plasticity silts 共ML兲 and 共CL-ML兲 were encountered at a depth of
approximately 20 to 30 ft. These silty soils had fines contents
ranging from 54 to 82%, 共N1兲60 blow counts of 5 to 7, liquid limit
of 25, PI of 7 and water content/liquid limit ratios of approxi-
mately 0.6 to 1.0. These same soils had Ic values ranging from
approximately 2.6 to 2.8 in nearby CPTs. Thus, these soils would
be deemed to be not liquefiable per the Robertson and Wride
共1998兲 procedure, but would be potentially liquefiable using the
author’s procedures. This confirms the Youd et al. 共2001兲 recom-
mendation to take soil samples for layers with Ic values greater
than 2.4. The discusser is curious whether the authors found simi-
lar contradictory results when evaluating the SPT and CPT field
data from Turkey.
In closing, the discusser wants to note that these low SPT blow
count, low-plasticity soils are generally the type of subgrade ma-
terials that meet the liquefaction criteria being proposed by the
authors. As the SPT blow counts get higher, the saturated soils
usually do not meet the water content/liquid limit ratio criteria.
However, the discusser would also like to point out that if satu-
rated, medium stiff 共or softer兲 cohesive soils are encountered dur-
ing a field investigation, these soils will likely be problematic
whether the issue is static settlement or seismic response. In ad-
dition, just because the cohesive soils do not meet the currently
proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria does not mean that
they are immune to seismic strength and stiffness losses. Martin
and Olgun 共2006兲 thoroughly address this issue in their work for
the same 1999 Kocaeli earthquake.
References
Boardman, B. T., and Rinne, E. E. 共2006兲. “Recent database for liquefac-
tion susceptibility calculations in cohesive soils.” Proc., 8th U.S.
Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, April 18–22, 2006,
Paper No. 524.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2004兲. “Subsurface characterization of ground failure
sites at Adapazari, Turkey.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲,
673–685.
Martin, J. R., and Olgun, C. G. 共2006兲. “Unanticipated seismic vulner-
ability of fine-grained plastic soils.” Proc., 8th U.S. Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, San Francisco, April 18–22, 2006, Paper No. 369.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Canadian Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering, 35共3兲, 442–459.
Seed, R. B., et al. 共2003兲. “Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineer-
ing: A unified and consistent framework.” Earthquake Engineering
Research Center Report 2003-06, Univ. of California, 72.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Report from
1996 and 1998 NCEER Workshops on Eval. of Liquef. Resist. of
Soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.
Closure to “Assessment of the Liquefaction
Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils” by
Jonathan D. Bray and Rodolfo B. Sancio
September 2006, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165–1177.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2006兲132:9共1165兲
Jonathan D. Bray1 and Rodolfo B. Sancio2
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berke-
ley, CA 94720-1710.
2 dation to the in situ stress state resulted in relatively small
Sr. Proj. Engr., Golder Assoc. Inc., 500 Century Plaza Dr., Ste. 190,
Houston, TX 77073.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1031
General
The authors appreciate the discussers sharing their insights on the
liquefaction of fine-grained soils. Two discussions were submitted
in response to this paper. Each discussion will be addressed sepa-
rately, as they bring forth different issues. The first discusser, Mr.
Boardman, shared his experience in the application of our semi-
empirical criteria on a project in northern California. The discus-
sion points are the relationships of penetration resistance to
ground failure, soil plasticity to the soil behavior index, and the
seismic response of clayey soils. The second group of discussers,
Dr. Athanasopoulos and Mr. Xenaki, emphasizes the important
role of the amount of fines in a soil in terms of its cyclic response.
Penetration Resistance and Ground Failure
The primary aim of the authors’ paper was to evaluate existing
liquefaction susceptibility criteria for fine-grained soils, such as
the Chinese Criteria, and to offer improved criteria for identifying
fine-grained soils that could potentially lose strength or liquefy if
they were at the appropriate state and stress conditions, and
loaded cyclically at intense levels. The shallow, loose, saturated
fine-grained soils of Adapazari underwent cyclic mobility with
limited strain potential after the generation of large excess pore
pressures. In the paper, no attempt was made to develop a
liquefaction-triggering relationship for fine-grained soils based on
penetration resistance.
The penetration resistance of a soil deposit as measured in the
cone penetration test 共CPT兲 or standard penetration test 共SPT兲
depends primarily on soil type, soil state 共i.e., void ratio and soil
fabric兲, in situ stresses, and stress history, among other factors.
Likewise, liquefaction resistance has been shown to be affected
similarly by these same factors as well as others. Accordingly,
several correlations between a soil deposit’s penetration resistance
and its liquefaction resistance have been proposed by researchers,
with the state-of-practice being defined in Youd et al. 共2001兲 at
the time of the writing of the authors’ paper. Although the SPT-
based and CPT-based liquefaction-triggering correlations are ro-
bust for clean sand and sand with some fines, they are not as
reliable for fine-grained soils. For example, the liquefaction-
triggering database of the well-used Seed et al. 共1985兲 SPT-based
correlation contains only 13 cases involving soils with significant
fines 共i.e.,⬎35% fines兲. CPT procedures can be unreliable for
fine-grained soils with low tip resistances 共Youd et al., 2001兲. Use
of SPT blow counts to estimate the static undrained shear strength
of clayey soils is problematic, so dynamic shear strength is not
evaluated reliably through the SPT. CPT offers a more reliable
approach to estimating the undrained shear strength of clayey
soils, but its use in transitional soils 共i.e., nonplastic silts to clayey
silts to silty clays of low plasticity兲 is less well established.
Hence, its use in estimating liquefaction resistance of low-
plasticity soils is more promising, but still less reliable than its
use in evaluating the liquefaction of clean sands or sand with
some fines.
Fortunately, the fine-grained soils in Adapazari could be
sampled and tested effectively in the laboratory with minimal
effects of disturbance if extreme care was exercised in the field
sampling, transportation, and specimen preparation procedures.
As described in the authors’ paper, the Dames and Moore hydrau-
lic piston sampler was primarily used, and testing was quickly
performed in Turkey to minimize sample disturbance. Reconsoli-
changes in the specimen’s void ratio in comparison to its initial
 Fig. 1. Site F profile: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Sancio 2003兲

void ratio 共i.e., ⌬e / eo ⬍ 0.03兲. Cyclic laboratory testing provides a
viable means to evaluate the cyclic response of fine-grained soils
if sample disturbance effects are minimized. The authors contend
that field sampling and laboratory testing currently offer the most
reliable way to evaluate the liquefaction susceptibility, resistance,
and response of fine-grained soils.
In examining the data developed by Bray et al. 共2004兲, how-
ever, it is clear that fine-grained soils with low penetration resis-
tances tend to be potentially liquefiable if they satisfy the authors’
proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria. Figs. 1共a and b兲 and
Figs. 2共a and b兲 present the CPT tip penetration resistance 共qt in
MPa兲 and the uncorrected SPT blow counts 共N60兲 for Site F and
Site A in Adapazari, respectively 共Bray et al. 2004兲. In terms of
liquefaction, the critical layers at these sites 共depths of 1.5 to
3.2 m at Site F and depths of 4.2 to 5.0 m at Site A兲 exhibit qt
ⱕ 2.5 MPa and N60 ⱕ 6 blows/ 30 cm. Consistent ground condi-
tions were measured at other locations throughout the city of
Adapazari 共Bray et al. 2004兲. In the authors’ experience, shallow
共depth⬍ 10 m兲, normally consolidated to slightly overconsoli-
dated, saturated fine-grained soils will typically have low penetra-
tion resistance 共qt ⬍ 2 MPa兲 in combination with high values of
water content to liquid limit ratio 共wc / LL兲. These soils should be
carefully studied for their ground failure potential under seismic
loading, regardless of the soil’s plasticity index 共PI兲. Soils that
meet these conditions also typically offer significant challenges
for static design.
Soil Plasticity and Soil Behavior Index
Although the authors found that the soil behavior index 共Ic兲 pro-
posed by Robertson and Wride 共1998兲 was useful in discriminat-
ing between different soil types preliminarily, it should be
remembered that it provides merely an indication of soil type. As
recommended by Youd et al. 共2001兲, soil samples should be re-
trieved to confirm its applicability on a site-specific basis. In Ada-
pazari, Ic was employed successfully to classify soil preliminarily
so that the companion boring and sampling program could focus
on retrieving soil from the potentially most critical layers. How-
ever, Ic was not used to evaluate soil susceptibility to liquefaction,
because it was not reliable. Instead, PI and wc / LL proved to be
the most reliable indices of liquefaction susceptibility.
Figs. 1共c–e兲 and Figs. 2共c–e兲 present Ic, PI, and wc / LL data for
Site F and Site A, respectively. The soils between depths of 1.6
and 5 m at Site F exhibit Ic ⬎ 2.6, but their PIs are typically
smaller than 10 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85. At Site A, the soils up to a

Fig. 2. Site A profile: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Sancio 2003兲

1032 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008

Fig. 3. Potrero Canyon profile POT-12: 共a兲 CPT tip resistance; 共b兲 SPT N60; 共c兲 soil behavior index; 共d兲 PI; and 共e兲 wc / LL 共data from Bennett
et al. 1998兲
depth of 6.7 m below ground surface have Ic ⬎ 2.6, but their PIs
are typically between 10 and 15, and wc / LL⬎ 0.85. Four-story
buildings at both sites were affected by ground failure as a result
of the 1999 Kocaeli 共Mw = 7.5兲 earthquake. Although these values
of Ic would have rendered the soil nonsusceptible to liquefaction
according to Robertson and Wride 共1998兲, the PI and wc / LL data
classify the soil as liquefiable according to the criteria proposed
by the authors. Moreover, Ic ⬎ 2.6 at Site F identifies soils with
PI⬍ 10 共Figs. 1共c and d兲兲, whereas Ic ⬎ 2.6 at Site A identifies
soils with PI⬎ 10 共Figs. 2共c and d兲兲. The difference between the
PI values at Site F and Site A for similar values of Ic highlights
the importance of incorporating sampling within site investigation
programs.
As noted in the paper, evidence of liquefaction was also ob-
served in Potrero Canyon, California, after the 1994 Northridge
共Mw = 6.7兲 earthquake. Some field and laboratory testing by Ben-
nett et al. 共1998兲, which is shown in Fig. 3, provides data that
again indicates that Ic ⬎ 2.6 should not be used as a strict criterion
to evaluate a soil’s liquefaction susceptibility. Over depths from 4
to 5 m, for example, the soil’s PI⬍ 10 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85 even
though its measured Ic values are typically greater than 2.6.
The authors emphatically agree with the Youd et al. 共2001兲
recommendation that “. . . all soils with an Ic of 2.4 or greater
should be sampled and tested to confirm the soil type and to test
the liquefiability with other criteria.” The authors recommend that
liquefaction susceptibility be evaluated using their proposed PI
and wc / LL criteria.
Seismic Response of Clayey Soils
The discusser correctly notes that clayey soils that do not satisfy
the proposed liquefaction susceptibility criteria are not “immune
to seismic strength and stiffness losses.” The authors stated in the
conclusions of the paper that “there may be cases where sensitive
soils with PI⬎ 18 undergo severe strength loss as a result of
earthquake-induced straining, so the proposed criteria should be
applied with engineering judgment.” Liquefaction of fine-grained
soils as defined by cyclic mobility with limited strain potential for
the shallow soils in Adapazari contributed significantly to ground
failure and poor building performance during the 1999 Kocaeli
earthquake 共Bray et al. 2004兲. At some sites, sediment ejecta of
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008 / 1033
these fine-grained soils were observed. After extensive sampling
and testing, the problem soils were found to generally have PI
⬍ 12 and wc / LL⬎ 0.85.
Sites with shallow cohesive soil deposits of sufficient strength
in Adapazari did not undergo extensive ground failure 共Sancio
et al. 2002兲. However, this is not always the case, and there are
cases of weak, saturated cohesive soils that undergo significant
ground deformation as a result of earthquake shaking that could
lead to unsatisfactory building performance. The Martin and
Olgun 共2006兲 paper identifies one case, but there are many other
cases described in the literature 共e.g., Boulanger et al. 1998;
Holzer et al. 1999兲. The authors’ proposed liquefaction suscepti-
bility criteria should be used to identify fine-grained soils that
may undergo a seismic response with characteristics that are simi-
lar in many 共but not in all兲 ways to that exhibited by liquefiable
clean sands. It should not be used to eliminate from engineering
consideration soils that are screened by their criteria to not be
susceptible to the liquefaction phenomenon.
Fines Content
The second discussion emphasizes the importance of the amount
of fines in a soil in terms of its cyclic response. The authors agree
that the amount of fines is an important consideration. However,
the soils that the authors tested were fine-grained soils that had
nearly or in most cases had more than 50% fines. In all cases, the
soil’s fines content was greater than its threshold fines content as
defined by Thevanayagam et al. 共2002兲. Hence the authors’ data
do not allow them to comment on the effects of fines for soils
with fines contents that are below and above the threshold fines
content. For the soils tested, the soil’s interfine void ratio would
best describe the state of the soil. However, the soils tested con-
sistently contained about 10 to 30% sand-sized particles, so that
global void ratio, or water content, was found to be an adequate
descriptor of the state of the saturated soils, which also had con-
sistent mineralogy.
The discussers’ cyclic triaxial test results, which are described
in more detail in Xenaki and Athanasopoulos 共2003兲, indicate that
the amount of fines is important. One way that fines content is
important for the two tests shown in their discussion is that vastly
differing amounts of fines lead to significantly different “effec-
tive” void ratios 共i.e., different intergrain contact densities as de-
fined by Thevanayagam et al. 2002兲. The test performed on the
共e = 0.68兲 sand-silt mixture with 10% fines had an intergranular
void ratio of 0.86. The test performed on the 共e = 0.68兲 sand-silt
mixture with 55% fines had an interfine void ratio of 1.24. Both
tests were performed at the same effective confining stress. The
latter test results exhibit cyclic mobility with unlimited strain po-
tential; whereas the former test results exhibit cyclic mobility
with limited strain potential. These observations are consistent
with the significantly higher “effective” void ratio of the speci-
men with 55% fines as opposed to 10% fines.
The amount of fines is a discriminating factor for this case,
because two different soils that are at the same global void ratio
have different intergrain contact densities. Each soil’s response is
controlled by its position relative to its respective critical state
line 共CSL兲. Although each test specimen was consolidated at the
same effective confining stress, each soil has a different intergrain
contact density, and each soil likely has a different CSL because
of their different fines contents. Critical state soil mechanics and
equivalent intergrain contact density concepts may be used to
explain the different cyclic responses of the two different sand-silt
mixtures that were reconstituted to the same global void ratio.
Closing Remarks
Through their research, the authors have found that recommend-
ing strict criteria to discern soil response is problematic, and they
have tried to emphasize that their semiempirical criteria should be
applied with judgment. Soil response is typically controlled by
soil type, initial conditions 共state and stress兲, stress history, and by
the loading path, among other factors. The application of simpli-
fied screening criteria, although useful, cannot replace the appli-
cation of sound geotechnical engineering principles and
experience.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0116006. Any opinions,
1034 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2008
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the NSF.
References
Bennett, M. J., et al. 共1998兲. “Subsurface geotechnical investigations near
sites of ground deformation caused by the January 17, 1994,
Northridge, California, earthquake.” U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep.
98–373.
Boulanger, R. W., et al. 共1998兲. “Behavior of a fine-grained soil during
the Loma Prieta earthquake.” Can. Geotech. J., 35, 146–158.
Bray, J. D., et al. 共2004兲. “Subsurface characterization at ground failure
sites in Adapazari, Turkey.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲,
673–685.
Holzer, T. L., et al. 共1999兲. “Liquefaction and soil failure during 1994
Northridge earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125共6兲, 438–
452.
Martin, J. R., and Olgun, C. G. 共2006兲 “Unanticipated seismic vulnerabil-
ity of fine-grained plastic soils.” Proc., 8NCEE, EERI, San Francisco,
Paper No. 369.
Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. 共1998兲. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction
potential using the cone penetration test.” Can. Geotech. J., 35共3兲,
442–459.
Sancio, R. B. 共2003兲. “Ground failure and building performance in Ada-
pazari, Turkey.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berke-
ley, Calif.
Sancio, R. B., et al. 共2002兲. “Correlation between ground failure and soil
conditions in Adapazari, Turkey.” Soil Dyn. & EQ Engrg., 22, 1093–
1102.
Seed, H. B., et al. 共1985兲. “Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefac-
tion resistance evaluation.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 111共12兲, 1425–1445.
Thevanayagam, S., et al. 共2002兲. “Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty
sands, and sandy silts.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共10兲, 849–
859.
Xenaki, V. C., and Athanasopoulos, G. A. 共2003兲. “Liquefaction resis-
tance of sand-silt mixtures: An experimental investigation of the effect
of fines.” Soil Dyn. & EQ Engrg., 23, 183–194.
Youd, T. L., et al. 共2001兲. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary
report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 127共10兲, 817–833.
Copyright of Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering is the property of American Society of
Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.