See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326274415

LIQUEFACTION OF GRAVELLY SOILS: A GRAY AREA IN ENGINEERING, DESIGN

AND REHABILITATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS

Conference Paper · May 2018

CITATION READS

1 995

2 authors, including:

Sam Abbaszadeh
Stantec
5 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sam Abbaszadeh on 09 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LIQUEFACTION OF GRAVELLY SOILS: A GRAY AREA IN ENGINEERING,
DESIGN AND REHABILITATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS

Sam Abbaszadeh, PhD, PE1

Xuan Wu, PhD2

ABSTRACT

For many years, Geotechnical engineers have thought of gravelly soils as non-liquefiable
material due to its high hydraulic conductivity and therefore the ability to quickly
dissipate the high pore pressures generated during an earthquake loading. However, a
number of recent failures and damages to dams and other structures caused by
liquefaction of gravely soils have changed this viewpoint drastically and required
reassessment of the behavior and response of gravelly soils to cyclic loading. During the
past few decades, many professionals from academia collaborated with engineering
practitioners to better understand this phenomena from a micro level (in laboratory) to
macro level (field and large-scale tests). These ongoing investigations have been
insightful and improved our understanding of the behavior of gravelly soils during an
earthquake. However, for practicing engineers, the liquefaction evaluation procedure and
criteria is still not very clear for gravelly soils and engineers have no choice other than
using one of the classical liquefaction assessment approaches that were developed
originally for sandy materials.

This paper will first present the state of knowledge by summarizing the advancements
made to date in the area of gravelly soil liquefaction. The paper will then present a review
of the state-of-the-practice on liquefaction evaluation of gravelly soils. Finally, gaps in
engineering, design and rehabilitation of embankment dams founded on gravelly soils
will be identified and recommendations for future studies will be made.

INTRODUCTION

Historically, large earthquake have caused significant social and economic damage to our
communities. In the United States (U.S.), the 1994 M 6.7 Northridge earthquake in
California was among the three costliest disasters in the U.S. history with estimated loss
over 50 billion USD in direct capital and business-interruption losses (Porter et al. 2006).
Internationally, earthquakes in the last decade alone have claimed tens of thousands of
lives and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of economic impact throughout the globe
as shown in Figure 1. In 2017 alone, more than one thousand lives were lost after major
earthquakes such as the M 7.3 Iran earthquake and M 7.1 and M 8.2 earthquakes in
Mexico.

1
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Stantec, Tempe, AZ, USA Sam.Abbaszadeh@Stanetc.com.
2
Geotechnical Engineer, Stantec, Tempe, AZ, USA Xuan.Wu@Stanetc.com

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 1

 Figure 1. Last Decade’s Major Social and Economic Damage Due to Large Earthquakes

Research studies of the embankment dam performances under earthquake loading has
shown that well-constructed embankment dams generally performed well during
earthquakes and most embankment dam failures during shaking have been attributed to
liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when a saturated soil substantially loses its shear
strength during an earthquake. The strength loss is due to increase in the pore water
pressure which in turn decreases the effective stress. The pore water pressure increase
occurs because the soil particles tend to rearrange and densify in response to shaking but
the particle rearrangement cannot occur until the excess pore water pressure is dissipated
from the voids. Loose, unconsolidated natural soils and geologically young deposits as
well as uncompacted or poorly compacted fills are susceptible to liquefaction. In contrast,
dense and consolidated natural deposits, well-compacted fills, coarse and free-drained
soils, and cohesive soils with high plasticity are typically less prone to liquefaction.

For many years, gravelly soils were believed to be less susceptible to liquefaction due to
their large hydraulic conductivity which allows for quick dissipation of pore water
pressures during shaking. That and the challenges to characterize the liquefaction
potential of gravelly soils, in laboratory or field, have made the sands and silty sand soils
the primary focus of most liquefaction studies in the past 50 years. This is despite the fact
that some researchers have already acknowledged and reported cases where gravelly soils
have liquefied (see e.g., Coulter and Migliaccio 1966; Stokoe et al. 1988; and Kokusho et

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 2

al. 1995). However, recent advancements in seismic and liquefaction hazard assessments
has required the owners of many older dams to reassess the risks of liquefaction. This, in
turn, has raised the awareness on how little is currently known about the liquefaction of
gravelly soils. As a result, more attention is being paid to this topic and we see more
collaboration between professionals from academic and industries. While these ongoing
studies are gradually advancing our knowledge on different aspects of liquefaction of
gravelly soils, for many engineers and clients one major question still remains: How to
evaluate the liquefaction potential and risks when dealing with a gravelly soil? The
current practice is to use the same procedures that are originally developed for sandy
soils. This approach is controversial as there are some fundamental differences between
gravelly soils and how they behave compared to sandy soils. As also indicated by some
recent studies (NAS, 2016; USBR, 2016), more researches and studies are required to be
able to better answer this critical and important question.

This paper first presents the state of knowledge on what we currently know about
liquefaction of gravelly soils. Then, the paper describes the current state of practice on
evaluating the liquefaction susceptibility of gravelly soils. Finally, the paper highlights
the areas where more research and studies are needed. The authors hope is that this paper
can aid the researchers, engineers, and clients to better understand where we are and what
we need to do to improve our knowledge about this phenomenon to make the existing
and future embankment dams safer against earthquake.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 3

 HISTORY OF LIQUEFACTION IN GRAVELLY SOILS

Case histories where liquefaction of gravelly soils were observed are listed in
Table 1.

Table 1. Case Histories with Liquefaction of Gravelly Soils (after Rollins et al. 2016)
Year Country Earthquake Magnitude Notes
1891 Japan Mino-Owari 7.9 -
1948 Japan Fukui 7.3 -
Valdez,
1964 USA 9.2 -
Alaska
Slide occurred in the gravelly-
1975 China Haicheng 7.3 sand shell of the Shimen Dam
(Wang, 1984)
Slide occurred in Sandy Gravel at
1976 China Tangshan 7.8
the Baihe Dam (Wang, 1984)
Miyagiken-
1978 Japan 7.4 -
Oki
Liquefied soil SPT N ranged
Borah Peak, from 5 to 9, SWV ranged from 90
1983 USA 7.3
Idaho to 160 m/s (Harder and Seed,
1986)
1988 Armenia Spitak 6.8 -
1992 Netherlands Roermond 5.8 -
Liquefied soil SPT N ranged
from 8 to16, SWV ranged from
1993 Japan Hokkaido 7.8
60 to 90 m/s (Kokusho et al.,
1995)
1995 Japan Kobe 7.2 -
Extensive gravel liquefaction
observed at numerous villages
2008 China Wenchuan 7.9
and sties in Chengdu plain (Cao
et al., 2013)
Gravel fill liquefaction resulted in
extensive damage associated with
Cephalonia
2014 Greece 6.1 settlement and lateral spreading
Island
in two ports (Nikolaou et al.,
2014)

Kokusho et al. (1995) investigated the gravel liquefaction during the 1993 Hokkaido
Nansei-Oki earthquake. A rock avalanche gravel layer (70-80% of gravel content) was
identified and liquefied. The shear wave velocity of rock layer was found to be
unexpectedly lower than 100 m/s. Undrained cyclic triaxial tests on intact samples
indicated the strength was smaller than seismically induced stress in the upper gravel

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 4

layer estimated from the measured maximum surface accelerations. Compared to
previously investigated data on gravels on other site, the rock avalanche gravel exhibited
very low values of relative density, shear wave velocity, penetration resistance and
undrained cyclic shear strength, indicating a peculiar environment of deposition different
from that in river beds.

Evans and Harder (1993) summarized several case histories where gravelly soil has
liquefied in situ, including gravelly soil in two embankment dams (Shimen Dam and
Baihe Dam). Grain size distributions for some of these soils are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Grain Size Distribution of Gravelly Soils that have Liquefied (from Evans,
1993)

Obviously, not all embankment dams that are founded on gravelly soils are susceptible to
liquefaction. For example, investigations following the 1983 Borah Peak earthquake
showed that Mackay Dam performed well although it was founded on gravelly
foundation (Harder, 1992).

LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GRAVELLY SOILS

Gravelly soils may be free-draining under ideal conditions, but drainage is often impeded
by a low-permeability cap (Evans et al., 1992). Such conditions may occur in an alluvial
fan containing gravelly soil interlayered with finer material, or in a gravel embankment
where drainage is impeded by silt deposition on the upstream face. Based on this, two
major types of gravelly soils may exist as described below:

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 5

Type A – Dense and well graded gravelly soils without significant finer-grained particles
(i.e. sands, silts and clays) is generally less prone to liquefaction because: 1) it has high
hydraulic conductivity and can quickly dissipate any excess pore water pressure that may
be generated during shaking; 2) it has low void ratio and therefore less susceptible to
redistribution of fines; 3) the gravel particles are in contact with each other and form an
internally stable structure such that the cyclic response of the soil matrix is primarily
controlled by the gravels and not the finer particles.

Type B – Unlike dense gravelly soils, loose and poorly graded gravelly soils with
significant finer-grained particles are susceptible to liquefaction. The key difference is
that the finer-grained particles are in contact this time and form a thin layer with low-
permeability that can potentially impede the drainage of the excess pore water pressure
during an earthquake. By decreasing the overall hydraulic conductivity of the soil matrix,
the finer-grained particles control the cyclic response of the soil matrix.

The concept discussed above is schematically illustrated in Figure 3 for both types of
gravelly soils. As shown in this figure, in “Type A” gravelly soils, gravel particles form a
strong and internally stable network and the finer-grained particles just fill the void
spaces within the soil skeleton. However, the internal network between the gravel
particles is lost in “Type B” gravelly soils which makes them more susceptible to
liquefaction because they behave similar to sandy soils. It seems likely that a criteria can
be established using classical soil Index parameters such as the coefficient of uniformity,
Cu (or other parameters) to better define and distinguish between the two types of gravely
soils. Further research and more case histories would be required for developing such
criteria.

(Type A) (Type B)
Figure 3. Schematic Representation of Two Types of Gravelly Soils

HISTORICAL AND RECENT ADVANCEMENTS

What makes studying liquefaction potential of gravelly soils challenging is that

conventional laboratory and sampling techniques typically don’t apply to gravelly soils.
For instance, obtaining high quality sample of a gravelly soil (for laboratory test) is
extremely difficult because no cohesion is available to hold soil particles together during
sampling. Also, conventional field tests that are typically used for liquefaction triggering
analysis of sandy soils such as CPT and SPT are not usually applicable to gravelly soils
due to the interference of the larger grained-size particles with the testing equipment

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 6

during testing. To overcome these complications, many researchers have studied and
proposed alternative methods for testing gravelly soils in field and laboratory. Some of
these developments are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 A Limited List of Available Field and Laboratory Test Methods for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential of Gravelly Soil
Test Method Description Reference

Similar to SPT but larger diameter (e.g. 6”OD)

Becker Penetration used. Both open-bit and closed-bit advancements Harder and Seed
Test (BPT) are possible. Correlations available to correlate (1986)
blow counts to SPT blow counts.

Instrumented Becker DeJong et al.

Improved BPT by instrumenting the tip of the
Penetration Test (2016); Ghafghazi
penetrometer to measure the delivered energy.
(iBPT) et al. (2016)
Yoshida et al.
Large Penetration Similar to BPT, penetrometer is advanced into the
In-Situ Tests

(1988); Lin et al.

Tests (LPTs) soil using a hammer. Various types available.
(2004)
Also called dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT).
A specific type of LPT with solid cone-shaped tip
Chinese Dynamic with maximum diameter of 2.9 inches and cone
Penetration Test angle of 60 degrees. Unlike all other methods, Cao et al. (2013)
(DPT) liquefaction triggering curve is based on filed-
performance data in gravel and not correlations
developed for sand.
Various (see e.g.
Different methods all applicable to gravelly soils.
Stokoe et al.,
(e.g. MASW, SASW, downhole and crosshole
Shear Wave Velocity 1988; Gorny and
surveys, etc.). SWV-based Liquefaction triggering
(SWV) Liljegren, 2006;
methods are not as developed as the SPT/CPT-
Lewis et al.,
based methods.
2013)
Large Scale Cyclic Not much data is currently available for gravelly
Direct Simple Shear soils. Hubler et al. (2017) measured the monotonic, Hubler et al.
Strength Test cyclic and post cyclic shear response of three (2017)
(CyDSS) uniform gravels tested.
Various (see e.g.,
Laboratory Tests

Difficult for gravelly soil due to large particles. Lin et al., 2004;
Large Scale Cyclic Requires large-scale equipment or sieving the soil Kokusho et al.,
Triaxial Test (CTX) to remove larger particles (which then may not 2004; Kokusho
exactly representing field conditions). 2007; Hatanaka et
al., 1997)
Various (see e.g.,
Penetration test conducted in laboratory, similar to Robertson and
Large Scale Chamber
field but on specimens prepared inside a large Campanella,
Test
cylindrical steel container. 1983, Baldi et al.,
1986)

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 7

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION OF GRAVELLY SOILS: STATE
OF PRACTICE

The current engineering practice to evaluate the liquefaction potential of a gravelly soil
involves the following three main steps:

1) Material Characterization
2) Liquefaction Triggering Analysis
3) Stability and Deformation Analyses

Each of these steps are briefly discussed below.

Step 1 – Material Characterization

For characterizing a gravelly soil, one of the in-situ testing alternatives, as presented in
Table 2, is typically selected for the project. Some factors that impact the decision
making process include: a) availability of the equipment, b) cost; c) familiarity and level
of comfort of the engineering team with each method (typically based on previous
experiences). BPT method is likely the most common method used in dam projects.
However, use of iBPT and DPT methods is rapidly increasing in dam projects. According
to NAS (2016), iBPT may be the best available method to evaluate liquefaction potential
of soils that cannot be penetrated by CPT.

One factor to consider is that almost all of these methods are considered specialty drilling
services and therefore cannot be easily found. Specifically, both iBPT and DPT methods
are still evolving and has not been fully commercialized. If possible, when developing the
field investigation plan, it may be prudent to account for some companion boreholes
using conventional investigation techniques such as SPT and CPT. The information from
these boreholes will be used to verify and calibrate the results from the specialized
drilling techniques (i.e. BPT and iBPT) and can also provide additional means to evaluate
liquefaction potential of the soil.

The Shear wave velocity method, although applicable to gravelly soils, is not generally
recommended beyond the screening analyses due to its limitations (Seed et al. 2003).
Some of the limitations include: limited number of test sites compared to conventional
CPT/SPT based methods, less sensitivity to subtle changes in velocity and difficulty
detecting thin layers, SWV measurement is a small strain measurement when
conventional techniques and liquefaction itself are large strain phenomena, SWV is
strongly influenced by aging effects such as cementation, and uncertainty regarding how
to normalize SWV for effective overburden (Youd et al., 1997; Seed et al., 2003).

In addition to the in-situ tests, as mentioned above, in highly sensitive projects where
liquefaction would have significant social and/or economic consequences, laboratory
testing may also be considered for site-specific characterization of the gravelly soils.
Note that obtaining relatively undisturbed samples in gravelly soils is very costly and

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 8

difficult and only possible through advanced specialized techniques such as ground
freezing.

Step 2 – Liquefaction Triggering Analysis

For evaluating liquefaction potential in gravelly soils, the current engineering practice
relies heavily on the methodologies and correlations developed for assessment of
liquefaction of sandy soils such as the SPT and CPT based approaches proposed by
Boulanger and Idriss (2014). Specifically, when BPT or iBPT methods are used to
characterize the gravelly soils, the blow counts will be converted to SPT and then used
using the SPT-based liquefaction triggering analysis method. The applicability the sand-
based triggering curves to gravelly soils is currently unclear.

Step 3 – Stability and Deformation Analyses

Once the gravelly soil is characterized and potentially liquefiable zones are identified,
stability and deformation analyses may be performed to evaluate the post-earthquake
stability and estimate seismic-induced deformations. To simulate liquefaction, an
appropriate constitutive models such as UBCSAND (Beaty and Byrne, 2011) or
PM4Sand (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou, 2015) can be utilized. Caution is warranted,
however, when using these models because they have been developed for sandy soils and
their applicability to gravelly soils is unclear.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Studies related to liquefaction of gravelly soils will continue to receive attention from
multiple sectors including: academic researchers, practicing engineers, dam owners, and
regulators. Today, there are several case histories and laboratory evidences in support of
gravelly soils liquefaction. It is believed that dense and well graded gravelly soils with
less finer-grained particles are less prone to liquefaction than loose and poorly graded
gravelly soils with high finer-grained particles.

Traditional tools commonly used for liquefaction triggering assessment of sands cannot
be directly applied to gravelly soils due to the complications that coarse-grained particles
would introduce. To make it possible to evaluate liquefaction potential of gravelly soils,
some alternate methods have been developed and utilized to characterize gravelly soils.
In principle, most of these methods (e.g. BPT, iBPT, DPT) are similar to their
predecessor methods (e.g. SPT, CPT) with some adjustments and modifications to make
them applicable to gravel particles.

To perform liquefaction triggering analysis of a gravelly soil, practicing engineers often

have no choice other than relying on the same methodologies as developed for sandy
materials (e.g. Boulanger and Idriss, 2014). The applicability of such methods to all types
of gravelly soils is not clear. An exception to this is when gravelly soil is characterized
using the Chinese Dynamic Penetration Test (DPT). DPT liquefaction triggering
correlations are based exclusively on field performance data in gravel. However, the field

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 9

data seems limited at this point and requires further development (for different sites and
earthquakes).

For the embankment dams, the topic of gravelly soil liquefaction is perhaps more critical
for older dams (e.g. built before 1960s) because at the time, removal of gravelly alluvial
foundation layer had not been a common practice in design and construction of dams.
Therefore, foundation of some older dams may be susceptible to liquefaction. The cost of
liquefaction evaluation and remediation for these dams are often in the order of multi-
million dollar (Rollins et al., 2016). This signifies the importance of improving our
knowledge in this area to reduce uncertainties as much as possible. Some
recommendations for future studies are suggested below.

 More study is needed to document field observations of flow failures and lateral
spreads of gravelly soils to aid establishing liquefaction triggering criteria for
gravelly soils.
 More study is needed to better understand the applicability of liquefaction
triggering criteria of sandy soils to gravelly soils.
 More study is needed to better understand the response of different gravelly soil
types to cyclic loading.
 Further development of the new in-situ testing techniques for gravelly soils such
as iBPT and DPT. This can be achieved by providing opportunities to implement
these methods during investigation projects to contribute to and improve the
existing database for each method.
 Holding a workshop on liquefaction of gravelly soils to promote collaboration and
better direct the collective research efforts in this topic.

It takes collaboration and contributions from all sectors involved in dam community to
advance the current state of knowledge to where we can all be more confident of
decisions we make related to the liquefaction of gravelly soils. This is important since
more informed decisions can save tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars and
more importantly prevent future catastrophic dam failures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to deeply thank all the engineers and researchers who have
dedicated their professional lives to advance the state of knowledge and help us to make
the existing and future dams safer. We would also like to acknowledge Stantec for
promoting the value of research and providing opportunities to collaborate on the largest
and most interesting projects.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 10

 REFERENCES

Andrus, R.D., Youd, T.L., and Carter, R.R. (1986). Geotechnical Evaluation of a
Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spread, Thousand Springs Valley Idaho. Proc. of the
Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering,
Boise, ID, February, 1986.

Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V.N., Jamiolkowski, M., and Lo Presti, D.F.C., (1989).
“Modulus of sands from CPTs and DMTs.” In Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio de Janeiro.

Beaty, M., and P. Byrne. 2011. UBCSAND Constitutive Model Version 904aR:
Documentation Report.

Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. 2014. CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering
procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01. Center for Geotechnical Modeling,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.
134 pp.

Boulanger, R.W., and K. Ziotopoulou. 2015. PM4Sand (Version 3): A sand plasticity
model for earthquake engineering applications. Report No. UCD/CGM-15/01. Center for
Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of California, Davis. 112 pp.

Cao, Z., T. Youd, and X. Yuan. (2013). Chinese dynamic penetration test for liquefaction
evaluation in gravelly soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
139(8):1320–1333.

Coulter, H. W., and Migliaccio, R. R. 1966. Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964
at Valdez, Alaska.

DeJong, J. T., Ghafgazi, M., Sturm, A. P., Wilson, D. W., Dulk, J., Armstrong, R. J.,
Perez, A., Davis, C. A. (2016). “Instrumented Becker Penetration Test I: Equipment,
Operation, and Performance,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, in review.

Evans, M. D. (1993). Liquefaction and dynamic properties of gravelly soils. Soil

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, VI, Eds Cakmak & Brebbia, Elsevier, London,
317-331.

Evans, M.D. and Harder, L.F. (1993). Liquefaction Potential of Gravelly Soils in Dams.
Geotech. Practice in Dam Rehabilitation, Geotech. Engrg. Div. ASCE Specialty Conf.,
Raleigh, NC, (1993).

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 11

Evans, M.D., Seed, H.B., and Seed, R.B. (1992). "Membrane Compliance and
Liquefaction of Sluiced Gravel Specimens", J. of Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 118(6).

FEMA (2017). Hazus Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United
States. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA P-366. Available:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/132305.

Ghafghazi, M., DeJong, J. T, Sturm, A. P., Temple, C. E. (2016). “Instrumented Becker

Penetration Test II: iBPT-SPT Correlation for Characterization and Liquefaction
Assessment of Gravelly Soils” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, in review.

Gorny, R. and Liljegren, J. (2006). “Gravelly Alluvium Liquefaction: Analysis at

Skookumchuck Dam.” in Proceedings The Role of Dams in the 21st Century, 26th Annual
USSD Conference, U.S. Society on Dams, San Antonio, TX, May 1-6, 2006.

Harder, L. F. (1988). "Use of Penetration Tests to Determine the Cyclic Loading

Resistance of Gravelly Soil during Earthquake Shaking," Ph.D. Theses, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

Harder, L. F. (1992). “Investigation of Mackay Dam Following the1983 Borah Peak

Earthquake,” Proc. of Specialty Conf.: Stability and Performance of Slopes-II, ASCE,
Berkeley, California, June 28 to July 1, 1992.

Harder, L.F., Jr., and H.B. Seed. (1986). Determination of penetration resistance for
coarse-grained soils using the Becker hammer drill. Rep. UCB/EERC-86/06. Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Hatanaka, Munenori, Uchida, Akihiko, and Ohara, Junryo (1997). Liquefaction

Characterization of a gravelly Fill Liquefied During the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu
Earthquake in Soils and Foundations Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 107-115.

Hubler, J. F., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., and Zekkos, D., 2017. Monotonic, Cyclic, and
Postcyclic Simple Shear Response of Three Uniform Gravels in Constant Volume
Conditions. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(9).

Kokusho, T., Tanaka, Y., Kawai, T., Kudo, K., Suzuki, K., Tohda, S., and Abe, S. 1995.
Case Study of Rock Debris Availanche Gravel Liquefied During 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-
Oki Earthquake. Soils and Foundations. Vol. 35, No. 3, 83-95, Sept. 1995. Japanese
Geotechnical Society.

Kokusho, T., Hara, T., and Hiraoka, R. (2004). Undrained Shear Strength of Granual
Soils with Different Particle Gradations. J. of Geotech. And Geoinviron. Engin. ASCE.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 12

Kokusho, T. (2007). Liquefaction Strengths of Poorly-Graded and Well-Graded Granular
Soils Investigated by Lab Tests. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. pp. 159-184.

Lewis, M. R., Arango, I., and Stokoe, K. H. (2013). “Liquefaction Resistance of Gravelly
Soils.” in Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, IL, April 29 – May 4, 2013.
Lin, Ping-Sien, Chang, Chi-Wen, and Chang, Wen-Jong (2004). “Characterization of
Liquefaction Resistance in Gravelly Soil: Large Hammer Penetration Test and Shear
Wave Velocity Approach.” in Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.

National Academies of Sciences (NAS), Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. State of the
Art and Practice in the Assessment of Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction and Its
Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 1017226/23474.

Porter, K., Shoaf, K., and Seligson, H. 2006. Value of Injuries in the Northridge
Earthquake. Technical Note. Earthquake Spectra, Volume 22, No. 2, pp 555-563, May
2006. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).

Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G., 1983a. Interpretation of cone penetration tests –
Part I (sand). Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20(4): 718-733.

Rollins, K., Youd, L., and Talbot, M. 2016. Liquefaction Resistance of Gravelly Soil
from Becker Penetrometer (BPT) and Chinese Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DPT). 5th
International conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization. 5-9
September 2016. Queensland, Australia.

Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Dammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M.,
Reimer, M. F., Sancio, R. B., Bray, J. D., Kayen, R. E., and Faris, A. (2003). “Recent
Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework,” in
Proceedings: 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar, April, 2003.

Stokoe, K.H., II, G.J. Rix, I. Sanchez-Salinero, R.D. Andrus, and Y.J. Nok. 1988.
Liquefaction of gravelly soils during the 1983 Borah Peak, ID earthquake. Pp. 183–188 in
Proceedings of the 9th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.

Tamura, C. and Lin, G. (1983), "Damage to Dams during Earthquakes in China and
Japan," Report of Japan-China Cooperative Research on Engineering Lessons from
Recent Chinese Earthquakes Including the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Part I), Edited by
Tamura, C., Katayama, T., and Tatsuoka, F., University of Tokyo, November, 1983.

USBR, 2016. Liquefaction Triggering Assessment of Gravelly Soils: State-of-the-Art

Review. Research and Development Office Science and Technology Program. Final
Report ST-2016-0712-01. September 2016.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 13

 Wang, W. (1984). "Earthquake Damages to Earth Dams and Levees in Relation to Soil
Liquefaction." Proc. of the International Conference on Case Histories on Geotechnical
Engineering, 1984.

Yoshida, Yasuo, and Ikemi, Motonori (1988). “Empirical formulas of SPT blow-count
for gravelly soils.” in Penetration Testing.

Youd, L. T. and Idriss, I. M., Editors (1997). Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 14

View publication stats