Liquefaction Resistance of TP Lisbon Sand A Critical State

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:767–790
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01577-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Liquefaction resistance of TP‑Lisbon sand: a critical state

interpretation using in situ and laboratory testing
António Viana da Fonseca1 · Fausto Molina‑Gómez1 · Cristiana Ferreira1
Received: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 23 November 2022 / Published online: 1 December 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Abstract
This paper describes a comprehensive characterisation of liquefaction resistance of a
sandy soil collected from the ‘Terreiro do Paço’ in the historical centre of Lisbon (Por-
tugal), denominated as TP-Lisbon sand. This natural sand has experienced earthquake-
induced liquefaction caused by the 1755 earthquake. The characterisation was carried out
by combining in situ with laboratory tests. The results of in situ tests allowed obtaining
the factor of safety profiles against liquefaction, liquefaction potential index and liquefac-
tion severity number. On the other hand, an experimental programme conducted in the
laboratory allowed defining the cyclic resistance ratio for different relative densities and
mean effective stresses of TP-Lisbon sand. Besides, the effects of inversion and rotation of
principal stresses on liquefaction resistance were examined by advanced testing procedures
(i.e. cyclic triaxial and cyclic direct simple shear tests). The results of this study were ana-
lysed within the critical state soil mechanics framework by comparing the state parameter
reported by in situ and laboratory testing, particularly when using remoulded soil speci-
mens. The data presented in this study provide a database for numerical analyses and cyclic
or seismic geotechnical design, following a framework appropriate to natural sands suscep-
tible to liquefaction phenomena.
Keywords Liquefaction · Laboratory tests · In situ testing · Sands
1 Introduction
Soil liquefaction is one of the most destructive natural phenomena characterised by the
rapid loss of the strength and stiffness of soil due to the pore pressure build-up during
cyclic or monotonic loading. During liquefaction, effective stress tends to zero due to the
* Fausto Molina‑Gómez
fausto@fe.up.pt
António Viana da Fonseca
viana@fe.up.pt
Cristiana Ferreira
cristiana@fe.up.pt
1
CONSTRUCT-GEO, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (FEUP), Rua Dr. Roberto
Frias, S/N, 4200‑465 Porto, Portugal
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
768 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:767–790
generation of pore pressure build-up (Ishihara 1993). Liquefaction can occur in seismic
zones composed of saturated, non-plastic and contractile granular soil deposits. Earth-
quake-induced liquefaction has caused significant damage to several infrastructures world-
wide (Verdugo and González 2015). A very recent example was observed on 28 Septem-
ber 2018 in Donggala-Palu, Indonesia, after an earthquake with a large magnitude, that is,
Mw= 7.5. The Earthquake-induced liquefaction caused lateral spreading with more than
4,590,000 m2 of mud flows distributed in at least four zones in the Palu basin, affecting the
ground surface and numerous infrastructures (Jaya et al. 2019; Watkinson and Hall, 2019).
In Portugal, local liquefaction-induced damage dates from 1344, 1531, 1755 and 1909
when distant and local intraplate earthquakes (with a magnitude Mw between 6.0 and 8.5)
struck the Portuguese onshore mainland, mainly affecting the greater Lisbon area (Jorge
and Vieira 1997; Teves-Costa and Batlló 2011; Lai et al. 2021). Relevant damages were
reported after in 1755 and 1909 earthquakes. Notwithstanding, the 1st of November 1755
earthquake (Mw= 8.5) is probably the greatest seismic disaster in Western Europe since
it almost destroyed the Lisbon centre, killed up to 100,000 people and injured more than
40,000 people (Oliveira 2008). Therefore, the characterisation of the cyclic behaviour of
liquefiable layers composing the soil deposits of Lisbon centre is of utmost importance to
prevent damage and possible collapse of buildings, facilities and critical infrastructures in
this area.
This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study aimed at characterising the
liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand. This soil represents the fine sand composing the
liquefiable layer of the soil deposits of the historical centre of Lisbon. TP-Lisbon sand was
collected in a site locally denominated as ‘Terreiro do Paço’ next to the Tagus River within
the scope of geological and geotechnical characterisation for the marginal metropolitan bus
and metro lines, which comprised the design and construction of an underground tunnels
below this historical zone.
The liquefaction resistance characterisation of TP-Lisbon sand comprised an in situ
campaign and an experimental program in the laboratory. This campaign covered a series
of piezocone penetration tests (CPTu) to estimate state parameter, the profiles of the factor
of safety profiles against liquefaction (FSliq), liquefaction potential index (LPI) and lique-
faction severity number (LSN). The experimental program comprised the testing of inte-
gral samples (remoulded for the in situ conditions) in the cyclic triaxial and cyclic direct
simple shear apparatuses to assess the liquefaction resistance by considering the effects of
relative density (Dr), mean effective stress (p′) and inversion/rotation of principal stresses.
The main features of the cyclic resistance are compared against similar sands and discussed
within the critical state soil mechanics (CSSM) framework (Schofield and Wroth 1968).
The in situ and laboratory test results show that TP-Lisbon sand is soil susceptible to trig-
ger earthquake-induced liquefaction.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Geological and seismic local characteristics
The ‘Terreiro do Paço’ in Lisbon is one of the historically relevant sites in Portugal. Its
name in English means the courtyard palace. This site is a major transport hub in Lis-
bon because it contains a major commuter ferry terminal, with departures south across the
Tagus River. The site is a departure location for the tram network heading towards the
13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:767–790 769
Belem district or the Basílica da Estrela. Moreover, next to the fluvial terminal are the bus
and metro stations, which allow connecting the Lisbon centre with the rest of the city. On
the other hand, in this site is located one of the loveliest squares in Europe. This magnifi-
cent plaza is surrounded on three sides by distinctive yellow Pombaline architecture with
the decorative ‘Arco da Rua Augusta’, which is located at the north side and is the focal
point of the plaza. In front of Arco da Rua Augusta, Terreiro do Paço opens out on the
Estuary of Tagus River.
The square was reconstructed after the 1755 earthquake. This seismic event is a well-
known major earthquake (Mw = 8.5) that impacted the Portuguese continental mainland.
The 1755 earthquake, which originated in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, induced the
collapse of several buildings in Lisbon, including the Ribeira Palace—the most important
royal complex in Portugal, considered the centre of the empire. Historical reports indicated
that earthquake-induced liquefaction caused lateral spreading and affected the stability of
the foundations of the surrounding buildings at this site (Salgado 2019). The combination
of liquefaction effects with a tsunami from the Tagus River induced significant damage
to several buildings in the city centre. Figure 1 shows two representations of Terreiro do
Paço site before and after of 1755 earthquake. This figure illustrates well the damages and
effects of such an earthquake on this site. Therefore, the study of the surrounding sandy
soils of Terreiro do Paço is relevant for protecting the existing infrastructure and further
constructions in the Lisbon area, with relevant implications for the preservation of such a
historical site and its infrastructures.
The soil profile at Terreiro do Paço comprises marine and fluvial materials transported
by Tagus River, which rest over glacial Miocene deposits of stiff clays (Miranda et al.
2020). These deposits originated during the late Quaternary. Shallow layers are composed
of fine clean sands and sandy silts with intercalations of plastic soils (Couto et al. 2020).
The presence of these intercalations suggests that the valley was infilled in a heterogene-
ous process, corresponding to tidal variations in the Tagus River, which created a series of
complex stratified deposits composed of marine and fluvial sediments in this area. Such
layers of sandy soils experienced generalised liquefaction during the 1755 earthquake.
Lisbon is located in a high seismicity region in Portugal (CEN 2010). Such risk is due
to the proximity of the boundary between the African and Eurasian plates, which causes
high seismic activity in the adjacent Atlantic zone (e.g. the south of Portugal). Therefore,
this region is affected by the occurrence of large magnitude (Mw > 8) distant earthquakes
and medium magnitude (Mw > 6) near earthquakes (Azevedo et al. 2010). An example of
a distant event is the 1755 earthquake (Mw > 8.5) generated in the Eurasian-Nubia plate
boundary zone. Recently, the LIQUEFACT project (http://www.liquefact.eu/) clearly iden-
tified the Lisbon region as highly seismic and prone to liquefaction (Lai et al. 2021; Boz-
zoni et al. 2021). Besides, the shallow layers of Lisbon area comprise alluvial soil deposits
composed of loose to medium sandy soils. The assessment of liquefaction susceptibility
in this region can be done by using the parameters of EC8-NA (CEN 2010), for a return
period of 475 years and a seismic action Type 1 and Type 2, as summarised in Table 1.
2.2 In situ campaign
For the design and construction of the tunnels for the metro blue line and the new under-
ground marginal path of the ‘Metropolitano de Lisboa’, nine site investigation points
(SI) were conducted in 1999, including four in the square of the Terreiro do Paço site
and five next to the Tagus River. The in situ campaign included a series of soundings by
13
Fig. 1 Illustrations of Terreiro do Paço site—images provided by the Lisbon Museum to Fundação Luso-
Americana (2005): a before 1755 earthquake; b after 1755 earthquake
piezocone tests (CPTu) and the collection of integral samples in all SI. Figure 2 shows
the location of the nine SI in Terreiro do Paço.
For this study, only results of the CPTu soundings carried out in SI12, SI18 and SI19
are discussed due to its location in the square. The groundwater level was measured
at these locations, varying from 2.3 to 8.4 m depth. The variations in the groundwater
level position were conferred to the tidal effects of the Tagus River. CPTu were carried
out from 8 to 30 m depth due to the presence of very heterogeneous stiff materials in
the shallow layers of the studied zone, which correspond to compacted materials and
remains of the masonry buildings that collapsed in the 1755 earthquake. Compacted
rubble and fill—not susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction—were confirmed
during the sampling campaign in all SI upper 8 m depth. Figure 3 presents the primary
data of the CPTu tests, that is, cone tip resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs) and pore-water
pressure generated during the cone penetration (u2).
13
Table 1 Seismic parameters for Seismic action type 1 Seismic

Lisbon area considering a return action
period of 475 years (CEN 2010) type 2
Seismic zone 1.3 2.3

Mw 7.5 5.2
agR (m/s2) 1.5 1.7
γI 1 1
ag 1.0 1.7
Ground typea D D
Smax 2 2
Sf 1.83 1.77
amax (m/s2) 2.75 3.00
amax (g) 0.28 0.31
a
This corresponds to soil deposits of loose-to-medium cohesionless
soils (with or without some soft cohesive layers), which are typical of
alluvial zones (CEN 2010)
Fig. 2 SI locations at Terreiro do Paço site
Primary data were analysed in terms of the soil behaviour type (SBT) methodology
proposed by Robertson (1990). In addition, for practical purposes a simplified soil pro-
file has been defined by approximating the original soil behaviour type index (Ic) by
constant values, where similar behaviour is expected. As proposed by Cubrinovski et al.
(2019), the simplified soil profile considers: gravel and coarse sand (Ic < 1.3); clean sand
(1.3 ≤ Ic ≤ .8); sands with low fines content (1.8 ≤ Ic ≤ 2.1); silty sand, sandy silt and
non-plastic silt (2.1 ≤ Ic ≤ .6); and non-liquefiable silt or clay (Ic > 2.6). This alternative
13
Fig. 3 Profiles of primary CPTu data: a cone tip resistance; b sleeve friction c porewater pressure generated
during the cone penetration
classification method focuses on soil response with respect to earthquake-induced liq-

uefaction (Ferreira et al. 2020). Figure 4 illustrates a preliminary soil profile and the
simplified soil profile, based on the proposal of Robertson (1990) and Cubrinovski et al.
(2019), respectively.
The Ic profiles revealed clean sand to silty sand and silty sand to sandy silt at 20–26 m
depth in SI12. In the case of SI18 and SI19 sites, a thick layer composed of clean sand
to silty sand and silty sand to sandy silt was identified between 10 and 22 m depth. Tak-
ing advantage of the SBT analysis, a sampling campaign was carried out to collect rep-
resentative and integral soil samples next to the CPTu soundings. These samples were
obtained by Keller Groundbau GmbH Company using a double rotary probe sampler.
This device penetrates the soil through an external tube and allows the extraction of the
sampler in the vertical direction by an attached Shelby tube of 110 mm diameter. The
sampler recovered integral samples of alluvial soils (including fine clean sands) with a
recovering percentage of about 80%.
Such collected samples were initially used for the geological and lithological classifica-
tion of Terreiro do Paço site and afterwards stored. Notwithstanding, the integral samples
comprising granular soils were recovered for their advanced characterisation in the Geo-
technical laboratory at FEUP—LabGEO. The samples corresponding to TP-Lisbon sand
were collected between 13 and 23 m depth in SI18. Figure 5 exhibits the integral samples
of TP-Lisbon sand. Moreover, Fig. 5 shows the profiles of relative density (Dr) and state
parameter (ψ) derived from CPTu data. These profiles were estimated based on the correla-
tions proposed by Robertson (2009), which are widely used for soils with Ic < 2.6.
13
Fig. 4 SBT and Ic simplified soil profiles: a SI12; b SI18; c SI19
2.3 Description of TP‑Lisbon sand
TP-Lisbon sand is a homogenised granular soil composed of fine sands located in

SI18 at 13–23 m depth. Therefore, it represents the liquefiable layer of the alluvial soil
deposit below Terreiro do Paço site. Figure 6 presents the grain size distribution (GSD)
of TP-Lisbon sand and the GSD range of all soils before mixing. Besides, Fig. 6 shows
a comparison against the boundaries proposed by Tsuchida (1970) to estimate the liq-
uefaction susceptibility by considering the compositional criteria of the soil. From the
comparison, it can be observed that the GSD of TP-Lisbon sand falls within the bounda-
ries of soil likely to liquefy.
Table 2 shows the parameters of the grain size distribution of TP-Lisbon sand,
that is, the coefficient of curvature (Cc) and the coefficient of uniformity (Cu). These
parameters indicated that TP-Lisbon sand has a uniform GSD and it can be classified as
poorly-graded sand (SP) with a fines content equal to 2.21%. Moreover, Table 2 presents
a summary of the physical properties of TP-Lisbon sand reported by Molina-Gómez and
Viana da Fonseca (2021), namely particle shape, specific gravity of solid particles (Gs),
mean diameter (D50), maximum void ratio (emax) and minimum void ratio (emin).
13
Fig. 5 Integral samples of TP-Lisbon sand: a collected soil; b relative density profile at SI18; c state param-
eter profile at SI18
Fig. 6 Grain size distributions of sandy layer at SI18
2.4 Experimental plan and testing procedures in the laboratory
The experimental programme for assessing the liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon

sand involved an advanced testing in the laboratory by cyclic triaxial (CTx) and cyclic
direct simple shear (CDSS) tests. CTx and CDSS apparatuses allowed for the inversion
13
Table 2 Physical properties of Parameter Value

TP-Lisbon sand
Particle shape Sub-angular
Cc 1.13
Cu 1.69
Gs 2.66
emax 1.01a; 1.01b
emin 0.63a; 0.64b
a
ASTM method
b
JGS method
and rotation of principal stresses, respectively. Therefore, the comparison between the
results of both types of tests provided a comprehensive characterisation of cyclic behav-
iour and liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand during an earthquake.
The cyclic triaxial apparatus included a conventional triaxial cell equipped with a sub-
mersible load cell of 1 kN capacity and a pair of piezoelectric transducers to measure the
seismic wave velocities. The cell configuration allowed testing samples of 70 mm diam-
eter. The cyclic loading was applied by a servo-actuator composed of a hydraulic piston
with displacement and load transducers that allows varying the loading frequency between
0.001 and 2 Hz. This hydraulic system is powered by an oil pump, which allows applying
a maximum load of 10 kN. Both cell pressure and back-pressure were controlled by a pair
of Advanced Pressure/Volume Controllers fabricated by Global Digital Systems (GDS),
which allow for an automatic increment of both pressures during the saturation and con-
solidation of soil specimens by a step-by-step motor. A rubber V-ring ensures the con-
tact between the top cap and the hydraulic piston during cyclic loading, which warranted
the inversion of principal stresses during the cyclic testing (Cordeiro et al. 2022). Figure 7
shows a general overview of the cyclic triaxial apparatus.
The simple shear apparatus used in this research is an advanced fully automatic simple-
shear apparatus manufactured by Willie Geotechnik, which comprises an automatic sys-
tem composed of two high-quality servomotor drives for vertical and horizontal loading.
Fig. 7 Cyclic triaxial apparatus
13
Besides, the apparatus includes a series of LVDT transducers to measure vertical and hori-
zontal displacements, and a multi-axis load cell, with the capacity for a maximum vertical
force of 5 kN and maximum horizontal force of 4 kN. This system allows conducting static
and monotonic tests at strain and stress control. The device can carry out static and cyclic
tests in samples of 70 mm diameter. These samples are confined by a rubber membrane
and a series of stacked copper rings—SGI configuration—which keep the area constant but
allowed the shear distortion of the specimen (Ramos 2021). In this research, cyclic direct
simple shear (CDSS) tests were conducted. During CDSS, the soil specimen is subjected to
cyclic shear stresses, ensuring a constant height of the specimen. Due to this test condition
and the null radial deformations, this type of test is considered as a test at constant volume
state, which replicates the undrained shear conditions of the soil specimen (Dyvik et al.
1987). The constant volume condition was guaranteed using an active control based on the
vertical displacement measurements reported by the LVDT of the simple shear apparatus.
Figure 8 shows a general overview of the simple shear apparatus.
In this study, remoulded soil specimens were tested. The soil remoulding was carried
out by the air pluviation of dry sand. Such a method ensures homogeneous soil specimens
with an initial soil fabric like layers composing alluvial soil deposits (Miranda et al. 2020;
Molina-Gómez et al. 2020). All samples were saturated by the circulation of monoxide of
carbon (CO2) and flushing of de-aired water, as recommended by Viana da Fonseca et al.
(2021). For triaxial testing, the back pressure was gradually increased up to 300 kPa. This
increment was applied by ensuring a difference between cell and back pressures of about
10 kPa. The full saturation condition was validated by measuring B-values and P-wave
velocities (VP), which in all tests were higher than 0.97 and 1482 m/s, respectively (Astuto
et al. 2022; Cordeiro et al. 2022). For CDSS testing, the degree of saturation (Sr) was esti-
mated by monitoring the sample deformations during all test phases and measuring the
water content (ω) at the end of each test (Cappellaro et al. 2021; Fanni et al. 2022). In all
tests, Sr higher than 99% were reported.
The cyclic shearing was applied using a continuous sinusoidal signal with constant
amplitude (load or stress) at 0.1 Hz frequency in both CTx and CDSS testing. This fre-
quency was selected for accurately controlling both equipment during the cyclic testing.
The liquefaction onset was identified through the pore-pressure ratio (ru) criterion, that is,
Δ𝜎
ru = Δup�
> 0.99 and ru = 𝜎 � v > 0.99 for CTx and CDSS, respectively. The ru criterion
0 0
Fig. 8 Simple shear apparatus
13
adopted in this study comprised the residual values, which corresponded to ru value at zero
loading for both CTx and CDSS tests. At the end of both CTx and CDSS testing, the soil
specimens were carefully removed, avoiding possible loss of soil particles and water as
suggested by Verdugo and Ishihara (1996), Murthy et al. (2007). This procedure allowed
for a correct measurement of the final void ratio after testing based on the final water con-
tent and, consequently, an accurate estimation of the end-of-test void ratio (Viana da Fon-
seca et al. 2021).
3 Analysis and discussion of liquefaction results
3.1 Liquefaction resistance from in situ testing
Based on the in situ characterisation, an assessment of liquefaction susceptibility based

on CPTu results was carried out using the simplified procedure proposed by Boulanger
and Idriss (2016), considering the factor of safety against liquefaction ( FSliq), as shown in
Eq. 1. The method was originally introduced by Seed and Idriss (1971) and nowadays is
recommended in Eurocode 8 (CEN 2010).
CRR
FSliq = (1)
CSR
The CRR refers to the cyclic resistance ratio and CSR corresponds to the cyclic stress
ratio. Therefore, CRR represents the resistance of soil to liquefy derived from CPTu data.
On the other hand, CSR denotes the design seismic action at a specific location in depth
(Seed and Idriss 1971). The procedure to estimate CRR from CPTu data is:
[ ]
q (q )2 ( q )3 ( q )4
CRR = exp c1Ncs + c1Ncs − c1Ncs + c1Ncs − 2.8 (2)
113 1000 140 137
where qc1Ncs is the normalised equivalent clean sand values, as suggested by Boulanger and
Idriss (2016). According to these authors, a clean sand is considered to have a fines content
(FC) below 5%.
Moreover, the procedure proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971) to estimate the in situ CSR
is:
𝜏cyc amax 𝜎v0
CSR = �
𝜎v0
= 0.65
g
⋅ � ⋅ rd
𝜎v0 (3)
where τcyc is the amplitude of cyclic shear stress, 𝜎v0 ′

is the initial vertical effective stress,
𝜎v0 is the vertical stress, and rdis stress reduction coefficient that considers the depth of soil
deposit (Z) and the earthquake magnitude (Mw), as follows:
[ ]
rd = exp 𝛼(Z) + 𝛽(Z)Mw
Z
( )
𝛼 = −1.012 − 1.126 sin + 5.133 (4)
11.73
Z
( )
𝛽 = 1.00 + 0.118 sin + 5.142
11.28
Figure 9 shows the FSliq profiles of SI12, SI18 and SI19 for the Type 1 seismic action.
From Fig. 9, it can be observed a thick liquefiable layer in all profiles, highlighting the
13
Fig. 9 Factor of safety against liquefaction based on CPTu tests: a SI12; b SI18; c SI19
in SI18 and SI19 sites at 13 m to 23 m depth. Besides, interlayers of soil with lower liq-
uefaction susceptibility or non-liquefaction are observed in all profiles at 14 m to 15 m
and 25 m depth. The results of F Sliq are coincident with the layers of sandy soils inferred
from the SBT analysis (see Fig. 4). Besides, the results at SI18 matched with ψ profile
(Fig. 5), in which sandy soils with contractile behaviour—materials more susceptible to
liquefaction—were identified in the critical zones in this site, that is, FSliq < 1.
Moreover, alternative approaches to liquefaction assessment have been performed,
namely the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and Liquefaction Severity Number
(LSN). These approaches are quantitative indexes, which allow estimating the lique-
faction-induced damages. Both approaches were proposed by Iwasaki et al (1978) and
Tonkin and Taylor (2013), respectively. LPI allows estimating the liquefaction suscep-
tibility of the soil deposit by combining the results of F Sliq until 20 m depth. In addi-
tion, LSN represents the expected damage effects of shallow liquefaction on direct foun-
dations, based on post-liquefaction volumetric deformations that are associated with
reconsolidation settlements (Iwasaki et al. 1978). Figure 10 presents the results of the
LPI and LSN, considering the seismic action type 1.
Iwasaki et al. (1978) defined intervals for LPI classification, classifying liquefaction
potential as low when LPI is lower than 5, high when LPI is between 5 and 15 and very
high if LPI is higher than 15. As shown in Fig. 10, LPI values fall on the high liquefac-
tion severity, except for SI12, where the LPI is low. Complementary, Tonkin and Taylor
(2013) defined LSN ranges for liquefaction effects, classifying the expression of lique-
faction as little to none for values lower than 10, minor for values from 10 to 20, mod-
erate for values from 20 to 30, moderate to severe for values from 30 to 40, major for
values from 40 to 50 and severe damage for values higher than 50. LSN results showed
13
Fig. 10 Severity damage based on LPI and LSN from CPTu results: a LPI; and b LSN
in Fig. 10 fall within the little to non-expression of liquefaction class, below 10, in the
three SI.
The results in Fig. 10 showed a high probability of damage potential from liquefac-
tion onset in SI18 and SI19 locations, which are attributed to the presence of soil layers
composed of fine loose sandy between 15 and 23 m depth. However, the post-liquefac-
tion volumetric deformations will not induce significant effects on the shallow foundations
surrounding the Terreiro do Paço site, as indicated in LSN interpretation. The relatively
low values of LSN in this site are related to the presence of compacted materials near the
ground surface (i.e. the embankment and pavement structure between 0 and 8 m depth),
and the masonry remains of the buildings collapsed after the 1755 earthquake—confirmed
during the collecting of integral samples—that do not exhibit significant deformations dur-
ing liquefaction onset due to their high stiffness. Therefore, this thick crust prevents the
generation of large settlements in these sites, as verified by applying the equivalent soil
profiles for liquefaction assessment proposed by Millen et al. (2021).
3.2 Liquefaction resistance from laboratory testing
CTx and CDSS tests focused on the liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand under differ-
ent test conditions, i.e. initial relative density (or initial void ratio), stress state and cyclic
stress ratios. The relative density (Dr) of all sets of tests was grouped by considering a
range of ± 3% due to the variability that can be induced during the phases before cyclic
shearing. On the other hand, the experimental program involving two types of testing (i.e.
CTx and CDSS) deals with the assessment of undrained cyclic behaviour by inversion of
principal stresses and by the rotation of principal stresses.
The CTx tests were conducted in 30 soil specimens remoulded for relative densities
of 30%, 40% and 50%. The range of relative density and mean effective stress are within
the in situ range estimated from CPTu results (see Fig. 5). All samples were isotropi-
cally consolidated for effective confinement mean stress ( p′0 ) equal to 50 kPa and
100 kPa —representative of the in situ p′0 range. After consolidation, the samples were
subjected to different combinations of cyclic deviatoric stress (q) or cyclic stress ratio
( CSRTx = pq� ) to define the liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand. Such loading was
0
applied to inverse the principal stresses through compression and extension symmetric
13
Fig. 11 Typical results of cyclic triaxial testing (p′0 = 50 kPa and Dr = 30%)
cycles. Figure 11 shows the typical results obtained during CTx testing. This Figure
includes plots of stress–strain response, stress path, relationship between the number of
cycles for liquefaction onset (NL) and axial strain (εa) changes, and evolution of pore-
pressure ratio (ru = Δu
p�
) during cyclic loading.
0
From Fig. 11, it can be observed low deformations (εa < 0.1%) and a progressive
increment of ru during the first cycles of loading. However, after achieving a ru of about
0.65 (see cycle 9 in Fig. 11), the soil showed a rapid increment of pore pressure build-
up, which led to massive deformations and the total reduction of mean effective stress,
causing the onset of liquefaction. Many tests exhibited ru > 1.0 since the axial piston
of the CTx apparatus achieved its maximum limit after liquefaction onset. This effect
generated compliance issues at the end of the cyclic loading, which induced variations
in the measurement of soil behaviour. However, these issues did not influence the defini-
tion/identification of liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon sand by CTx testing.
The CDSS tests were conducted using 24 soil specimens with Dr between 40 and
60%. These samples were consolidated by increasing the vertical load until achieving
a vertical effective stress (𝜎v′ ) equal to 80 kPa and 150 kPa, corresponding to the repre-
sentative in situ 𝜎v0
′
of the integral sands collected in the critical liquefiable layers in the
Terreiro do Paço profile. During the consolidation, the radial strains were restricted by
a series of stack copper rings, inducing an anisotropic condition on the soil specimen.
Such condition is equivalent to the p’0 implemented for the CTx tests by considering the
13
at-rest earth pressure coefficient ( K0 = 𝜎h� ∕𝜎v� ). K0 was estimated by applying the corre-
lation proposed by (Jaky 1944):
K0 = 1− sin 𝜙� (5)
where ϕ′ is the effective friction angle of the soil. Molina-Gómez and Viana da Fonseca
(2021) indicated that for TP-Lisbon sand at critical state (equivalent to constant volume
condition and independent of Dr) ϕ′ is 34°, which is representative for the relative densities
and confinement stresses used in this study.
The shearing was conducted under the constant volume condition, by keeping the speci-
men height constant using an active control, for different combinations of cyclic stress ratio
(CSRSS = 𝜏∕𝜎v0 �
). The constant volume condition is equivalent to the undrained test condi-
tion since a decrease or increase of 𝜎v′ in a constant volume CDSS test is essentially equal
to the increase or decrease of excess pore pressure in an undrained CDSS test (Dyvik et al.
1987). Hence, ru ≈ 1 is equivalent to 𝜎v0 �
≈ 0, which indicated liquefaction onset due to the
loss of soil stiffness and stress-state.
Figure 12 shows the typical results obtained from CDSS testing, including plots of
stress–strain response, stress path, relationship between the number of cycles (NL) and
shear strain (γ) changes, and pore pressure ratio during cyclic loading. From this Figure,
it can be observed that during the first loading cycles, the development of γ was not sig-
nificant, while the 𝜎v0′
reduced progressively until achieve a value of about zero, where the
liquefaction was attained. After liquefaction onset (cycle 10), further reversal loading led
Fig. 12 Typical results of cyclic direct simple shear testing (𝜎v0

′
= 50 kPa and Dr = 50%)
13
to a partial recovery of strength and stiffness of the soil, which also manifested an increas-
ing and decreasing of 𝜎v0′
. Besides, during this phase, the area of hysteresis loops increases
considerably due to the accumulation of strains along with the cyclic loading.
The results of CTx and CDSS tests allowed defining the curves of liquefaction resist-
ance of TP-Lisbon sand (see Fig. 13). The cyclic resistance curves are drawn based on the
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and the number of cycles of liquefaction onset. The general equa-
tion to define the liquefaction resistance curve (LRC) for each test condition adopted in this
research is:
( )−b
CSR = a NL (6)
where a and b are fitting parameters and NLis the number of cycles of liquefaction onset.
Figure 13 shows the LRC derived from the results obtained during CTx and CDSS
tests for TP-Lisbon sand. This figure details the testing conditions and the best fit-
ting of LRC from experimental data. Test results indicated that the liquefaction resist-
ance increased as the relative density increased, and it decreased as the stress–strain
Fig. 13 Liquefaction resistance curves of TP-Lisbon sand: a CTx tests; b CDSS tests
13
decreased in both element test types. These results are consistent with the findings
observed by (Viana da Fonseca et al. 2015; Giretti et al. 2018). On the other hand,
Fig. 13 shows that all LRC reported herein have similar slopes (i.e. values of b expo-
nent between 0.095 and 0.114), indicating that the curves of TP-Lisbon sand are paral-
lel independently of the testing condition. Moreover, this figure revealed that the CTx
results showed a higher liquefaction resistance than the CDSS results, although all CTx
tests exhibited higher deformations than the CDSS tests.
Diverse studies have compared recently CTx and CDSS tests (e.g. Giretti and Fiora-
vante 2017; Khashila et al. 2021; Nong et al. 2021). These correlations involve a correc-
tion coefficient (Cr) to transform the liquefaction resistance obtained from the isotropic
triaxial tests into liquefaction resistance for simple shear conditions:
CSRSS = Cr CRRCTx (7)
Finn et al. (1971), Castro and Poulos (1977), Ishihara et al. (1985) indicated that
Cr depends on the K0 of soil. In this study, the models proposed by such authors were
applied to compare the CTx and CDSS results for equivalent tests conditions, that is,
Dr = 50% and p′0 = 50 kPa—equivalent to 𝜎v′ = 80 kPa. However, all Cr models did not fit
with the data the LCR for these conditions. Therefore, we proposed a new correlation to
describe both tests type, as follows:
2 + 3K0
Cr = (8)
4
By using K0 = 1–sin (34°), a Cr equal to 0.83 was obtained for TP-Lisbon sand. This
coefficient allowed transformed the CTx results into CDSS results properly. Figure 14
demonstrated that the results obtained from both test types are associated since they
fall into a single LRC—denominated as L RCCTx_Cr—after applying the transformation
model indicated in Eq. 7. Equation 9 defines the best fitting of corrected liquefaction
resistance of TP-Lisbon sand for Dr = 50% and p′0 = 50 kPa converted for CTx loading.
The parameter a and the b exponent of Eq. 9 are within into the range values referred in
Fig. 13, validating that equation describes well the liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon
sand.
Fig. 14 Liquefaction resist-

ance curve of transformed for
CTx loading (p′0 = 50 kPa or
′
𝜎v0 = 80 kPa and Dr = 50%)
13
CSRCTx_Cr = 0.171(NL )−0.101 (9)
3.3 Interpretation within the CSSM framework
The liquefaction resistance interpretation can involve an application of the critical state soil
mechanics (CSSM) framework through the estimation of the state parameter (ψ):
𝜓 = e0 − ecs (10)
where e0 is void ratio at the beginning of cyclic loading and ecs is the void ratio of the criti-
cal state at the current mean stress or p′0. Hence, ψ represents the vertical distance between
the initial state of the soil and its critical-final state. This parameter has the advantage, in
liquefaction assessment, of capturing the effect of the relative density and stress-state Been
and Jefferies (1985). State parameter, ψ, was estimated by considering the critical state
parameters derived from the results of monotonic triaxial tests. Molina-Gómez and Viana
da Fonseca (2021) conducted an experimental program to characterise the critical state
parameters of TP-Lisbon sand by monotonic triaxial testing for different values of void
ratio (e) and mean effective stress (p′). Based on experimental data, these authors derived
two models to describe the critical state locus (CSL) in the q: p′ and e: log p′ invariant
spaces, respectively. The experimental critical state conditions in the q: p′ invariant space
of TP-Lisbon sand can be represented by a linear relationship, described as:
q = Mc p� (11)
where Mc= 1.4 is the strength parameter at critical state in compression loading, which
depends on ϕ′. On the other hand, the critical state of TP-Lisbon sand in the e:log p′ invari-
ant space can be fitted by a straight-linear model, defined as:
ecs = Γ−𝜆 ln p� (12)

( )
where ecs is the critical state void ratio, Γ = 1.16 represents the void ratio at p′ = 1 kPa and
λ = 0.052 is the slope of CSL in the e:log p′ space. Figure 15 presents the CSL of TP-Lis-
bon sand and the experimental used to define it in the q:p′ and e:p′ invariant spaces.
The liquefaction resistance can also be described as the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR).
CRR corresponds to the CSR of liquefaction onset in a specific number of cycles (e.g. 10,
15 or 20 cycles). This parameter is associated with ψ for capturing the stress and state con-
ditions, but it does not combine the initial fabric effects (Jefferies and Been 2015). There-
fore, the application of the CSSM framework to describe the liquefaction resistance of TP-
Lisbon sand was carried out by estimating the ψ of before starting the cyclic loading and
computing the CRR for 15 cycles (CRR15) using the equations defining the LRC reported
in Fig. 13a.
The interpretation of liquefaction resistance within the CSSM was performed using the
results for triaxial conditions due to reliable databases reported in the literature for fur-
ther comparisons and validations. Therefore, the CDSS results were transformed into CTx
results by Cr coefficient to estimate the CRR15. Moreover, for this analysis, the stress-state
of LRC derived from CDSS is presented in terms of p′0. Table 3 summarises the parameters
used to estimate the relationship between ψ and CRR15 of TP-Lisbon sand.
All ψ values reported in Table 3 are negative, indicating dilative behaviour. Jefferies
and Been (2015) stated that soils with ψ > − 0.055 are considered susceptible to trigger
13
Fig. 15 Critical state locus (data from Molina-Gómez and Viana da Fonseca 2021): a q:p′ invariant space;
b e:p′ invariant space
Table 3 Values for estimating Test type p′0 (kPa) e0 ecs ψ CRR15
the relationship between ψ and
CRR15
CTx 50 0.899 0.952 − 0.053 0.128
50 0.863 0.952 − 0.089 0.137
50 0.826 0.952 − 0.126 0.158
100 0.899 0.916 − 0.017 0.101
CDSS 50 0.788 0.951 − 0.163 0.140
50 0.826 0.951 − 0.125 0.133
90 0.805 0.919 − 0.114 0.124
90 0.863 0.919 − 0.056 0.107
liquefaction, whereas soils with ψ < − 0.055 may exhibit cyclic mobility phenomenon.
However, the liquefaction susceptibility may change according to the energy and dura-
tion of the seismic event.
Figure 16 presents the relationship between ψ and CRR15 for TP-Lisbon sand. This
approach is representative for the same initial fabric (induced by the soil remoulding
using the air pluviation method) since this factor influences the number of cycles for
liquefaction onset. Moreover, Fig. 16 compares the results of CTx tests of this research
against other results for quartz sands compiled by Jefferies and Been (2015). The results
showed a higher liquefaction resistance (i.e. CRR15) as ψ became more negative, as also
observed by Giretti and Fioravante (2017) for liquefiable soil deposits in Italy. This ten-
dency was expected due to the increment of cyclic resistance of dilative soils. On the
other hand, a unique relationship was not observed for all soils showed in Fig. 16 since
the CRR also depends on the critical friction ratio (M), GSD and particles shape (Rah-
man et al. 2021; Porcino et al. 2021).
13
Fig. 16 Relation between ψ and

CRR15 (database from: Jefferies
and Been 2015)
The data spread of Fig. 16 is mainly linked to the uniqueness of the ψ and CRR15 relation-
ship for each tested sand; thus, it can be largely attributed to differences in the initial fabric
produced by the reconstitution method of each sand, which depends on its grain size distribu-
tion, particle shape and morphology. Besides, the strain level to liquefaction onset differs from
that associated with critical state; typically, the liquefaction onset occurs in moderate to large
strain levels (Green et al. 2022). Hence, the relationship based on ψ is not universal to describe
the liquefaction resistance due to the strain level during liquefaction, which is why the derived
relationships based on ψ are applicable solely, to any specific soil, but also with similar ini-
tial fabric. These results suggest that soil specimens with the same void ratio and effective
confinement but with different initial fabrics may have different ψ and CRR15 relationships.
A clear evidence of this behaviour has also been observed in the liquefaction resistance of
high-quality undisturbed samples and the corresponding reconstituted specimens, where the
differences are predominantly attributed to the distinct initial fabric (Kiyota et al. 2019; Ramos
et al. 2022). Therefore, a suitable fitting can be drawn for each sand under similar fabrics.
Equation 13 describes the relationship between ψ and CRR15 for TP-Lisbon sand tested for the
testing conditions described in this study:
1.11
CRR15 = 𝜓 (13)
1 + 0.41
By using the relationship between ψ and CRR15, it is possible to compare the liquefaction
resistance assessed by both in situ and laboratory testing, as validated by Giretti and Fiora-
vante (2017) by combining the ψ derived from CPT in a calibrated chamber in the centrifuge
apparatus against element testing. The ψ values addressed for the characterisation of liquefac-
tion resistance of TP-Lisbon sand in the laboratory are comparable with the ψ profile pre-
sented in Fig. 5c. This law trend line confirmed the high susceptibility of TP-Lisbon sand
reported in Figs. 9 and 13.
13
4 Concluding remarks
This paper presented a comprehensive characterisation of the liquefaction resistance of a

historically liquefiable soil from the Lisbon centre, denominated as TP-Lisbon sand. The
liquefaction resistance was assessed through in situ and laboratory approaches based on
CPTu, cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear test results, which were analysed focusing
on the effects of relative density and stress state by an interpretation within the critical
state soil mechanics framework, namely the application of the state parameter concept. The
CPTu soundings were decisive for identifying sandy soil layers susceptible to soil liquefac-
tion, where integral samples of these soils were collected for advanced characterisation in
the laboratory. Besides, the CPTu analyses allowed estimating the in situ state condition
of TP-Lisbon sand—necessary for liquefaction resistance assessment using remoulded soil
specimens.
From the results reported herein, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• A critical layer composed of loose sands was identified by CPTu soundings. Such a
layer has a high susceptibility to liquefaction onset, although the historical reports
pointed out that this soil has already exhibited liquefaction. The current liquefaction
susceptibility was demonstrated by analyses of the factor of safety against liquefaction
and liquefaction potential index.
• The interpretation of the obtained values of liquefaction severity number, with values
lying between 3.39 and 5.55, showed that the surrounding buildings and existing infra-
structure of Terreiro do Paço site will not present significant damage or foundation set-
tlements in case a seismic event with the local action or similar occur. The possible low
damages are related to the presence of shallow compacted materials and heterogeneous
masonry remains (from the collapsed structures after the 1755 earthquake), which do
not exhibit significant deformations during liquefaction onset due to their high stiffness.
• Liquefaction resistance curves indicated that the liquefaction resistance increases as the
relative density increases. Whereas the cyclic resistance ratio increases as the stress-
state decreases. Therefore, the liquefaction resistance ratio of TP-Lisbon sand depends
on its state, which can be represented by the ψ concept.
• There are relevant effects on the liquefaction resistance of this soil associated with the
type of solicitation; that is, the rotation or inversion of principal stresses during cyclic
loading. Experimental evidence showed a higher liquefaction resistance for the cyclic
triaxial test results (i.e. inversion of principal stresses) than the cyclic direct simple
shear (i.e. rotation of principal stresses).
• The results between CTx and CDSS tests can be compared by applying a transforma-
tion based on the coefficient Cr. A new formulation to estimate Cr for TP-Lisbon sand
was proposed in this study. The new proposal, based on the at-rest earth pressure coef-
ficient, allowed transforming CTx into CDSS and vice-versa. An application of such a
model in CTx and CDSS in equivalent test conditions demonstrated that such a trans-
formation provided a reliable comparison between original and transformed data.
• A model based on the critical state soil mechanics revealed that the liquefaction resist-
ance of TP-Lisbon sand increases as the state parameter is more negative, validating
the effect of relative density and stress-state on the cyclic behaviour of this soil. Such a
model is consistent and revealed a lower trend line when compared to liquefiable sands
with similar physical properties reported in the literature. Besides, this approach allows
comparing in situ and laboratory results.
13
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the technical support given by Eng. Daniela Coelho and Mr.
Armando Pinto of LabGEO during the development of the experimental program. Acknowledgements are
especially due to Dr Cristina Raminhos from ‘Metropolitano de Lisboa’ for providing the samples of TP-
Lisbon sand.
Author contributions António Viana da Fonseca: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources,
Supervision, Validation, Writing—review & editing. Fausto Molina-Gómez: Conceptualisation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualisation, Writing—original draft. Cristiana Ferreira: Formal
analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing—review & editing.
Funding This work was financially supported by UIDB/04708/2020 and UIDP/04708/2020 of CON-
STRUCT—Institute of R&D in Structures and Construction, Portugal funded by the national funds through
the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). The second author acknowledges the support of Fundação para à Ciência e
Tecnologia (FCT) through the Grant SFRH/BD/146265/2019.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Ethical statement The authors declare that this submission follows the Ethical Author Responsibilities indi-
cated in the guidelines for authors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
References
Astuto G, Molina-Gómez F, Bilotta E, Viana da Fonseca A, Flora A (2022) Some remarks on the assess-
ment of P-wave velocity in laboratory tests for evaluating the degree of saturation. Acta Geotech.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01610-9
Azevedo J, Guerreiro L, Bento R, Lopes M, Proença J (2010) Seismic vulnerability of lifelines in the greater
Lisbon area. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9124-7
Been K, Jefferies M (1985) A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 2:99–112. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1985.35.2.99
Bozzoni F, Cantoni A, De Marco MC, Lai C (2021) ECLiq: European interactive catalogue of earth-
quake-induced soil liquefaction phenomena. Bull Earthq Eng 19:4719–4744. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-021-01162-5
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2016) CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
142(2):04015,065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001388
Cappellaro C, Cubrinovski M, Bray J et al (2021) Liquefaction resistance of Christchurch sandy soils from
direct simple shear tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 141(106):489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.
106489
Castro G, Poulos SJ (1977) Factors affecting liquefaction and cyclic mobility. J Geotech Eng Div
103(6):501–506. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000433
CEN (2010) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance — Part 5: Foundations, retaining
structures and geotechnical aspects. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
Cordeiro D, Molina-Gómez F, Ferreira C et al (2022) Cyclic liquefaction resistance of an alluvial natural
sand: a comparison between fully and partially saturated conditions. Geotechnics 2(1):1–13. https://
doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics2010001
Couto R, Bento R, Gomes R (2020) Seismic performance and fragility curves of historical residential build-
ings in Lisbon downtown affected by settlements. Bull Earthq Eng 18(11):5281–5307. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10518-020-00906-z
Cubrinovski M, Rhodes A, Ntritsos N et al (2019) System response of liquefiable deposits. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 124:212–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2018.05.013
Dyvik R, Berre T, Lacasse S et al (1987) Comparison of truly undrained and constant volume direct simple
shear tests. G’eotechnique 37(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.1.3
Fanni R, Reid D, Fourie A (2022) On reliability of inferring liquefied shear strengths from simple shear test-
ing. Soils Found 62(3):101–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2022.101151
13
Ferreira C, Viana da Fonseca A, Ramos C et al (2020) Comparative analysis of liquefaction susceptibility

assessment methods based on the investigation on a pilot site in the greater Lisbon area. Bull Earthq
Eng 18:109–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00721-1
Finn WL, Pickering DJ, Bransby PL (1971) Sand liquefaction in triaxial and simple shear tests. J Soil Mech
Found Div 97(4):639–659. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001579
Fundação Luso-Americana FLA (2005) 1755 o Grande Terramoto de Lisboa—Vol 1 Descrições. FLAD e
Público editions, Lisboa, Portugal
Giretti D, Fioravante V (2017) A correlation to evaluate cyclic resistance from CPT applied to a case his-
tory. Bull Earthq Eng 15(5):1965–1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0057-7
Giretti D, Fioravante V, Been K, Dickenson S (2018) Mechanical properties of a carbonate sand from a
dredged hydraulic fill. Géotechnique 68:410–420. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.304
Green RA, Bradshaw AS, Baxter CDP (2022) Accounting for intrinsic soil properties and state variables
on liquefaction triggering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0002823
Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Géotechnique 43(3):351–451. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351
Ishihara K, Yamazaki A, Haga K (1985) Liquefaction of K0-Consolidated sand under cyclic rotation of
principal stress direction with lateral constraint. Soils Found 25(4):63–74. https://doi.org/10.3208/
sandf1972.25.463
Iwasaki T, Tatsuoka F, Tokida K, et al (1978) A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential
based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
microzonation, San Diego, California, USA, pp 885–896
Jaky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. In: Hungarian “A nyugalmi nyomas tenyezoje”. Jour-
nal society Hungarian engineering and architecture, pp 355–358
Jaya A, Nishikawa O, Jumadil S (2019) Distribution and morphology of the surface ruptures of the 2018
Donggala-Palu earthquake, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Earth Planets Space 71(1):144. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40623-019-1126-3
Jefferies M, Been K (2015) Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Jorge C, Vieira AM (1997) Liquefaction potential assessment: application to the Portuguese territory and to
the town of Setubal. In: Seco, Pinto PS (eds) Earthquake geotechnical engineering: Seismic behaviour
of ground and geotechnical structures. A.A. Balkema, Hamburg, Germany, p 401
Kiyota T, Maekawa Y, Wu C (2019) Using in-situ and laboratory-measured shear wave velocities to evalu-
ate the influence of soil fabric on in-situ liquefaction resistance. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 117:164–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.11.016
Khashila M, Hussien MN, Karray M et al (2021) Liquefaction resistance from cyclic simple and tri-
axial shearing: a comparative study. Acta Geotech 16(6):1735–1753. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-020-01104-6
Lai C, Bozzoni F, Conca D et al (2021) Technical guidelines for the assessment of earthquake induced
liquefaction hazard at urban scale. Bull Earthq Eng 19:4013–4057. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-020-00951-8
Millen M, Viana da Fonseca A, Quintero J et al (2021) Site classification using equivalent soil profiles
for building-liquefaction interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 19(10):3987–4012. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-020-00967-0
Miranda L, Caldeira L, Serra J et al (2020) Dynamic behaviour of Tagus River sand including liquefaction.
Bull Earthq Eng 18(10):4581–4604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00881-5
Molina-Gómez F, Viana da Fonseca A (2021) Key geomechanical properties of the historically liquefiable
TP-Lisbon sand. Soils Found 61(3):836–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2021.03.004
Molina-Gómez F, Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C, Camacho-Tauta J (2020) Dynamic properties of two
historically liquefiable sands in the Lisbon area. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 132(106):101. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.soildyn.2020.106101
Murthy TG, Loukidis D, Carraro JA et al (2007) Undrained monotonic response of clean and silty sands.
Gotechnique 57(3):273–288. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.57.3.273
Nong ZZ, Park SS, Lee DE (2021) Comparison of sand liquefaction in cyclic triaxial and simple shear tests.
Soils Found 61(4):1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SANDF.2021.05.002
Oliveira CS (2008) Review of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake based on recent analyses of historical observa-
tions. In: Fréchet J, Meghraoui M, Stucchi M (eds) Historical seismology. Modern approaches in solid
earth sciences, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8222-113
Porcino D, Triantafyllidis T, Wichtmann T et al (2021) Application of critical state approach to liquefac-
tion resistance of sand-silt mixtures under cyclic simple shear loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
147(3):04020,177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002470
13
Rahman MM, Nguyen HBK, Fourie AB et al (2021) Critical state soil mechanics for cyclic liquefaction and
postliquefaction behavior: dem study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 147(2):04020,166. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002453
Ramos C (2021) Cyclic liquefaction susceptibility of soils from field and laboratory tests—Methodologies
and critical analyses. PhD thesis, Universidade do Porto. https://hdl.handle.net/10216/136066
Ramos C, Molina-Gómez F, Viana da Fonseca A, Ferreira C (2022) Earthquake-induced liquefaction
assessment of undisturbed and reconstituted specimens from a natural alluvial deposit. Geosciences
(under review)
Robertson P (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27(1):151–158. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t90-014
Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests - a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46
(11):1337–1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065
Salgado F (2019) Liquefaction—causes and effects. In: Silvestri F, Moraci N (eds) Earthquake geotechni-
cal engineering for protection and development of enviroment and constructions. CRC Press/Balkema,
Rome, Italy, pp 415–422
Schofield AN, Wroth C (1968) Critical state soil mechanics, vol 25. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1987.tb00718.x
Seed H, Idriss I (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found
Div 97(9):1249–1273
Soares M (2015) Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential based on laboratory data Major factors and limit
boundaries. PhD thesis, Universidade do Porto. http://hdl.handle.net/10216/78425
Teves-Costa P, Batlló J (2011) The 23 April 1909 Benavente earthquake (Portugal): macroseismic field revi-
sion. J Seismolog 15(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-010-9207-6
Tonkin and Taylor (2013) Canterbury earthquakes 2010 and 2011. Land report as at 29 February 2012.
Tech. rep., Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Tsuchida H (1970) Prediction and countermeasure against the liquefaction in sand deposits. Abstract of the
Seminar in the Port and Harbor Research Institute pp 31–333. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10007805219/en/
Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils. Soils Found 36(2):81–91. https://doi.org/10.
3208/sandf.36.281
Verdugo R, González J (2015) Liquefaction-induced ground damages during the 2010 Chile earthquake.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:280–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.04.016
Viana da Fonseca A, Soares M, Fourie AB (2015) Cyclic DSS tests for the evaluation of stress densification
effects in liquefaction assessment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 75:98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILD
YN.2015.03.016
Viana da Fonseca A, Cordeiro D, Molina-Gómez F (2021) Recommended procedures to assess critical state
locus from triaxial tests in cohesionless remoulded samples. Geotechnics 1(1):95–127. https://doi.org/
10.3390/GEOTECHNICS1010006
Watkinson IM, Hall R (2019) Impact of communal irrigation on the 2018 Palu earthquake-triggered land-
slides. Nat Geosci 12(11):940–945. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0448-x
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
13

Liquefaction Resistance of TP Lisbon Sand A Critical State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liquefaction Resistance of TP Lisbon Sand A Critical State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:767–790

Liquefaction resistance of TP‑Lisbon sand: a critical state

António Viana da Fonseca1 · Fausto Molina‑Gómez1 · Cristiana Ferreira1

Keywords Liquefaction · Laboratory tests · In situ testing · Sands

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Geological and seismic local characteristics

2.2 In situ campaign

Table 1 Seismic parameters for Seismic action type 1 Seismic

Seismic zone 1.3 2.3

Fig. 2 SI locations at Terreiro do Paço site

classification method focuses on soil response with respect to earthquake-induced liq-

Fig. 4 SBT and Ic simplified soil profiles: a SI12; b SI18; c SI19

2.3 Description of TP‑Lisbon sand

TP-Lisbon sand is a homogenised granular soil composed of fine sands located in

Fig. 6 Grain size distributions of sandy layer at SI18

2.4 Experimental plan and testing procedures in the laboratory

The experimental programme for assessing the liquefaction resistance of TP-Lisbon

Table 2 Physical properties of Parameter Value

Fig. 7 Cyclic triaxial apparatus

Fig. 8 Simple shear apparatus

3 Analysis and discussion of liquefaction results

3.1 Liquefaction resistance from in situ testing

Based on the in situ characterisation, an assessment of liquefaction susceptibility based

where τcyc is the amplitude of cyclic shear stress, 𝜎v0 ′

3.2 Liquefaction resistance from laboratory testing

Fig. 12 Typical results of cyclic direct simple shear testing (𝜎v0

Fig. 14 Liquefaction resist-

CSRCTx_Cr = 0.171(NL )−0.101 (9)

3.3 Interpretation within the CSSM framework

ecs = Γ−𝜆 ln p� (12)

Fig. 16 Relation between ψ and

This paper presented a comprehensive characterisation of the liquefaction resistance of a

Ferreira C, Viana da Fonseca A, Ramos C et al (2020) Comparative analysis of liquefaction susceptibility

You might also like

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Geological and seismic local characteristics

2.2 In situ campaign

2.3 Description of TP‑Lisbon sand

2.4 Experimental plan and testing procedures in the laboratory

3 Analysis and discussion of liquefaction results

3.1 Liquefaction resistance from in situ testing

3.2 Liquefaction resistance from laboratory testing

3.3 Interpretation within the CSSM framework