyield
½2 In TxC tests : ¼
work for understanding field behavior, and in particular, the s c0 0
2s mean;c
RS device allows sands to be sheared to very large displace-
ments and reach the critical state (Sadrekarimi and Olson
2009). su ðyieldÞ t yield
½3 In RS tests : ¼ 0
In this paper, we briefly review the theoretical back- s c0 s nc
ground for yield and critical strength ratios and present the
results from very large shear displacement (>20 m) RS tests where (s 10 – s 30 )yield and tyield are the peak deviator stress and
on three sands. Using the RS results, we discuss the factors peak shear stress, respectively, mobilized at yield prior to
that affect strength ratios and compare strength ratios mobi- strain softening in contractive specimens. Similarly, the cri-
lized in RS tests to those measured in a suite of parallel TxC tical strength ratio becomes
tests. Lastly, we use these laboratory data to investigate brit-
su ðcriticalÞ ðs 10  s 30 Þcs
tleness of the TxC and RS specimens and the influence of ½4 In TxC tests : ¼
particle damage. s c0 0
2s mean;c

Definitions and theoretical background su ðcriticalÞ t cs

½5 In RS tests : ¼ 0
If a contractive sand is sheared under globally undrained s c0 s nc
or constant-volume conditions, the effective stress decreases
as the specimen attempts to contract under a constant void where (s 10 – s 30 )cs and tcs are the deviator stress and shear
ratio (ec). During this process, the shearing resistance stress, respectively, mobilized at critical state. We note that
0
reaches an undrained peak shear strength (su(yield)), which since s 1c is the primary parameter that controls the effect of
represents the triggering condition for static flow liquefac- confinement on sand behavior (Vaid and Chern 1983b,
tion (Hanzawa 1980; Vaid and Chern 1983a; Vasquez-Herrera 1985; Chern 1985; Ishihara 2008), the strength ratio defini-
et al. 1988; Konrad 1993; Terzaghi et al. 1996; Olson and tions presented here are reasonable, despite the different

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sadrekarimi and Olson
consolidation conditions in TxC (isotropic consolidation)
and RS (anisotropic consolidation) tests. For both isotropi-
cally consolidated TxC and anisotropically consolidated RS
tests, the critical strength ratio can be related to the CSL
(on the failure plane) as shown below (Fear and Robertson
1995; Olson and Stark 2002; Jefferies and Been 2006; Sa-
drekarimi 2009):
su ðcriticalÞ
½6 ¼ 10jcs =lcs sin4cs
0 muscovite, chlorite, and hematite (Mueller 2000). The MR
s c0
where jcs = ec – ecs (ecs is the void ratio on the CSL at s c0 )
and is commonly referred to as the state parameter (Roscoe
and Poorooshasb 1963; Wroth and Bassett 1965; Been and
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
Jefferies 1985). Negative values of jcs generally correspond
to dilative behavior, while positive values correspond to con-
tractive response, with the severity of strain softening in-
creasing with increasing jcs. Equation [6] shows that
su(critical)/s c0 decreases with increasing jcs and decreasing
0
4cs . Rutledge (1947) first introduced this concept to describe
the undrained shear strength of clays normalized to the pre-
consolidation pressure, and since then, numerous researchers
have applied this concept to normally consolidated, unaged,
uncemented sandy soils (e.g., Roscoe and Poorooshasb 1963;
Wroth and Bassett 1965; Been and Jefferies 1985; Ishihara
1993; Pillai and Salgado 1994; Baziar and Dobry 1995; Fear
and Robertson 1995; Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Olson and
For personal use only.
Stark 2002, 2003b; Olson and Mattson 2008).
Sadrekarimi (2009) performed an extensive series of TxC
and RS tests on two clean sands and one silty sand and
found significant particle damage in the shear band of the
RS specimens, while negligible particle damage was ob-
served in the TxC specimens. At very large shear displace-
ments (exceeding 20 m) in the RS experiments, particle
damage, rearrangement, and reorientation were complete,
and a critical state corresponding to the damaged (i.e.,
crushed) sand was achieved. It was found that this critical
state was independent of sand fabric, initial density, stress
path, consolidation stress, and rate of shearing. The CSL
corresponding to the critical state of the damaged sand was
much steeper and lower than the CSL found from undam-
aged sand in the TxC tests. However, as liquefaction and
large deformations often occur without the formation of a
distinct shear band and associated particle damage, Sadre-
karimi and Olson (2010a) proposed two definitions of the
critical state: (i) the critical state of the original, undamaged
sand (CSo) that is mobilized at relatively small displace-
ments (about 2.8 cm in the RS device); and (ii) the critical
state of the damaged (i.e., crushed) sand (CSc) that is mobi-
lized at very large displacements (often >10 m). Sadrekarimi
and Olson (2011) further showed that the critical-state fric-
0 0 0 and 101.6 mm tall. To minimize end restraint in the TxC
tion angle, 4cs , measured at both CSo (4cs;o ) and CSc (4cs;c ),
0
were essentially constant at s c >100–200 kPa. The RS tests
yielded average values of 4cs;o 0
= 318, 338, and 348 for Ot-
tawa 20/40 sand (OT), an Illinois River sand (IR), and a
Mississippi River sand (MR) (introduced in the next section),
respectively, while 4cs;c0
= 348, 388, and 418, respectively.
Experimental program
We selected three sands for this study: OT, IR, and MR.
The OT sand is a commercially available, medium-grained,
495
uniform, clean, pure quartz sand with rounded particles
from Ottawa, Illinois. It has a specific gravity (Gs) of 2.63,
and maximum (emax) and minimum (emin) void ratios of
0.679 and 0.391, respectively. The IR sand is a medium-
grained, uniform alluvial sediment from the Illinois River,
with a fines content of less than 1% by weight, Gs = 2.63,
emax = 0.757, and emin = 0.464. The particles are rounded to
subrounded, and consist primarily of quartz with traces of
sand is a very fine-grained alluvial silty sand with an aver-
age fines content of 38% that we sampled near Cape Girar-
deau, Missouri. It has subangular to subrounded particles,
and contains about 70% albite, 21% quartz (both determined
by X-ray diffraction (Mitchell and Soga 2005)), and 5% cal-
cite (determined by dissolution in acid (Allison and Moodie
1965; Raad 1978)). It has Gs = 2.65, emax = 1.038, and
emin = 0.563. We used ASTM D854-00 (ASTM 2004a) to
determine Gs and used the procedure described by Yama-
muro and Lade (1997) to consistently evaluate emax and emin
because the relatively high fines content of the MR sand
precludes the use of the ASTM standards. Figure 1 presents
the average particle size distributions of these sands.
We used both air pluviation and moist tamping methods
to prepare RS specimens. However, TxC specimens of OT
and IR sands were prepared by moist tamping only because
air-pluviated specimens of these sands dilated and did not
reach an unequivocal critical state within the displacement
limits of the TxC device. In the moist tamping method, dry
sand was moistened and thoroughly mixed with 5% water,
and then poured and gently tamped in four layers into the
specimen container. We used under-compaction as proposed
by Ladd (1974) to achieve a relatively uniform density
throughout the specimen. In contrast, moist tamped speci-
mens of MR sand deformed excessively during preparation
and saturation before shearing, and therefore TxC specimens
of MR sand were prepared by air pluviation only. In the air
pluviation method, dry sand was poured into a funnel, with
its tip resting on the bottom of the specimen mold. The fun-
nel was gently raised to deposit the particles with nearly
zero drop height. This technique produced the loosest possi-
ble structure using air pluviation (Lade et al. 1998) and re-
duced segregation between the fine and coarse particles. For
both preparation methods, specimen uniformity was verified
by preparing a number of specimens in several lifts and
measuring the weight and height of sand deposited in each
lift and at different locations along the circumference of the
RS specimens. We observed that the void ratio of an indi-
vidual lift deviated by less than 5% from the average void
ratio of the entire specimen.
The cylindrical TxC specimens were 50.8 mm in diameter
tests, two circular pieces of latex with a thin layer of silicon
grease spread between them were used on each triaxial
platen. The latex sheets had a center hole, and the middle
area of the porous stones was left clear of grease to freely
drain pore water. We followed the back-pressure saturation
procedure recommended by Bishop and Henkel (1962) to
dissolve any remaining air and saturate the specimen until
we observed a pore pressure parameter, B, of at least 0.97.
Following specimen preparation and consolidation to s c0 , we
closed the drainage lines and sheared the specimen under
Published by NRC Research Press
 496
Fig. 1. Average particle size distributions of the test sands.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
undrained conditions to an axial strain of 25%. Measured
stresses were corrected to account for the increased speci-
men area during shearing (Bishop and Henkel 1962). Table 1
summarizes the preparation methods, consolidation, yield,
and critical states of the TxC tests.
Constant-volume RS tests were performed using the
newly developed solid confining ring-type RS apparatus de-
signed and built at the University of Illinois (Sadrekarimi
and Olson 2009). The RS apparatus has inner and outer di-
ameters of 20.3 and 27.0 cm, respectively, and a height of
For personal use only.
2.6 cm. The wide sample section (3.4 cm) minimizes wall
friction effects. In a RS test, shear strain increases with ra-
dius; therefore, failure occurs progressively and we selected
confining ring dimensions to reduce stress and strain nonun-
iformities to a negligible amount at smaller shear displace-
ments, noting that these nonuniformities become irrelevant
at larger shear displacements (Sadrekarimi and Olson 2009).
This effect can be further reduced by reducing the ratio of
the outside to inside confining ring diameters, and the diam-
eter ratio of 1.33 for this RS apparatus results in an error of
less than 3% at su(yield) because of strain nonuniformity
(Hvorslev 1939).
In the RS tests, dry air-pluviated or moist-tamped sand
specimens were placed in the ring-shaped chamber of the
apparatus, consolidated to s c0 , and sheared to more than
20 m of shear displacement. All specimens were tested un-
saturated, as the device does not currently allow measure-
ment of pore-water pressure along the sliding surface. A
constant-volume condition was imposed by locking the ap-
paratus loading plates after consolidating the specimen, and
shearing was induced by rotating the bottom disk, which is
deeply serrated to prevent slippage. Sadrekarimi (2009) and
Sadrekarimi and Olson (2009) provide further details of the
TxC and RS experiments, specimen preparation, and testing
methods. Table 2 provides the preparation methods, consoli-
dation, yield, and critical states for each of the RS tests per-
formed for this study.
Figures 2–4 present typical stress paths and stress–
displacement plots for some of the experiments performed
in this study. Deviator stress (s 10 – s 30 ) and shear stress (t)
are used to present the stress paths of TxC and RS tests,
respectively. To facilitate comparisons, displacements
(shear displacement in RS and axial displacement in TxC)
rather than strains are used to illustrate the test results.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Sadrekarimi (2009) presents the results of the remaining
tests listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Very loose moist tamped specimens of IR and OT sands
contracted throughout the RS (see Fig. 2) and TxC shear
(see Fig. 3) tests. A constant stress state was reached in
both modes of shear; however, it was maintained to dis-
placements exceeding 2000 cm in the RS tests. As noted by
other researchers, moist tamping imparts to the sand a fabric
that promotes contractive behavior. Casagrande (1975)
pointed out that moist tamped sands were particularly prone
to liquefaction because of their metastable honeycomb struc-
ture produced by capillarity. As indicated by the values of ec
in Tables 1 and 2, moist tamped specimens could be pre-
pared at void ratios much looser than the loosest possible
void ratios achieved by air pluviation. For comparison, we
note that air-pluviated specimens exhibited loosest possible
void ratios denser than the emax determined by the Yama-
muro and Lade (1997) method. The air-pluviated specimens
of OT and IR sands tested in constant-volume RS (Fig. 4)
strain hardened after a brief initial contraction. But these
specimens exhibited a second phase transformation from di-
lative to contractive behavior at a shear displacement of
about 0.60–1.36 cm as particle damage occurred, suppress-
ing dilation and causing contraction (Sadrekarimi and Olson
2010a). The shear resistance subsequently decreased and
then leveled off at larger displacements (exceeding
1000 cm) and reached an essentially constant value.
As illustrated in these figures, moist-tamped and air-pluviated
specimens of MR sand contracted throughout both TxC
and RS tests. As discussed by Sadrekarimi and Olson
(2008), we anticipate that MR sand was entirely contrac-
tive because of the presence of angular fines (making the
initial soil fabric more compressible) and its more com-
pressible mineralogy (albite and calcite) compared to the
less compressible OT (quartz) and IR (quartz and feldspar)
sands.
The limiting axial displacement of 2.5 cm for the TxC
tests corresponds to a displacement of about 2.8 cm on the
Coulomb failure plane oriented at an angle of 458 + 4cs 0
/2
0
with respect to the major principal stress plane where 4cs =
318, 338, and 348 for OT, IR, and MR sands, respectively
(Sadrekarimi and Olson 2011). The very loose moist-tamped
TxC specimens of OT and IR sands as well as the air-pluvi-
ated TxC specimen of MR sand (Fig. 3) seem to have
achieved critical state prior to the end of shearing (corre-
sponding to shear displacements less than 2.8 cm). This crit-
ical state likely represents a state of complete particle
rearrangement without significant particle damage, or in
other words, the critical state of the original sand gradation
(CSo). The locus of the CSo data in void ratio – effective
normal stress (s n0 ) space is termed the CSLo. The RS speci-
mens also likely reached a CSo after shear band formation
but prior to the occurrence of considerable particle damage.
For reference, particle damage became significant after
shear displacements of about 6 cm (after the second phase
transformation) in dilative specimens and about 30 cm in
contractive specimens, while shear bands formed after shear
displacements of about 0.5 cm for all specimens (Sadre-
karimi and Olson 2010b). These shear displacements were
determined visually during RS tests performed using a Plex-
iglas outer ring, and therefore represent upper bounds for the
Published by NRC Research Press
 Sadrekarimi and Olson 497

Table 1. Specifications of undrained TxC tests performed in this study.

Yield state CSo

Test No.a s c0
(kPa) ec 0
s mean /s c0 c su (kPa) 0
s mean /s c0 c su (kPa)
MTOTUN83 571 0.724 0.73 123 0.11 29
MTOTUN52 361 0.787 0.66 65 0.04 6
MTOTUN103 711 0.700 0.74 170 0.22 77
MTOTUN102 704 0.770 0.67 115 0.03 10
MTOTUN42 290 0.796 0.67 48 0.03 4
MTOTUN92 635 0.771 0.67 114 0.04 12
MTOTUN82 566 0.766 0.67 109 0.05 14
MTOTUN63 435 0.722 0.77 107 0.13 27
MTIRUN29 199 0.844 0.61 38 0.02 2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

MTIRUN17 117 0.835 0.64 26 0.04 3

MTIRUN52 359 0.690 0.65 100 0.33 65
MTIRUN83 569 0.670 0.62 156 0.30 106
MTIRUN112 773 0.677 0.60 182 0.21 87
MTIRUN12 85 0.818 0.63 20 0.08 4
MTIRUN55 381 0.674 0.70 120 0.41 91
MTIRUN43 301 0.756 0.61 65 0.07 12
MTIRUN54 373 0.732 0.61 88 0.14 29
MTIRUN26 177 0.810 0.61 38 0.05 4
MTIRUN109b 570 0.645 — — 0.45 148
APMRUN32 221 0.714 0.60 38 0.14 19
APMRUN62 425 0.636 0.57 75 0.19 47
APMRUN92 636 0.594 0.60 123 0.21 83
For personal use only.

APMRUN47 326 0.640 0.60 60 0.19 36

APMRUN39 272 0.662 0.56 49 0.18 29
APMRUN58 397 0.658 0.56 68 0.15 35
APMRUN23 161 0.719 0.62 29 0.16 15
a
MT and AP in test numbers indicate moist tamping or air pluviation preparation methods, respectively. OT, IR, and MR indicate OT,
IR, and MR sands, respectively.
b
This was a constant deviator stress test, and no yield point was obtained.
0
c
Mean effective stress, s mean = (s 01 + s 20 + s 30 )/3.

onset of significant particle damage. As the amount of shear
displacement required to reach complete particle rearrange-
ment and reorientation (CSo) primarily depends on sand par-
ticle diameter (Bolton and Steedman 1985; Yoshida et al.
1994; Yoshida and Tatsuoka 1997; Jefferies and Been
2006), it is assumed here that similar to the TxC tests, CSo
was reached at a shear displacement of 2.8 cm in the RS
tests as well.
Shear band void ratio
Void ratio within the shear band (esb) changes signifi-
cantly after shear band formation, and thus the void ratio in-
side the narrow shear band should be measured and used to
describe the state of the specimen (Desrues et al. 1996;
Finno et al. 1996; Jang 1997; Frost et al. 1999; Frost and
Jang 2000). To observe and quantify this local behavior, in-
direct methods have been used, such as the X-ray computed
tomography (Desrues et al. 1996) and stereophotogrammetry
(Finno et al. 1996). Although these approaches provide an
excellent view of the shear band within a specimen, there
are limitations in the resolution that can be achieved for lo-
cal volume measurements.
In this study, we computed the global void ratio (eglobal)
using displacement measurements in the RS and TxC tests.
In the RS tests, esb changes (i.e., volumetric compression
within the shear band) result from particle crushing and par-
ticle rearrangement, and in constant-volume tests lead to the
specimen rebound (due to unloading of the sand structure as
s n0 decreases) that is manifested externally as slight changes
in specimen height due to system compliance. In RS tests
performed with a Plexiglas outer ring (Sadrekarimi and Ol-
son 2010b), we observed that after shear band formation the
sand above the shear band was stationary and did not expe-
rience any particle rearrangement, reorientation, or damage;
therefore, shear-induced volume change would be negligible
and the sand above the shear band would only swell as s n0
decreases. In contrast, the sand within the shear band con-
tracts by shear (particle rearrangement and damage) in addi-
tion to swelling. The swelling in constant-volume tests is
estimated by the changes in s n0 and the swelling index. This
value is subtracted from the global volume change of the
specimen to obtain the shear-induced volume change in the
shear band. The void ratio within the shear band (esb) can
then be roughly estimated as follows (Sadrekarimi 2009):
½7 DVglobal ¼ DVabove þ DVsb
Vv;sb ðVsb  Vs;sb Þ  DVsb
½8 esb ¼ ¼
Vs;sb Vs;sb
ðVsb  Vs;sb Þ  DVglobal þ DVabove
¼
Vs;sb

Published by NRC Research Press

 498 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Table 2. Specifications of constant-volume RS tests performed in this study.

Initial Yieldb CSob CSc

0
Test No.a s nc (kPa) ec s n0 /s nc
0
su (kPa) s n0 /s nc
0
su (kPa) s n0 /s nc
0
su (kPa)
MTOTCV54(1)c 375 0.628 0.82 100 0.29 68 — —
MTOTCV21 144 0.680 0.78 32 0.10 8 0.05 4
MTOTCV88 624 0.638 0.78 135 0.12 44 0.03 14
MTOTCV63 452 0.633 0.79 108 0.18 50 0.04 14
MTOTCV54(2) 376 0.687 0.74 74 0.06 14 0.02 6
APOTCV85 625 0.569 — — 1.13 — 0.07 29
APOTCV28 217 0.589 — — 1.35 — 0.11 16
APOTCV54 392 0.591 — — 1.32 — 0.05 14
APOTCV17 140 0.610 — — 0.98 — 0.08 7
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

APOTCV58 388 0.566 — — 0.64 — 0.16 40

APOTCV83 540 0.544 — — 1.07 — 0.18 65
MTIRCV46(1) 318 0.722 0.71 61 0.08 15 0.03 9
MTIRCV46(2) 349 0.591 — — 1.00 — 0.13 30
MTIRCV52 367 0.674 0.63 94 0.23 51 0.04 10
MTIRCV75 636 0.643 0.67 180 0.30 125 0.04 20
MTIRCV53 368 0.657 0.95 107 0.33 77 0.04 11
MTIRCV18 124 0.744 0.58 26 0.09 7 0.04 3
MTIRCV56 396 0.691 0.60 91 0.11 29 0.04 11
APIRCV42 309 0.611 — — 0.81 — 0.06 15
APIRCV45 324 0.617 — — 0.91 — 0.05 14
APIRCV17 145 0.626 — — 0.98 — 0.10 10
MTIRCV19 145 0.619 — — 0.64 — 0.16 15
For personal use only.

APIRCV82 590 0.605 — — 0.66 — 0.04 20

APMRCV57 378 0.756 0.55 79 0.17 43 0.04 11
APMRCV22 151 0.728 0.80 50 0.37 30 0.13 12
APMRCV43 298 0.709 0.66 83 0.22 43 0.08 20
APMRCV87 602 0.677 0.68 187 0.22 90 0.09 49
APMRCV103 728 0.667 0.75 253 0.33 160 0.10 66
APMRCV89 624 0.685 0.56 156 0.21 87 0.06 31
APMRCV48 355 0.698 0.70 109 0.23 53 0.08 23
MTMRCV48 334 0.742 0.57 75 0.17 37 0.04 10
APMRCV17 128 0.736 0.79 41 0.25 20 0.09 10
a
MT and AP in test numbers indicate moist tamping or air pluviation preparation methods, respectively. OT, IR, and MR indicate OT, IR, and MR sands,
respectively.
b 0
s n , effective normal stress. su defined from contractive specimens only.
c
This test was not sheared to CSc.

where DVglobal is the global volume change of the specimen
estimated from the changes in specimen height (resulting
from system compliance during constant-volume tests, and
from shear-induced volume change in drained tests in
response to sand behavior, i.e., particle rearrangement, reor-
ientation, compression, and damage); DVabove is the swelling
of the specimen above the shear band as s n0 decreases during
contraction in constant-volume RS tests; DVsb is the volume
change within the shear band; Vv,sb is the volume of voids in
the shear band; Vs,sb is the volume of solids in the shear
band; and Vsb is the total volume of the shear band. In
eq. [7], DVabove can be estimated as
! band (Sadrekarimi and Olson 2010b). For comparison, at
s n0
½9 DVabove ¼ Cs log 0 Vs;above
s n;sb
where Cs is the swelling index (Cs = De/Dlogs n0 ) of the ori-
ginal sand above the shear band; Vs,above is the volume of
sand solids above the shear band; s n0 is the current effective
0
normal stress; and s n;sb is the effective normal stress when
shear band forms. We measured swelling indices of 0.0028,
0.0039, and 0.0053 for OT, IR, and MR sands, respectively,
in unloading cycles of one-dimensional compression tests.
The advantage of using eq. [8] to analytically estimate esb is
that the sheared soil is not disturbed and esb is calculated di-
rectly from the high-resolution measurements of the global
volume change of the specimen during shear. However, this
method also introduces uncertainties related to measuring
the initial shear band thickness correctly, as well as uncer-
tainties in estimating the volume change above the shear
the end of some RS tests, we also measured esb from the
weight of the soil collected from the shear band alone and
the measured final height of the shear band. Our compari-
sons indicated that eq. [8] underestimates esb by magnitudes
of only up to 3.6%, 3.2%, and 9.0% in OT, IR, and MR

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sadrekarimi and Olson 499

Fig. 2. Typical (a) stress paths and (b) shear stress – shear displacement plots in RS tests on contractive specimens (MTOTCV54(2),
MTIRCV52, APMRCV48).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

Fig. 3. Typical (a) stress paths and (b) deviator stress – axial displacement plots in TxC tests on contractive specimens (MTOTUN52,
MTIRUN54, APMRUN62).
For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Typical (a) stress paths and (b) shear stress – shear displacement plots in RS tests on dilative specimens (APOTCV85, APIRCV82,
APMRCV87).

sands, respectively. This error decreased for larger values of
esb. The range of error is considered acceptable given the
simplicity of eq. [8].
Figure 5 presents esb variations estimated using eq. [8] for
constant-volume RS tests shown in Fig. 2. As illustrated in
the figure, the void ratio decreases within the shear bands
(particularly for MR sand specimen APMRCV48 with its
very thin shear band) as shearing progresses from shear
band formation to critical state, with esb continuing to de-
crease at displacements well beyond the displacement ca-
pacity of other typical laboratory testing devices (e.g.,
triaxial, simple shear, and direct shear). The fluctuations in
esb observed in Fig. 5 result from minor fluctuations in
specimen height and s n0 (in eq. [9]). However, an essentially
constant volume is reached after very large shear displace-
ments (>1000 cm) when the potential for particle damage
and contraction is exhausted and the sand reaches a stable
gradation (Coop et al. 2004; Muir Wood and Maeda 2008;
Sadrekarimi 2009). Thus, achieving critical states as defined
by Casagrande (1936) and Roscoe et al. (1958) requires very
large displacements if particles are damaged during shear-
ing. These results also highlight the need to consider volu-

Published by NRC Research Press

 500 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 5. Shear band void ratios, esb (calculated using eq. [8]), for the Fig. 6. NCL and CSL of the original and damaged (i.e., crushed)
RS tests presented in Fig. 2. OT sand.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

metric evolution within the shear band to precisely quantify

the critical state, especially for dilative specimens in which
Fig. 7. NCL and CSL of the original and damaged (i.e., crushed) IR
severe particle damage occurs.
sand.

Parallelism of normal compression line (NCL)

and CSL
As deduced from eq. [6] and discussed by others (e.g.,
Finn 1998; Olson and Stark 2002; Jefferies and Been 2006),
For personal use only.

if the NCL of a soil is parallel to its CSL (i.e., jcs is con-

stant), su(critical)/s c0 becomes constant, since 4cs
0
is constant
over a wide range of s c0 (Sadrekarimi and Olson 2011). For
nearly all clays, it is reasonable to assume that NCL and
CSL are roughly parallel (Rutledge 1947). As a result, a
given normally consolidated clay deposit will exhibit a con-
stant jcs, and su(critical)/s c0 will be independent of s c0 (Ter-
zaghi et al. 1996). Of course, sand can be deposited in
numerous ways, and the depositional method and energy af-
fect the slope and position of NCL with respect to CSL.
However, Olson and Stark (2002) postulated that for sands
loose enough to be susceptible to flow liquefaction, the Fig. 8. NCL and CSL of the original and damaged (i.e., crushed)
NCL is likely to be approximately parallel to the CSL, par- MR sand.
ticularly for sandy soils with fines contents of 12% or more.
Figures 6–8 present the CSLs and NCLs for OT, IR, and
MR sands tested in this study using esb (from eq. [8]), where
s n0 is the effective normal stress on the failure plane in the
RS tests. Both the CSL of the original sand prior to particle
damage (CSLo) and the CSL after particle damage (i.e.,
crushing) is complete (CSLc) are shown in the figures. The
NCLs of the original sands (NCLo) are obtained from the
consolidation stages of the RS tests, and NCLs of the dam-
aged sands (NCLc) were defined by oedometer tests follow-
ing the ASTM D2435-04 (ASTM 2004b) standard procedure
on sand collected from the shear band of RS tests. The
NCLc are presented to illustrate the influence of particle
damage on NCL slopes, and their initial void ratios gener-
ally do not reflect shear band sand states at the end of the
RS tests. As illustrated in these figures, the CSLo is slightly
steeper than NCLo for the relatively incompressible OT and
IR sands, while CSLo is parallel to NCLo for the more com-
pressible MR sand. However, as shearing continues and the in OT and IR sands, whereas for MR sand the slope of
sand particles are damaged, a much steeper NCLc and CSLc NCLc did not change much, likely because of its large fines
are reached at very large (>2500 cm) shear displacements content. Similarly, Coop (1990) performed RS tests on car-
(Sadrekarimi 2009). These lines became essentially parallel bonate sands (which are very susceptible to particle damage)

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sadrekarimi and Olson
and showed that the CSLc (lcs = –0.775) and NCLc (Cc =
–0.771) became parallel. This occurred because the carbo-
nate sand particles were easily damaged during both com-
pression and shear, leading to steep NCLc and CSLc.
In addition to large displacements, very large confining
stresses can also contribute to parallel NCL and CSL
(Verdugo and Ishihara 1996; Yamamuro and Lade 1996).
For example, Yamamuro and Lade (1996) performed iso-
tropic compression and undrained TxC tests on Cambria
sand at very large stresses (>10 MPa). Although limited by
the displacement capacity of the triaxial device, considerable
particle damage occurred, and the NCLc became consider-
ably steeper than NCLo and essentially parallel to CSLc.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
Figure 9 summarizes the NCL and CSL slopes from the
RS experiments reported in this study and those collected
from literature (Coop 1990; Lade and Yamamuro 1996; Ver-
dugo and Ishihara 1996; Olson 2001, 2006). As reported by
some investigators (e.g., Leong et al. 2000; Sukumaran and
Ashmawy 2001; Jefferies and Been 2006), NCLo and CSLo
are not parallel for some relatively incompressible clean
sands. However, for sandy soils with compressible mineral-
ogy (e.g., carbonate sands, micaceous sands), silty sands
(with more than about 12% fines content), sandy silts, silts,
and tailings sands, the CSLo commonly is approximately
parallel to the NCLo when the sand is deposited loosely
(e.g., Ishihara 1993; Cunning 1994; Baziar and Dobry 1995;
For personal use only.
Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Finn 1998; Olson and Stark
2003b). We note that a few silty sands in Fig. 9 exhibit a
NCLo steeper than the corresponding CSLo. This fairly un-
usual occurrence explains the ‘‘reverse behavior’’ of being
more contractive at lower consolidation stresses observed
by Yamamuro and Lade (1998) and Bobei and Lo (2003).
We also note that many of the sands involved in well-
documented liquefaction flow failures contained significant
nonsiliceous mineralogy and even clayey fines. For exam-
ple, only 6 of the 33 flow failure case histories documented
by Olson and Stark (2002) involved clean sands with less
than 5% fines (but unknown mineralogy), while 20 of the
33 cases involved sandy soils with more than 12% fines. Ta-
ble 3 provides some details regarding the mineralogy of the
soils involved in several liquefaction flow failures. The
compressible mineralogy or presence of compressible fines
in all of these cases result in a steeper NCLo that is more
likely to be parallel to the CSLo (similar to the MR sand).
In addition to sand particle mineralogy and fines content,
particle shape also affects the NCL (Mesri and Vardhanab-
huti 2009) and CSL (Poulos 1981) slopes, and can contrib-
ute to parallel NCL and CSL.
Yield strength ratio
The yield strength ratio can be used to estimate the un-
drained shear strength that is available prior to the initiation
of undrained instability and liquefaction (Olson and Stark
2003a). Using data back-calculated from liquefaction case
histories, Olson (2001) proposed relationships between
0
su(yield)/s vo and overburden-stress normalized cone penetra-
tion test (CPT) tip resistance and standard penetration test
(SPT) blow count to evaluate the triggering of liquefaction
in contractive sandy soils subjected to a static driving shear
stress. This concept has been found universally applicable
501
for sands (e.g., Olson and Stark 2003a; Olson and Mattson
2008). Figure 10 presents su(yield)/s c0 measured in RS and
TxC for OT, IR, and MR sands. Only su(yield) from fully
contractive specimens are included in this figure, and jcs
for the RS and TxC specimens is based on CSLo. As illus-
trated in Fig. 10, su(yield)/s c0 decreases with increasing jcs
for each sand. At similar jcs, su(yield)/s c0 in OT and IR
sands are slightly smaller in RS compared to those mobi-
lized in TxC, consistent with other observations (Hanzawa
1980; Vaid et al. 1990; Yoshimine et al. 1999; Olson and
Mattson 2008). In contrast, the MR sand exhibited a larger
su(yield)/s c0 in RS than in TxC, possibly because of the
larger intermediate principal stress mobilized in RS by the
more angular MR sand particles (e.g., Cornforth 1964;
Green and Bishop 1969; Yamada and Ishihara 1979; Ochiai
and Lade 1983; Sayão and Vaid 1996).
Critical strength ratio
Figure 11 presents su(critical)/s c0 measured in RS and TxC
tests on OT, IR, and MR sands. The RS data include
su(critical)/s c0 corresponding to the critical state of the origi-
nal, undamaged sands (CSo) and of the damaged (i.e.,
crushed) sands (CSc); however, jcs corresponds to CSLo.
Only su(critical) measured in fully contractive TxC and RS
specimens are plotted as CSo; however, su(critical) corre-
sponding to CSc are from both fully contractive and dilative
RS specimens. Table 4 summarizes the ranges of su(critical)/
s c0 obtained for the three sands based on CSo and CSc meas-
ured in RS and CSo measured in TxC.
These data illustrate that su(critical)/s c0 decreases with in-
creasing jcs, and at the same jcs, su(critical)/s c0 (at CSo) for
the OT and IR sands are somewhat larger in TxC than in RS
tests, again consistent with other observations (e.g., Nakata
et al. 1998; Uthayakumar and Vaid 1998; Yoshimine et al.
1999; Olson and Mattson 2008). In contrast, the angular
MR sand particles may be better constrained against radial
deformations, thus mobilizing a larger intermediate principal
stress in RS (compared to TxC) (e.g., Cornforth 1964; Su-
therland and Mesdary 1969; Lam and Tatsuoka 1988; Sayão
and Vaid 1996), resulting in a slightly larger su(critical)/s c0
in RS (at CSo) compared to su(critical)/s c0 mobilized in TxC
at similar jcs. As shear displacement increases and the sands
reach the CSc, su(critical)/s c0 decreases because the CSLc be-
comes increasingly steeper than the NCLo, and the ratio of
jcs/lcs increases (as described in eq. [6]).
Comparison with previous laboratory and
field observations
Figures 12 and 13 compare su(yield)/s c0 and su(critical)/s c0
measured in this study with data compiled by Olson and Matt-
son (2008), and Table 4 summarizes these comparisons. The
su(yield)/s c0 values measured in TxC are consistent with, but
fall in the lower half of the range of data collected from the
literature. This result is reasonable given the very loose relative
densities required for eliciting a contractive response in OT
and IR specimens. The su(yield)/s c0 values measured in RS are
also consistent with data compiled by Olson and Mattson
(2008), with the exception of a few larger values (>0.29) mobi-
lized in MR sand, again possibly because of its more angular
Published by NRC Research Press
 502 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Fig. 9. Comparison of NCL and CSL slopes from the RS tests on OT, IR, and MR sands (Sadrekarimi 2009), Dogs Bay carbonate sand
(Coop 1990), Cambria sand (Lade and Yamamuro 1996), Toyoura sand (Verdugo and Ishihara 1996), Duncan Dam sand (Olson 2006), and
sands in Olson (2001) laboratory database. SP, SP-SM, SM, and ML are soil-type descriptors as defined in the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) (ASTM D2487-04 (ASTM 2004c)).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
For personal use only.

Table 3. Mineralogical compositions of soils involved in some liquefaction flow failures.

Case history Mineralogy Reference

Fraser River Delta slides 40% quartz, 11% feldspar, 45% rock fragments, 4% other Chillarige et al. (1997)
minerals
Rocky Mountain coal mine 50%–70% carbonaceous shale, 20%–40% siltstone, 0%– Dawson et al. (1998)
waste dumps 20% sandstone, 0%–10% coal, and some other minerals
La Marquesa dam Silty–clayey sands weathered from granodiorite (biotite De Alba et al. (1988)
mica and hornblende)
La Palma dam Silty–clayey sands weathered from granodiorite (biotite De Alba et al. (1988)
mica and hornblende)
Calaveras dam Mainly nonsiliceous materials cemented with calcium car- Hazen (1918)
bonate and calcium sulphate
Jamuna bridge Micaceous fine sand with fines content of 2%–10% and Yoshimine et al. (1999)
mica content of 15%–30%
Nerlerk berm Fine sand with 84% quartz, 13% feldspar plagioclase, 1% Jefferies and Been (2006)
other minerals

particle shapes and broader particle size distribution develop-
ing larger intermediate principal stress in plane-strain RS.
As illustrated in Fig. 13 and Table 4, su(critical)/s c0 mobi-
lized in the TxC and RS tests (at CSo) performed during this
study agree reasonably with the ranges of su(critical)/s c0
mobilized in the DSS or RS tests and TxC tests compiled
by Olson and Mattson (2008) and the upper bound of 0.24–
0.26 defined by Tsukamoto et al. (2009) for sand specimens
exhibiting contractive response.
Olson (2001) back-calculated yield and liquefied strength
ratios from liquefaction flow failure case histories and found
that su(yield)/s c0 mobilized during static liquefaction flow
failures varied from about 0.23 to 0.31 (Table 4). These
data are consistent with the yield strength ratios measured
in RS, although the lower bound of the field case history
data (0.23) is slightly larger than the lower bound su(yield)/
s c0 from RS because of the few extremely loose moist
tamped specimens (consolidation Dr less than –15%). These

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sadrekarimi and Olson
Fig. 10. Yield strength ratios measured for contractive TxC and RS
specimens.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
Fig. 11. Critical strength ratios measured for fully contractive TxC,
fully contractive RS (CSo and CSc), and initially dilative RS (CSc)
specimens of (a) OT sand, (b) IR sand, and (c) MR sand.
For personal use only.
very low relative densities are lower than what could occur
in field settings, thus the laboratory su(yield)/s c0 for these
specimens are lower than the field data.
The su(liq)/s c0 back-calculated from liquefaction field case
histories (0.05–0.12) closely match the range of su(critical)/s c0
from RS tests at CSc, possibly suggesting that some par-
ticle damage may have occurred in some cases. As de-
scribed by Sadrekarimi (2009), particle damage led to a
503
significant reduction in shear resistance in the RS experi-
ments, particularly in denser specimens. Similar particle
damage has occurred in some field flow failures after
movement initiated. For example, particle damage was ob-
served in the shear zone of the Nikawa landslide, which
was triggered by the 1995 Hyogoken–Nambu earthquake
(Sassa 1995). The shear zone of this landslide consisted of
a partially saturated medium dense deposit of sand to silty
sand that was only moderately susceptible to flow liquefac-
tion (where the contractive tendency of very loose soil
triggers excess pore-water pressure during undrained shear-
ing) (Gerolymos and Gazetas 2007). However, shear-induced
particle damage in the shear zone generated excess pore-
water pressure, thereby reducing the mobilized shear resist-
ance and triggering a slide that flowed more than 100 m
(Sassa et al. 1996). Sadrekarimi (2009) summarizes similar
long run-out landslides with direct and indirect evidence
for particle damage within the shear zone.
Other phenomena such as void ratio redistribution, pore-
water pressure migration, water-layer formation, and hydro-
planing have been observed in model and centrifuge tests
(e.g., Liu and Qiao 1984; Fiegel and Kutter 1994; Kokusho
2000; Kulasingam et al. 2004) and may have occurred dur-
ing some field flow failures (e.g., Seed et al. 1975; Marcu-
son et al. 1979; Ishihara 1984; Whitman 1985; Seed 1987;
Stark and Mesri 1992; Harder and Stewart 1996; Olson et
al. 2000). These factors are implicitly incorporated into
shear strengths and strength ratios back-calculated from
liquefaction flow failure case histories (Seed 1987; Olson
and Stark 2002). Although some of these phenomena may
occur to some extent in element-scale laboratory studies
(e.g., Riemer 1992; Finno et al. 1996; Ayoubian and Robert-
son 1998), we have not quantified the role of these phenom-
ena in our laboratory element tests. More research is needed
to quantify such effects and their potential impact on field
and laboratory studies of liquefied and critical shear
strengths.
Sand brittleness
The normalized difference between the undrained yield
and critical strengths is a convenient way to quantify the
flow potential of a strain-softening sand (Ishihara et al.
1990). This is commonly defined by the undrained brittle-
ness index, IB, as (Bishop 1967, 1971):
su ðyieldÞ  su ðcriticalÞ
½10 IB ¼
su ðyieldÞ
where IB ranges from 0 to 1, with IB = 1 indicating a very
small su(critical) and highly contractive response, and IB =
0 occurring in dilative sands that do not strain soften.
Figure 14 presents IB values computed for the undrained
strengths reported in Tables 1 and 2 at CSo (i.e., IB,CSo) for
the TxC and RS tests and at CSc (i.e., IB,CSc) for the RS
tests. These data illustrate that IB,CSo increases with increas-
ing ec for all of the sands, and MR sand shows the least brit-
tle behavior at CSo. This occurs because the angular MR
sand particles promote a smaller drop from su(yield) to
su(critical). In addition, accounting for some scatter, we
didn’t find any significant difference between the IB,CSo val-
ues in TxC and RS tests.
Published by NRC Research Press
 504 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011

Table 4. su ðyieldÞ=s c0 and su ðcriticalÞ=s c0 from TxC and RS (or DSS) tests and field case histories.

su(yield)/s c0 su(critical)/s c0
TxC RS (or DSS) RS (or DSS)
Sand or reference TxC RS (or DSS) (at CSo) (at CSo) (at CSc)
OT sand 0.16–0.25 0.20–0.27 0.01–0.11 0.04–0.18 0.02–0.12
IR sand 0.19–0.32 0.20–0.29 0.01–0.26 0.05–0.21 0.03–0.11
MR sand 0.17–0.19 0.21–0.35 0.09–0.13 0.11–0.22 0.03–0.08
Olson and Mattson (2008) 0.18–0.43 0.13–0.29a 0.01–0.27b 0.01–0.22a,c 0.01–0.22a,c
Field case histories (Olson 2001) 0.23–0.31d 0.23–0.31d 0.05–0.12e 0.05–0.12e 0.05–0.12e
a
From RS (Wang and Sassa 2002) and DSS (Riemer 1992; Yoshimine 1996; Yoshimine et al. 1999) tests.
0 0
b
Original values (0.01–0.23) are divided by cosfcs using fcs ~328 to account for differences in definition of su(critical)/s c0 in TxC used by Olson and
Mattson (2008) and in eq. [4] herein.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11

c
Severity of particle damage unknown.
d 0
Yield strength ratios reported for field case histories as su(yield)/s vo .
e 0
Liquefied strength ratios reported for field case histories as su(liq)/s vo .

Fig. 12. Comparison of ranges of yield shear strengths mobilized in TxC, DSS or RS, and TxE collected by Olson and Mattson (2008) with
TxC and RS results of this study.
For personal use only.

Fig. 13. Comparison of ranges of critical shear strengths mobilized in TxC, DSS or RS, and TxE collected by Olson and Mattson (2008)
with TxC and RS results of this study.

As illustrated in Fig. 14, particle damage and crushing re-
sults in increased brittleness for each sand (i.e., IB,CSc >
IB,CSo). After damage occurs, IB,CSc values are nearly
independent of ec, with only MR sand exhibiting a slightly
increasing IB,CSc with ec. In contrast to ec, Fig. 15 illustrates
that there is no clear correlation between brittleness indices
and s c0 . This occurs because IB is primarily affected by ec
(Highter and Tobin 1980; Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996), and
slight variations in specimen depositional energies (i.e.,
tamping force in moist-tamped and drop height in air-pluviated
specimens) produced different initial void ratios and thus
different ec values after consolidation.
Figure 16 shows the variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with
consolidation relative density (Drc) for the sands tested here,
where IB,CSo and IB,CSc (for MR sand) decrease with increas-
ing Drc. For clean OT and IR sands, brittle behavior is lim-

Published by NRC Research Press

 Sadrekarimi and Olson
Fig. 14. Variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with ec in (a) OT sand,
(b) IR sand, and (c) MR sand.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
For personal use only.
ited to Drc < 40%, whereas for silty MR sand, Drc of up to
93% are also brittle. Figure 16 also includes values of brit-
tleness index for moist tamped Toyoura sand (Verdugo
1992) in TxC, which are consistent with our data for OT
and IR sands. Although not investigated here, IB for dilative
OT and IR sands (i.e., larger Drc values) should begin to in-
crease after a threshold value of Drc because of the higher
(pre-damage) dilatancy potential in dense sands and the
more intense particle damage (Wang and Sassa 2002).
As anticipated from Fig. 14, IB,CSo for each sand increases
with increasing jcs (Fig. 17). In addition, IB,CSc for MR sand
also increases with increasing jcs. As suggested by Sladen et
al. (1985) and Ishihara (1993), soil state can be also represented
by s c0 /s cs
0
. Figure 18 illustrates IB (both IB,CSo and IB,CSc) versus
0 0
s c /s cs for the sands tested here as well as for Banding No. 6
(Castro et al. 1982), Nerlerk and Leighton Buzzard sands
(Sladen et al. 1985), and Syncrude tailings sand (Sladen and
505
Fig. 15. Variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with s c0 in OT, IR, and MR
sands.
Fig. 16. Variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with Drc in OT, IR, MR, and
Toyoura (Verdugo 1992) sands.
Handford 1987). As suggested by Sladen et al. (1985), these
data illustrate that IB is a unique function of s c0 /s cs
0
for all sands.
In fact, the different IB – jcs trends for each sand in Fig. 17 oc-
curs because of the different lcs values for each sand.
Figure 19 presents su(critical)/s c0 mobilized in the TxC
and RS (at both CSo and CSc) with respect to IB,CSo (for
TxC and RS at CSo) and IB,CSc (for RS at CSc) for OT, IR,
and MR sands, as well as data from TxC tests on Toyoura
sand (Verdugo 1992) and several coal mine waste dump
sands (Dawson et al. 1998). As illustrated in Fig. 19, a rela-
tively unique relationship appears to exist between
su(critical)/s c0 and IB independent of sand type, mode of
shear, method of deposition, and particle crushing. Accordingly,
su(critical)/s c0 maximizes at a value of about 0.3 for IB = 0, con-
sistent with the upper bound of su(critical)/s c0 in Table 4.
Finally, we note that although the state-parameter concept
and the possibility of determining su(critical) from jcs is ap-
pealing, state parameter is difficult to predict accurately. For
many clean sands with relatively flat CSLo, inaccuracies in
predicting void ratio and thus jcs would result in large er-
rors in su(critical). However, sandy soils with flat CSLo
(i.e., those most affected by this limitation) are generally
Published by NRC Research Press
 506
Fig. 17. Variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with jcs in OT, IR, and MR
sands.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
Fig. 18. Variations of IB,CSo and IB,CSc with s c0 /s cs
0
in OT, IR, and
MR sands.
For personal use only.
Fig. 19. su(critical)/s c0 versus IB,CSo and IB,CSc in OT, IR, MR, and
Toyoura (Verdugo 1992) sands as well as Greenhills, Quintette, and
Fording coal mine waste dump sandy gravels (Dawson et al. 1998).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
less susceptible to strain softening (e.g., clean OT sand with
incompressible quartz mineralogy). In contrast, many sands
involved in flow failures (e.g., sands with more than 12% silty
or clayey fines (Olson 2006) and silty MR sand with more
compressible mineralogy) have steeper CSLo and are thus less
affected by uncertainties in state parameter. In these cases, the
state-parameter concept has been used successfully for lique-
faction analysis (e.g., Marcuson et al. 1990; Onisiphorou
2000; Jefferies and Been 2006; Olson 2006).
Conclusions
Critical-state soil mechanics concepts indicate that
su(critical)/s c0 for a particular sand deposit is independent of
initial stress and void ratio only if NCL and CSL are paral-
lel. This commonly occurs in compressible sands (i.e., silty
sands or sands with nonsiliceous mineralogy), which consti-
tute many of the sands involved in well-documented lique-
faction flow failures. However, if particle damage takes place
as shearing continues, the CSL becomes steeper and the differ-
ence between the slopes of NCL and CSL may increase. This
causes the su(critical)/s c0 and its range of variability to de-
crease, particularly at large shear displacements where particle
rearrangement and damage have been largely exhausted.
The TxC and RS tests in this study show that su(yield)/s c0
and su(critical)/s c0 both decrease with increasing state param-
eter, with the latter also decreasing with increasing shear
displacement. The ranges of su(yield)/s c0 from our TxC
(0.16–0.32) and RS (0.20–0.35) tests are close to those
from earlier laboratory experiments on loose sands and
agree with the back-calculated su(yield)/s c0 from liquefaction
flow failures. Similarly, the ranges of su(critical)/s c0 from our
TxC (0.01–0.26) and RS (0.04–0.22 at CSo) tests on loose
specimens agree well with the ranges of values from earlier
laboratory experiments on loose sands.
However, su(critical)/s c0 mobilized in specimens that expe-
rienced severe particle damage and crushing (particularly in
initially dilative specimens) has a narrower range and is on
average smaller than those mobilized at the critical state of
loose sands without particle damage. These su(critical)/s c0
0
values agree with the back-calculated su(liq)/s v0 from lique-
faction flow failures, suggesting that flow liquefaction likely
occurs with some particle damage and a critical state is
reached involving particle rearrangement, reorientation, and
particle damage. This also suggests that significant strain
softening may occur in dense sands as a result of particle
damage within a shear zone (termed ‘‘sliding surface lique-
faction’’ by Sassa 2000). The relatively small su(critical)/s c0
at CSc may partly explain some rapid and large run-out
(>100 m) landslides in moderately dense, steeply sloping
ground triggered by earthquakes, heavy rainfall, or snow-
melt (Sassa 1995, 2000; Wang et al. 2002).
Lastly, large values of the brittleness index mobilized at
CSo (IB,CSo) are associated with the loosest void ratio states,
independent of mode of shear (TxC versus RS). However,
particle damage increases brittleness (IB,CSc), and IB,CSc
reaches nearly constant values for OT and IR sands, while
MR sand exhibits a slight increase in brittleness index with
increasing void ratio. In addition, a unique correlation was
found between IB (IB,CSo and IB,CSc) and s c0 /s cs 0
and
0
su(critical)/s c for sands studied here.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Sadrekarimi and Olson
References
Allison, E., and Moodie, C.D. 1965. Carbonate. In Methods of soil
analysis. Edited by C.A. Black. American Society of Agronomy,
Vol. 9, pp. 1379–1396.
ASTM. 2004a. Standard test method for specific gravity of soil so-
lids by water pycnometer (D854-00). In 2004 Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Sect. 4, Vol. 04.08. ASTM, West Consho-
hocken, Pa.
ASTM. 2004b. Standard test methods for one-dimensional consoli-
dation properties of soils using incremental loading (D2435-04).
In 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Sect. 4, Vol. 04.08.
ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 2004c. Standard practice for classification of soils for engi-
neering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) (D2487-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
04). In 2004 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Sect. 4, Vol.
04.08. ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Ayoubian, A., and Robertson, P.K. 1998. Void ratio redistribution
in undrained triaxial extension tests on Ottawa sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35(2): 351–359. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-2-351.
Baziar, M.H., and Dobry, R. 1995. Residual strength and large-
deformation potential of loose silty sands. Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, 121(12): 896–906. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1995)121:12(896).
Been, K., and Jefferies, M.G. 1985. A state parameter for sands.
Géotechnique, 35(2): 99–112. doi:10.1680/geot.1985.35.2.99.
Bishop, A.W. 1967. Progressive failure with special reference to
the mechanism causing it. In Proceedings of the Geotechnical
For personal use only.
Conference Oslo 1967: On Shear Strength Properties of Natural
Soils and Rocks, Oslo, Norway, 1967. Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute, Oslo, Norway. Vol. 2, pp. 142–150.
Bishop, A.W. 1971. Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and re-
moulded soil specimens. In Stress-Strain Behaviour of Soils: Pro-
ceedings of the Roscoe Memorial Symposium, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 29–31 March 1971. Edited by R.H.
Parry and K.H. Roscoe. G.T. Foulis, Henley-on-Thames Eng, Ox-
fordshire, UK. pp. 3–58.
Bishop, A.W., and Henkel, D.J. 1962. The measurement of soil
properties in the triaxial test. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., New York.
Bjerrum, L., Kringstad, S., and Kummeneje, O. 1961. The shear
strength of a fine sand. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Paris, France. Vol. 1, pp. 29–37.
Bobei, D.C., and Lo, S.R. 2003. Behavior of sand with plastic and
non-plastic fines. In 12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore, 4–8 Au-
gust 2003. Southeast Asia Geotechnical Society (SEAGS),
Pathumthani, Thailand. pp. 7–10.
Bolton, M.D., and Steedman, R.S. 1985. Modelling the seismic re-
sistance of retaining structures. In Proceedings of the 11th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, San Francisco, Calif., 12–16 August 1985. A.A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 4, pp. 1845–1848.
Casagrande, A. 1936. Characteristic of cohesionless soils affecting
the stability of slopes and earth fills. Journal of Boston Society
of Civil Engineers, 23(1): 13–32.
Casagrande, A. 1975. Liquefaction and cyclic deformation of sands
— a critical review. In Proceedings of the 5th Pan-American
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1975. Vol. 5, pp. 79–133.
Castro, G., and Troncoso, J. 1989. Effects of 1989 Chilean earth-
quake on three tailings dams. In Proceedings of the 5th Chilean
Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, San-
tiago, Chile.
Castro, G., Enos, J.L., France, J.W., and Poulos, S.J. 1982. Lique-
507
faction induced by cyclic loading. Report to National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C., No. NSF/CEE-82018.
Chern, J.C. 1985. Undrained response of saturated sands with em-
phasis on liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Chillarige, A.V., Robertson, P.K., Morgenstern, N.R., and Chris-
tian, H.A. 1997. Evaluation of the in situ state of Fraser River
sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(4): 510–519. doi:10.
1139/cgj-34-4-510.
Coop, M.R. 1990. The mechanics of uncemented carbonate sands.
Géotechnique, 40(4): 607–626. doi:10.1680/geot.1990.40.4.607.
Coop, M.R., Sorensen, K.K., Bodas Freitas, T., and Georgoutsos,
G. 2004. Particle breakage during shearing of a carbonate sand.
Géotechnique, 54(3): 157–163.
Cornforth, D.H. 1964. Some experiments on the influence of strain
conditions on the strength of sand. Géotechnique, 14(2): 143–
167. doi:10.1680/geot.1964.14.2.143.
Cunning, J.C. 1994. Shear wave velocity measurements of cohe-
sionless soils for evaluation of in situ state. M.S. thesis, Univer-
sity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Dawson, R.F., Morgenstern, N.R., and Stokes, A.W. 1998. Liquefaction
flowslides in Rocky Mountain coal mine waste dumps. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 35(2): 328–343. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-2-328.
De Alba, P.A., Seed, H.B., Retamal, E., and Seed, R.B. 1988. Ana-
lyses of dam failures in 1985 Chilean earthquake. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 114(12): 1414–1434. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:12(1414).
Desrues, J., Chambon, R., Mokni, M., and Mazerolle, F. 1996.
Void ratio evolution inside shear bands in triaxial sand speci-
mens studied by computed tomography. Géotechnique, 46(3):
529–546. doi:10.1680/geot.1996.46.3.529.
Fear, C.E., and Robertson, P.K. 1995. Estimating the undrained
strength of sand: a theoretical framework. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 32(5): 859–870. doi:10.1139/t95-082.
Fiegel, G.F., and Kutter, B.L. 1994. Liquefaction induced lateral
spreading of mildly sloping ground. Journal of Geotechnical En-
gineering, 120(12): 2236–2243. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1994)120:12(2236).
Finn, W.D.L. 1998. Seismic safety of embankment dams: develop-
ments in research and practice 1988–1998. In Geotechnical Earth-
quake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III: Proceedings of a
Specialty Conference, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.,
3–6 August 1998. Edited by R.D. Holtz, P. Dakoulas, and M.K.
Yegian. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va. Geo-
technical Special Publication No. 75, Vol. 2, pp. 812–853.
Finno, R.J., Harris, W.W., Mooney, M.A., and Viggiani, G. 1996.
Strain localization and undrained steady state of sand. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(6): 462–473. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:6(462).
Frost, J.D., and Jang, D.J. 2000. Evolution of sand microstructure
during shear. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 126(2): 116–130. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2000)126:2(116).
Frost, J.D., Jang, D.-J., Chen, C.C., and Park, J.Y. 1999. Quantita-
tive characterization of microstructure evolution. In Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Physics and Mechanics of Li-
quefaction, Baltimore, Md., 10–11 September 1998. Edited by
P.V. Lade and J.A. Yamamuro. Taylor and Francis, Inc., UK.
pp. 169–177.
Gerolymos, N., and Gazetas, G. 2007. A model for grain-crushing-
induced landslides — application to Nikawa, Kobe 1995. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27(9): 803–817. doi:10.
1016/j.soildyn.2007.01.003.
Green, G.E., and Bishop, A.W. 1969. A note on the drained
Published by NRC Research Press
 508
strength of sand under generalized strain conditions. Géotechni-
que, 19(1): 144–149. doi:10.1680/geot.1969.19.1.144.
Hanzawa, H. 1980. Undrained strength and stability analysis for a
quick sand. Soils and Foundations, 20(2): 17–29.
Harder, L.F., and Stewart, J.P. 1996. Failure of Tapo Canyon Tail-
ings Dam. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
10(3): 109–114. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1996)10:3(109).
Hazen, A. 1918. A study of the slip in the Calaveras Dam. Engi-
neering News Record, 81(26): 1158–1164.
Highter, W.H., and Tobin, R.F. 1980. Flow slides and the un-
drained brittleness index of some mine tailings. Engineering
Geology, 16(1–2): 71–82. [Elsevier, Amsterdam.]
Hvorslev, M.J. 1939. Torsion shear tests and their place in the de-
termination of shearing resistance of soils. In Proceedings of the
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
American Society of Testing and Materials, West Consho-
hocken, Pa. Vol. 39, pp. 999–1022.
Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. 2006. Semi-empirical procedures
for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, 26(2–4): 115–
130. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023.
Ishihara, K. 1984. Post-earthquake failure of a tailings dam due to
liquefaction of the pond deposit. In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Rolla, Mo., 6–11 May 1984. Edited by S. Prakash.
University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, Mo. Vol. 3, pp. 1129–1143.
Ishihara, K. 1993. Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes.
Géotechnique, 43(3): 351–451. doi:10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351.
For personal use only.
Ishihara, K. 2008. Flow slides of underwater sand deposits in Ja-
muna River bed. In Geotechnical Engineering for Disaster Miti-
gation and Rehabilitation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 3–34.
Ishihara, K., Yasuda, S., and Yoshida, Y. 1990. Liquefaction-
induced flow failure of embankments and residual strength of
silty sands. Soils and Foundations, 30(3): 69–80.
Jang, D.-J. 1997. Quantification of sand structure and its evolution
during shearing using image analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia In-
stitute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
Jefferies, M., and Been, K. 2006. Soil liquefaction: a critical state
approach. Taylor and Francis, UK.
Jefferies, M.G., Been, K., and Hachey, J.E. 1990. Influence of scale
on the constitutive behavior of sand. In Proceedings of the 43rd
Canadian Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Laval Univer-
sity, Sainte-Foy, Quebec. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond,
B.C. Vol. 1. pp. 263–273.
Kokusho, T. 2000. Mechanism for water film generation and lateral
flow in liquefied sand layer. Soils and Foundations, 40(5): 99–
111.
Konrad, J.-M. 1993. Undrained response of loosely compacted
sands during monotonic and cyclic compression tests. Géotech-
nique, 43(1): 69–89. doi:10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.69.
Kulasingam, R., Malvick, E.J., Boulanger, R.W., and Kutter, B.L.
2004. Strength loss and localization at silt interlayers in slopes
of liquefied sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmen-
tal Engineering, 130(11): 1192–1202. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2004)130:11(1192).
Ladd, R.S. 1974. Specimen preparation and liquefaction of sands.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
100(10): 1180–1184.
Lade, P.V., and Yamamuro, J.A. 1996. Undrained sand behavior in axi-
symmetric tests at high pressures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
122(2): 120–129. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:2(120).
Lade, P.A., Liggio, C.D., and Yamamuro, J.A. 1998. Effects of
non-plastic fines on minimum and maximum void ratios of
sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 21(4): 336–347. doi:10.
1520/GTJ11373J.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Lam, W.K., and Tatsuoka, F. 1988. Effects of initial anisotropic
fabric and s2 on strength and deformation characteristics of
sand. Soils and Foundations, 28(1): 89–106.
Leong, W.K., Chu, J., and Teh, C.I. 2000. Liquefaction and in-
stability of a granular fill material. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
23(2): 178–192. doi:10.1520/GTJ11042J.
Liu, H., and Qiao, T. 1984. Liquefaction potential of saturated sand
deposits underlying foundation of structure. In Proceedings of
the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., July 1984. Prentice-Hall Professional, Technical
Reference, N.J. Vol. III, pp. 199–206.
Marcuson, W.F., III, Ballard, R.F., Jr., and Ledbetter, R.H. 1979.
Liquefaction failure of tailings dams resulting from the Near
Izu Oshima earthquake, 14 and 15 January 1978. In Proceedings
of the 6th Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Lima, Peru, 2–7 December 1979.
Vol. 2, pp. 69–80.
Marcuson, W.F.H., Hynes, M.E., and Franklin, A.G. 1990. Evaluation
and use of residual strength in seismic safety analysis of embank-
ments. Earthquake Spectra, 6(3): 529–572. doi:10.1193/1.1585586.
Mesri, G., and Vardhanabhuti, B. 2009. Compression of granular
materials. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(4): 369–392.
doi:10.1139/T08-123.
Mitchell, J.K., and Soga, K. 2005. Fundamentals of soil behavior.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
Mueller, C.G. 2000. Load and deformation response of tieback
walls. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Urbana, Ill.
Muir Wood, D., and Maeda, K. 2008. Changing grading of soil: ef-
fect on critical states. Acta Geotechnica, 3(1): 3–14. doi:10.
1007/s11440-007-0041-0.
Nakata, Y., Hyodo, M., Murata, S., and Yasufuku, N. 1998. Flow
deformation of sands subjected to principal stress rotation. Soils
and Foundations, 38(2): 115–128.
Ochiai, H., and Lade, P.V. 1983. Three-dimensional strength of
sand with anisotropic fabric. In Proceedings of the 18th Japan
National Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Kotiyarma, Japan. pp. 251–254.
Olson, S.M. 2001. Liquefaction analysis of level and sloping ground
using field case histories and penetration resistance. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Olson, S.M. 2006. Liquefaction analysis of Duncan Dam using
strength ratios. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(5): 484–499.
doi:10.1139/T06-025.
Olson, S.M., and Mattson, B.B. 2008. Mode of shear effects on
yield and liquefied strength ratios. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 45(4): 574–587. doi:10.1139/T07-114.
Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. 2002. Liquefied strength ratio from
liquefaction flow failure case histories. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 39(3): 629–647. doi:10.1139/t02-001.
Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. 2003a. Use of laboratory data to con-
firm yield and liquefied strength ratio concepts. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 40(6): 1164–1184. doi:10.1139/t03-058.
Olson, S.M., and Stark, T.D. 2003b. Yield strength ratio and lique-
faction analysis of slopes and embankments. Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(8): 727–737.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:8(727).
Olson, S.M., Stark, T.D., Walton, W.H., and Castro, G. 2000. 1907
Static liquefaction flow failure of the north dike of Wachusett
Dam. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 126(12): 1184–1193. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)
126:12(1184).
Onisiphorou, C. 2000. Stochastic analysis of saturated soils using finite
elements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Sadrekarimi and Olson
Pillai, V.S., and Salgado, F.M. 1994. Post-liquefaction stability and
deformation analysis of Duncan Dam. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 31(6): 967–978. doi:10.1139/t94-111.
Poulos, S.J. 1981. The steady state of deformation. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 107(GT5): 553–562.
Raad, A.A. 1978. Carbonates. In Manual on soil sampling and
methods of analysis, 2nd ed. Edited by J.A. McKeague. Cana-
dian Society of Soil Science, AAFC, Ottawa, Ont. pp. 86–98.
Riemer, M.F. 1992. The effects of testing conditions on the consti-
tutive behavior of loose, saturated sands under monotonic load-
ing. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Roscoe, K.H., and Poorooshasb, H.B. 1963. A theoretical and ex-
perimental study of strains in triaxial tests on normally consoli-
dated clays. Géotechnique, 13(1): 12–38. doi:10.1680/geot.1963.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
13.1.12.
Roscoe, K.H., Schofield, A.N., and Wroth, M.A. 1958. On the
yielding of soils. Géotechnique, 8(1): 22–53. doi:10.1680/geot.
1958.8.1.22.
Rutledge, P. 1947. Cooperative triaxial shear research program.
Progress Report on Soil Mechanics Fact Finding Survey, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Sadrekarimi, A. 2009. Development of a new ring shear apparatus
for investigating the critical state of sands. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, Ill.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2008. The importance of miner-
alogy and grain compressibility in understanding field behavior
For personal use only.
during liquefaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Con-
ference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering and
Symposium in Honor of Professor James K. Mitchell, Arlington,
Va., 11–16 August 2008. Edited by S. Prakash. Paper No. 2.30.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2009. A new ring shear device to
measure the large displacement shearing behavior of sands. Geo-
technical Testing Journal, 32(3): 197–208.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2010a. Particle damage observed
in ring shear tests on sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
47(5): 497–515. doi:10.1139/T09-117.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2010b. Shear band formation ob-
served in ring shear tests on sandy soils. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(2): 366–375. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000220.
Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S.M. 2011. Critical state friction angle
of sands. Géotechnique. (Posted online ahead of print 25 Janu-
ary 2011.) doi:10.1680/geot.9.P.090.
Sassa, K. 1995. Access to the dynamics of landslides during earth-
quakes by a new cyclic loading high-speed ring shear apparatus
(keynote paper). In Proceedings of the 6th International Sympo-
sium on Landslides, ‘‘Landslides’’. A.A. Balkema, Christchurch,
New Zealand. pp. 1919–1937.
Sassa, K. 2000. Mechanism of flows in granular soils. In Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geolo-
gical Engineering, GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, Australia, 19–24
November 2000. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc., Lancas-
ter, Pa. pp. 1671–1702.
Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., and Evans, S.
1996. Earthquake-induced landslides: distribution, motion, and
mechanisms. Soils and Foundations, [Special issue.] 53–64.
Sayão, A., and Vaid, Y.P. 1996. Effect of intermediate principal
stress on the deformation response of sand. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 33(5): 822–828. doi:10.1139/t96-108-328.
Seed, H.B. 1987. Design problems in soil liquefaction. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8): 827–845. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(827).
Seed, H.B., Martin, P.P., and Lysmer, J. 1975. The generation and
509
dissipation of pore water pressures during soil liquefaction. Rep.
No. UCB/EERC 75-26. Earthquake Engineering Research Cen-
ter, The University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Sladen, J.A., and Handford, G. 1987. A potential systematic error
in laboratory testing of very loose sands. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 24(3): 462–466. doi:10.1139/t87-058.
Sladen, J.A., D’Hollander, R.D., and Krahn, J. 1985. The liquefac-
tion of sands, a collapse surface approach. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 22(4): 564–578. doi:10.1139/t85-076.
Stark, T.D., and Mesri, G. 1992. Undrained shear strength of lique-
fied sands for stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, 118(11): 1727–1747. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9410(1992)118:11(1727).
Sukumaran, B., and Ashmawy, A.K. 2001. Quantitative characteri-
sation of the geometry of discrete particles. Géotechnique,
51(7): 171–179. doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.7.619.
Sutherland, H.B., and Mesdary, M.S. 1969. The influence of the in-
termediate principle stress on the strength of sand. In Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico. Vol. 1, pp. 391–399.
Taylor, D.W. 1948. Fundamentals of soil mechanics. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. 1996. Soil mechanics in
engineering practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., and Kamata, T. 2009. Undrained shear
strength of soils under flow deformation. Géotechnique, 59(5):
483–486. doi:10.1680/geot.2007.00043.
Uthayakumar, M., and Vaid, Y.P. 1998. Static liquefaction of sands
under multiaxial loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(2):
273–283. doi:10.1139/cgj-35-2-273.
Vaid, Y.P., and Chern, J.C. 1983a. Effect of static shear on resis-
tance to liquefaction. Soils and Foundations, 23(1): 47–60.
Vaid, Y.P., and Chern, J.C. 1983b. Mechanism of deformation dur-
ing cyclic undrained loading of saturated sands. International
Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2(3):
171–177. doi:10.1016/0261-7277(83)90014-1.
Vaid, Y.P., and Chern, J.C. 1985. Cyclic and monotonic undrained
response of saturated sands. In Advances in the art of testing
soils under cyclic conditions. Edited by V. Khosla. American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York. pp. 120–147.
Vaid, Y.P., and Sivathayalan, S. 1996. Static and cyclic liquefaction
potential of Fraser Delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests. Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(2): 281–289. doi:10.1139/t96-007.
Vaid, Y.P., Chung, E.K.F., and Kuerbis, R.H. 1990. Stress path and
steady state. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27(1): 1–7. doi:10.
1139/t90-001.
Vasquez-Herrera, A., Dobry, R., and Ng, T.-T. 1988. Pore pressure
buildup and liquefaction failure of anistropically consolidated
sand due to cyclic straining. In Proceedings, Specialty Confer-
ence on Hydraulic Fill Structures, Fort Collins, Colo. Edited by
D.J.A. Van Zyl and S.G. Vick. American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, New York, N.Y. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 21, pp. 346–366.
Verdugo, R. 1992. Characterization of sandy soil behavior under large
deformation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Verdugo, R., and Ishihara, K. 1996. The steady state of sandy soils.
Soils and Foundations, 36(2): 81–91.
Wang, G., and Sassa, K. 2002. Post-failure mobility of saturated
sands in undrained load-controlled ring shear tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39(4): 821–837. doi:10.1139/t02-032.
Wang, F.W., Sassa, K., and Wang, G. 2002. Mechanism of a long-
runout landslide triggered by the August 1998 heavy rainfall in
Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Engineering Geology, 63(1–2):
169–185. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00080-1.
Published by NRC Research Press
 510
Whitman, R.V. 1985. On liquefaction. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering, San Fransisco, Calif., 12–16 August. Edited by Publi-
cations Committee of the conference. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands. Vol. 4, pp. 1923–1926.
Wroth, C.P., and Bassett, R.H. 1965. A stress–strain relationship
for the shearing behaviour of a sand. Géotechnique, 15(1): 32–
56. doi:10.1680/geot.1965.15.1.32.
Yamada, Y., and Ishihara, K. 1979. Anisotropic deformation char-
acteristics of sand under three dimensional stress conditions.
Soils and Foundations, 19(2): 79–94.
Yamamuro, J.A., and Lade, P.V. 1996. Drained sand behavior in
axisymmetric tests at high pressures. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 122(2): 109–119. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by 65.49.14.72 on 04/26/11
9410(1996)122:2(109).
Yamamuro, J.A., and Lade, P.V. 1997. Static liquefaction of very
loose sands. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(6): 905–917.
doi:10.1139/cgj-34-6-905.
Yamamuro, J.A., and Lade, P.V. 1998. Steady state concepts and
static liquefaction of silty sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124(9): 868–877. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:9(868).
For personal use only.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 48, 2011
Yoshida, T., and Tatsuoka, F. 1997. Deformation property of shear
band in sand subjected to plane strain compression and its rela-
tion to particle characteristics. In Proceedings of the 14th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 6–12 September 1997. Edited
by International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation En-
gineering. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 1,
pp. 237–240.
Yoshida, T., Tatsuoka, F., Siddiquee, M.S.A., Kamegai, Y., and
Park, C.S. 1994. Shear banding in sands observed in plane strain
compression. In Localisation and bifurcation theory for soils and
rocks. Edited by R. Chambon, J. Desrue, and I. Vardoulakis.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 165–179.
Yoshimine, M. 1996. Undrained flow deformation of saturated sand
under monotonic loading condition. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E. (Fear). 1999. Un-
drained shear strength of clean sands to trigger flow liquefac-
tion. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(5): 891–906. doi:10.
1139/cgj-36-5-891.
Published by NRC Research Press