A Review on Chronological Development of Liquefaction Analysis and

Evaluation Procedure
Nur M. Shuman,𝟏 Student Member, ASCE

Abstract: A review paper to study the development of liquefaction analysis with time in five different
approach. The 1st approach is basing on shear strength from undrained steady-state strength and driving
shear stress. The undrained steady-state shear strength is a function only of the void ratio and
determination of the in-situ void ratio and the correction of laboratory-measured undrained steady-state
strength is a critical step. 2nd approach is a fundamental approach, utilizing the electrical properties of
soils to characterize their grain (particle shape) and aggregate (porosity and fabric anisotropy)
characteristics is presented. In 3rd approach, a Level ground soil-liquefaction analysis, which considers
the pore pressure generation and dissipation during and after an earthquake. Here a method for analyzing
the generation and redistribution of pore pressure, therefore, provides a means for predicting liquefaction
of level ground sites—a boundary value problem—based on the results of in situ testing. In 4th approach
a procedure to evaluate the triggering of liquefaction in ground subjected to a static shear stress, i.e.,
′ . Finally, in 5th approach a probabilistic cone
sloping ground, using the yield strength ratio, 𝑠𝑢 (yield)/𝜎𝑣𝑜
penetration test (CPT) based liquefaction triggering procedure for cohesionless soils where a case history
database and methodology for developing the liquefaction correlation are developed.

Introduction
In this paper a detail review of liquefaction analysis is studied to make a correlation and pattern
development in the thought process in context of present knowledge. As 1st approach, from Poulos et al.
(1985) liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein the shear resistance of a mass of soil decreases when
subjected to monotonic, cyclic, or dynamic loading at constant volume. The loss in shear resistance
occurs when the soil mass is strained in a practically undrained condition during application of the
triggering shear stress and the subsequent deformation.

In liquefaction analyses, the characterization of the site under consideration requires the knowledge of
in situ properties such as porosity, permeability, compression index, settlement characteristics due to
dynamic loading, maximum shear modulus, and stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. In 2nd
approach an additional in situ method, based on a totally different methodology that involves the
electrical properties of soils, was detailed in the paper of Arulanandan and Muraleetharan (1988). The
mechanical behavior of soils, as well as properties such as permeability, depend on grain and aggregate
characteristics (including the orientation of particles and particle contacts). Both natural deposits and soil
samples prepared in the laboratory are, as a result of preferred orientations of grains, anisotropic. The
electrical method involves the in-situ measurement of the conductivity of the soil in two different
directions and the conductivity of the pore fluid. Hence, the measurements are independent of the size of
the tube containing the electrodes. Using this method, it becomes possible to classify soils and, by taking
into consideration the porosity, anisotropy, and particle shape, to index their structure. It is generally
accepted that soil liquefaction during earthquake loading is due to the destabilization of soil bodies by
the generation of pore-water pressure and its subsequent migration within the soil body. The 3rd approach,
a companion paper of Arulanandan and Muraleetharan(1988), a proper approach for the analysis of soil-
liquefaction problems is to consider the pore pressure generation and redistribution within a soil deposit.

𝟏
𝑮rad. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering., Jackson State University,
Jackson, JSU 00909066.

1
A proper method for the analysis of soil liquefaction should incorporate: (1) In situ conditions such as stress
state, drainage conditions, and variability of soil profile; (2) input properties that are representative of in
situ behavior; and (3) properties of the soil at very low effective stresses.

Olson and Stark (2003) proposed a procedure to evaluate the triggering of liquefaction in ground subjected
′ . A liquefaction
to a static shear stress, i.e., sloping ground, using the yield strength ratio, 𝑠𝑢 (yield)/𝜎𝑣𝑜
analysis for ground subjected to a static shear stress, i.e., slopes, embankments, or foundations of structures,
typically consists of three primary tasks: (1) a susceptibility analysis; (2) a triggering analysis; and (3) a
post-triggering/flow failure stability analysis. A liquefaction susceptibility analysis determines whether a
given soil deposit is in a contractive state, i.e., susceptible to undrained strain-softening behavior and flow
failure. Similarly, procedures are available to evaluate the liquefied shear strength for use in a post-
triggering/flow failure stability analysis. In contrast, few procedures are available to evaluate the triggering
of liquefaction in ground subjected to a static shear stress. The two most widely known procedures are those
of Poulos et al. (1985a) and Seed and Harder (1990). The Poulos et al. (1985a) procedure compares the
shear strain induced by loading static or seismic to the shear strain required to trigger undrained strain
softening response. This paper presents a procedure to evaluate the triggering of liquefaction in ground
subjected to a static shear stress using the yield or peak strength ratio back-calculated from available static
loading- and deformation-induced liquefaction flow failures. The procedure is illustrated using available
seismically induced flow failures.

In the latest study of this paper, Boulanger and Idriss (2016) presented that the liquefaction analysis
framework includes revised relationships for the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) and for estimating fines
contents from CPT data when laboratory test data are not available. Cone penetration test-based (CPT-
based) and standard penetration test-based (SPT-based) probabilistic correlations for evaluating
liquefaction triggering in cohesionless soils have advanced through the contributions of numerous
researchers. Some probabilistic relationships represent the total uncertainty in the evaluation of the case
history database. In this paper, a probabilistic CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure for cohesionless
soils was derived using a maximum likelihood method and an updated case history database.

Procedures of Liquefaction Analysis

1st Approach (Void Ratio Based Method): The undrained steady-state shear strength is a function only of
the void ratio. Thus, one critical step of the procedure for liquefaction evaluation is the determination of
the in-situ void ratio and the correction of laboratory-measured undrained steady-state strength to account
for unavoidable changes in void ratio of the soil
during sampling and testing. Poulos et al. (1985)
stated the evaluation of liquefaction potential in
his study under following steps.
Step 1—Determine in-situ void ratio: There are
at least three satisfactory ways to obtain suitably
undisturbed samples of loose sand at depth in
situ: (1) Fixed-piston sampling; (2) freezing of
the ground and coring; and (3) sampling in test
pits. A satisfactory method should not only
cause minimal volume changes, but should
provide sufficient data to estimate the volume
changes that do occur. Fig 1 shows Steady-State
Line for Clean Sand
FIG. 1-Steady-State Line for Clean Sand
(Poulos et al. 1985)

2
Step 2—Determine steady-state void ratio, or density, as a function of effective stress using compacted
specimens: "Undisturbed" samples of loose sand always have lower void ratios in the laboratory than in
situ. Therefore, a procedure for correcting laboratory-measured steady-state strengths to the in-situ void
ratio is required. Fig. 2- shows plot of data for one undrained test on contractive specimen to determine
steady-state strength (schematic): (a) effectiveness stress; (b) state; (c) stress-strain; (d) stress path. The
results of the tests on compacted specimens are plotted on one "state diagram" (Fig. 3), a plot of void ratio
versus effective minor principal stress, CT3

FIG. 2. Plot of Data for One Undrained Test on Contractive Specimen to Determine Steady-State
Strength (Schematic): (a) Effectiveness Stress; (b) State; (c) Stress-Strain; (d) Stress Path(Poulos
et al. 1985)

FIG. 3. Steady-State Line Determined from Six Consolidated-Undrained Tests on Compacted

Specimens(Poulos et al. 1985)

3
 Step 3—Determine undrained steady-state
strengths for "undisturbed" specimens: A
series of consolidated-undrained triaxial
tests is performed on "undisturbed"
specimens from the zone being evaluated.
Sufficient tests are needed to determine
the average steady-state strength reliably.
To define the steady state well in a triaxial
test—at strains achievable in that test—it
is best to ensure that the undisturbed
specimen is contractive, as was done for
the compacted specimens. Fig. 4 shows
the steady-state points from
unconsolidated-undrained tests at high
pressure on "undisturbed" specimens

FIG. 4-Steady-State Points from Unconsolidated-

Undrained Tests at High Pressure on "Undisturbed"
Specimens (Poulos et al. 1985)

Step 4—Correct measured

undrained steady-state strengths to
in-situ void ratio: From the
measurements made during
undisturbed sampling, the in-situ
void ratio for each of the tested
"undisturbed" specimens can be
computed. Using the in-situ void
ratio, the correction procedure
given in Fig. 5 is applied for each
test on an undisturbed specimen.

FIG: 5-Correction of Measured Undrained Steady-State Strength for

Difference between In-Situ Void Ratio and Void Ratio During Test (Poulos
et al. 1985)

4
Step 5—Calculate in-situ driving shear stress and the factor of safety: The in-situ driving shear stress in the
zone being evaluated is calculated by conventional methods of stability analysis. It is the shear stress
required to maintain static equilibrium. Which is given by Eq 1.

𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑦 − 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑆𝑠𝑢

𝐹𝐿 = = … … … … … … … … … (1)
𝑆ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑢𝑚 𝜏𝑑

2nd Approach (Electrical Properties of Soil Based Method): In one paper of Arulanandan and
Muraleetharan (1988), different approach through formation factor, shape factor, anisotropic index is stated.
The formation factor is defined as the ratio of the conductivity of the electrolyte that saturates a particulate
media to the conductivity of the electrolyte/particulate mixture. The formation factor is thus a
nondimensional parameter. The vertical and horizontal formation factors can be defined in the Eq 2 and 3.
𝛽𝑠
𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝐹𝑣 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … (2)
𝛽𝑣
𝛽𝑠
𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝐹𝐻 = … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (3)
𝛽𝐻
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝛽𝑠 = 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑡𝑒); 𝛽𝑣 = 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦; 𝛽𝐻
= ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒

The first invariant of the formation factor tensor (𝐹𝑖𝑗 ), which does not depend on the orientation of the axes,
is given by Eq 4.
𝐹
𝐹𝑖𝑗 = 𝐹𝑣 + 2𝐹𝐻 ; 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟, 𝐹, ̅ 𝑎𝑠 𝐹̅ = 𝑖𝑗 … … … … … … … . . (4)
3
Hence, the average formation factor, 𝐹̅ , is only a function of the porosity and shape of the particles for
uncemented soils. For Anisotropic index, consider a Cartesian coordinate system in which x and y represent
the horizontal axes and z represents the vertical axis. Assuming transverse isotropy, with the vertical axis
as the axis of rotational symmetry, and x, y, and z as the principal directions of conductivity. Predicting
formation factors and anisotropy index is shown below by table 1,2 and 3.

5
3rd Approach (Pore Pressure Based
Method): In another companion
paper of Arulanandan and
Muraleetharan (1988), a numerical
procedure was proposed with the
differential equation governing the
one-dimensional pore pressure
generation and dissipation. In the
foregoing incremental approach, it is
assumed that for a single element of
soil, the incremental pore pressure
generation takes place in an
undrained manner and that the
incremental pore pressure dissipation
is allowed to follow the swelling line
as shown in Fig. 6.

The amplitude of cyclic shear strain

of equivalent uniform strain cycles
for an earthquake, is given by Eq 5
(from Seed and Idriss 1971). FIG. 6- Typical Relationship between e and log𝜎𝑣′ for
Incremental Approach (Arulanandan and Muraleetharan
1988)
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝜎𝑣 𝑟𝑑
𝛾𝑒𝑞 = 0.65 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (5)
𝑔 ( 𝐺
)𝛾 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥

6
 where 𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = maximum ground surface acceleration; g = gravitational acceleration; 𝜎𝑣 = total vertical
stress; 𝑟𝑑 = stress reduction coefficient [average value is 1 at surface and 0.9 at a depth of 35 ft (10.67 m)];
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = small strain shear modulus; and (𝐺⁄𝐺 )𝛾 =modulus reduction factor. Properties representing in
𝑚𝑎𝑥
situ conditions and method for their determination are discussed below. For variation of coefficient of
𝑪 𝟏 𝟏 𝟏
compressibility by Eq 6, 𝒎𝒗 = 𝒔 ′ … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (𝟔)
𝟐.𝟑𝟎𝟑 𝟏+𝒆 𝟏−𝒓𝒖 𝝈𝒗𝒐

For the numerical procedure presented in

this paper, 𝑚𝑣 was assumed to be given by
above Eq up to a pore pressure ratio (𝑟𝑢 ) of
0.95. Beyond that (i.e.; at low effective
stresses), it was assumed to be constant and
equal to the value at 𝑟𝑢 = 0.95 which is
shown in Fig.7

The model sand column of test 14A was

divided into 11 layers as depicted in Fig. 8.
In Arulanandan and Muraleetharan (1988),
The computer program ELMA1, which uses
a finite difference scheme for the time
integration to solve pore pressure
generation and dissipation Eq was used to
predict the excess pore pressure time
histories and the surface settlement history FIG. 7. Typical Variation of Void Ratio with Effective
of test 14A (each layer was divided into two Vertical Stress during Unloading Given by Assumed
sublayers by the program option). The Variation of Coefficient of Compressibility with Pore
predicted results are also given in Fig. 9 Pressure Ratio (𝑟𝑢 ) (Arulanandan and Muraleetharan 1988).

FIG. 9. Predicted (by Computer Program

ELMA1) and Measured Excess Pore Pressure
Ratio; Model Time Histories of Test 14A (H = 1
FIG. 8. Model Sand Column of Test 14A and 11
Corresponds to Top Surface of Sand Column)
Layers Used in Computer Program ELMA1 to Predict
(Arulanandan and Muraleetharan 1988)
Excess Pore Pressure Ratio and Surface Settlement
Time Histories (Arulanandan and Muraleetharan
1988)

7
4th Approach (Yield Strength Ratios
and Liquefied Strength Ratios
Method): On the other hand, Olson and
Stark (2003) proposed to evaluate the
triggering of liquefaction in ground
subjected to a static shear stress. In this
paper seismically induced flow failures
also generally do not represent stress
conditions that correspond to the yield Fig. 10. Schematic undrained response of saturated, contractive
shear strength and strength ratio, is sandy soil
illustrated in Fig. 10.

In the procedure to back

calculate pre-failure strength
ratio, the approximate zone of
contractive, liquefiable soil
must be known or estimated.
Contours of equal pre-failure
vertical effective stress were
determined within the zone of
liquefaction, as illustrated in
Fig. 11 for Mochi Koshi
Tailings Dam (Ishihara 1984).

Fig. 11. Pre-failure vertical effective stress contours and critical

failure surface used for yield strength analysis of Mochi-Koshi
Tailings Dam No. 1

The yield strength envelope (developed using

the static loading-induced failures) from Fig.
12 also is included in Fig. 13. It can be seen
that the combined static and sustained seismic
shear stresses for the seismic cases exceed the
mean yield strength envelope.

Fig. 12. Comparison of yield and mobilized shear strength

and pre-failure vertical effective stress for static loading-
induced, deformation-induced, and seismically induced
flow failures for clarity, ranges only shown for static
loading- and deformation-induced failures

8
 Fig. 13. Comparison of static driving shear stress and combined static and seismic shear stresses
for seismically induced flow failures with yield strength envelope

5th Approach (CPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering

Procedure): Boulanger and Idriss (2016) probabilistic
cone penetration test (CPT) based liquefaction
triggering procedure for cohesionless soils is derived
using a maximum likelihood method with an updated
case history database. The liquefaction analysis
framework includes revised relationships for the
magnitude scaling factor (MSF) and for estimating
fines contents from CPT data when laboratory test data
are not available. The earthquake-induced cyclic stress
ratio (CSR), at a given depth, z, within the soil profile,
is expressed as a representative value equal to 65% of
the maximum cyclic shear stress ratio by Eq 7.
𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑥 0.65 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜎𝑣 𝑟𝑑 ; 𝐶𝑆𝑅𝑀,𝜎𝑣′ = ⁄𝜎 ′ … (7)
𝑔 𝑣 Fig.14.Variation in the MSF relationship with 𝑞𝑐1𝑁𝑐𝑠
and with (𝑁1 )60𝑐𝑠 for cohesionless soils
where 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = maximum earthquake induced shear
stress; 𝜎𝑣′ = vertical effective stress, the expression for
𝑟𝑑 by Idriss (1999), as derived from site response
analyses. CPT penetration resistances are corrected for
overburden stress effects as Eq 8.
𝑞𝑐
𝑞𝑐1𝑁 = 𝐶𝑁 𝑞𝑐𝑁 = 𝐶𝑁 … … … … … … … … … … . (8)
𝑝𝑎

The correlation of Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) to

𝑞𝑐1𝑁 in cohesionless soils is also affected by the soil’s
FC. For mathematical convenience, this correlation can
also be expressed in terms of equivalent clean-sand
𝑞𝑐1𝑁𝑐𝑠 values which are obtained using the Eq-9
𝑞𝑐1𝑁𝑐𝑠 = 𝑞𝑐1𝑁 + ∆𝑞𝑐1𝑁 … … … … … … … … … … … . (9)

The resulting MSF relationship for different values of

𝑞𝑐1𝑁𝑐𝑠 is shown in Fig. 14. ∆𝑞𝑐1𝑁 accounts for the effect Fig. 15. Equivalent clean sand adjustments for CPT-
that FC has on both CRR and 𝑞𝑐1𝑁 . The ∆𝑞𝑐1𝑁 relationship
based liquefaction triggering procedures
(Fig. 15) is primarily based on its empirical fit to the
liquefaction case history data.

9
 Solutions based on the clean sand (FC≤5%) case histories are plotted with the clean sand case history data
in Fig.16 for 𝑃min = 0.0 (i.e., no allowance for false negatives or false positives) and Fig. 17 for𝑃min =
0.05. Solutions based on all the case histories are plotted together with the case history data: (1) in terms of
the total uncertainty; and (2) in terms of model uncertainty alone in this paper.

Fig. 16. 𝐶𝑅𝑅 M=7.5;σ′𝑣 =1 atm versus 𝑞c1Ncs for 𝑃L = 15, 50, Fig. 17. 𝐶𝑅𝑅 M=7.5;σ′𝑣 =1 atm versus 𝑞c1Ncs for 𝑃L = 15, 50,
and 85% in clean sands with inclusion of estimation errors and 85% in clean sands with inclusion of estimation errors
in 𝐶𝑆𝑅 M=7.5;σ′𝑣 =1 atm and𝑞c1Ncs and using 𝑃min = 0.00 in 𝐶𝑆𝑅 M=7.5;σ′𝑣 =1 atm and𝑞c1Ncs and using 𝑃min = 0.05

Comparison of the methods

In 1st approach, as per Poulos et al. (1985), liquefaction Potential is not dependent on type of undrained
loading. Factors affecting loads that trigger liquefaction.—The magnitude and duration of the disturbance
needed to cause liquefaction in a liquefiable mass can be expected to be dependent on three principal
factors: (1) The ratio of the undrained steady-state strength to the driving shear stress (the lower the factor
of safety against liquefaction, the smaller the disturbance needed to cause liquefaction); (2) the strain
required to reach the peak undrained strength at the in-situ void ratio; and (3) the rate at which the peak
undrained strength is lost with continued strain. Here other fundamental properties are not addressed and
difficult to get undisturbed sample in practice.

So, the 2nd approach is planned as a fundamental approach utilizing the electrical properties of soils to
characterize their grain and aggregate properties was presented in Arulanandan and Muraleetharan (1988).
Average formation factor, average shape factor, and anisotropy index are shown to be the basic electrical
indices necessary to characterize the grain and aggregate properties of a soil. Property correlations from the
preceding analysis, it is evident that both 𝐹̅ and A define the aggregate characteristics of a soil and that, for
uncemented soils, 𝑓̃is a measure of the shape of the particles (grain characteristics). Aggregate
characteristics are affected by sampling disturbances and should thus be measured on "undisturbed"
samples, or in situ. For uncemented soils, grain characteristics are insensitive to sample disturbances and,
therefore, can be measured in the laboratory on remolded samples. For cemented soils, an independent
measurement of in situ porosity is necessary to predict the value of𝑓̃. The use of a combination of the
parameters 𝐹̅ , A, and 𝑓̃to correlate with all mechanical properties of a soil is well justified by the fact that
𝐹̅ , A, and𝑓̃are measures of aggregate and grain characteristics and that mechanical properties are strong
functions of these characteristics.

10
The 3rd approach is closely connected with 2nd approach as a method for level ground soil-liquefaction
analysis, which is treated as a boundary value problem. A companion paper of Arulanandan and
Muraleetharan (1988), uses a semiempirical, one-dimensional, elastoplastic constitutive model and finite
difference method to solve the governing differential equation for the prediction of pore pressure
generation, and dissipation and settlement characteristics during and after dynamic excitation. The
procedure uses input properties representative of in situ conditions determined by a nondestructive electrical
method. A compressibility function incorporating effects at low effective stresses is included in the
proposed method. This compressibility function is calibrated using a centrifuge model test, and the
proposed method is then verified by additional centrifuge model tests. The proposed method for analyzing
the generation and redistribution of pore pressure, therefore, provides a means for predicting liquefaction
of level ground sites—a boundary value problem—based on the results of in situ testing.

Considering the limitations of previous approaches e.g., Poulos et al. 1985; Arulanandan and Muraleetharan
(1988) the 4th approach is an alternate procedure to analyze liquefaction triggering for ground subjected to
static shear stress, i.e., sloping ground. As per Olson and Stark (2003), to evaluate the triggering of
liquefaction in ground subjected to a static shear stress using the yield strength ratio back calculated from
static liquefaction flow failures. The results of the back analyses indicate that there is a nearly linear
relationship between yield shear strength the peak shear strength available at the triggering of liquefaction
and prefailure vertical effective stress for a wide range of effective stress. Back-calculated yield strength
ratios ranged from approximately 0.23 to 0.31 and the increase in yield strength ratio is correlated to
corrected CPT and SPT penetration resistance. The proposed liquefaction triggering analysis is incorporated
into a comprehensive liquefaction analysis for ground subjected to a static shear stress. The liquefaction
analysis is based on yield and liquefied strength ratios backanalyzed from liquefaction flow failures, and
consists of the following general steps: (1) evaluate liquefaction susceptibility using proposed relationships
between penetration resistance and vertical effective stress that separate contractive from dilative
conditions; (2) determine the yield strength ratio using penetration resistance and the relationships proposed
herein, and evaluate the triggering of liquefaction by comparing yield shear strength to combined static and
additional shear stresses; and (3) if liquefaction is triggered, evaluate the post-triggering stability using a
conventional limit-equilibrium analysis of the prefailure geometry and the recommended liquefied shear
strengths.

In the final approach, the liquefaction analysis framework followed that by Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
and incorporated changes to the MSF relationship and the procedures for estimating FC from the 𝐼𝑐 index
when site-specific sampling and lab testing data are not available. The results can be used to evaluate the
potential benefits of site-specific sampling and testing for a given project, while recognizing that some
amount of sampling and testing should be required for high risk/high consequence projects. Boulanger and
Idriss (2016) stated that probabilistic liquefaction hazard analyses should consider the uncertainties in the
seismic hazard, the site characterization, and the liquefaction triggering model. The uncertainty in the
liquefaction triggering model is smaller than the uncertainty in the seismic hazard, and will often be smaller
than the uncertainty in the site characterization. For this reason, the seismic hazard analysis and the site
characterization efforts are often the more important components of any probabilistic assessment of
liquefaction hazards.

Summary

All the procedure so far discussed has some limitations and to solve that limitation this paper explored
different approaches in different times. At the early time, the procedure described by Poulos et. al (1985)
in his paper for determining liquefaction potential had covered almost all the cases in which a sand may be
liquefiable, e.g., in a dam, natural slope, or in the foundations of any structure. But this method used
undrained laboratory tests of "undisturbed samples" (which are susceptible to considerable sample

11
disturbance) or penetration resistance values to obtain parameters for predicting the overall behavior during
earthquake loading. This behavior is a complex phenomenon involving pore pressure generation,
redistribution, and deformation. Although obtaining truly undisturbed samples is difficult, relatively good
undisturbed samples of sand could be obtained by using expensive techniques such as freezing. In this
context, Arulanandan and Muraleetharan (1988), provide correlations between mechanical properties
relevant to the analysis of soil liquefaction and electrical indices defining the structure of a soil are given,
and the influence of fabric anisotropy on mechanical behavior of soils is demonstrated. The nondestructive
nature of the proposed method provides a means to predict in situ properties and thus overcome the
difficulty of retrieving undisturbed samples. Later on, Level ground soil-liquefaction analysis, which
considers the pore pressure generation and dissipation during and after an earthquake, is presented in
Arulanandan and Muraleetharan (1988). The proposed method for analyzing the generation and
redistribution of pore pressure, therefore, provides a means for predicting liquefaction of level ground
sites—a boundary value problem—based on the results of in situ testing. Poulos (1988) indicated that
laboratory measured shear strains may not resemble shear strains induced in situ, particularly for non-plastic
soils. For these reasons, this procedure is difficult to apply in many practical situations. Olson and Stark
(2003) presents a procedure to evaluate the triggering of liquefaction in ground subjected to a static shear
stress using the yield or peak strength ratio back-calculated from available static loading- and deformation-
induced liquefaction flow failures. The quantity and quality of CPT and SPT case histories has increased
with recent earthquake events. In the last procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2016), the inclusion of these
and other data provide an opportunity for reevaluating liquefaction triggering procedures and updating them
as warranted.

References

Arulanandan, K. and Muraleetharan, K. K. (1988). ‘‘Level ground soil-liquefaction analysis using in situ
properties: I.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 114(7), 753–770.
Arulanandan, K. and Muraleetharan, K. K. (1988). ‘‘Level ground soil-liquefaction analysis using in situ
properties: II.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 114(7), 771–790.
Olson, S. M. and Stark, T. D. (2003). ‘‘Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of Slopes and
Embankments.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(8), 727-737.
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M. (2016). ‘‘CPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure.’’ J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 142(2), 04015065,1-11
Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, W. (1985a). ‘‘Liquefaction evaluation procedure.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.,
111(6), 772–792.
Poulos, S. J., Robinsky, E. I., and Keller, T. O. (1985b). ‘‘Liquefaction resistance of thickened tailings.’’ J.
Geotech. Eng., 111(12), 1380–1394.
Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F., Jr. (1990). ‘‘SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength.’’ Proc., H.B. Seed Memorial Symp., Bi-Tech Publishing Ltd., 2, 351
376.
Seed, H, B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential." /.
Soil Mech. and Found. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 97(9), 1249-1274.
Ishihara, K. (1984). ‘‘Post-earthquake failure of a tailings dam due to liquefaction of the pond deposit.’’
Proc., Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Rolla, Mo., May 6–11, 3, 1129–
1143.
Idriss, I. M. (1999). “An update to the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction
potential.” Workshop on New Approaches to Liquefaction, Publication No. FHWA-RD-99-165,
Federal Highways Administration, Washington, DC.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, CA.

12