High Overburden Stress Effects in Liquefaction Analyses

Ross W. Boulanger, M.ASCE1

Abstract: A reevaluation is presented of two factors that can strongly affect the estimation of liquefaction resistance for clean sands
under high effective overburden stresses (␴ ⬘v ): the relation used to normalize penetration resistances to a ␴ ⬘v of 1 atm 共i.e., C N ), and the
adjustment factor for the effects of ␴ ⬘v on cyclic resistance ratio 共i.e., K ␴ ). These two factors have been investigated in a number of ways
and several relations exist for each of them. An improved C N relation is developed based on cone penetration theory and validation against
calibration chamber test data for both cone penetration and standard penetration tests. A relative state parameter index (␰ R ) is shown to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

provide a consistent theoretical framework for interrelating the penetration and cyclic loading resistances. It is subsequently shown that
the C N and K ␴ relations are interrelated through the sand properties and relative density (D R ) in ways that have compensating effects on
the predicted cyclic resistance. The derived relations provide an improved representation of the effects of high ␴ ⬘v levels, and reduce the
conservatism that results when some established relations are extended to ␴ ⬘v levels higher than they were calibrated for.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:12共1071兲
CE Database subject headings: Liquefaction; Sand; Cone penetration tests; Standard penetration tests; Stress.

Introduction related to penetration testing at large depths 共e.g., possible use of

Effective overburden stress (␴ ⬘v ) is accounted for in semiempir-
ical cone penetration test 共CPT兲- and standard penetration test
共SPT兲-based liquefaction analysis procedures for clean sand
共⬍5% passing the No. 200 sieve兲 through the normalization of
penetration resistances to an effective overburden stress of 1 atm
共i.e., C N ) and the adjustment factor for the effects of overburden
stress on cyclic resistance ratio 共i.e., K ␴ ). Overburden stress also
affects the adjustment factor for the effects of static shear stress
on cyclic resistance ratio 共i.e., K ␣ ), which is applicable beneath
slopes. Seed 共1983兲 introduced the K ␴ and K ␣ factors as a means
for extending the SPT-based liquefaction correlations to greater
depths and from level ground conditions to sloping ground con-
ditions. These factors are applied as
CRR⫽CRR␴⫽1,␣⫽0 K ␴ K ␣ (1)
where ␣⫽static horizontal shear stress ratio (␣⫽␶ s /␴ ⬘v0 );
␶ s ⫽static horizontal shear stress; ␴ ⬘v 0 ⫽vertical effective consoli-
dation stress; CRR␴⫽1,␣⫽0 ⫽cyclic resistance ratio for ␴ ⬘v 0 / P a
⫽1 and ␣⫽0 as obtained through a semiempirical correlation for
the earthquake magnitude and other conditions under consider-
ation; and P a ⫽atmospheric pressure. The effects of ␴ ⬘v on K ␣ are
discussed in Boulanger 共2003兲 and Idriss and Boulanger 共2003兲,
while the present paper focuses on how ␴ ⬘v affects liquefaction
evaluations via the C N and K ␴ relations. Together, the C N and K ␴
relations can be critical for liquefaction evaluations at high over-
burden stresses 共e.g., ␴ ⬘v / P a ⬎4), such as can be encountered be-
neath large earth dams or embankments. Other important issues
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, Davis, CA 95616.
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2004. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 27, 2001; approved on June 25, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 12, December 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2003/12-1071–1082/$18.00.
a downhole CPT to achieve large depths, energy transmission in
SPT tests, etc.兲 are beyond the scope of this paper.
The effect of ␴ ⬘v on penetration resistances 共CPT or SPT兲 in
clean sand has been recognized in semiempirical liquefaction
evaluations since the development of the simplified procedure
共Seed and Idriss 1971兲. Data on the C N factor for normalizing
SPT N values to an effective overburden stress of one atmosphere
has come from calibration chamber tests 共e.g., Marcuson and Bie-
ganousky 1977a,b兲 and reviews of field data 共e.g., Skempton
1986兲, and various expressions that approximate those data have
been widely adopted 共e.g., Liao and Whitman 1986兲. The avail-
able SPT data are, however, limited to ␴ ⬘v / P a less than about 5.5,
and thus the extension of C N to larger ␴ ⬘v / P a values requires
extrapolation of purely empirical expressions, sometimes tem-
pered by engineering judgment. The C N factor for CPT tip resis-
tance (q c ) is much better defined, being able to draw upon large
data sets of calibration chamber studies and rigorous numerical
analyses. For example, Salgado et al. 共1997a,b兲 obtained excel-
lent agreement between numerical analyses and results of over
400 calibration chamber tests, with the data extending to equiva-
lent ␴ ⬘v / P a values of about 7. The extension of CPT C N values to
larger ␴ ⬘v / P a values also requires extrapolation, but in this case
the extrapolation benefits from the use of a well-calibrated theo-
retical solution that captures the essential physics of the problem.
Both the SPT and CPT data show a clear dependency of C N on
relative density (D R ), with C N values at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⬎1 being progres-
sively larger with increasing D R . Furthermore, the C N factors for
SPT and CPT penetration resistances are often assumed to be
equal because of the similarities in the experimental results and
the expectation that they are affected by ␴ ⬘v in similar ways.
The overburden correction factor (K ␴ ) for cyclic resistance
ratio continues to be a subject of study and review 共e.g., Seed and
Harder 1990; Pillai and Byrne 1994; Harder and Boulanger 1997;
Hynes and Olsen 1998兲. For example, the experimental data in
Fig. 1 共Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996兲 clearly shows that K ␴ is
dependent on D R , with K ␴ values at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⬎1 becoming smaller

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1071

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Comparison of K ␴ relations with data from reconstituted
Fraser delta sand specimens 共Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996兲 and vari-
ous field samples 共Seed and Harder 1990兲
with increasing D R , and that K ␴ is different for simple shear
versus triaxial loading conditions. Further complicating the issue
is the wide scatter in published K ␴ data for different soils 共includ-
ing reconstituted specimens and field samples兲, which translates
into uncertainty in the appropriate selection of K ␴ for projects
where testing of field samples is not feasible.
The fact that C N and K ␴ are both dependent on D R is clearly
consistent with critical state concepts wherein the behavior of
sand depends on its state 共via ␴ ⬘v and D R ) rather than ␴ ⬘v or D R
alone. With regard to K ␴ , Pillai and Muhunthan 共2001兲 observed
that the cyclic resistance ratio 共CRR兲 of clean sand was approxi-
mately constant for a given value of state parameter 共␰兲 and that
K ␴ depends on the critical state parameters of the sand. Boulanger
共2003兲 noted the practical difficulties in determining critical state
properties for most site-specific projects, and instead proposed a
relative state parameter index (␰ R ) derived from the relative dila-
tancy index (I RD) of Bolton 共1986兲 and embodying critical state
concepts in an approximate, yet practical, manner. Boulanger
共2003兲 showed that the effect of ␴ ⬘v and D R on the static shear
stress ratio correction factor (K ␣ ) could be reasonably and ratio-
nally represented by ␰ R . In the present study, the ␰ R index is
shown to also provide a rational basis for interrelating CRR, D R ,
and ␴ ⬘v 共as typically represented through C N and K ␴ ).
The purpose of this study is to reevaluate overburden stress
effects 共e.g., C N and K ␴ relations兲 on liquefaction analysis proce-
dures for clean sands using a consistent theoretical framework for
interrelating the penetration and cyclic loading resistances. The
steps involved in this study were as follows.
1. Derive a C N relation that is based on penetration theory and
validated against calibration chamber test data for both CPT
and SPT tests.
2. Establish a fundamental framework that: 共1兲 describes how
D R and ␴ ⬘v affect CRR; 共2兲 is consistent with the theory
underlying the above derivations for CN; and 共3兲 is simple to
implement in practice. Laboratory test data on reconstituted
1072 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
clean sands are shown to support the use of the relative state
parameter index (␰ R) for this purpose.
3. Derive relations between CRR and ␰ R that are applicable to
field conditions with ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1 as embodied in current semi-
empirical liquefaction correlations.
4. Extend the derived ‘‘field’’ CRR– ␰ R relations to higher over-
burden stresses. A convenient implementation of this step
was achieved by the introduction of state normalized pen-
etration resistances.
5. Compare the ␰ R -based approach to current practice, and then
evaluate further simplified relations that can be used to ap-
proximate the results of the ␰ R -based approach.
The modifications to practice suggested herein are both simple to
implement and reduce the conservatism imposed at high overbur-
den stresses by some of the current approaches.
Overburden Normalization of Penetration
Resistance
Cone Penetration Test C N Relation Based
on Calibrated Penetration Theory
Salgado et al. 共1997a兲 compared q c values predicted by a numeri-
cal analysis method to the measured values for about 400 calibra-
tion chamber tests on clean sands. The numerical analyses were
based on computing the cylindrical cavity expansion limit pres-
sure (p l ) and then performing a stress rotation analysis to obtain
the cone penetration resistance (q c ). The stress–strain behavior
was represented using a form of the Hardin equation for small-
strain shear modulus 共Hardin and Black 1968兲, a modified form of
the K – G model 共Naylor et al. 1981兲 for describing the nonlinear-
ity of the tangent shear and bulk moduli, and the relation by
Bolton 共1986兲 for describing the peak friction and dilatancy
angles. Details of the theory and its implementation are presented
in Salgado et al. 共1997a兲. The numerical analyses were shown to
provide excellent agreement with the experimental data, provid-
ing reasonable validation of the theory for predominantly silica
sands of medium compressibility. Salgado et al. 共1997b兲 subse-
quently developed relations between q c , D R , ␴ ⬘v , and the lateral
earth pressure coefficient at rest (K 0 ) for typical, upper bound,
and lower bound sets of soil properties. The results of those nu-
merical analyses are closely approximated as
qc
Pa
⫽C 0 C 1 冉 冊冉 冊
␴ ⬘v
Pa
m
K0
0.45
m⫺0.077
(2a)
m⫽0.7836⫺0.5208D R (2b)
C 0 ⫽25.7⫹39.7D R ⫹212.3D R2 (2c)
C 1 ⫽1.0 typical soil property set
C 1 ⫽0.64 lower bound property set (2d)
C 1 ⫽1.55 upper bound property set
with K 0 ⫽0.45 being considered as reasonable for most normally
consolidated sands. The resulting relations between q c , ␴ ⬘v , and
D R are plotted in Fig. 2 for the typical soil property set and K 0
⫽0.45.
The overburden normalization 共or correction兲 of q c to ␴ ⬘v / P a
⫽1 is performed as
q C1 ⫽C N q C (3)
where the C N can be obtained from Eq. 共2兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Relations between relative density, confining stress, and cone
penetration test tip resistance for clean sand with typical properties
共after Salgado et al. 1997b兲
C N⫽ 冉 冊
Pa
␴ ⬘v
m
The CN relation in Eq. 共4兲 is independent of the material property
set 共as represented by C 1 ) and matches the widely used relation
by Liao and Whitman 共1986兲
冉 冊
0.5
Pa
C N⫽
␴ ⬘v
at a D R of 54%.
Standard Penetration Test C N Relation Based
on Reevaluation of Calibration Chamber Test Data
Standard penetration test calibration chamber test data by Marcu-
son and Bieganousky 共1977a,b兲 were reevaluated using a
weighted least-squares nonlinear regression that better defines the
effects of D R on C N . The reevaluated data were for Platte River
sand 共median grain diameter D 50⫽2.0 mm, coefficient of unifor-
mity c u ⫽5.5), standard concrete sand (D 50⫽0.49 mm, c u ⫽2.2),
and Reid Bedford model sand (D 50⫽0.25 mm, c u ⫽1.6). For the
Reid Bedford model sand, the reevaluated data were limited to
cases where the specimens were placed by rotating rainer, sub-
merged, and normally consolidated 共the data for other conditions
were too limited for this regression兲. Standard penetration tests
were generally performed at three different confining stresses
(␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽0.68, 2.77, and 5.44兲 and three different relative densi-
ties (D R from ⬇25 to ⬇96%兲, and thus the data for each of the
sands were grouped into bins of common ␴ ⬘v / P a and D R 共allow-
ing for the experimental variations兲. The nonlinear regression
equation follows from the common normalization
N 1 ⫽C N N
where C N was assumed to have the same form as Eq. 共4兲. Then,
both N 1 and the exponent m were expressed as third-order poly-
nomials of D R , with the constraints that N 1 always increases and
m always decreases with increasing D R 共over the range of D R in
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1073
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
(4)
Fig. 3. Overburden normalization exponent m from nonlinear regres-
sion on Marcuson and Bieganousky’s 共1977a,b兲 standard penetration
test calibration chamber test data: 共a兲 m versus D R and 共b兲 m versus
(5) N1
the data set兲. The resulting nonlinear regression for N was first
weighted by the inverse of the number of data points in each bin,
thereby giving equal weight to the different bins. The regression
was further weighted by 1/N 1.5 to account for the nonuniform
variability in N; weights of 1/N and 1/N 2 were also evaluated, but
1/N 1.5 appeared to be more closely proportional to the inverse
variance in N across the entire data set. The results of the regres-
sion are summarized in Fig. 3 showing m versus both D R and N 1
共all plotted for the mean D R within each data bin兲.
The variation of m with D R and N 1 is consistent for the three
sands, with m decreasing by more than a factor of about 2 from
the loosest to densest conditions. Some of the variability in the m
values can be attributed to the experimental difficulty in achieving
repeatable test data 共specimen D R and N values兲, the use of only
three different confining stresses, and the sensitivity to small ex-
perimental variations when N values are in the single digit range.
The weighting scheme used in regression had relatively small
effects on the majority of the m values 共except for two cases兲 and
little effect on the average trend in Fig. 3. Overall, the results are
very consistent and produce an average m – D R relation 关solid line
in Fig. 3共a兲兴 that is very close to the previously derived CPT
relation 关dashed line in Fig. 3共a兲兴. The average m – N 1 relation, as
(6)
shown in Fig. 3共b兲, is similarly very close to that produced by
combining the CPT relation with a common D R – N 1 correlation
共these types of correlations are discussed later兲. The agreement
between the SPT and CPT relations would be even better if the
one m value for Reid Bedford model sand at a mean D R of 30%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Use of relative dilatancy index (I RD) to predict dilatancy

angle in drained triaxial compression tests 共after Bolton 1986兲

Fig. 4. Recommended overburden normalization factor (C N ) for
clean sands and regression results for two sands from Marcuson and
Bieganousky 共1977b兲
was omitted; This m value corresponds to the lowest mean N 1
value, only 2.5, and hence it is the most susceptible to experimen-
tal errors 共including the integer reporting of N values兲. Given the
similarity of results in Fig. 3 and the experimental limitations
noted above, the expression for m in Eq. 共2b兲 was adopted as
providing a satisfactory C N approximation for both CPT and SPT
tests.
The C N relation from Eqs. 共2b兲 and 共4兲 is plotted in Fig. 4
along with the SPT regression results for the Platte River and
standard concrete sands for comparison. The importance of ac-
counting for D R clearly increases with increasing confining stress
共or depth兲, with C N values for D R of 40 and 80% differing by a
factor of 1.62 at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽10.
Fig. 5, where the difference between peak and critical state fric-
tion angles (␾ ⬘peak⫺␾ cs
⬘ ) in drained triaxial compression was rea-
sonably estimated as 3I RD for 12 sands.
The I RD relation in Eq. 共7兲 can be used to derive a correspond-
ing state parameter 共␰兲 共Been and Jefferies 1985兲, where ␰ is the
difference between the current void ratio 共e兲 and the critical state
void ratio (e cs) for the current value of p ⬘ . The definition of ␰ is
shown on Fig. 6, along with the critical state line produced from
the I RD relation with Q⫽10 共i.e., critical state corresponds to
I RD⫽0). The critical state line shows a notable increase in slope
on the e – ln p⬘ plot at p ⬘ / P a values of about 10–20. This curva-
ture of the critical state line has been observed for many sands,
reflecting the onset of significant particle crushing, and its posi-
tion is controlled by the parameter Q. The value of ␰ can be
normalized by the difference in the maximum and minimum void
ratios (e max⫺emin) to arrive at a relative state parameter (␰ R ) that
provides improved correlations to the shear behavior of sand
共Konrad 1988兲. This leads to

Relating Cyclic Resistance Ratio to D R and ␴ v⬘

through ␰ R

Relative State Parameter Index, ␰ R

A key feature of the CPT penetration theory by Salgado et al.
共1997a兲 is that volume change characteristics and peak friction
angle relations are based on Bolton’s 共1986兲 relative dilatancy
index (I RD)

冉
I RD⫽D R Q⫺ln
100p ⬘
Pa 冊⫺R (7)

where p ⬘ ⫽mean effective normal stress; Q⫽empirical constant;

and R⫽fitting parameter that was taken as 1.0 for the test data that
was evaluated. The value of Q determines the value of p ⬘ at
which dilatancy is suppressed 共i.e., I RD⫽0). Bolton indicated that
Q depends on the grain type, with Q⬇10 for quartz and feldspar,
8 for limestone, 7 for anthracite, and 5.5 for chalk. The I RD index
is necessarily empirical in nature, but has a functional form that is
reasonable for describing the combined effects of relative density
Fig. 6. Critical state line and state parameter from Bolton’s 共1986兲
and confining stress on the dilatancy or volume change character-
I RD relation
istics of clean sands. An example of Bolton’s work is shown in

1074 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082

 1

冉 冊
␰ R⫽ ⫺D R (8)
100p ⬘
Q⫺ln
Pa

where this ␰ R is an empirical index that has a functional form

consistent with critical state concepts, just like the empirical I RD
index from which it is derived. The particular advantage of ␰ R for
this study is that it provides a consistent link to the CPT penetra-
tion theory of Salgado et al. 共1997a兲.
It is worth noting that the C N relation given by Eqs. 共2b兲 and
共4兲 was derived from the CPT analyses of Salgado et al. 共1997b兲
with Q⫽10. This value of Q represents a reasonably typical value
for many sands, while values of 9–11 might provide better fits
with the shear behavior of specific silica sands at high confining
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stresses. Additional CPT analyses were therefore performed using

the same typical property set as Salgado et al. 共1997b兲 but with
Q⫽9 and 11. The resulting effects on q c could be largely ap-
proximated by setting C 1 ⫽0.61 for Q⫽9 and C 1 ⫽1.64 for Q
⫽11. The accompanying C N values at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽10 were only
about 5% smaller for Q⫽9 and about 5% greater for Q⫽11.
Consequently, the adopted C N relation in Eqs. 共2b兲 and 共4兲 holds
reasonably well for this range of Q values.
Fig. 7. Cyclic resistance ratio versus ␰ R for reconstituted specimens
of Fraser delta sand
Evaluating Cyclic Resistance Ratio –␰ R Relations
for Reconstituted Specimens
where ␰ R1 ⫽value of ␰ R for the same D R at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1. The K ␴
The effect of D R and ␴ ⬘v on the CRR of clean sand would intu- curves derived in this manner are shown in Fig. 8, and are in
itively be related to the sand’s position relative to critical state or excellent agreement with the raw experimental results previously
some other reference state, and in fact Pillai and Muhunthan presented in Fig. 1.
共2001兲 showed CRR to be approximately constant for a given
value of state parameter 共␰兲. Vaid et al. 共1981兲 related the CRR of
sand to its dilation angle during drained loading, and since dila- Deriving Cyclic Resistance Ratio–␰ R Relations
tion angle can be related to ␰, it follows that CRR can be related for In Situ Conditions
to ␰. Relating cyclic behavior to a critical state framework is both
rational and desirable, but its implementation in engineering prac- Cyclic resistance ratio–␰ R relations for in situ conditions can be
tice is hampered by the difficulty in defining an appropriate criti- expected to be significantly different from those for laboratory
cal state or other reference line without recourse to advanced
sampling and testing of representative field samples. Conse-
quently, the ␰ R index provides a practical substitute for ␰ in rep-
resenting the combined influence of D R and ␴ ⬘v on sand behavior.
The relation between CRR and ␰ R is first illustrated for labo-
ratory tests on reconstituted clean sand. The data used herein are
from Vaid and Sivathayalan 共1996兲 and Vaid and Thomas 共1995兲,
and includes simple shear and triaxial tests on clean Fraser delta
sand at D R of 31, 40, 59, and 72% and consolidation stresses
(␴ ⬘v / P a for simple shear, ␴ 3C
⬘ / P a for the isotropically consoli-
dated triaxial tests兲 of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4. These data were the basis
for the K ␴ relations shown previously in Fig. 1 and correspond to
ten uniform cycles of loading to cause a single amplitude shear
strain of 3.75% 共or 2.5% axial strain for triaxial兲. The data are
replotted in Fig. 7 as CRR versus ␰ R for two cases, Q⫽9 and
Q⫽10, and with the assumption that K 0 ⫽0.45 in the simple
shear tests 共for obtaining p ⬘ ). The simple shear and triaxial test
data collapse onto single CRR– ␰ R relations, with the quality of fit
being better for Q⫽9 than for Q⫽10. In either case, these data
suggest that ␰ R can reasonably represent the combined effects of
D R and ␴ ⬘v on CRR. Furthermore these CRR– ␰ R relations were
fit with regression equations, from which K ␴ relations can be
calculated as

CRR共 ␰ R 兲 Fig. 8. Overburden correction factor (K ␴ ) derived from laboratory

K ␴⫽ (9) cyclic resistance ratio–␰ R relation for reconstituted Fraser delta sand
CRR共 ␰ R1 兲

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1075

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Semiempirical cone penetration test-based liquefaction
correlations
tests on freshly reconstituted specimens because CRR is strongly
affected by factors such as fabric 共e.g., Mulilis et al. 1977兲, age
共e.g., Seed 1979; Tatsuoka et al. 1988兲, K 0 共e.g., Ishihara et al.
1977兲, overconsolidation 共e.g., Ishihara and Takatsu 1979兲, prior
strain history 共e.g., Finn et al. 1970; Suzuki and Toki 1984兲, and
cementation. Similarly, it follows that there will be no single
CRR– ␰ R relation that applies to all in situ conditions.
Consequently, the approach adopted herein is to derive repre-
sentative in situ CRR– ␰ R relations from existing penetration test-
based semiempirical liquefaction correlations. This will require
relating ␰ R to penetration resistance, which will also not be a
unique relation because of the effects that grain characteristics,
fabric, age, K 0 , overconsolidation, prior strain history, and ce-
mentation can have on penetration resistance 共e.g., Marcuson and
Bieganousky 1977a; Seed 1979; Mitchell 1986; Joshi et al. 1995兲.
Despite this nonuniqueness, CRR– ␰ R relations derived by this
approach are expected to provide a reasonable and rational basis
for evaluating the relative effects of ␴ ⬘v on CRR and retain a
consistency with the liquefaction correlations to which the find-
ings of this study will ultimately be applied.
Two correlations between CPT q c1 and CRR for clean sands in
M ⫽7.5 earthquakes are shown in Fig. 9: one by Robertson and
Wride 共1998兲, which can be approximated as
0.63348
CRR␴⫽1,␣⫽0 ⫽e ⫺3.2467⫹0.014226q C1N ⫹ for q C1N
162.86⫺q C1N
⭐160.0
and the other by Idriss 共personal communication, 2003兲, which
can be approximated as
冋 冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊 册
2 3
q C1N q C1N q C1N q C1N
CRR␴⫽1,␣⫽0 ⫽exp ⫹ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺3
540 67 80 114
where q c1N ⫽q c1 / P a . It is assumed that these semiempirical liq-
uefaction correlations pertain exactly to ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1 and to nor-
mally consolidated sands with K 0 ⫽0.45. Each CRR– q c1 relation
1076 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
can then be mapped onto a corresponding CRR– ␰ R relation by
mapping q c1 to ␰ R . This mapping only requires the selection of a
C 1 value for Eq. 共2兲, after which each q c1 value corresponds to a
unique D R value, which in turn produces a unique ␰ R value 共with
Q⫽10 for consistency with the CPT analyses兲. It is implicitly
assumed that the functional form of Eq. 共2兲 holds for field condi-
tions as well as for calibration chamber testing conditions 共i.e.,
reconstituted specimens versus natural deposits兲, and that the ef-
fects of grain characteristics, fabric, age, stress–strain history, and
cementation can be represented through C 1 . The choice of C 1
could potentially be based on a material-specific calibration or
through independent measurements of intrinsic soil properties.
However, for calibration to the semiempirical liquefaction corre-
lations, C 1 was based on the most likely value of D R that corre-
sponds to a CRR of 0.6 共roughly the limit at which liquefaction
might be triggered兲 when ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1; i.e., D R,lim⫽the D R value
corresponding to CRR⫽0.60 at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1.
The specification of D R,lim has an important effect on the sub-
sequent analyses and so its selection warrants some discussion.
First, the CPT-based semiempirical liquefaction correlations in
Fig. 9 curve nearly vertical at q c1 / P a values of 160 and 184,
which correspond to D R of 71–77% using the CPT relations with
the typical property set (C 1 ⫽1). The SPT-based correlation by
Seed et al. 共1985兲 curves nearly vertical at (N 1 ) 60⫽30, for which
the corresponding D R,lim may be estimated using the common
correlation
共 N 1 兲 60
⫽C d (12)
共 DR兲2
Skempton 共1986兲 suggested C d values between 55 and 65 for
clean sands, which would give D R,lim of 68 –74%. Cubrinovski
and Ishihara 共1999兲 provide a more exhaustive and complete
evaluation of C d and its dependence on basic soil characteristics.
They suggest C d of 38 –91 for clean sands 共or 29–70 for their
standard SPT energy ratio of 78%兲, corresponding to D R,lim of
58 – 89%. Direct measurements of CRR and D R,lim from cyclic
triaxial tests on sand samples obtained by frozen sampling tech-
niques were shown to compare well with SPT-based correlations
in Japan 共Yoshimi et al. 1989; Hatanaka et al. 1995兲, and these
suggest that CRR⫽0.6 corresponds to D R ⬇85% and (N 1 ) 78
⬇30. Allowing for SPT energy corrections, these data would give
C d ⬇54, so that D R ⬇75% at (N 1 ) 60⬇30. The specification of
D R,lim for either SPT or CPT relations is complicated by numer-
ous factors, including the fact that the semiempirical correlations
embody the influence of field conditions beyond the local material
共or element兲 behavior and the fact that CRR is not solely depen-
dent on D R . Such uncertainties are embodied in probabilistic
methods where the positions of CPT or SPT liquefaction curves
depend on the probability of liquefaction. A lower probability of
liquefaction shifts the curves to the right, such that the inferred
D R,lim would be larger. Consequently, the subsequent derivations
in this paper were performed with two D R,lim values to bracket the
(10)
likely range of values that might be used with different semi-
empirical liquefaction correlations, and to illustrate the effects of
the D R,lim selection: CPT derivations are presented for C 1 ⫽1.0
4 and C 1 ⫽0.817, which correspond to D R,lim of 75 and 85% at
q c1 / P a ⫽174, respectively, and SPT derivations are presented for
C d ⫽53.3 and 41.5, which correspond to D R,lim of 75 and 85% at
(11) (N 1 ) 60⫽30, respectively.
The semiempirical liquefaction correlations were thus mapped
onto their corresponding CRR– ␰ R relations in Fig. 10. The five
CRR– ␰ R relations in Fig. 10 are reasonably consistent, with in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Cyclic resistance ratio versus q c1 / P a for clean sand at dif-
Fig. 10. Derived cyclic resistance ratio–␰ R relations for field condi- ferent overburden stresses using Robertson and Wride’s 共1998兲 cor-
tions relation as baseline

dividual variations that represent both the unique characteristics

of their respective sources as well as any inherent variability in
The CRR– q c1 – ␴ ⬘v relations shown in Fig. 11 can also be ex-
the CRR– ␰ R relation for different sands. These CRR– ␰ R rela-
pressed in terms of implied K ␴ relations as
tions can be used to derive a corresponding consistent set of K ␴
relations, as will be illustrated in the following section. CRR
K ␴⫽ (13)
CRR␴⫽1

Extending Field Cyclic Resistance Ratio–␰ R
Relations to Higher Overburden Stresses
The effect of overburden stress on a liquefaction analysis is illus-
trated by tracking its effects on both penetration resistance and
CRR. The effect of ␴ ⬘v on q c is given by the relations in Eqs. 共2兲
and 共3兲, such that the corresponding q c1 values are properly in-
dependent of ␴ ⬘v ; Note that if C N is truly dependent on D R , then
the use of a D R -independent C N relation 关such as in Eq. 共5兲兴
would result in calculated q c1 values that are not actually inde-
pendent of ␴ ⬘v . The effect of ␴ ⬘v on CRR is accounted for by
assuming that the CRR– ␰ R relation is applicable for all values of
␴ ⬘v 共as was previously shown to be an acceptable approximation
in Fig. 7兲. Thus, for clean sand at a given D R , a change in ␴ ⬘v
causes a change in ␰ R 关via Eq. 共8兲兴, which results in a change in
CRR 共Fig. 10兲. The combined effects of ␴ ⬘v are illustrated in Fig.
11 showing how the Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 CRR– q c1 rela-
tion would be modified for ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽0.25, 4, and 10 for the case
with C 1 ⫽1.0. Very similar results are obtained with C 1 ⫽0.817
because the C 1 parameter affects both the derivation of the
CRR– ␰ R relation and its mapping back onto the CRR– q c1 plot
for different overburden stresses. Increasing ␴ ⬘v not only causes a
decrease in CRR for a given q c1 共shifting the curves downwards兲,
but also increases the limit at which triggering can develop 共shift-
ing the curves to the right兲. This increase in q c1,lim 共where CRR
exceeds 0.6兲 with ␴ ⬘v occurs because the limiting state at which
triggering of liquefaction can occur is actually tied to a limiting
value of ␰ R . With ␰ R,lim being a constant, it follows that an in-
crease in ␴ ⬘v causes an increase in both D R,lim and q c1,lim .
where CRR and CRR␴⫽1 are for the same q c1 value. Identical K ␴
relations can also be obtained directly from the CRR– ␰ R relation
using Eq. 共9兲. K ␴ relations derived in this way depend on the
baseline liquefaction correlation, D R , and the parameters C 1 and
Q, as illustrated by the examples in Fig. 12. K ␴ values cannot be
derived if CRR␴⫽1 is undefined, which happens for D R ⭓71%
with the Robertson and Wride baseline correlation and C 1 ⫽1.
Consequently, K ␴ factors are often insufficient for representing
the increase in q c1,lim with ␴ ⬘v 共i.e., the rightward shift of curves in
Fig. 11兲. Despite this limitation, the K ␴ relations in Fig. 12 are in
reasonable agreement with the available experimental data 共e.g.,
Fig. 1兲 given the scatter that is undoubtedly related to numerous
factors such as grain characteristics, fabric, age, cementation, and
stress–strain history.
The ␰ R -based approach is most easily implemented by intro-
ducing the concept of state normalized penetration resistances
q C1␰ ⫽C ␰ C N q C (14)
N 1␰ ⫽C ␰ C N N (15)
where q c1␰ and N 1␰ ⫽penetration resistances normalized 共or cor-
rected兲 to the same ␰ R at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1; and C␰ ⫽state normalization
factor. For a sand to have the same ␰ R at the reference stress of
␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1, its D R would be smaller 共relative to its in situ value兲
by the amount
1 1
冉 冊 冉 冊
⌬D R,CS⫽ ⫺
1⫹2K 0 ␴ V⬘ 1⫹2K 0
Q⫺ln 100 Q⫺ln 100
3 Pa 3
(16)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1077

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. K ␴ relations derived from cyclic resistance ratio–␰ R rela-
tions for two semiempirical liquefaction correlations for clean sand
where ⌬D R,CS⫽difference between the critical state D R values
(D R,CS in Fig. 6兲 for the in situ ␴ ⬘v and reference stress ␴ ⬘v / P a
⫽1. The C ␰ for the CPT follows from Eq. 共14兲
q C1␰
C ␰⫽ (17)
q C1
which using Eq. 共2兲 gives
25.7⫹39.7共 D R ⫺⌬D R,CS兲 ⫹212.3共 D R ⫺⌬D R,CS兲 2
C ␰⫽
25.7⫹39.7D R ⫹212.3D R2
(18)
Similarly, the C ␰ for the SPT follows from Eqs. 共12兲 and 共15兲
共 D R ⫺⌬D R,CS兲 2
C ␰⫽ (19)
D R2
The resulting C ␰ curves from the above two relations are shown
in Fig. 13. The CRR for any ␴ ⬘v can then be directly obtained by
evaluating the liquefaction correlation 关e.g., Eqs. 共10兲 or 共11兲兴
using q c1␰ or N 1␰ instead of q c1 or N 1 , respectively. This imple-
mentation of the ␰ R -based approach: 共1兲 is mathematically
equivalent to using derived CRR– ␰ R relations; 共2兲 eliminates the
need to explicitly establish the CRR– ␰ R relation; 共3兲 can be used
in conjunction with any liquefaction correlation; and 共4兲 elimi-
nates the use of a K ␴ factor. The approach does, however, require
numerical iteration because the penetration resistances, measured
or corrected, are nonlinearly dependent on D R .
Simplified Implementation and Comparison
to Practice
Comparison of ␰ R -Based Method with Current Practice
One adaptation of current practice, hereafter called Method A, is
presented for comparison against the ␰ R -based approach. The
measured penetration resistance will be corrected using the C N
relation by Liao and Whitman 共1986兲 in Eq. 共5兲 and the
1078 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
Fig. 13. State normalization factor C ␰ for penetration resistance in
clean sand
CRR␴⫽1 will be multiplied by the K ␴ relation proposed by
Harder and Boulanger 共1997兲, which can be closely approximated
as
冉 冊
␴ V⬘
K ␴ ⫽1⫺C ␴ ln (20)
Pa
with C ␴ ⫽0.185. Method A is compared to the ␰ R -based approach
in Fig. 14, using the Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 CRR– q c1 cor-
relation as the baseline for ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1. The ␰ R -based approach is
shown for two C 1 values 共0.817 and 1.0兲 with Q⫽10, and the
calculated CRR are plotted against the measured 共not corrected兲
q c values for ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1, 4, and 10. This comparison illustrates
how Method A results in substantial conservatism compared to
the ␰ R -based approach at high overburden stresses 共i.e., the
CRR– q c curves are shifted down and to the right兲. The biggest
factor in the differences between these two approaches is, in fact,
the C N relations. The extrapolation of the Liao and Whitman
共1986兲 expression to high overburden stresses is what causes the
greater shift of the CRR– q c curves to the right and makes it
appear that even the densest possible sands are liquefiable. The
␰ R -based curve for C 1 ⫽0.817 is to the left of the curve for C 1
⫽1 because the lower C 1 value produces higher D R values for
the same q c1 value, which produces C N values closer to unity.
The difference in C N relations also affects the relative shifting of
the CRR– q c curves downwards, such that the conservatism of
Method A at lower q c values is due to both the K ␴ and C N rela-
tions.
Simplified Approximation of ␰ R -Based Method
The ␰ R -based approach requires an iterative estimation of D R
that, while not mechanistically difficult, does add another element
of complexity to the liquefaction analysis. Consequently, a sim-
plified approximation 共hereafter called Method B兲 that uses
D R -independent C N and K ␴ relations is also introduced. The key
observation that makes this simplification possible is that both C N
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Comparison of ␰ R -based method 共with Q⫽10) and its sim-
plified approximation 共method B兲, using Robertson and Wride’s
Fig. 14. Comparison of ␰ R -based method 共with Q⫽10) and a cur-
共1998兲 correlation as baseline
rent method in practice 共method A兲, using Robertson and Wride’s
共1998兲 correlation as baseline

and K ␴ are actually dependent on D R , but in ways that produce

opposing effects on the predicted CRR. For example, at ␴ ⬘v / P a
⬎1, an increase in D R causes both an increase in C N and a de-
crease in K ␴ . A single D R -independent C N relation was therefore
derived that tracked the limiting condition at which liquefaction
can be triggered 共i.e., ␰ R,lim). This relation can be reasonably ap-
proximated as
smallest m lim of 0.32 occurs for the densest of these D R,lim values
while the largest m lim of 0.46 occurs for the loosest of these D R,lim
values. Note that m and m lim are not equal for equal values of D R
and D R,lim , respectively, because m lim tracks the effects of ␴ ⬘v on
CRR as well as on penetration resistance.
The second part of Method B is the choice of a compatible

冉 冊
m lim
Pa
C N⫽ (21)
␴ ⬘v
where m lim depends on the baseline liquefaction correlation and
the parameters that relate penetration resistance to D R 共i.e., C 1 for
CPT and C d for SPT兲. Values of m lim are summarized in Table 1
for the two CPT liquefaction correlations 共with C 1 ⫽0.817 and
1.0兲 and the one SPT liquefaction correlation 共with C d ⫽41.5 and
53.3兲 that were used to derive the CRR– ␰ R relations in Fig. 10.
Also given in Table 1 are the D R,lim values that correspond to the
␰ R,lim at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1 共i.e., where CRR⫽0.6 with ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1). The
D R -independent K ␴ relation. This K ␴ relation was assumed to
follow Eq. 共20兲 because its form can reasonably approximate the
range of K ␴ curves in Fig. 12. A single C ␴ value was subse-
quently chosen 共for the already selected m lim) that results in pre-
dicted CRR values that remain conservative relative to the
␰ R -based CRR values, but to the minimum extent possible.
A comparison of Method B 共using m lim⫽0.46 and C ␴ ⫽0.19)
and the ␰ R -based method is shown in Fig. 15 for the Robertson
and Wride 共1998兲 correlation as the baseline and C 1 ⫽1. As was
done for Fig. 14, CRR is plotted against the measured 共not cor-
rected兲 q c value for ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1, 4, and 10. Comparing Figs. 14 and
15, Method B is conservative relative to the ␰ R -based method but

Table 1. Parameters for Method B’s Simplified Approximation of ␰ R -Based Method

Parameter relating D R D R at CRR⫽0.6
Baseline correlation to penetration resistance with ␴ ⬘v / P a ⫽1 m lim for C N C ␴ for K ␴
Robertson and C 1 ⫽1.0 71% 0.46 0.19
Wride 共1998兲
C 1 ⫽0.817 81% 0.40 0.21
Idriss 共personal communication, 2003兲 C 1 ⫽1.0 77% 0.39 0.23
C 1 ⫽0.817 88% 0.32 0.25
Seed et al. 共1985兲a C d ⫽53.3 75% 0.46 0.19
C d ⫽41.5 85% 0.39 0.21
a
As modified at NCEER workshop 共Youd et al. 2001兲.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1079

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Comparison of ␰ R -based method 共with Q⫽10), its simpli-
fied approximation 共method B兲, and a current method in practice
共method A兲, with Idriss’ 共personal communication, 2003兲 correlation
as baseline
is less conservative than Method A, particularly in setting the
limit of q c values for which triggering of liquefaction is consid-
ered possible.
Additional Comparisons of ␰ R -Based Method
with Methods A and B
Another comparison of Methods A and B against the ␰ R -based
method is presented in Fig. 16, this time using the Idriss 共personal
communication, 2003兲 correlation as the baseline with C 1
⫽0.817 and Q⫽10. In this case, Method B 共using m lim⫽0.32 and
C ␴ ⫽0.25) produces CRR values that are reasonably close to
those of the ␰ R -based method, while Method A (m⫽0.5, C ␴
⫽0.185) produces excessively conservative values at high over-
burden stresses.
Finally, these three methods are compared in Fig. 17 for the
SPT-based correlation of Seed et al. 共1985兲, as modified in Youd
et al. 共2001兲, and with C d ⫽41.5. Again, Method B 共using m lim
⫽0.39 and C ␴ ⫽0.21) produces CRR values that are conservative
relative to the ␰ R -based method, but substantially less so than for
Method A. If C d ⫽53.3 instead, the differences between Method
B 共using m lim⫽0.46 and C ␴ ⫽0.19) and the ␰ R -based method are
smaller, and the degree of conservatism in Method A is less 共the
effect of increasing C d is similar to the effect of increasing C 1
that was shown in Fig. 14兲.
Inspection of the above results shows that once C N is set in-
dependent of D R , then the use of conventional K ␴ relations that
depend on D R would result in poorer comparisons to the ␰ R -based
method. Considering Figs. 15, 16 and 17, a better match between
Method B and the ␰ R -based method would require K ␴ values to
increase 共at ␴ ⬘v / P a ⬎1) with increasing D R , contradicting the ex-
perimental data 共e.g., Fig. 1兲. This observation reflects the fact
1080 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
Fig. 17. Comparison of ␰ R -based method 共with Q⫽10), its simpli-
fied approximation 共method B兲, and a current method in practice
共method A兲, with Seed et al. 共1985兲 standard penetration test corre-
lation as baseline
that both C N and K ␴ are truly dependent on D R , but with oppos-
ing effects on the predicted CRR.
Discussion
The preceding ␰ R -based relations are only applicable to those
conditions for which the underlying theory and correlations have
been validated by experimental data, namely clean silica sands of
medium compressibility for which Q⬇10 is appropriate. The true
relations between ␰ R and CRR or penetration resistance will not
be unique because of the documented effects of factors such as
grain characteristics, fabric, age, stress–strain history, and cemen-
tation. Nonetheless, pending further research on the role of such
factors, the use of representative relations in the ␰ R -based method
still provides improved consistency in the evaluation of high ␴ ⬘v
effects and provides a framework for incorporating future re-
search findings.
The application of semiempirical liquefaction analysis meth-
ods to large depths is inherently complicated by the shortage of
case histories for such conditions, and thus considerable engineer-
ing judgment must be exercised in the procedures being used to
extrapolate our shallow-depth experiences. The present study at-
tempts to improve that extrapolation by analyzing the various
components of the design process with a consistent theoretical
basis, but it nonetheless remains an extrapolation with concurrent
unavoidable uncertainties. Improved guidance on this issue re-
quires direct physical evidence, such as may be obtained through
well-instrumented earth dams that experience significant earth-
quake shaking or through centrifuge models of liquefaction at
large depths with in-flight measurements of q c , shear wave ve-
 locity, and other soil characteristics. In the meantime, the proce-
dures developed herein require a judgment regarding the appro-
priate value of D R,lim , as set by C 1 or C d for the CPT and SPT
methods, respectively. Within the range of values used herein, it is
suggested that the smaller values may be most appropriate for
fine, uniform sands and the larger values may be most appropriate
for coarse, well-graded sands.
On a site specific basis, the geologic characterization provides
essential information that should be considered as part of any
evaluation of liquefaction potential; i.e., the age of the deposit,
the depositional environment, stress–strain history 共e.g., overcon-
solidation, prior seismic events兲, cementation, and heterogeneity
共e.g., can soil conditions beneath the center of a dam be compared
to soil conditions near the toe?兲. For natural deposits, liquefaction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
has been observed primarily at depths shallower than about
10–15 m. This aspect of the case history database is believed to
reflect the combined influence of several factors: 共1兲 deeper soils
tend to be older and hence more resistance to liquefaction; 共2兲 the
earthquake-induced cyclic shear stress ratio tends to be greatest
within this depth range; and 共3兲 surface observations of sand boils
and ground deformations are more likely for shallow liquefaction,
while deeper liquefaction may not clearly manifest itself at the
ground surface in many cases 共e.g., beneath level ground兲. In
contrast, the construction of a large earth dam on a natural deposit
of sand can: 共1兲 impose large confining stresses that result in a
more contractive stress-strain response for the soils; 共2兲 does not
impart the benefits that may be associated with large depths in
entirely natural deposits 共i.e., a greater age with associated history
and cementation, etc.兲; and 共3兲 can present a mode of slope insta-
bility if the foundation soils were to liquefy. For these reasons,
liquefaction at large depths beneath earth dams is a major con-
cern, and the potentially beneficial effects associated with certain
geologic conditions need to be directly evaluated from a geologic
site characterization.
Summary and Conclusions
The effect of overburden stress on liquefaction evaluations was
reevaluated using a theoretical framework that provided consis-
tency between the different components of the design process.
The cone penetration theory of Salgado et al. 共1997a兲, which had
been validated against a large set of calibration chamber test data,
was used to develop improved C N relations and to relate the pen-
etration resistance to a relative state parameter index (␰ R ). Cali-
bration chamber test data for SPT tests from Marcuson and Bie-
ganousky 共1977a,b兲 were reevaluated using a weighted nonlinear
regression that better defined the effects of D R on C N and showed
that the C N expression given by Eqs. 共2b兲 and 共4兲 provides a
satisfactory approximation for both CPT and SPT tests. Experi-
mental data by Vaid and Sivathayalan 共1996兲 and Vaid and Tho-
mas 共1995兲 on reconstituted sand specimens were used to show
that CRR could be approximated as a unique function of ␰ R ,
thereby capturing the combined effects of D R and ␴ ⬘v on CRR.
Relations between CRR and ␰ R for field conditions were subse-
quently derived from semiempirical liquefaction correlations, and
these CRR– ␰ R relations can be used to calculate the effects of ␴ ⬘v
on predicted CRR. A more convenient implementation of the
␰ R -based approach was, however, provided by the introduction of
state normalized penetration resistances, q c1␰ and N 1␰ .
The resulting ␰ R -based approach was shown to reduce the con-
servatism imposed at high overburden stresses by some of the
current C N and K ␴ relations. In addition, it was shown that the C N
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003 / 1081
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
and K ␴ relations are interrelated through the sand properties and
state in ways that can have compensating effects on the predicted
CRR. Subsequently, the appropriate choice of D R -independent
C N and K ␴ relations 共eliminating the need to estimate D R or ␰ R )
can reasonably approximate the effects of ␴ ⬘v on predicted CRR.
The ␰ R -based procedures recommended herein are easily imple-
mented in practice, as illustrated in more detail by Boulanger and
Idriss 共2004兲. These recommendations are limited to clean sands
of medium compressibility for which the theory and analyses em-
ployed herein have been validated.
Acknowledgments
The writer is grateful for the many discussions and insights pro-
vided by I. M. Idriss throughout this study and the valuable re-
view comments of R. Salgado and P. M. Byrne.
References
Been, K., and Jefferies, M. G. 共1985兲. ‘‘A state parameter for sands.’’
Geotechnique, 35共2兲, 99–112.
Bolton, M. D. 共1986兲. ‘‘The strength and dilatancy of sands.’’ Geotech-
nique, 36共1兲, 65–78.
Boulanger, R. W. 共2003兲. ‘‘Relating K ␣ to a relative state parameter
index.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129共8兲, 770–773.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. 共2004兲. ‘‘State normalization of pen-
etration resistance and the effect of overburden stress on liquefaction
resistance.’’ Proc., 11th International Conf. on Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering and 3rd International Conference on Earth-
quake Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkely, Ca.
Cubrinovski, M., and Ishihara, K. 共1999兲. ‘‘Empirical correlation between
SPT N-value and relative density for sandy soils.’’ Soils Found.,
39共5兲, 61–71.
Finn, W. D. L., Bransby, P. L., and Pickering, D. J. 共1970兲. ‘‘Effect of
strain history on liquefaction of sand.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am.
Soc. Civ. Eng., 96共6兲, 1917–1934.
Harder, L. F., Jr., and Boulanger, R. W. 共1997兲. ‘‘Application of K ␴ and
K ␣ correction factors.’’ Proc., NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Rep. No. NCEER-97-0022, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY Buffalo, N.Y.,
167–190.
Hardin, B., and Black, W. 共1968兲. ‘‘Shear modulus and damping in soils.’’
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 94共2兲, 353–369.
Hatanaka, M., Uchida, A., and Oh-Oka, H. 共1995兲. ‘‘Correlation between
the liquefaction strengths of saturated sands obtained by in-situ freez-
ing method and rotary-type triple tube method.’’ Soils Found., 35共2兲,
67–75.
Hynes, M. E., and Olsen, R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Influence of confining stress on
liquefaction resistance.’’ Proc., International Symposium on the Phys-
ics and Mechanics of Liquefaction, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Nether-
lands, 145–152.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. 共2003兲. ‘‘Estimating K ␣ for use in
evaluating cyclic resistance of sloping ground. Proc., 8th U.S.–Japan
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures Against Liquefaction, Rep. No. MCEER-03-0003,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
SUNY Buffalo, N.Y., 449– 468.
Ishihara, K., Iwamoto, S., Yasuda, S., and Takatsu, H. 共1977兲. ‘‘Liquefac-
tion of anisotropically consolidated sand.’’ Proc., 9th International
Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2,
JSSMFE, Tokyo, Japan, 261–264.
Ishihara, K., and Takatsu, H. 共1979兲. ‘‘Effects of overconsolidation and
K 0 conditions on the liquefaction characteristics of sands.’’ Soils
Found., 19共4兲, 59– 68.
Joshi, R. C., Achari, G., Kaniraj, R., and Wijeweera, H. 共1995兲. ‘‘Effect of
aging on the penetration resistance of sands.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 32,
767–782.
 Konrad, J.-M. 共1988兲. ‘‘Interpretation of flat plate dilatometer tests in
sands in terms of the state parameter.’’ Geotechnique, 38共2兲, 263–277.
Liao, S. C., and Whitman, R. V. 共1986兲. ‘‘Overburden correction factors
for SPT in sand.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 112共3兲, 373–377.
Marcuson, III, W. F., and Bieganousky, W. A. 共1977a兲. ‘‘Laboratory stan-
dard penetration tests on fine sands.’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng., 103共6兲, 565–588.
Marcuson, III, W. F., and Bieganousky, W. A. 共1977b兲. ‘‘SPT and relative
density in coarse sands.’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
103共11兲, 1295–1309.
Mitchell, J. K. 共1986兲. ‘‘Practical problems from surprising soil behav-
ior.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 112共3兲, 255–289.
Mulilis, J. P., Seed, H. B., Chan, C. K., Mitchell, J.K., and Arulanandan,
K. 共1977兲. ‘‘Effects of sample preparation on sand liquefaction.’’ J.
Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 103共2兲, 91–108.
Naylor, D. J., Pande, G. N., Simpson, B., and Tabb, R. 共1981兲. Finite
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tongji University on 11/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
elements in geotechnical engineering, Pineridge, Swansea, Wales,
U.K.
Pillai, V. S., and Byrne, P. M. 共1994兲. ‘‘Effect of overburden pressure on
liquefaction resistance of sands.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 31, 53– 60.
Pillai, V. S., and Muhunthan, B. 共2001兲. ‘‘A review of the influence of
initial static shear (K ␣ ) and confining stress (K ␴ ) on failure mecha-
nisms and earthquake liquefaction of soils.’’ Proc., 4th International
Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
and Soil Dynamics, S. Prakash, ed., Univ. of Missouri Rolla Press,
Rolla, Mo.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. ‘‘Evaluating cyclic liquefac-
tion potential using the cone penetration test.’’ Can. Geotech. J.,
35共3兲, 442– 459.
Salgado, R., Boulanger, R. W., and Mitchell, J. K. 共1997b兲. ‘‘Lateral
stress effects on CPT liquefaction resistance correlations.’’ J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 123共8兲, 726 –735.
Salgado, R., Mitchell, J. K., and Jamiolkowski, M. 共1997a兲. ‘‘Cavity ex-
pansion and penetration resistance in sands.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 123共4兲, 344 –354.
Seed, H. B. 共1983兲. ‘‘Earthquake resistant design of earth dams.’’ Proc.,
Symposium on Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns, Phila-
delphia, ASCE, N.Y., 41– 64.
Seed, H. B. 共1979兲. ‘‘Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for
1082 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2003
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2003, 129(12): 1071-1082
level ground during earthquakes,’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng., 105共2兲, 201–255.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F., Jr. 共1990兲. ‘‘SPT-based analysis of cyclic
pore pressure generation and undrained residual strength.’’ Proc.,
SeedMemorial Symposium, J. M. Duncan, ed., BiTech, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada, 351–376.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 共1971兲. ‘‘Simplified procedure for evaluat-
ing soil liquefaction potential.’’ J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng., 97共9兲, 1249–1273.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. 共1985兲. ‘‘The
influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalua-
tions.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 111共12兲, 1425–1445.
Skempton, A. W. 共1986兲. ‘‘Standard penetration test procedures and the
effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size,
ageing and overconsolidation.’’ Geotechnique, 36共3兲, 425– 447.
Suzuki, T., and Toki, S. 共1984兲. ‘‘Effects of preshearing on liquefaction
characteristics of saturated sand subjected to cyclic loading.’’ Soils
Found., 24共2兲, 16 –28.
Tatsuoka, F., Kato, H., Kimura, M., and Pradhan, T. B. S. 共1988兲. ‘‘Liq-
uefaction strength of sands subjected to sustained pressure.’’ Soils
Found., 28共1兲, 119–131.
Vaid, Y. P., Byrne, P. M., and Hughes, J. M. O. 共1981兲. ‘‘Dilation angle
and liquefaction potential.’’ Proc., International Conf. on Recent Ad-
vances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
Vol. 1, S. Prakash, ed., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla Press, Rolla, Mo.,
161–165.
Vaid, Y. P., and Sivathayalan, S. 共1996兲. ‘‘Static and cyclic liquefaction
potential of fraser delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests.’’ Can.
Geotech. J., 33, 281–289.
Vaid, Y. P., and Thomas, J. 共1995兲. ‘‘Liquefaction and postliquefaction
behavior of sand.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 121共2兲, 163–173.
Yoshimi, Y., Tokimatsu, K., and Hosaka, Y. 共1989兲. ‘‘Evaluation of liq-
uefaction resistance of clean sands based on high quality undisturbed
samples.’’ Soils Found., 29共1兲, 93–104.
Youd, T. L. et al. 共2001兲. ‘‘Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817– 833.