Simplified Liquefaction Prediction and Assessment

Method Considering Waveforms and

Durations of Earthquakes
Shinji Sassa 1 and Hiroyuki Yamazaki 2

Abstract: This paper presents a new simplified liquefaction prediction and assessment method that is capable of considering the influence of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the waveforms and durations of earthquakes. The concept of an effective number of waves was introduced to represent the characteristics of
the irregularity of waveforms and the different number of load cycles of irregular seismic motions, as well as their influence on the occurrence
of liquefaction. A comprehensive set of laboratory liquefaction tests and statistical analyses were performed to study and validate this concept.
The validity of the proposed method, which adopts a wave correction coefficient based on the proposed concept, was verified using the case
histories of five past major earthquakes, demonstrating that the predictive capability of the new method was improved compared with that of
the conventional method for the cases of liquefaction and no liquefaction. A unique feature of the new simplified method is its universality,
allowing it to be applied to various types of liquefaction charts, facilitating more-rational liquefaction prediction and assessment worldwide.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001597. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Introduction characteristics in light of liquefaction, that is to say, the influence

Liquefaction prediction and assessment is a vital part of the earth-
quake-resistant design of structures on liquefiable soils. Liquefac-
tion prediction and assessment charts, originally developed by Seed
and Idriss (1971), have been widely used for such design in prac-
tice, as well as for disaster prevention and mitigation. The lique-
faction charts are characterized by the relationships between the
severity or level of earthquake loading, represented by the cyclic
stress ratio, versus the soil liquefaction resistance, represented by
field measured values such as the SPT (standard penetration test)
N-values, i.e., blow counts (Seed et al. 1983, 1985; Tokimatsu
and Yoshimi 1983; Iai et al. 1989; Youd et al. 2001; Cetin et al.
2004; Boulanger et al. 2012), CPT (cone penetration test) q-values,
i.e., tip resistances (Robertson and Wride 1998; Moss et al. 2006;
Robertson 2015; Boulanger and Idriss 2015), and shear-wave
velocities (Andrus and Stokoe 2000; Andrus et al. 2004; Kayen
et al. 2013). These charts have been calibrated against cases in
which liquefaction occurred or did not occur at given sites.
Earthquake motions at given sites generally have different
waveforms and durations that vary considerably in space and time
depending on the characteristics of the sites, routes along which
seismic waves propagate, and source rupture process of earth-
quakes (e.g., Aki and Richards 2009). However, current engineer-
ing designs do not adequately consider such earthquake loading
1 represent the relationship between the severity of seismic loading,
Head, Soil Dynamics Group and Research Director, Asia-Pacific
Center for Coastal Disaster Research, Port and Airport Research Institute,
National Institute of Maritime, Port and Aviation Technology, National
Research and Development Agency, Nagase 3-1-1, Yokosuka 239-0826,
Japan (corresponding author). E-mail: sassa@ipc.pari.go.jp
2
Distinguished Researcher, Port and Airport Research Institute, National
Institute of Maritime, Port and Aviation Technology, National Research
and Development Agency, Nagase 3-1-1, Yokosuka 239-0826, Japan.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 7, 2015; approved
on June 15, 2016; published online on August 8, 2016. Discussion period
open until January 8, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
of variable waveforms and their durations for given earthquakes, in
contrast to soil resistance characteristics, which have been exten-
sively studied and developed, including the aging effect with fines
(e.g., Kokusho et al. 2012; Dobry et al. 2015). Indeed, under given
maximum ground surface accelerations and maximum cyclic stress
ratios at given depths, the results of the corresponding liquefaction
prediction and assessment would be the same, for the given soil
characteristics, even if there were considerable differences in the
waveforms and durations of the seismic motions concerned.
In this study, a new simplified liquefaction prediction and as-
sessment method that is capable of considering the influence of
the waveforms and durations of earthquakes is developed. The con-
cept of the effective number of waves is introduced and validated
using the results of a comprehensive set of laboratory tests and the
case histories of five major earthquakes, including the 2011 Off the
Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. A unique feature of the pro-
posed method is its universality, allowing it to be applied to all
types of liquefaction charts mentioned above.
Review of Technical Standards of Liquefaction Charts
This section concisely reviews the essential features of technical
standards of liquefaction charts and simplified procedures for lique-
faction prediction and assessment. Liquefaction charts commonly
defined in terms of the cyclic stress ratio versus the field measured
resistance represented by the SPT N-values (Seed et al. 1983, 1985;
Tokimatsu and Yoshimi 1983; Iai et al. 1989; Youd et al. 2001;
Cetin et al. 2004), CPT q-values (Robertson and Wride 1998;
Moss et al. 2006), or shear-wave velocities (Vs) (Andrus and
Stokoe 2000; Andrus et al. 2004). Recent developments include
reexamination of an updated case history database (Boulanger
et al. 2012), use of a probabilistic approach (Kayen et al. 2013),
and intermethod comparison of the SPT, CPT, and Vs charts
(Robertson 2015; Boulanger and Idriss 2015). All of these charts
share the same basic principle and important characteristics.

ASCE 04016091-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 As an illustrative example, a liquefaction chart based on stan-
dard penetration tests (Youd et al. 2001; modified from Seed et al.
1985) is shown in Fig. 1. Here, the N-value, N160 , denotes the
SPT blow count that is normalized to an overburden pressure of
approximately 100 kPa and a hammer energy ratio, or hammer ef-
ficiency, of 60%. For liquefaction prediction, one plots the cyclic
stress ratio and the N-value on this graph; if the plot lies above the
given line corresponding to a certain fines content, liquefaction is
predicted to occur, otherwise no liquefaction is predicted. Here, the
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) is calculated from the following equation:



amax v0
CSR 0.65 max 0.65 rd 1 e 0.7
0
v0 0
v0
g v0
where amax (Gal) = maximum horizontal acceleration at the ground
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The liquefaction chart in Fig. 1 is for an earthquake magnitude
of 7.5. For other magnitudes, magnitude scaling factors are intro-
duced to correct the cyclic stress ratio, based on the assumption that
there exist an equivalent number of cycles for a given earthquake
(e.g., Youd et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2001). Related aspects of earth-
quake behavior will be discussed later in this paper.
For the purpose of comparison and subsequent discussion, the
liquefaction chart taken from Japanese guidelines (MLIT 2007) is
shown in Fig. 2. Here, the equivalent acceleration e is defined in
terms of the cyclic stress ratio as
max
2
0 g
and the equivalent N-value is defined as

surface; max (kPa) = maximum cyclic shear stress exerted on the

0
soil at a given depth; v0 and v0 (kPa) = initial vertical total stress
and initial vertical effective stress, respectively; g = gravitational
acceleration (980 Gal); and rd = stress reduction coefficient, with
rd 1.0 at the ground surface and, typically, rd < 1.0 below the
ground surface. As is evident in Eq. (1), it is based on the
assumption that max amax =g v0 rd , along with the maxi-
mum acceleration amax estimated at the ground surface. Eq. (1) also
offers an alternative approach (Dobry and Abdoun 2011), where the
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) is obtained directly from the maximum
shear stress max calculated with a site response analysis program
such as SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972).
N 0.019 v0 65
N 65 3
0.0041 v0 65 1.0
where e (Gal) = equivalent acceleration, which is obtained
through site response analysis, generally using the code SHAKE
(Schnabel et al. 1972); and N 65 = equivalent N-value correspond-
0 65 kPa, where the N-value
ing to a vertical effective stress of v0
at a given soil depth is obtained from a standard penetration test
(SPT). The equivalent N-value is adjusted for soils with certain
fines contents and plasticity indexes (MLIT 2007).

Fig. 1. Liquefaction chart based on standard penetration tests (SPTs) for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (reprinted from Youd et al. 2001, ASCE; data
from Seed et al. 1985)

ASCE 04016091-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 30

25

20
Equivalent N-value

15

10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Equivalent acceleration: Gal

Fig. 2. Liquefaction chart showing four zones for liquefaction predic-

tion and assessment (data from MLIT 2007)

The occurrence and possibility of liquefaction are predicted and

assessed depending on where a given plot point, based on Eqs. (2)
and (3), lies in the four zones of the chart. Namely, Zone I means
that liquefaction will occur, Zone II represents a high possibility of
liquefaction, Zone III represents a low possibility of liquefaction,
and Zone IV means that liquefaction will not occur. For a more-
accurate evaluation of liquefaction in Zones II and III, one may
conduct liquefaction tests in the laboratory using undisturbed soil
samples, and together with the results of these tests, one can assess
the occurrence or absence of liquefaction. Before applying the
aforementioned liquefaction chart, first, screening is performed
with soil classification, as shown in Fig. 3. That is to say, there
are different ranges of grain-size distributions with a possibility
of liquefaction, depending on the grading of the soils. If the soil
has a grain-size distribution that falls in the ranges with the pos-
sibility of liquefaction, it is assessed that liquefaction can occur,
and if not, it is assessed that liquefaction does not occur. In the
former cases, the liquefaction chart is used for liquefaction predic-
tion and assessment.
Converting the horizontal and vertical axes in Fig. 2 and using
the line between Zone II and Zone III as a dividing line between
liquefaction and no liquefaction, the structure of this chart be-
comes essentially the same as the chart shown in Fig. 1, where the
clean-sand base curve is considered. Indeed, through appropriate
conversions (Iai et al. 1989), the Japanese liquefaction chart was
previously shown to compare favorably with those of Seed et al.
(1985) and Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983).
There are some basic assumptions underlying the liquefaction
charts with respect to the influence of the waveforms and durations
of earthquakes. Those assumptions are such that the nonuniform
cyclic shear stress variation exerted on a soil layer during an earth-
quake can be replaced by an equivalent number of cycles of uni-
form stress, and there are an equivalent number of loading cycles
relating to earthquake magnitudes (Seed et al. 1983; Youd et al.
2001; Liu et al. 2001; Idriss and Boulanger 2008; Dobry and
Abdoun 2011). However, these assumptions neither represent nor
account for actual field conditions, such as the waveforms and du-
rations of seismic motions varying considerably in space and time
Fig. 3. Grain size distribution curves with the ranges of possibility of
liquefaction marked (data from MLIT 2007): (a) soil with low coeffi-
cient of uniformity Uc < 3.5; (b) soil with high coefficient of unifor-
mity Uc 3.5
due to the characteristics of the sites, routes, and sources of earth-
quakes (e.g., Aki and Richards 2009).
In what follows, the authors present a new method that incor-
porates the influence of such waveforms and durations of the earth-
quakes and that can be applied to any type of the liquefaction charts
described earlier.
New Method Considering the Influence of
Waveforms and Durations of Earthquakes
A new liquefaction prediction and assessment method that takes
account of the influence of waveforms and durations of seismic
motions is presented herein. For this purpose, the results of a com-
prehensive set of laboratory tests will be described first. The con-
cept of the effective number of waves is then discussed and is
incorporated into liquefaction prediction and assessment.
Undrained Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests and Constant-
Volume Cyclic Simple Shear Tests
Three series of laboratory liquefaction tests were conducted using
11 types of irregular waves with different waveforms and load
cycles, as shown in Fig. 4, together with regular waves, comprising
a total of 241 test cases. The laboratory tests performed were un-
drained cyclic hollow cylindrical torsional shear tests for Series 1
and 2 and constant-volume cyclic simple shear tests for Series 3, as
listed in Table 1. All of the tests were carried out using reconstituted

ASCE 04016091-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2

Shear stress ratio:

Shear stress ratio: 0.1 0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(a) Time: s (b) Time: s

0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2

Shear stress ratio:

Shear stress ratio:

0.1 0.1
0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 -0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(c) Time: s (d) Time: s

0.4 0.6
0.3 0.4
0.2
Shear stress ratio:

Shear stress ratio:

0.1 0.2
0 0
-0.1 -0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.3
-0.4 -0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 20 40 60 80 100
(e) Time: s (f) Time: s

0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
Shear stress ratio:
Shear stress ratio:

0.1
0 0

-0.2 -0.1
-0.2
-0.4
-0.3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 200 400 600 800 1000
(g) Time: s (h) Time: s

0.4
0.4 0.3
0.2
Shear stress ratio:

Shear stress ratio:

0.2
0.1
0 0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4 -0.3
-0.4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
(i) Time: s (j) Time: s

0.3
0.2
Shear stress ratio:

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
(k) Time: s

Fig. 4. Eleven types of irregular seismic waves used for laboratory liquefaction tests: (a) Wave 1; (b) Wave 2; (c) Wave 3; (d) Wave 4; (e) Wave 5;
(f) Wave 6; (g) Wave 7; (h) Wave 8; (i) Wave 9; (j) Wave 10; (k) Wave 11

ASCE 04016091-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 Table 1. Undrained Cyclic Torsional Shear Tests and Constant-Volume Cyclic Simple Shear Tests for Regular and Irregular Seismic Waves, Comprising a
Total of 241 Test Cases
Sample Dr
Series Testing method preparation (%) CSRR CRR20 Waveform CSRIR CRRIR
T-1 Cyclic torsional Air pluviation 50 0.121, 0.153, 0.200, 0.296 0.163 1 0.229, 0.242, 0.261, 0.276 0.247
shear 2 0.241, 0.253, 0.288, 0.378 0.290
3 0.203, 0.207, 0.227, 0.251 0.221
4 0.178, 0.179, 0.188, 0.189 0.186
65 0.159, 0.178, 0.202, 0.229 0.186 1 0.286, 0.313, 0.351, 0.402 0.327
2 0.261, 0.301, 0.398, 0.482 0.396
3 0.220, 0.235, 0.270, 0.280 0.267
4 0.227, 0.235, 0.259, 0.273 0.246
80 0.182, 0.201, 0.301, 0.480 0.220 1 0.352, 0.452, 0.609, 1.031 0.422
2 0.345, 0.561, 0.765, 1.060 0.514
3 0.340, 0.436, 0.513, 0.588 0.371
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 0.243, 0.264, 0.280, 0.311 0.263

5 0.261, 0.287, 0.325 0.294
90 0.214, 0.250, 0.281, 0.330 0.260 1 0.403, 0.615, 0.826, 1.239 0.768
2 0.399, 0.628, 0.842, 1.187 0.902
3 0.412, 0.518, 0.679, 0.910 0.613
4 0.349, 0.400, 0.443, 0.588 0.417
T-2 Cyclic torsional Vibratory 50 0.172, 0.205, 0.244 0.178 6 0.203, 0.262, 0.306 0.271
shear compaction 7 0.200, 0.259, 0.282, 0.309 0.270
8 0.213, 0.229, 0.260 0.235
9 0.208, 0.256, 0.258 0.257
10 0.204, 0.248, 0.290 0.258
65 0.182, 0.266, 0.365, 0.480 0.242 6 0.303, 0.402, 0.443 0.412
7 0.308, 0.354, 0.410 0.365
8 0.224, 0.281, 0.314 0.288
9 0.259, 0.297, 0.301 0.284
10 0.249, 0.317, 0.360 0.327
80 0.299, 0.404, 0.506 0.348 6 0.575, 0.617, 0.671 2.320
7 0.404, 0.513, 0.622 0.540
8 0.259, 0.303, 0.410 0.318
9 0.407, 0.421, 0.449 0.421
10 0.343, 0.402, 0.453 0.404
S Cyclic simple Vibratory 40 0.085, 0.107, 0.140 0.117 6 0.160, 0.173, 0.183, 0.192 0.172
shear compaction 7 0.149, 0.154, 0.160, 0.161, 0.165 0.158
8 0.128, 0.142, 0.143, 0.145, 0.147 0.144
50 0.105, 0.131, 0.144 0.123 6 0.186, 0.191, 0.194, 0.197 0.191
7 0.172, 0.174, 0.178, 0.246, 0.293 0.175
8 0.145, 0.153, 0.155 0.146
9 0.161, 0.170 0.169
10 0.172, 0.173 0.173
65 0.111, 0.158, 0.179 0.155 6 0.238, 0.267, 0.314, 0.356 0.286
7 0.170, 0.213, 0.235, 0.254 0.215
8 0.183, 0.187, 0.188, 0.189 0.187
9 0.192, 0.202, 0.224, 0.232 0.202
10 0.171, 0.201, 0.203, 0.210, 0.214 0.209
11 0.247, 0.318, 0.384, 0.457 0.279
80 0.130, 0.156, 0.209 0.176 6 0.247, 0.410, 0.573, 0.750 0.317
7 0.246, 0.289, 0.337 0.264
8 0.207, 0.235 0.212
9 0.201, 0.220, 0.247 0.207
10 0.180, 0.266, 0.310 0.216
90 0.176, 0.235, 0.300, 0.360 0.283 6 0.315, 0.803, 1.150, 1.648 0.909
7 0.224, 0.296, 0.373, 0.455, 0.602, 0.686 0.557
8 0.194, 0.252, 0.317, 0.384, 0.515, 0.584 0.434

specimens of silica sand with a median grain size D50 0.17 mm
and a uniformity coefficient U c 1.7. The sizes of the hollow
cylindrical specimens were 30 mm in internal diameter, 70 mm
in external diameter, and 70 mm in height for Series 1, and
60 mm in internal diameter, 100 mm in external diameter, and
100 mm in height for Series 2. The size of the cylindrical specimen,
which was confined in 10 circular Teflon polytetrafluorethylene
rings each with a thickness of 4 mm, was 100 mm in diameter
and 40 mm in height for Series 3. The samples were prepared
through air pluviation by adjusting the fall height to achieve the
targeted relative densities, and were frozen and set in the cell with
subsequent thawing in Series 1, whereas in Series 2 samples were
prepared by dry vibratory compaction. In both series, the samples
were saturated so that the pore pressure coefficient B became
higher than 0.95 and were isotropically consolidated to an effective
0
stress of m0 98 kPa, and then subjected to undrained cyclic
torsional shear with given seismic waves. Series 3 samples were
prepared by dry vibratory compaction and were K o consolidated

ASCE 04016091-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 80 0.6
60
Shear stress : kPa 40
20 0.5
Series T-1
0
-20
-40 0.4
-60
-80

Cyclic stress ratio

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.3
Time: s
Excess pore water pressure ue: kPa

100
0.2
80
60
0.1
40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

20
0
0 1 10 100 1000
(a) Number of cycles: Nc
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.6
Time: s
10
0.5 Series T-2
:%

0.4
Shear strain

Cyclic stress ratio

-5
0.3
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time: s 0.2

Fig. 5. Definition of liquefaction with reference to the results of a test

case with Dr 80% for the irregular Seismic Wave 2 in Series T-1 0.1

0 0
to a vertical effective stress of v0 98 kPa, and were then sub- 1 10 100 1000
(b) Number of cycles: Nc
jected to constant-volume cyclic simple shear with given seismic
waves. The 11 types of irregular waves shown in Fig. 4, which 0.6
had a wide variety of waveforms and durations with the number
of seismic waves ranging from 10 to over 300, were collected
0.5 Series S
and/or artificially created on the basis of the seismic records of past
earthquakes. The time axes of the loaded seismic waves were cali-
brated and elongated so as to assure accurate control of the loads 0.4
during the undrained or constant-volume cyclic shear of the sam-
Cyclic stress ratio

ples (Yamazaki and Emoto 2010).

0.3
The example test results are shown in Fig. 5. It is seen that, with
seismic loading, the excess pore-water pressure built up, and shear
strain developed. The definition of liquefaction used for all test 0.2
cases under the regular and irregular wave loading is such that
liquefaction takes place when the double-amplitude shear strains
0.1
reach DA 7.5% (Tatsuoka et al. 1986). Indeed, the excess pore
pressure reached the level of the effective confining pressure
0
(m0 98 kPa) at around DA 7.5% in this case. 0
0
The cyclic shear stress ratio, c =v0 , versus the number of load (c)
1 10 100
Number of cycles: Nc
1000

cycles, N c leading to liquefaction for the regular wave loading is

shown in Fig. 6. The liquefaction resistance for the regular waves
was defined by the cyclic stress ratio with N c 20, designated as
CRR20 . For the irregular wave loading, the maximum cyclic stress
0
ratios, max =v0 , were varied, and their relationships with the
developed double-amplitude shear strains, DA , were plotted, as
shown in Fig. 7. The liquefaction resistance for the irregular waves
was defined by the maximum cyclic stress ratio corresponding to
DA 7.5%, designated as CRRIR . The liquefaction resistances,
i.e., cyclic resistance ratios CRR20 and CRRIR , obtained for all
regular and irregular wave loading cases, are summarized in
Table 1, with the relative densities, Dr , ranging from 40 to 90%.
Fig. 6. Liquefaction resistance curves for Series (a) T-1; (b) T-2; (c) S
Effective Number of Waves
The concept of effective number of waves introduced to character-
ize the waveforms and durations or number of load cycles of irregu-
lar seismic waves is described here. The theme here is how to
represent the severity of given seismic waves, with certain maxi-
mum amplitudes, yet having distinctly variable waveforms and du-
rations. The key idea is that small waves relative to the maximum

ASCE 04016091-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 1.2 1
Dr = 40%
Dr = 90%
Wave 1 0.9
1 Wave 2
Wave 3
Wave 4
Wave 5 Dr = 80%
DA =7.5% 0.8

Correlation coefficient R
Maximum cyclic stress ratio

0.8

0.7

0.6
Dr = 65%
0.6

0.4
0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 0.4
0 5 10 15 20
Maximum double amplitude shear strain :%
Dr = 50%

Fig. 7. Definition of liquefaction resistance for irregular waves 0.3

0 20 40 60 80 100
with reference to the results of the 19 test cases with Dr 80% in :%
Series T-1
Fig. 9. Correlation coefficient R versus for all the test cases in Series
T-1, T2, and S under the 11 types of irregular seismic waves
2.2

Acting shear stress

90%
2 80%
Liquefaction resistance ratio CRRIR / CRR20

70% Time
60%
50%
1.8
40%
30%
20%
10%
1.6
0.6

1.4
0.6

1.2
1
0 50
Number of half waves above
Fig. 8. Relationships between the liquefaction resistance ratio
CRRIR =CRR20 and the number of half-waves having intensities above
max for Dr 65%
waves may not make a significant contribution to the occurrence of
liquefaction due to the lesser cyclic plasticity of the soils (e.g., Sassa
and Sekiguchi 2001). In other words, seismic waves having inten-
sities above certain proportions of the maximum waves may effec-
tively contribute to the occurrence of liquefaction. The proportion
of such waves was defined as , and the relationships between ,
specifically the number of half-waves having intensities above
max , and the liquefaction susceptibility defined by the ratio
CRRIR =CRR20 was studied. Example relationships are plotted
in Fig. 8 for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% and
Dr 65%. The dotted lines represent power-function regression
curves whose correlations were analyzed for all of the test cases
in Table 1. The results of this statistical analysis are shown in Fig. 9.
In this case : Nef =5/2=2.5
Fig. 10. Definition of effective number of waves
100 150 200 250 300
The correlation coefficient, R, was lower for low values of . The
R-value increased with increasing , reached a peak and then de-
creased with increasing . For Dr 40%, however, the R-value
was consistently high, which stemmed from the smaller number
of test cases for very soft soils, as given in Table 1. Overall, the
results indicate that there exists an optimal value of at around
60%. This means that the number of half-waves having inten-
sities above 0.6 max had the highest correlations with CRRIR =
CRR20 . Hence, with reference to Fig. 10, the effective number of
waves, N ef , was defined as half the number of half-waves above
0.6 max in the time history of the shear stress variation due to
irregular seismic waves, as shown in Fig. 10. By definition, the
N ef value becomes equal to N c in the case of regular seismic waves.
Ishihara and Yasuda (1973, 1975) classified the waveforms of
irregular seismic waves as a shock type and vibratory type, depend-
ing on the number of waves preceding the maximum whose am-
plitudes are greater than 60% of the maximum shear stress max .
This classification, however, has proven insufficient in characteriz-
ing the degree of the irregularity because it was based solely on

ASCE 04016091-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 information regarding the preceding seismic waves before max 1
manifested in a given shear stress variation.
A notable feature of the effective number of waves defined Dr = 50%
Dr = 65%
above is that it varies not only by the durations or load cycles of Dr = 80% Series T-1
0.8
Dr = 90%
the seismic motions, but also by the degree of irregularity of the : Regression of measured values
seismic waveforms through the shear stress variation, such as im- : Eqs. (4) and (5)

Liquefaction resistance CRRIR

pulsive or oscillatory waveforms, even for the same durations. As a
consequence, the effective number of waves, together with the con- 0.6
ventional maximum shear stress, is capable of representing the
severity of given seismic loading, simultaneously taking account
of the influence of such waveforms and durations of the irregular 0.4
seismic motions in a simple yet workable way.
The liquefaction resistance for the irregular seismic waves,
CRRIR , is plotted against the effective number of waves, N ef , as
shown in Fig. 11. The solid lines represent the power regression 0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

curves and the dotted lines will be explained later with reference
to the proposed equations. It is seen that the CRRIR value de-
creases with increasing N ef , and its dependency varies considerably 0
with Dr . 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) Effective number of waves Nef

Liquefaction Prediction and Assessment 2.5

For liquefaction prediction and assessment utilizing the effective

number of waves concept, and its wider applications, this subsec- : Dr = 50%
: Dr = 65% Series T-2
tion considers the normalized liquefaction resistance CRRIR =CRRr 2 : Dr = 80%
in terms of the liquefaction resistance CRRr for a reference value of : Regression of measured values

Liquefaction resistance CRRIR

: Eqs. (4) and (5)
N ef , namely N r, and defines the term CRRIR =CRRr as a wave cor-
rection coefficient c :
1.5
CRRIR
N a
r N ef c
a
4
CRRr
1
Eq. (4) indicates that under the conditions N ef N r , then c
1 ensues. The index a links c and N ef through a power function
and depends on Dr . Regression analysis of the observed data led to
the following form: 0.5

a 0.20.7 Dr 5

Here, Eq. (5) is valid for a 0, thus, Dr 2=7, that is, nearly 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
30%, and under very soft soil conditions with Dr < 2=7, it follows (b) Effective number of waves Nef
that a 0 and c 1. Eqs. (4) and (5) indicate that c increases
for N ef < N r and decreases for N ef > N r. The Dr value can be as- 1.2
sessed from the widely used correlation with the SPT N-value
Dr = 40%
(Meyerhof 1957; Ishihara 1996): Dr = 50%
s 1
Dr = 65%
Dr = 80%
Series S
170 N Dr = 90%
Dr 0.16 6 : Regression of measured values
70 v0
Liquefaction resistance CRRIR

: Eqs. (4) and (5)

0.8
Other widely used correlations between Dr and the CPT
q-value, or between N and q and Vs (Jamiolkowski et al. 1985;
0.6
Robertson 1990; Ishihara 1996; Andrus and Stokoe 2000; Andrus
et al. 2004, among others) can also be employed for calculating c .
With reference to Fig. 11, the dotted lines represent the values
0.4
predicted from Eqs. (4) and (5). Here, the condition N r 5 was
used, and the corresponding CRRr values were adopted from
the measured ones (solid lines) in Fig. 11. There are reasonably
0.2
good agreements between the two. The form of the proposed
Eqs. (4) and (5) is kept constant for any value of N r , which facil-
itates universal application of the wave correction coefficient, c . 0
The wave correction coefficients, c , on the basis of Eqs. (4)(6) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(c) Effective number of waves Nef
are plotted against Dr and N in Fig. 12. It is seen that the c value
changes more markedly with increasing Dr and N. The correspond-
Fig. 11. Liquefaction resistance versus the effective number of waves
ing procedure for the liquefaction prediction and assessment is de-
for Series (a) T-1; (b) T-2; (c) S
scribed subsequently.

ASCE 04016091-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 2 10
Nef = 1
Nef=1
Nef = 2.5
Nef=2.5
1.8 Nef = 5
Nef=5
Nef=7.5
Nef = 7.5 8
Nef=10
Nef = 10
1.6 Nef=12.5
Nef = 12.5

Effective number of waves Nef

Wave correction coefficient

1.4 6

1.2
4
Nr = 5
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2
0.8

0.6
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
Dr: % 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Number of soil layers
2.2
Nef=1
Nef = 1 Fig. 13. Effective numbers of waves calculated through site response
2 Nef=2.5
Nef = 2.5 analysis using the SHAKE code for the 1983 Central Japan Sea Earth-
Nef=5
Nef = 5 quake at Akita Port, Japan
Nef = 7.5
Nef=7.5
1.8 Nef = 10
Nef=10
Nef = 12.5
Nef=12.5 30
Wave correction coefficient

1.6 Nr = 5 Current
:Nef = 1 Corrected
:Nef =10 Corrected
25
1.4

1.2
20
Equivalent N-value

Nr = 5
1

15
0.8

0.6 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
N-value No liquefaction

Fig. 12. Wave correction coefficient c versus Dr and N-value in the 5

case of N r 5
Liquefaction
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Liquefaction charts have been constructed semiempirically fol- Equivalent acceleration : Gal
lowing the past case histories of earthquakes. This means that there
exist reference earthquakes for which the charts, or more specifi- Fig. 14. (Color) Liquefaction prediction and assessment using the
cally their boundaries for liquefaction and no liquefaction, were wave correction coefficient, c
best validated and most consistent results obtained. The effective
number of waves, N ef , is first assessed for such a reference earth-
quake and is used as N r . For instance, the liquefaction chart shown 3 to 7, with an average of 5. Accordingly, N r was set to 5. Then,
in Fig. 2 was best validated against the 1983 Central Japan Sea one can perform liquefaction prediction and assessment that simul-
Earthquake with the corresponding liquefaction and no-liquefac- taneously considers the influence of the waveforms and durations
tion cases at Akita Port. The effective numbers of waves at various of earthquakes by plotting the cyclic stress ratio or the equivalent
locations at Akita Port during that earthquake were calculated from acceleration in Fig. 2, which is divided by the wave correction
the site response analysis using the SHAKE code, and the results are coefficient, c , as shown in Fig. 14. Here, the open circles denote
shown in Fig. 13. Here, the numbers of soil layers represent the example plots with N r 5, and the solid circles and triangles
consecutive numbers of soil layers analyzed for various points represent the corresponding corrected plots for a lower effective
and depths at this site. It is seen that the N ef values ranged from number of waves with N ef 1 and for a higher effective number

ASCE 04016091-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 1.2
Eqs. (4), (5)
Fatigue theory
1
Predicted liquefaction resistance CRRIR
0.8
0.6
0.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.2
0 Equivalent acceleration
0 0.2 0.4
Measured liquefaction resistance CRRIR
Fig. 15. Comparison between predicted and measured liquefaction
resistances
of waves with N ef 10. The symbol e0 represents the corrected
equivalent acceleration, namely, the corrected cyclic stress ratio as
divided by the wave correction coefficient c . The panel on the
bottom shows that the plots can vary, crossing the dividing line
between liquefaction and no liquefaction.
It is necessary to check the accuracy of the wave correction co-
efficient, c . The predicted liquefaction resistances using Eqs. (4)
and (5), i.e., the dotted lines in Fig. 11, and the measured liquefac-
tion resistances, i.e., the solid lines in Fig. 11, are plotted as solid
circles in Fig. 15. Comparison of the predicted and measured lique-
faction resistances confirms the accuracy of the wave correction
coefficient, c . In Fig. 15, the predictions from a fatigue theory
(Annaki and Lee 1977) are also plotted as open circles for compari-
son. Here, the liquefaction resistances for the irregular waves were
predicted using information on the liquefaction resistance curves
for the regular waves shown in Fig. 6. Essentially the same degree
of accuracy is observed for both theories.
Verification of the Proposed Method Using Case
Histories of Five Major Earthquakes
This section discusses the validity of the proposed new liquefaction
prediction and assessment method in light of the past case histories
of major earthquakes involving liquefaction and no liquefaction.
The basal liquefaction chart for which the proposed method was
applied is shown in Fig. 2. The case histories used were (1) the
1983 Central Japan Sea Earthquake with a moment magnitude
of 7.8 at Akita Port, (2) 1993 Kushiro Offshore Earthquake with
a moment magnitude of 7.6 at Kushiro Port, (3) 1995 Southern
Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake with a moment magnitude of 6.9
at Port Island Kobe, (4) 2009 Suruga Bay Earthquake with a mo-
ment magnitude of 6.3 at Omaezaki Port, and (5) 2011 Off the
Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake with a moment magnitude
of 9.0 at Urayasu City, Japan.
The input acceleration used for the 1983 Central Japan Sea
Earthquake at Akita Port is shown in Fig. 16. This acceleration
ASCE
30
25
20
Equivalent N-value
15
200
10
Acceleration: Gal
150 max = 177Gal
100
50
0
-50
5 -100
-150
-200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time: s
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
: Gal
0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fig. 16. Results of the liquefaction prediction and assessment for the
1983 Central Japan Sea Earthquake at Akita Port, Japan, together with
the input acceleration used
represents an outcrop 2E wave that was deconvolved to the rock
base, which was at a depth of 7 m from the ground surface, at the
site from the observed waveform of the ground surface acceleration
there. The site response analysis using the SHAKE code was per-
formed for the soil profiles at the Akita Port. The new method was
then applied to the corresponding liquefaction prediction and as-
sessment. The predicted results are shown in Fig. 16. Here, the
solid circles represent the liquefied points, and the open circles re-
present the nonliquefied points. The liquefied and nonliquefied
points are based on postearthquake field observations for the sites.
The results from the conventional method and the new method with
the wave corrections introduced are plotted together in a superim-
posed manner. It is seen that, regardless of the presence or absence
of the wave corrections, both of the predicted results are generally
consistent with the liquefaction and no-liquefaction cases.
The input acceleration used for the 1993 Kushiro Offshore
Earthquake at Kushiro Port is shown in Fig. 17. This acceleration
was observed at the engineering rock base [ground surface level
(G.L.), 76 m] of Kushiro Port. The results of the corresponding
liquefaction prediction and assessment, performed in the same way
as described above, are shown in Fig. 17. At the observation site, no
traces of liquefaction were reported. The predicted results show no
liquefaction (Zone IV) and a low possibility of liquefaction (Zone
III) regardless of the presence or absence of the wave corrections,
and are consistent with the observed results. Closer examination
tells us that the predicted results after introducing the wave correc-
tions show higher equivalent accelerations globally and partly ap-
proached Zone II with a high possibility of liquefaction. At Kushiro
Port, although the liquefaction state was not reached, cyclic mobil-
ity that manifests itself in the course of the build-up of excess pore-
water pressures in dense sands was reported to take place (Iai et al.
1995). In this respect, the results predicted by the new method
appear to be more consistent with the field evidence in cases with
no liquefaction but a partly near-liquefied state.
The acceleration observed at G.L. of 16 m through array
observation at Port Island Kobe during the 1995 Southern Hyogo
Prefecture Earthquake was used as an input for the liquefaction
04016091-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1
 30 30
300 300

Acceleration: Gal

Acceleration: Gal
200 max = 203Gal 200 max = 316Gal
100 100
0
25 0
-100
25 -100
-200
-200
-300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -300
20 Time: s -400
Equivalent N-value

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
20 Time: s

Equivalent N-value
15

15
10

5 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 5
Equivalent acceleration : Gal

Fig. 17. Results of the liquefaction prediction and assessment for the
1993 Kushiro Offshore Earthquake at Kushiro Port, Japan, together 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
with the input acceleration used Equivalent acceleration : Gal

Fig. 19. Results of the liquefaction prediction and assessment for the
2009 Suruga Bay Earthquake at Omaezaki Port, Japan, together with
the input acceleration used

30
and used as an input for the liquefaction prediction and assessment
600 is shown in Fig. 19. As seen in this figure, the seismic motion was
Acceleration: Gal

25 400 max = 565Gal in impulsive form, giving rise to a very low effective number of
200 waves, equal to unity. At the observation site, no traces of lique-
0 faction were found, indicating that liquefaction did not take place.
-200 The results of the corresponding liquefaction prediction and assess-
20
-400 ment are shown in Fig. 19. The conventional method predicted that
Equivalent N-value

0 20 40
15
10
5
0
0 100
Fig. 18. Results of the liquefaction prediction and assessment for the
1995 Southern Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake at Port Island Kobe,
Japan, together with the input acceleration used
prediction and assessment shown in Fig. 18. At the observation site,
traces of liquefaction were confirmed, indicating that liquefaction
took place at the site. The results of the corresponding liquefaction
prediction and assessment are shown in Fig. 18. All of the predicted
results, regardless of the wave corrections, lie in Zone I, showing
that liquefaction will occur, and are consistent with the liquefac-
tion cases.
The acceleration observed at the engineering rock base (G.L.,
10 m) of Omaezaki Port during the 2009 Suruga Bay Earthquake,
60 80 100 120
Time: s
liquefaction will occur or that there is a high possibility of lique-
faction. By contrast, the new method predicted significantly lower
possibilities of liquefaction, with a major shift in the predictive
zones. Thus, the new method showed markedly improved predic-
tive capability and consistency with the no-liquefaction cases.
The acceleration observed adjacent to the Urayasu City during
the 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake, and used as
an input for the analysis of the liquefaction is shown in Fig. 20. The
Tohoku earthquake had a long duration (200 s) that was about 10
times longer than that of the 1995 major Kobe Earthquake. The
results of the corresponding liquefaction prediction and assessment
are shown in Fig. 20. The predicted results are generally consistent
200 300 400 500 600
with the observed results for liquefaction and no liquefaction. A
Equivalent acceleration : Gal closer examination shows that the new method showed increased
equivalent accelerations in Zone II, with a high possibility of lique-
faction, confirming the accuracy of the predictions in the liquefac-
tion cases. Also, the liquefied point, indicated by the solid triangle
in Zone III, which was predicted to have a low possibility of lique-
faction by the conventional method, shifted marginally so as to
come in contact with the boundary of Zone II, showing a high pos-
sibility of liquefaction. These results indicate that the new method
has improved predictive capability in liquefaction cases.
Finally, it is worth investigating the relationships between the
effective number of waves N ef and the magnitudes M of the five
major earthquakes described earlier, as shown in Fig. 21. While
there is a tendency for the effective number of waves to increase
with increasing magnitude, it is evident that a unique relationship
does not exist between N ef and M, and in particular, N ef varies
considerably for a given earthquake magnitude. This means that

ASCE 04016091-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 30
The new method adopts the concept of an effective number of
waves, which was studied via statistical analysis and validated us-
ing the results of a comprehensive set of laboratory liquefaction
25
tests with undrained cyclic torsional shear and constant-volume
cyclic simple shear comprising 241 test cases. A total of 11 types
of irregular seismic waves were used to clarify this concept, which
20
represents the characteristics of the variety of the waveforms and
Equivalent N-value

different numbers of load cycles, as well as their influence on the

occurrence of liquefaction in a simple yet workable way.
15
In the proposed method, liquefaction prediction and assessment
can be performed using the wave correction coefficient defined in
Eq. (4), together with the site response analysis for calculating the
10 Acceleration: Gal 150
maximum cyclic stress ratios and the effective numbers of waves
100
max = 109Gal under the target seismic motions. The validity of the new method
50
was verified with the case histories of five major earthquakes in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
5 -50 Japan, namely, the 1983 Central Japan Sea Earthquake, the 1993
-100
-150
Kushiro Offshore Earthquake, the 1995 Southern Hyogo Prefecture
00 100 200 300 400 500
100 200 300

Time: s
400 500
Earthquake, the 2009 Suruga Bay Earthquake, and the 2011 Off the
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake. The results demonstrate that
Equivalent acceleration : Gal the new method has improved predictive capability and accuracy in
comparison with the conventional method for cases of liquefaction
Fig. 20. (Color) Results of the liquefaction prediction and assessment and no liquefaction.
for the 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake at Urayasu The proposed new method with the reference effective number
City, Japan, together with the input acceleration used of waves has the unique feature that it can be applied to all types
of liquefaction charts formulated in terms of the cyclic stress ratio
and field measured values, such as SPT N-values, CPT q-values,
12 and shear-wave velocities. The corresponding procedures were de-
scribed and explained. The authors sincerely hope that the new sim-
plified method will be widely used for liquefaction prediction and
10 assessment with such influence of the waveforms and durations of
earthquakes introduced.
Effective number of waves Nef

8
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Urayasu City, Japan, for
6 providing the ground data concerning the analysis of the liquefac-
tion at Urayasu City.

4
Notation

The following symbols are used in this paper:

2
CSRIR = cyclic stress ratio for irregular seismic wave;
CSRR = cyclic stress ratio for regular seismic wave;
CRR20 = cyclic resistance ratio for regular seismic wave with
0
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
N c 20;
Magnitude M c = wave correction coefficient;
Dr = soil relative density;
Fig. 21. Relationships between the effective number of waves and g = gravitational acceleration;
magnitudes of the past five major earthquakes in Japan N = N-value from standard penetration test;
N 65 = equivalent N-value corresponding to v0 0 65 kPa;

N c = number of load cycles with constant-amplitude shear

the magnitude itself cannot be used to infer the effective number stress;
of waves, which has been introduced and validated, to account for N ef = effective number of waves;
the influence of such waveforms and durations of earthquakes on N r = reference value of N ef ;
liquefaction. q = tip resistance from cone penetration test;
U c = coefficient of uniformity;
ue = excess pore water pressure;
Conclusions V s = shear-wave velocity;
e = equivalent acceleration defined by Eq. (2) in terms of
This paper has presented and discussed a new simplified liquefac- cyclic stress ratio;
tion prediction and assessment method that is capable of consider- = proportion of acting shear stress relative to the maximum
ing the influence of irregularities in the waveforms and durations of shear stress;
seismic motions. = shear strain;

ASCE 04016091-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1

 DA = double-amplitude shear strain;
0
v0 = initial effective vertical stress;
= shear stress;
c = constant-amplitude shear stress; and
max = maximum shear stress.
References
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G. (2009). Quantitative seismology, 2nd Ed., Uni-
versity of Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 699.
Andrus, R. D., Paramanthan, P., Ellis, B. S., Zhang, J., and Juang, C. H.
(2004). Comparing liquefaction evaluation methods using penetration-
Vs relationships. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24(910), 713721.
Andrus, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H., II (2000). Liquefaction resistance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 190.165.61.100 on 05/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of soils from shear-wave velocity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015), 10151025.
Annaki, M., and Lee, K. L. (1977). Equivalent uniform cycle concept for
soil dynamics. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103(6), 549564.
Boulanger, R., Wilson, D., and Idriss, I. (2012). Examination and reeva-
laution of SPT-based liquefaction triggering case histories. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000668, 898909.
Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2015). CPT-based liquefaction trig-
gering procedure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0001388, 04015065.
Cetin, K. O., et al. (2004). Standard penetration test-based probabilistic
and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:
12(1314), 13141340.
Dobry, R., and Abdoun, T. (2011). An investigation into why liquefaction
charts work: A necessary step toward integrating the states of art and
practice. Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Santiago, Chile, 1345.
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., Stokoe, K., II., Moss, R., Hatton, M., and
El Ganainy, H. (2015). Liquefaction potential of recent fills versus
natural sands located in high-seismicity regions using shear-wave veloc-
ity. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001239, 04014112.
Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K. (1995) Re-
sponse of a dense sand deposit during 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake.
Soils Found., 35(1), 115131.
Iai, S., Tsuchida, H., and Koizumi, K. (1989). A liquefaction criterion
based on field performances around seismograph station. Soils Found.,
29(2), 5268.
Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during
earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, CA.
Ishihara, K. (1996). Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics, Oxford
University Press, New York, 360.
Ishihara, K., and Yasuda, S. (1973). Sand liquefaction under random earth-
quake loading. Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1,
Rome, 329338.
Ishihara, K., and Yasuda, S. (1975). Sand liquefaction in hollow cylinder
torsion under irregular excitation. Soils Found., 15(1), 4559.
Jamiolkowski, M., Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., and Pasqualini, E.
(1985). Penetration resistance and liquefaction of sands. Proc., 11th
Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 4, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 18911896.
ASCE 04016091-13
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2017, 143(2): -1--1
Kayen, R., et al. (2013). Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and
deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743,
407419.
Kokusho, T., Ito, F., Nagao, Y., and Green, A. (2012). Influence of
non/low-plastic fines and associated aging effects on liquefaction resis-
tance. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000632, 747756.
Liu, A. H., Stewart, J. P., Abrahamson, N. A., and Moriwaki, Y. (2001).
Equivalent number of uniform stress cycles for soil liquefaction analy-
sis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)
127:12(1017), 10171026.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). Discussion of session 1. Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, London, 110.
MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan).
(2007). Ground liquefaction. Technical Standards and Commentaries
for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, 282288.
Moss, R. E. S., Seed, R. B., Kayen, R. E., Stewart, J. P., Der Kiureghian, A.,
and Cetin, K. O. (2006). CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic
assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:8(1032),
10321051.
Robertson, P. K. (1990). Soil classification using CPT. Can. Geotech. J.,
27(1), 151158.
Robertson, P. K. (2015). Comparing CPT and Vs liquefaction triggering
methods. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0001338, 04015037.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test. Can. Geotech. J., 35(3),
442459.
Sassa, S., and Sekiguchi, H. (2001). Analysis of wave-induced liquefac-
tion of sand beds. Gotechnique, 51(2), 115126.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972). SHAKEA computer
program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites.
Rep. EERC 7212, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating
soil liquefaction potential. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 97(9), 12491273.
Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. (1983). Evaluation of liquefaction
potential using field performance data. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(458), 458482.
Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985). The
influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425),
14251445.
Tatsuoka, F., Maeda, S., Ochi, K., and Fujii, S. (1986). Prediction of cyclic
undrained strength of sand subjected to irregular loadings. Soils
Found., 26(2), 7390.
Tokimatsu, K., and Yoshimi, Y. (1983). Empirical correlation of soil lique-
faction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found., 23(4),
5674.
Yamazaki, H., and Emoto, S. (2010). Study on liquefaction prediction
method considering wave forms of seismic motions. Rep. Port Airport
Res. Inst., 49(3), 79109 (in Japanese).
Youd, T. L., et al. (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report
from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evalu-
ation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817), 817833.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.