Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain of Gravel-Sand Mixtures in Constant Volume Simple Shear
Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain of Gravel-Sand Mixtures in Constant Volume Simple Shear
Abstract: This paper presents the results of large-size cyclic simple shear testing on three uniform gravels (Pea Gravel, 8-mm Crushed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 05/03/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Limestone, and 5-mm Crushed Limestone), which varied in particle size and angularity. Monotonic, cyclic, and postcyclic shear response was
assessed for these materials at two relative densities and initial vertical effective stresses up to 400 kPa. Shear wave velocity was measured in
each specimen so that laboratory and field conditions could be compared. Particle angularity was shown to be an important parameter that
affects peak, phase transformation (PT), and ultimate state (US) response of uniform gravels. As particle angularity increased peak, PT, and
US friction angles increased. Particle size was shown to have a lesser impact on these friction angles. Peak and US friction angles were
dependent on relative density, while the PT friction angle was unique for each material. Results of cyclic tests on uniform gravels in this study
showed that gravels will liquefy at normalized shear wave velocities (V S1 ) of up to approximately 230 meters per second (m=s). Increasing
particle size, angularity, and relative density led to an increase in postcyclic shear strength. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001723.
© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cyclic simple shear; Gravel; Shear wave velocity; Liquefaction.
Considerable effort has focused on the effect of confining stress existing design charts for liquefaction susceptibility to gain further
and particle breakage on the shear response (Xiao et al. 2014b, insight into gravelly soil response compared to existing design
c, 2016a, b) as well as the development of constitutive models charts commonly used in engineering practice for sands and
(Liu et al. 2014; Xiao et al. 2014a; Sun and Xiao 2017; Xiao gravels.
and Liu 2017). The effect of particle size and shape on shear
strength has been investigated and results have shown that angular
particles have greater shear strength than subrounded particles Test Materials and Methods
(Holtz and Gibbs 1956).
Many researchers have investigated the undrained shear re-
Test Equipment
sponse of sandy soils in the laboratory (Vaid and Sivathayalan
1996; Porcino et al. 2008; Sivathayalan and Yazdi 2014). However, A prototype large-size cyclic simple shear (CSS) device, shown in
the undrained shear response of gravels and gravel-sand mixtures Fig. 1, was used to perform monotonic and cyclic tests on three
has been less extensively investigated due to the unavailability uniform gravels. The device allowed for the shearing of cylindrical
of devices large enough to accommodate the larger particle sizes. specimens with a nominal diameter of 307 mm and a maximum
Laboratory shear response of gravel and gravel-sand mixtures height of 137 mm. Circular stacked rings with a width of 32 mm
under undrained conditions has been studied by several researchers and a height of 7 mm were used to laterally confine the specimen
(Wong et al. 1974; Evans and Seed 1987; Evans and Zhou 1995; and allowed for testing at K 0 conditions. A latex membrane was
Choi et al. 2008; Flora et al. 2012; Zhao et al. 2013; Chang et al. placed inside the rings as a cushion to prevent damage to the rings
2014). Several studies have developed and applied correlations be- and ensure uniform shearing of the specimen. The CSS device is
tween laboratory cyclic strength, field penetration resistances, and capable of performing stress or strain controlled monotonic and
field and laboratory V S (Hatanaka et al. 1988; Suzuki et al. 1993; cyclic shear tests. The device was validated by comparing mono-
Tanaka et al. 1992; Hatanaka et al. 1997). These studies have tonic and cyclic results on Ottawa (IL) C109 sand with small-size
shown gravelly soils can be susceptible to liquefaction and that simple shear results on Ottawa C109 sand (Bhatia 1983) as well as
V S can be used to assess liquefaction resistance. The studies pre- Silica C109 sand from the Illinois River, which is reported to be
sented in this section have mainly used triaxial devices due to the quite similar to Ottawa sand (Yazdi 2004; Sivathayalan and
wider availability of these devices, even though it has been known Yazdi 2014) Test results such as the monotonic results presented
that the simple shear test in many cases is more representative of in Fig. 2 showed nearly identical behavior between conventional
field performance of soils under earthquake loading (Finn 1985; size devices and the large-size device.
Fig. 4. Shear wave velocity for Pea Gravel, 8-mm Crushed Limestone, and 5-mm Crushed Limestone at (a) Dr ¼ 47%; (b) Dr ¼ 87%
Test Results effective stress. Fig. 5(c) shows the shear strength normalized by
0
the initial vertical stress (τ =σv0 ) versus shear strain. All tests for
Shear Wave Velocity CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47% had a similar peak value in the 0.15 range
and all initial vertical stresses show strain-hardening response.
Results of V S measurements are presented in Fig. 4 for both the However, as initial vertical stress increased a decrease in the rate
Dr ¼ 47% and Dr ¼ 87% specimens. For each gravel tested V S at which τ =σv00
increased post-peak was observed [i.e., the σv0 0
¼
0
increased with increasing σv0 and increasing Dr . CLS8 and 0
50 kPa test had the highest value of τ =σv0 at larger strains
CLS5 had higher V S values than Pea Gravel for both Dr ¼ 47% (γ > 2%)]. Fig. 5(d) shows shear stress normalized by vertical ef-
and Dr ¼ 87%. Power functions of the form in Eq. (1) were fit fective stress (τ =σv0 ) versus shear strain. For CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47%,
to the data and values determined for the α and β parameters this ratio reached a constant value as shear strain increased. Similar
are presented in Table 2. The V s value can be predicted by response was seen for all three uniform gravels in this study at a
0 β given Dr .
σv Peak, PT, and US lines for Pea Gravel, CLS8, and CLS5 at a
VS ¼ α ð1Þ
1 atm Dr ¼ 47% are shown in Fig. 6. Table 3 presents the calculated fric-
tion angles at Dr ¼ 47% and 87% for all three uniform gravels at
where α [V S in m=s at 1 atm (101.3 kPa)] and β are fitting param- peak, PT, and US. To calculate the friction angle for a simple shear
eters determined from laboratory testing. As relative density in- test an assumption for the stress state of the specimen must be made
creased, α values increased and β values decreased slightly for because the stress state in simple shear is only known for the
all three uniform gravels. CLS5 had the largest increase in α from horizontal plane. Two commonly accepted interpretations of the
200 to 235 as Dr increased from 47 to 87%. simple shear test that are used to calculate the friction angle are
(1) the horizontal plane is the plane of maximum obliquity, and
(2) the horizontal plane is the plane of maximum shear stress
Monotonic Constant Volume Simple Shear
(Roscoe 1970). In this study it was assumed that the horizontal
Monotonic constant volume simple shear response of the three uni- plane was the plane of maximum shear stress. This assumption
form gravels was evaluated. Example data for CLS8 at a Dr ¼ 47% has been used by others in the simple shear testing interpretation
is presented in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows the shear stress-strain rela- of sands (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Porcino et al. 2008). The
tionship for σv0 0 ¼ 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa. As vertical stress friction angle is therefore given by the following equation:
increased peak shear strength (τ p ) increased. τ p occurs for all three
uniform gravels at shear strains ðγÞ in the 0–2% range. All tests for τ
φ ¼ α ¼ sin−1 ð2Þ
CLS8 at Dr ¼ 47%, regardless of initial vertical stress, displayed a σv0
similar post-peak strain hardening response at a similar shear
modulus which would indicate that this material would not be sus- where τ = shear stress; and σv0 = vertical effective stress at the point
ceptible to large flow-type deformations. The stress path for each of interest.
initial vertical stress is shown in Fig. 5(b). Lines on this plot show Fig. 6(a) shows that the peak friction angle can be considered
the location of the peak shear stress, phase transformation (PT), and constant for both the angular CLS material and Pea Gravel at a
ultimate state (US) lines. The PT is the point of minimum vertical given relative density and independent of initial vertical stress.
Fig. 5. Example monotonic constant volume simple shear data for 8-mm Crushed Limestone at Dr ¼ 47%
Fig. 6. Comparison for three uniform gravels at Dr ¼ 47%; (a) peak; (b) phase transformation; (c) ultimate state lines
CLS8 had the highest peak friction angle, followed by CLS5 PT friction angle than the rounded Pea Gravel. Particle size did not
and Pea Gravel. Fig. 6(b) displays the PT lines for all three have an effect on PT friction angle since CLS8 and CLS5 had the
uniform gravels at Dr ¼ 47%. CLS8 and CLS5 had identical PT same PT friction angle. Relative density did not affect the PT
friction angles of 31° at Dr ¼ 47%, while Pea Gravel had a friction angle for these three uniform gravels. Fig. 6(c) shows
PT friction angle of 27°. The angular CLS materials had a higher the US line for each uniform gravel material. CLS8 had the highest
Fig. 8. (a) Peak shear stress; (b) shear stress at phase transformation; (c) shear stress at ultimate state versus shear wave velocity for three uniform
gravels
Fig. 9. Comparison of three uniform gravels for (a) τ p =σv0 versus V s1 ; (b) τ PT =σv0 versus V s1 ; (c) τ US =σv0 versus V s1
The τ =σv0 ratio was used to calculate friction angle, and is plot- Monotonic shear response can provide insights into the cyclic
ted in Fig. 9 to compare the mobilized shear strength at peak, PT, shear response as shown in Fig. 11, which plots the Peak, PT, and
and US with V S1 . In Fig. 9(a) peak shear stress was normalized by US lines from monotonic tests and the stress path from the cyclic
0
vertical effective stress (τ p =σv0 ) and shows that as V S1 increased shear test of Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 86% and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa. Before
from approximately 175 to 240 m=s, the ratio τ p =σv0 increased reaching the peak line the specimen was contractive in each
from approximately 0.20 to 0.35. Pea Gravel displayed a greater cycle and generated positive pore pressure that was expressed as
increase in τ p =σv0 as Dr increased compared to the angular CLS a reduction in vertical stress needed to maintain constant volume
materials. Fig. 9(b) plots the PT shear stress normalized by the ver- conditions. As the specimen reached the PT line the specimen
tical effective stress (τ PT =σv0 ) versus V S1 , and shows that as V S1 response switched from contractive to dilative. The US line was
increased the τ PT =σv0 for each material remained nearly constant. followed during the last cyclic loops of the test as the specimen
This is consistent with the previous observation that PT is unique dilated and gained strength before again contracting upon stress
for a material and not dependent on initial vertical effective stress or reversal. This type of response has been previously noted for
density. Fig. 9(c) plots US shear stress normalized by vertical ef- sands (Sivathayalan 1994; Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; Porcino
fective stress (τ US =σv0 ) versus V S1 , and shows that as V S1 increased et al. 2008) and is now also shown for these uniform gravels.
from approximately 175 to 240 m=s, τ US =σv0 increased from ap- The effect of Dr and CSR on the number of cycles to lique-
proximately 0.45 to 0.70. τ US =σv0 remained constant for Pea Gravel faction (N L ) is shown in Fig. 12. As the CSR increased N L de-
as V S1 increased, but increased as V S1 increased for the CLS ma- creased, and as Dr increased N L increased for all three uniform
terials. This response could be attributed to greater particle inter- gravels. Particle angularity was also observed to have an effect on
locking (and dilation in the denser specimens) with angular the results at CSR values of 0.10 and below. Above a CSR ¼
particles. Sadrekarimi and Olson (2011) noted that US friction an- 0.10 the three uniform gravels liquefied at a similar number of
gle (reported as peak friction angle by the authors) includes both cycles; however, below CSR ¼ 0.10, the angular CLS materials
dilation and particle interlocking which are influenced by density exhibited more resistance to liquefaction than the rounded Pea
and confining stress. Furthermore, increasing particle angularity in- Gravel.
creases particle interlocking, which makes particle rearrangement Existing liquefaction susceptibility charts for gravelly soils are
more difficult (and therefore τ US =σv0 is increased). This increase in based on limited data compared to susceptibility charts for sands
τ US =σv0 with V S1 for the angular CLS is important because in post- due to the unavailability of detailed case histories of gravelly soil
cyclic tests the stress path follows the US line. liquefaction. Specimens from the laboratory tests in this study were
separated into liquefaction or no-liquefaction based on whether
they liquefied in 15 cycles [equivalent number of cycles for mo-
Cyclic Simple Shear ment magnitude ðM w Þ ¼ 7.5 earthquake] and were plotted in
Fig. 13 for comparison with existing CSR versus V S1 relationships
Cyclic simple shear response was evaluated for CLS8, CLS5, and
from Andrus and Stokoe (2000) and Cao et al. (2011) for gravels,
Pea Gravel to assess liquefaction susceptibility of these three uni-
and Kayen et al. (2013) for sands. CSR values from the laboratory
form gravels. CSRs varying from 0.04–0.19 were applied during
0 cyclic simple shear tests were first corrected for overburden stress
stress-controlled constant volume tests at σv0 ¼ 50, 100, 200,
and two-directional shaking so that data could be compared to
and 400 kPa. In laboratory testing of soils the onset of liquefaction
existing field-based liquefaction susceptibility charts. A 10% re-
has been based on different criteria, including the amount of excess
duction in CSR values was used to account for two-directional
pore pressure, shear strength, or development of shear strain (Wu
shaking in-situ. The overburden stress correction was evaluated
et al. 2004). In this study a specimen was considered to have lique- using laboratory data from this study. Previous studies on sand have
fied when 3.75% single amplitude shear strain was reached, which used the same approach (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996). CRR values
is a common threshold value that has been used in cyclic simple for specimens at σv0 0
of 50, 200, and 400 kPa were corrected
shear testing to define liquefaction (Vaid and Sivathayalan 1996; to corresponding CRR values at σv0 0
¼1 atm (101.3 kPa) using
Sivathayalan 2000; Porcino et al. 2008). Typical results from these the following equation:
tests are shown in Fig. 10 for Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 47% and 86% at a
0
CSR ¼ 0.14 and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa. The test data shows that density CRRσv00
did not have a significant effect on the cyclic response of the Pea Kσ ¼ ð4Þ
Gravel material. CRRσv00 ¼1 atm
0
Fig. 10. Example cyclic data for Pea Gravel at Dr ¼ 47% and Dr ¼ 86% at CSR ¼ 0.14 and σv0 ¼ 100 kPa
Fig. 11. Comparison of cyclic stress path with peak, PT, and US lines Fig. 12. Comparison of three uniform gravels CSR versus number of
taken from monotonic stress path data for Pea Gravel cycles to liquefaction
Fig. 14. Comparison of monotonic and postcyclic: (a) stress-strain; (b) stress path for Dr ¼ 47% 8-mm Crushed Limestone
Fig. 15. Comparison of US for monotonic and postcyclic tests of three uniform gravels at (a) Dr ¼ 47%; (b) Dr ¼ 87%
Acknowledgments
Cao, Z., Youd, T. L., and Yuan, X. (2013). “Chinese dynamic penetration liquefaction resistance in gravelly soil: Large hammer penetration test
test for liquefaction evaluation in gravelly soils.” J. Geotech. Geoen- and shear wave velocity approach.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24(9),
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000857, 1320–1333. 675–687.
Cetin, K. O., et al. (2004). “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic Liu, H., Zou, D., and Liu, J. (2014). “Constitutive modeling of dense
and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” gravelly soils subjected to cyclic loading.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004) Geomech., 38(14), 1503–1518.
130:12(1314), 1314–1340. Marachi, N. D. (1969). “Strength and deformation characteristics of rockfill
Chang, W. J., Chang, C. W., and Zeng, J. K. (2014). “Liquefaction materials.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California,
characteristics of gap-graded gravelly soils in K0 condition.” Soil Berkeley, CA.
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 56, 74–85. Marcuson, W. F. (1978). “Definition of terms related to liquefaction.”
Charles, J. A., and Watts, K. S. (1980). “The influence of confining pres- J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 104(9), 1197–1200.
sure on the shear strength of compacted rockfill.” Geotechnique, 30(4), Marsal, R. J. (1967). “Large-scale testing of rockfill materials.” J. Soil
353–367. Mech. Found. Div., 93(2), 27–43.
Chen, Y., Han, K., and Ren-peng, C. (2005). “Correlation of shear wave Matsuoka, H., and Liu, S. (1998). “Simplified direct shear test on granular
velocity with liquefaction resistance based on laboratory tests.” Soil materials and its application to rockfill materials.” Soils Found., 38(4),
Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 25(6), 461–469. 275–284.
Choi, C., Adruino, P., and Harney, M. D. (2008). “Development of a Matsuoka, H., Liu, S., Sun, D., and Nishikata, U. (2001). “Development of
true triaxial apparatus for sands and gravels.” Geotech. Test. J., 31(1), a new in-situ direct shear test.” Geotech. Test. J., 24(1), 92–102.
32–44. Moroto, N, and Ishii, T. (1990). “Shear strength of uni-sized gravels under
De Alba, P., Baldwin, K., Janoo, V., Roe, G., and Celikkol, B. (1984). triaxial compression.” Soils Found., 30(2), 23–32.
“Elastic-wave velocities and liquefaction potential.” Geotech. Test. Muira, S., and Toki, S. (1982). “A sample preparation method and its effect
J., 7(2), 77–87. on static and cyclic deformation-strength properties of sand.” Soils
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., Stokoe, K. H., Moss, R. E. S., Hatton, M., and El Found., 22(1), 61–77.
Ganainy, H. (2015). “Liquefaction potential of recent fills versus natural Nikolaou, S., Zekkos, D., Asimaki, D., and Gilsanz, R. (2015). “Reconnais-
sands located in high-seismicity regions using shear-wave velocity.” sance highlights of the 2014 sequence of earthquakes in Cephalonia,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606 Greece.” 6th Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
.0001239, 04012112. Christchurch, International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechni-
Dyvik, R., Berre, T., Lacasse, S., and Raadim, B. (1987). “Comparison cal Engineering, ISSMGE, London.
of truly undrained and constant volume direct simple shear tests.” Ohm, H.-S., and Hryciw, R. D. (2013). “Translucent segregation table test
Geotechnique, 37(1), 3–10. for sand and gravel particle size distribution.” Geotech. Test. J., 36(4),
Evans, M. D., and Seed, H. B. (1987). “Undrained cyclic triaxial testing of 592–605.
gravels—The effect of membrane compliance.” UCB/EERC-87/08, Porcino, D., Caridi, G., and Ghionna, V. N. (2008). “Undrained monotonic
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, and cyclic simple shear behavior of carbonate sand.” Geotechnique,
CA. 58(8), 635–644.
Evans, M. D., and Zhou, S. (1995). “Liquefaction behavior of sand-gravel Powers, M. C. (1953). “A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles.”
composites.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121: J. Sediment. Res., 23(2), 117–119.
3(287), 287–298. Roscoe, K. H. (1970). “The influence of strains in soil mechanics.”
Finn, W. D. L. (1985). “Aspects of constant volume cyclic simple shear.” Geotechnique, 20(2), 129–170.
Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic conditions, ASCE, Sadrekarimi, A., and Olson, S. M. (2011). “Critical state friction angle of
New York, 74–98. sands.” Géotechnique, 61(9), 771–783.
Flora, A., Lirer, S., and Silvestri, F. (2012). “Undrained cyclic resistance of Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985).
undisturbed gravelly soils.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 43, 366–379. “Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalua-
GEER. (2014). Earthquake reconnaissance January 26th/February 2nd tions.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:
2014 Cephalonia, Greece events, version 1, S. Nikolau, D. Zekkos, 12(1425), 1425–1445.
D. Assimaki, and R. Gilsanz, eds., GEER/EERI/ATC, 492. Seed, R. B., and Harder, L. F. (1990). “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore
Harder Jr, L. F., and Seed, H. B. (1986). “Determination of penetration pressure generation and undrained residual strength.” Proc., H.B. Seed
resistance for coarse-grained soils using the becker penetration test.” Memorial Symp., Vol. 2, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, Canada,
Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86-06, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA. 351–376.
Hatanaka, M., Suzuki, Y., Kawasaki, T., and Endo, M. (1988). “Cyclic un- Sivathayalan, S. (1994). “Static, cyclic and post liquefaction simple shear
drained shear properties of high quality undisturbed gravel.” Soils response of sands.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Found., 28(4), 57–68. BC, Canada, 154.
Hatanaka, M., Uchida, A., Suzuki, Y. (1997). “Correlation between un- Sivathayalan, S. (2000). “Fabric, initial state and stress path effects
drained cyclic shear strength and shear wave velocity for gravelly soils.” on liquefaction susceptibility of sands.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of British
Soils Found., 37(4), 85–92. Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Suzuki, Y., Goto, S., Hatanaka, M., and Tokimatsu, K. (1993). “Correlation material.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
between strengths and penetration resistances for gravelly soils.” Soils -5606.0001433, 06015017.
Found., 33(1), 92–101. Xiao, Y., Liu, H., Ding, X., Chen, Y., Jiang, J., and Zhang, W. (2016b).
Sy, A., Campanella, R. G., and Stewart, R. A. (1995). “BPT-SPT correla- “Influence of particle breakage on critical state line of rockfill
tions for evaluation of liquefaction resistance in gravelly soils.” Static material.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000538,
and dynamic properties of gravelly soils, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–19. 04015031.
Tanaka, Y., Kudo, K., Yoshida, Y, and Kokusho, T. (1992). “Undrained Yasuda, N., and Matsumoto, N. (1994). “Comparisons of deformation
cyclic strength of gravelly soil and its evaluation by penetration resis- characteristics of rockfill materials using monotonic and cyclic
tance and shear modulus.” Soils Found., 32(4), 128–142. loading laboratory tests and in-situ tests.” Can. Geotech. J., 31(2),
Vaid, V. P., and Sivathayalan, S. (1996). “Static and cyclic liquefaction 162–174.
potential of Fraser Delta sand in simple shear and triaxial tests.” Yazdi, A. M. (2004). “Post liquefaction behavior of sands under simple
Can. Geotech. J., 33(2), 281–289. shear and triaxial loading modes.” MASc. thesis, Carleton Univ.,
Vaid, Y., Chern, J., and Tumi, H. (1985). “Confining pressure, grain angu- Ottawa.
larity, and liquefaction.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410 Youd, T. L. (1973). “Factors controlling maximum and minimum densities
(1985)111:10(1229), 1229–1235. of sands.” Evaluation of relative density and its role in geotechnical
Varadarajan, A., Sharma, K. G., Venkatachalam, K., and Gupta, A. K.
projects involving cohesionless soils, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
(2003). “Testing and modeling two rockfill materials.” J. Geotech. Geo-
PA, 98–112.
environ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:3(206), 206–218.
Youd, T. L., et al. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report
Wong, R. T., Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K. (1974). “Liquefaction of gravelly
soils under cyclic loading conditions.” UCB/EERC-74/11, Univ. of from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evalu-
California, Berkeley, CA, 46. ation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Wu, J., Kammerer, A. M., Riemer, M. F., Seed, R. B., and Pestana, J. M. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817), 817–833.
(2004). “Laboratory study of liquefaction triggering criteria.” Youd, T. L., Harp, E. L., Keefer, D. K., and Wilson, R. C. (1985). “The
13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, International Associa- Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1983-liquefaction.”
tion for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo. Earthquake spectra, 2(1), 71–89.
Xiao, Y., and Liu, H. (2017). “Elastoplastic constitutive model for rockfill Zhao, H. F., Zhang, L. M., and Chang, D. S. (2013). “Behavior of coarse
materials considering particle breakage.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061 widely graded soils under low confining pressures.” J. Geotech.
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000681, 04016041. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000755, 35–48.