Index Properties-Based Criteria for Liquefaction

Susceptibility of Clayey Soils: A Critical Assessment

David Kun Li1; C. Hsein Juang, M.ASCE2; Ronald D. Andrus, M.ASCE3; and William M. Camp, M.ASCE4

Abstract: The Cooper marl in Charleston, S.C., a deep layer of clayey soils approximately 5–21 m below the ground surface, is generally
recognized as nonliquefiable material. Data from field cone penetration tests and laboratory tests of samples taken from the Cooper marl
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

are used to investigate the adequacy of index properties-based criteria for assessing liquefaction susceptibility of clayey soils. In particular,
the criterion based on soil behavior type index 共Ic兲 and that based on Atterberg limits are examined. The results show that the Atterberg
limits-based criterion adequately reflected the characteristics of the marl, whereas the Ic-based criterion erroneously identified the marl as
being liquefiable. A possible reason for the deficiency of Ic and a modification to overcome this deficiency are presented.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2007兲133:1共110兲
CE Database subject headings: Earthquakes; Liquefaction; Cone penetration tests; Plasticity; Soil properties; Clays.

Introduction
Liquefaction potential of sandy soils has been extensively studied
over the past three decades. Simplified procedures developed by
Seed and Idriss 共1971兲, which have gone through several stages of
modification, as documented in Seed and Idriss 共1982兲, Seed et al.
共1985兲, and Youd et al. 共2001兲, have become the standard of prac-
tice throughout much of the world. The main component of the
simplified procedures is a boundary curve that separates a lique-
faction zone and no-liquefaction zone. Although the empirical
“boundary curves” for clean sands, either based on the standard
penetration test 共SPT兲 or cone penetration test 共CPT兲, have been
relatively well established, the investigations of the liquefaction
resistance of clayey soils 共clayey silt and clayey sand兲 are far
more limited and the boundary curves for such soils are less well
defined 共e.g., Carraro et al. 2003兲. Previous studies 共Ishihara
1993; Guo and Prakash 1999; Perlea et al. 1999; Perlea 2000;
Gratchev et al. 2006兲 concluded that index properties such as
plasticity index 共PI兲 can be used as a criterion for assessing liq-
uefaction susceptibility of clayey soils. The empirical Chinese
criterion 共Seed and Idriss 1982; Youd et al. 2001兲 provided simple
and quantitative guidance for assessing liquefiability or liquefac-
1 of two index properties-based criteria to clayey soils, in particu-
Staff Geotechnical Engineer, Golder Associates, Inc., 24 Commerce
St., Suite 430, Newark, NJ 07102; formerly, Research Assistant, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC. E-mail:
dkli@golder.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC
29634-0911. E-mail: hsein@clemson.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ.,
Clemson, SC 29634-0911. E-mail: randrus@clemson.edu
4
Technical Principal, S&ME, Inc., Mount Pleasant, SC 29464. E-mail:
bcamp@smeinc.com
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2007. 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 technical note was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 7, 2006; approved on June 14, 2006.
This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No. 1, January 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN
1090-0241/2007/1-110–115/$25.00.
tion susceptibility of clayey soils but its validity has been ques-
tioned 共Idriss and Boulanger 2004; Bray et al. 2004兲. A recent and
more elegant criterion based on the Atterberg limits tests estab-
lished by Bray et al. 共2004兲 appears to be promising in this
regard.
For sites investigated with only CPT, no samples are available
for Atterberg limits tests. Nevertheless, the soil behavior type
index 共Ic兲 established by Robertson and his colleagues 共Robertson
1990; Lunne et al. 1997; Robertson and Wride 1998; Zhang et al.
2002兲 is often used to “gauge” the effect of fines on liquefaction
resistance. The soil behavior type index 共Ic兲 is based on the nor-
malized cone tip resistance, Qt, and the normalized friction ratio,
F, and is expressed as 共Lunne et al. 1997; Robertson and Wride
1998兲
Ic = 冑共3.47 − log10 Qt兲2 + 共log10 F + 1.22兲2 共1兲
Although the Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 method has gener-
ally been recognized as the current state-of-the-art for CPT-based
liquefaction potential evaluation, the validity of the use of Ic,
which was originally developed for soil classification, to charac-
terize the effect of fines on liquefaction resistance has been ques-
tioned 共Idriss and Boulanger 2004兲.
In this note, an approach is taken to evaluate the applicability
lar, those by Bray et al. 共2004兲 and Robertson and Wride 共1998兲.
Here, these criteria are examined using quality data obtained from
field CPTs and Atterberg limits tests of SPT samples taken from
the Cooper marl in Charleston, S.C., a deep layer of clayey soils
approximately 5 – 21 m below the ground surface and generally
recognized as nonliquefiable.
Peninsular Charleston is located in the eastern portion of South
Carolina on the Atlantic coastal plain, between the Cooper River
and the Ashley River. The natural surface soils are alluvial and
marine deposits of loose fine sands, silts, sandy clays, and soft
clays. These surface soils range in age from a few thousand years
to over 85,000 years old, and increase in age with depth. The
groundwater table, which fluctuates with tides and heavy rains, is
generally near the ground surface.
The Cooper marl is the colloquial name often used for the
Cooper group of sediments that underlie all of the Charleston

110 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.

 area. As described by Camp 共2004兲, the Cooper marl classifies as
an overconsolidated 共of 3–6兲, highly plastic, weakly cemented
clayey silt or silty clay. The silt and clay content is typically in the
range of 75–90%, but the clay mineral content is small
共⬍10% 兲. Between approximately 60 and 80% of the mineral con-
stituent of the silt and clay is calcium carbonate. The calcium
carbonate content is generally in the form of skeletal remains of
microscopic marine organisms. This deep marine deposit was
formed about 30 million years ago 共Weems and Lemon 1993兲.
Based on the characteristics described previously, the Cooper
marl is generally understood as a nonliquefiable material. This
general understanding is further strengthened by the well-known
Fig. 1. Liquefaction susceptibility chart based on the Ic criteria by facts that unlined tunnels have been excavated by hand in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 and Youd et al. 共2001兲 with CPT data marl, drilled shafts are routinely constructed in the marl using dry
from the Cooper marl construction methods, and the marl can support vertical cuts for
extended periods of time.

Table 1. Summary of 30 Data Points Derived from CPT Measurements in the Cooper Marla
Maximum Depth range
sounding Depth to top of where data were
Latitude Longitude GWT depth Cooper marl derived F
Site code 共deg兲 共deg兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 I cb 共%兲 Qt Bq Ic,mc
S01039-B4 32.76220 −79.97303 2.0 22 14.6 14.6–20.0 2.10 0.14 22.35 0.50 2.22
S01369-A5 32.784 −79.949 3.1 24 18.0 18.0-24.4 2.17 0.47 25.12 0.47 2.36
S01402-S1 32.7861 −79.9365 1.8 24 21.0 21.0–24.4 2.20 0.47 23.55 0.59 2.49
S01342-B100 32.8606 −79.9126 1.8 12 8.5 8.6–12.2 2.21 0.59 33.60 0.33 2.24
S01369-B2 32.784 −79.949 3.1 24 18.0 18.0–24.4 2.23 0.64 25.36 0.48 2.47
S02097-DD14 32.8484 −79.9257 0.3 21 5.5 5.5–20.7 2.25 0.78 33.82 0.51 2.46
S01841-SB3 32.8625 −79.9657 2.4 18 8.3 8.3–18.2 2.27 0.52 24.33 0.57 2.49
S99876-CHS26 32.80288 −79.94395 0.6 37 16.8 18.0–24.0 2.31 0.57 20.59 0.60 2.61
S02097-DD9 32.8513 −79.9221 0.6 25 13.0 13.0–17.0 2.32 0.92 28.19 0.54 2.62
S01841-SB2 32.8564 −79.9577 2.4 15 8.8 8.8–15.1 2.34 0.77 25.53 0.55 2.59
S01579-B3 32.8529 −79.9538 1.2 27 18.6 21.9–25.0 2.35 0.57 17.91 0.72 2.80
S01420-S1 32.79 −79.96 1.2 23 13.7 15.0–22.6 2.35 0.62 19.73 0.65 2.70
S01357-B2 32.7905 −79.9549 1.1 21 13.7 15.3–21.3 2.37 0.86 22.70 0.57 2.70
S02097-DD9 32.8513 −79.9221 0.6 25 13.0 20.0–25.0 2.38 0.85 20.95 0.54 2.69
S99876-ML24 32.80388 −79.92422 0.6 49 16.2 19.5–25.0 2.38 0.74 19.21 0.59 2.71
S01049-F1 32.84405 −79.91489 0.9 22 14.5 17.3–22.1 2.38 1.00 21.78 0.53 2.70
S01627-S1 32.8015 −79.9439 1.2 27 18.7 21.7–25.0 2.40 0.72 17.79 0.73 2.90
S99876-CHS20 32.79852 −79.94434 2.3 40 19.8 20.0–25.0 2.42 0.91 19.36 0.58 2.77
S01317-B2 32.80 −79.96 2.1 23 15.2 17.2–22.8 2.42 1.21 23.52 0.50 2.78
S99634-DS1 32.80170 −79.90149 0.3 34 12.5 12.5–20.0 2.45 0.76 18.18 0.51 2.69
S00219-B1 32.7845 −79.9499 1.2 26 18.4 18.4–25.0 2.47 0.75 16.55 0.56 2.77
S02105-B2 32.79 −79.93 1.2 23 18.3 18.3–22.8 2.49 1.17 20.64 0.46 2.79
S99634-MPE5 32.80131 −79.89953 0.5 18 14.9 15.0–18.3 2.50 1.13 20.31 0.44 2.77
S01772-CPT3 32.81 −79.90 1.8 25 12.5 12.5–20.0 2.51 1.06 17.57 0.54 2.85
W02092-SCPTu1 32.80153 −79.93771 1.5 19 15.2 15.2–18.9 2.61 1.85 21.81 0.39 2.99
S01018-B1 32.8086 −79.8763 0.5 24 14.9 17.4–24.3 2.63 1.34 14.65 0.61 3.09
W01196-CPT1 32.7538 −79.9555 1.2 16 13.0 13.0–16.2 2.68 1.52 15.08 0.45 3.01
S99876-ML22 32.80417 −79.92551 0.2 24 13.7 19.0–23.6 2.70 1.65 13.76 0.73 3.29
S99876-ML22 32.80417 −79.92551 0.2 24 13.7 13.7–17.7 2.83 1.98 11.89 0.71 3.45
W03337-SC1 32.7752 −79.9649 1.5 14 10.7 10.7–13.7 2.86 3.13 15.15 0.51 3.44
Note: GWT⫽Groundwater table.
a
Fairbanks et al. 2004.
b
Zhang et al. 2002.
c
Eq. 共2兲.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007 / 111

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.

 Table 2. Summary of 37 Data Points in the Cooper Marl Derived from
SPT Boreholes
Depth where samples
were taken wc
Boring 共m兲 共%兲 wc/LL PI FC
CHS-17 20.06 37 0.88 7 NA
MP-1 23.47 45.4 0.87 11 66.1
LB #7 20.88 39.6 0.88 13 55
CHS-23 24.08 44.3 0.87 14 44.3
LB #9A 17.68 39.4 0.92 15 65
DS-1 15.24 36.9 0.89 16.9 25
CHS-1 19.51 47.2 0.93 18 68
ML-23 24.38 55 1.08 19 62.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ML-15 22.56 43.2 0.77 19 62.7

LB #2 22.10 43.1 0.76 22 52
WB #3 20.12 37.2 0.68 22 NA
DS-1 22.86 53.3 0.81 22 70
Fig. 2. Liquefaction susceptibility evaluation of SPT borehole data DS-1 24.38 44.9 0.71 22.4 59
from the Cooper marl using the criteria by Bray et al. 共2004兲 LT-1 20.12 42.1 0.78 24 NA
ML-23 21.28 50.6 0.73 25 56.4
ML-25 21.64 45.4 0.76 25 58.2
Assessment of Index Properties-Based Criteria DS-1 12.19 37 0.73 26.8 35
LB #25 25.30 46 0.75 27 74.6
Criterion Based on Soil Behavior Type Index LB #31 21.64 36.4 0.63 27 66.3
WB #6 21.03 37.4 0.63 27 69
In general, soils that are too clay rich are considered “not suscep- MP-6 19.51 41 0.75 27 NA
tible” to liquefaction. Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 suggested that
ML-23 18.07 58.6 0.93 28 77.2
soils with “soil behavior type index” Ic ⬎ 2.6 and normalized fric-
WB #3 24.69 35.7 0.60 29 68.8
tion ratio F ⬎ 1.0% are likely nonliquefiable. Gilstrap 共1998兲 ob-
LB #18 24.69 48.2 0.79 30 80.6
served that the Ic cutoff value of 2.6 is generally reliable for
identifying clayey soils, and noted that 20–50% of the samples ML-2 23.10 51.9 0.87 30 59.5
with Ic between 2.4 and 2.6 were clayey soils according to the MPS-8 13.72 43.3 0.67 31 29
results of laboratory index tests 共i.e., Atterberg limits and particle DS-1 16.15 25.8 0.46 31.2 33
size distribution兲. This observation implies that the cutoff of DS-1 18.29 79.4 1.12 39 87
Ic = 2.6, beyond which soil is deemed too clay rich to liquefy, may DS-1 16.76 53.1 0.66 44.7 83
be “too conservative” 共meaning that the “unbiased” cutoff Ic DS-1 19.81 51 0.62 44.9 70
value could be lower than 2.6 for some soils兲. A similar observa- DS-1 13.72 41.4 0.55 45.4 39
tion regarding the cutoff Ic value was noted by Zhang et al. LT-1 20.67 49.5 0.72 48 62
共2002兲. Thus, Youd et al. 共2001兲 recommended that soils with an ML-2 17.01 67 0.66 58 80.7
Ic of 2.4 or greater should be sampled and tested to confirm soil LB #29 23.93 54.6 0.51 59 78.3
type and to assess the liquefaction susceptibility with other DS-1 21.34 88.6 0.58 76.6 91
criteria. LB #16 17.98 63.1 0.45 78 77.4
Presented in Fig. 1 is a liquefaction susceptibility chart based
LB #24 17.98 57 0.34 104 87.4
on CPT data and the criteria suggested by Robertson and Wride
Note: FC⫽Fines content.
共1998兲 and Youd et al. 共2001兲. Plotted in this chart are 30 共Ic , F兲
data points derived from the Cooper marl based on CPT measure-
ments compiled by Fairbanks et al. 共2004兲. These data points are tible to liquefaction, which is contrary to the general understand-
listed in Table 1 along with other pertinent information. To derive ing of the material described previously. It appears that a
each of these data points, the depth from the ground surface to the nonliquefiable material 共the Cooper marl兲 is erroneously identi-
top of the Cooper marl is first determined. The profiles of CPT fied here as being liquefiable by the Ic-based criterion. This sug-
sounding, including tip resistance 共qc兲, friction ratio 共R f 兲, pore gests a significant deficiency in the Ic index and/or the Ic-based
water pressure 共u2兲, and soil behavior type index 共Ic兲, in the Coo- criterion for assessing liquefaction susceptibility established by
per marl are then examined to identify a uniform soil layer that is Robertson and Wride 共1998兲. This view is further examined and
at least 3 m thick. Finally, the mean values of soil behavior type presented later.
index 共Ic兲, normalized friction ratio 共F兲, normalized cone resis-
tance 共Qt兲, and pore pressure ratio 共Bq兲 of these uniform soil
Criterion Based on Atterberg Limits Tests
layers are calculated and listed in Table 1.
As might be seen from Fig. 1, 20% 共6/30兲 of the plotted data The liquefaction susceptibility chart based on Atterberg limits de-
points of 共Ic , F兲 lie in the zone of “not susceptible,” 27% 共8/30兲 veloped by Bray et al. 共2004兲 is shown in Fig. 2 with 37 data
lie in the zone of “test required,” and about 53% 共16/30兲 lie in the points from the Cooper marl. These data are listed in Table 2. All
zone of “susceptible.” These numbers suggest that according to 37 data points are obtained from SPT borings along the new Coo-
the Ic-based criterion, much of the Cooper marl may be suscep- per River Bridge alignment. According to the criterion suggested

112 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Soil behavior classification chart by Robertson 共1990兲 with CPT data from the Cooper marl 共chart reproduced with permission of NRC
Research Press, National Research Council of Canada兲
by Bray et al. 共2004兲, a soil deposit is considered susceptible to
liquefaction or cyclic mobility if the plasticity index of the soil is
equal to or less than 12 共PI艋 12兲 and the ratio of the water con-
tent 共wc兲 to liquid limit 共LL兲 is equal to or greater than 0.85
共wc / LL艌 0.85兲. Soils with 12⬍ PI艋 20 and 0.8艋 wc / LL⬍ 0.85
may be moderately susceptible to liquefaction or cyclic mobility,
and should be further tested to assess liquefaction susceptibility.
Soils with PI⬎ 20 are considered too clay-rich to liquefy. As
might be seen in Fig. 2, among the 37 data points, about 79%
共29/37兲 lie in the zone of not susceptible, 16% 共6/37兲 lie in the
zone of test required, and 5% 共2/37兲 lie in the region of suscep-
tible. Based on the criterion by Bray et al. 共2004兲, much of the
Cooper marl is not susceptible to liquefaction, which is consistent
with general understanding of the material described previously.
Modified Soil Behavior Type Index
The results for Cooper marl presented previously indicate that the
Atterberg limits-based criterion may be more accurate than the
Ic-based criterion for assessing liquefaction susceptibility of fine-
grained soils. A deficiency in the Ic index and/or the Ic-based
criterion for assessing liquefaction susceptibility has been sug-
gested. One possible way to overcome this deficiency is to alter
the cutoff Ic value, that is, to change the Ic-based criterion for
liquefaction susceptibility. This seems to be supported by the
opinions about the cutoff value expressed in the literature 共Gil-
strap 1998; Youd et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2002兲. However, a more
fundamental approach is to examine whether the index Ic itself
can adequately reflect the characteristics of fines. To explore this
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007 / 113
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.
view, the CPT data presented in Fig. 1 and listed in Table 1 are
replotted in the soil behavior classification charts by Robertson
共1990兲, as shown in Fig. 3.
As may be seen in the chart of Qt versus F, 80% 共24/30兲 of the
data lie in Zone 5 共sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt兲. This is
consistent with the classification based on Ic 共Robertson 1990;
Lunne et al. 1997兲, in which 80% of the data points examined
共see Table 1兲 belong to Zone 5 defined by 2.05⬍ Ic ⬍ 2.6. On the
other hand, in the chart of Qt versus Bq, approximately 93% 共28/
30兲 of the data lie in Zone 3 共clays: silty clay to clay兲. Lunne et al.
共1997兲 suggested that when a discrepancy exists between the clas-
sifications based on the two charts, engineering judgment is
required in the absence of other data such as laboratory index
properties to correctly classify the soil behavior type. As the Coo-
per marl is basically a clay-silt mixture, a Zone 5 soil classifica-
tion based on either Ic or the Qt – F chart is thus incorrect. The
erroneous classification from the chart of Qt versus F is likely a
result of weak cementation within the Cooper marl. Cementation
will have a more pronounced effect on the tip resistance, whereas
the sleeve friction will be less affected as the cementation bonds
will have been broken. The resulting combination of relatively
high tip resistance and low friction ratio is the typical “signature”
of a sand but for the case of the Cooper marl, this conclusion is
incorrect.
The results presented previously point to a major deficiency of
using the Qt – F chart alone 共without the knowledge of the Qt – Bq
chart兲 or using the Ic value for soil behavior type classification. It
also suggests that perhaps the definition of Ic be modified to

Fig. 4. Replot of Fig. 1 using modified soil behavior type index, Ic,m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
somehow incorporate the pore pressure measured in the CPTu.
In an attempt to correlate SPT results with nearby CPTu re-
sults based on hundreds of in situ tests conducted at the Savannah
River Site 共WSRC 2000兲, Lewis and his colleagues found that a
good correlation that relates N60 to the uncorrected CPTu tip re-
sistance qc and Ic could be established if the index Ic was modified
to include one additional parameter, pore pressure ratio Bq
共WSRC 2000兲
Ic,m = 冑共3.25 − log10关Qt共1 − Bq兲兴兲2 + 共1.5关1 + log10 F兴兲2.25 共2兲
The formulation of Eq. 共2兲 was based on a similar empirical equa-
tion by Jefferies and Davies 共1993兲. The modified Ic, referred to
herein as Ic,m, for the 30 CPT data calculated from Eq. 共2兲 are also
listed in Table 1. Using the same classification rules based on Ic
by Robertson 共1990兲 and Lunne et al. 共1997兲, 73% 共22/30兲 of the
data points now belong to either Zone 4 共clayey silt to silty clay兲
or Zone 3 共silty clay to clay兲; only 27% 共8/30兲 belongs to Zone 5
共sand mixtures兲. Thus, use of the modified soil behavior type
index Ic,m appears to be able to overcome the deficiency of the
original Ic in the soil classification.
Fig. 4 shows the new data points of 共Ic,m, F兲 along with the
same criteria suggested by Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 and Youd
et al. 共2001兲. As might be seen from Fig. 4, 37% 共11/30兲 of the
plotted data lie in the zone of not susceptible, 53% 共16/30兲 lie in
the zone of test required, and 10% 共3/30兲 lie in the zone of sus-
ceptible. In general, those identified as test required are more
likely nonliquefiable, although confirmation of soil type by labo-
ratory testing of the samples taken from the field should be
carried out. Thus, only three cases 共10% of the data set兲 are in-
correctly identified as being liquefiable, which is quite compa-
rable with the results obtained using the Atterberg limit-based
criterion proposed by Bray et al. 共2004兲.
The results presented previously clearly establish the need to
modify the formulation for Ic to include the measured pore
pressure as one of its dependent variables. The deficiency of the
original Ic formulation and possible errors in the liquefaction sus-
ceptibility evaluation caused by this deficiency appears to be able
to be overcome by a simple modification of Ic such as the one
defined in Eq. 共2兲. The validity of the modified index Ic,m and its
applicability in soil liquefaction evaluation for soils other than the
Cooper marl, however, requires further study.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Quality in situ and laboratory data of the Cooper marl were used
for assessing index properties-based criteria for liquefaction sus-
ceptibility of clayey soils. The CPT data 共primarily Ic and F兲 were
114 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.
plotted in a liquefaction susceptibility chart that was based on the
criteria established by Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 and Youd et
al. 共2001兲, whereas the Atterberg limits data were plotted in a
liquefaction susceptibility chart established by Bray et al. 共2004兲.
It was found that the Atterberg limits-based criterion established
by Bray et al. 共2004兲 adequately reflected the characteristics of
the marl, a nonliquefiable material. On the contrary, the Ic-based
criterion established by Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 erroneously
identified the marl as being liquefiable. It was further found that
without considering pore pressure, the marl was incorrectly iden-
tified as a Zone 5 soil 共sand mixtures兲 based on the Qt – F chart;
however, when the pore pressure was considered, the marl was
correctly identified as a Zone 3 soil 共silty clay to clay兲 based on
the Qt – Bq chart. Thus, the need to modify the formulation of Ic to
include the measured pore pressure as one of its input variables
was established. Preliminary analysis using a modified formula-
tion of Ic as defined in Eq. 共2兲 yielded satisfactory results that
correctly identified the marl as being nonliquefiable. However,
further study to examine the validity of the modified soil behavior
type index 共Ic,m兲 and its applicability in soil liquefaction evalua-
tion for other soils is warranted.
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by the National Science Foundation
through Grant No. CMS-0218365 and the United States Geologi-
cal Survey through Grant No. 05HQGR0037. This financial sup-
port is greatly appreciated. The opinions expressed in this note do
not necessarily reflect the view and policies of the National Sci-
ence Foundation or the United States Geological Survey. The
anonymous reviewers are thanked for their supportive and con-
structive comments.
References
Bray, J. D., Sancio, R. B., Riemer, M., and Durgunoglu, H. T. 共2004兲.
“Liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” Proc., Joint Conf.,
the 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(SDEE), the 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
(ICEGE), Berkeley, Calif., 655–662.
Camp, W. M., III. 共2004兲. “Site characterization and subsurface condi-
tions for the Cooper River Bridge.” Geotechnical engineering for
transportation projects, geotechnical special publication no. 26, M.
K. Yegian and E. Kavazanjian, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 347–360.
Carraro, J. A. H., Bandini, P., and Salgado, R. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction
resistance of clean and nonplastic silty sands based on cone penetra-
tion resistance.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129共11兲, 965–976.
Fairbanks, C. D., Andrus, R. D., Zhang, J., Camp, W. M., Casey, T. J.,
and Cleary, T. J. 共2004兲. “Electronic files of shear-wave velocity and
cone penetration test measurements from the Charleston quadrangle,
South Carolina.” Data Rep. to the USGS, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C.
Gilstrap, S. D. 共1998兲. “CPT based liquefaction resistance analyses evalu-
ated using case histories.” MSc thesis, Dept. of Civil Environmental
Engineering, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Utah.
Gratchev, I. B., Sassa, K., and Fukuoka, H. 共2006兲. “How reliable is the
plasticity index for estimating the liquefaction potential of clayey
sands?” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132共1兲, 124–127.
Guo, T., and Prakash, S. 共1999兲. “Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay mix-
tures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共8兲, 706–710.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. 共2004兲. “Semi-empirical procedures
 for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes.” Proc., Joint
Conf., the 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineer-
ing (SDEE), the 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineer-
ing (ICEGE), Berkeley, Calif., 32–56.
Ishihara, K. 共1993兲. “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes.”
Geotechnique, 43共3兲, 351–415.
Jefferies, M. G., and Davies, M. P. 共1993兲. “Use of CPTu to estimate
equivalent SPT N60.” Geotech. Test. J., 16共4兲, 458–468.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K., and Powell, J. J. M. 共1997兲. Cone penetration
testing, Blackie Academic and Professional, London.
Perlea, V. G. 共2000兲. “Liquefaction of cohesive soils.” Soil dynamics and
liquefaction 2000, geotechnical special publication no. 107, R. Y. S.
Pak and J. Yamamura, eds., ASCE, Reston, Va., 58–76.
Perlea, V. G., Koester, J. P., and Prakash, S. 共1999兲. “How liquefiable are
cohesive soils.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 07/31/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 611–618.
Robertson, P. K. 共1990兲. “Soil classification using the cone penetration
test.” Can. Geotech. J., 27共1兲, 151–158.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J., 35共3兲,
442–459.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 共1971兲. “Simplified procedure for evaluating
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2007 / 115
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007.133:110-115.
soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 97共9兲,
1249–1273.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. 共1982兲. “Ground motions and soil liquefac-
tion during earthquakes.” Earthquake Engineering Research Center
monograph, EERI, Berkeley, Calif.
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. Engrg., 111共12兲, 1425–1445.
Weems, R. E., and Lemon, E. M., Jr. 共1993兲. “Geology of the Cainhoy,
Charleston, Fort Moultrie, and North Charleston quadrangles,
Charleston and Berkeley counties, South Carolina.” U.S. Geological
Survey misc. investigation map I-1935, scale 1:24,000, Dept. of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
Westinghouse Savannah River Corporation 共WSRC兲. 共2000兲. “CPTu-
共N1兲60 determination.” Rep. No. K-CLC-G-00067, Aiken, S.C.
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.
Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. 共2002兲. “Estimating
liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground.”
Can. Geotech. J., 39共5兲, 1168–1180.