Sadrekarimi, A. (2014). Géotechnique 64, No. 4, 325–332 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.

139]

TECHNICAL NOTE

Effect of soil contraction tendency on static liquefaction triggering

analysis
A. SADREKARIMI

Static liquefaction failure occurs when the shear stress applied by a monotonic triggering load exceeds
the undrained yield (peak) shear strength of the saturated, liquefiable, cohesionless soil. In this study,
the effect of soil contraction tendency on static liquefaction failure of cohesionless soils is
characterised by an empirical relationship between soil brittleness index and undrained yield strength
from a database of 702 laboratory shear tests performed by the author and collected from past
literature. The application of this relationship for estimating the static liquefaction triggering strength
of cohesionless soils is validated by comparison with several cases of liquefaction failures.

KEYWORDS: in-situ testing; laboratory tests; liquefaction; sands; shear strength

INTRODUCTION τ
CSL
Liquefaction flow failure occurs in a saturated, loose, cohe-
sionless soil subject to an initial static shear stress (e.g. in a IL
sloping ground or beneath an embankment) when soil resis- su(yield)/σ ⬘c
tance becomes lower than the static driving shear stress. As
illustrated in Fig. 1, static liquefaction is triggered in a
saturated, loose, cohesionless soil by a monotonically in-

su(yield)
creasing shear load (e.g. raising embankment height, over-
steepening of a slope, toe erosion, rapid sedimentation,
su(liq)

construction loading, weight of construction/repair equip-
ment, slumping and progressive failure leading to steeper
slopes) when the undrained effective stress path crosses the
instability line (Lade, 1992) at su (yield). Strain-softening
subsequently follows the initiation of liquefaction until a
reduced post-liquefaction strength, su (liq) is mobilised at the
critical state (Terzaghi et al., 1996). The February 1994
flowslide failure of Merriespruit gold mine tailings dam in
Virginia, South Africa which released 600 000 m3 of waste
tailings over a distance of more than 2000 m (Fourie et al.,
2001), and the August 1974 flowslide failure of a Tar Island
dyke (an oil sand tailings embankment) in northern Alberta
which travelled about 35 m (Olson, 2001) are examples of
liquefaction flow failures triggered by monotonic loads pro-
duced by oversteepening in the case of the Merriespruit
tailings dam, or rapid construction for the Tar Island dyke.
Liquefaction triggering analysis involves evaluating
whether the combined initial static and monotonic triggering
shear stresses are sufficient to overcome su (yield). Empirical
correlations with in-situ standard penetration test (SPT) blow
count, (N1 )60 , or cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance,
qc1 , are often used for estimating the in-situ triggering
strength because of their simplicity, convenience, lower cost
and nearly continuous measurements. As illustrated in Fig.
2, these correlations, which are established based on past
liquefaction flow failures (Stark & Mesri, 1992; Olson &
Stark, 2003; Mesri, 2007), fall short of accounting for the
fundamental effect of soil’s contraction tendency (i.e., nega-
Manuscript received 10 August 2013; revised manuscript accepted
3 January 2014. Published online ahead of print 17 February 2014.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 September 2014, for further
details see p. ii.
 Western University, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, London, Ontario, Canada.
φ⬘critical
σ ⬘1c σ⬘
σ ⬘liq
Fig. 1. Schematic liquefaction triggering mechanism by a mono-
tonic stress path
tive dilatancy) in increasing the amount of undrained
strength loss following the triggering of static liquefaction
with decreasing penetration resistance. These methods as-
sume that su (yield) increases with increasing (N1 )60 or qc1 at
the same (Olson & Stark, 2002, 2003; Mesri, 2007) or even
at a greater (Stark & Mesri, 1992) rate than su (liq), and
hence the amount of undrained strength loss remains the
same or increases with increasing (N1 )60 or qc1 , whereas
these two lines should actually meet at a certain penetration
resistance for which soil strain-softening behaviour di-
minishes. A direct implication of this negligence is that
these correlations cannot differentiate among liquefaction
flow failures with different travel distances, for example the
travel distances of the Merriespruit tailings dam (. 2000 m)
and the Tar Island dyke ( 35 m) failures.
Based on a large database of laboratory shear tests
(including those from the author as well as from other
studies), this study introduces an empirical relationship be-
tween su (yield) and su (liq) which captures the effect of soil’s
contraction tendency on the undrained strength of loose,
cohesionless soils. This relationship is then employed for the
estimation of su (yield) from in-situ penetration tests.
DATABASE OF LABORATORY SHEAR TESTS
A large database of 702 direct simple shear (DSS), hollow
cylindrical torsional shear (HCTS), plane strain compression

325
326 SADREKARIMI
0·4 0·4

Yield (triggering)
Yield (triggering)

Post-liquefaction Post-liquefaction

Stark & Mesri (1992) Mesri (2007)

0·3 0·3
su /σ ⬘v0

su /σ ⬘v0
0·2 0·2

0·1 0·1

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15
(N1)60 (N1)60
(a) (b)
0·4 0·4

Yield (triggering) Yield (triggering)

Post-liquefaction
Post-liquefaction

0·3 0·3
su /σ ⬘v0
su /σ ⬘v0

0·2 0·2

0·1 0·1

Olson & Stark (2002, 2003) Olson & Stark (2002, 2003)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8
(N1)60 qc1: MPa
(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Existing empirical correlations of su (yield)=ó9v0 and su (liq)=ó9v0 with in-situ penetration tests (Stark &
Mesri, 1992; Olson & Stark, 2002, 2003; Mesri, 2007)

shear (PSC), ring shear (RS), axisymmetric triaxial compres-
sion shear (TxC) and triaxial extension shear (TxE) tests are
collected in this study; these cover a very wide range of fines
contents, FC (0–80%), consolidation relative density, Drc
(from 38 to 184% corresponding to ec ¼ 0.261–1.287),
consolidation stresses, ó c9 (25–60 000 kPa), specimen prepara-
tion techniques (AP: air pluviation; WP: water pluviation;
MT: moist tamping) and initial shear stress ratios (ôo /ó c9 ) of
up to 0.6. Table 1 summarises these experiments and their
specimen preparation methods.
As shown in Fig. 1, su (yield) and su (liq) respectively
describe the liquefaction triggering condition and the subse-
quent behaviour after liquefaction occurs. The normalised
difference between su (yield) and su (liq) is used in this study
to quantify the degree of collapsibility and the amount of
shear strength reduction which occurs following the initia-
 EFFECT OF SOIL CONTRACTION TENDENCY ON STATIC LIQUEFACTION FAILURE 327

Table 1. Summary of the laboratory shear tests used in this study  † ‡ §

Shear test Sand D50 : mm FC: % Reference

(no. of tests)

DSS (34) Monterey no. 0 (MT) 0.350 0 Riemer & Seed (1992, 1997);
Riemer et al. (1990)
Toyoura (AP) 0.200 0 Yoshimine et al. (1999)
HCTS (75) Fontainebleau (WP) 0.210 0 Tsomokos & Georgiannou (2010)
M31 (WP) 0.280 0
Fraser River (WP) 0.300 0 Uthayakumar & Vaid (1998)
Syncrude tailings (WP) 0.200 0
Toyoura (AP) 0.170 0 Yoshimine et al. (1998)
PSC (18) Masonry (MT) 0.320 0 Finno et al. (1996)
Changi (MT) 0.300–0.350 0. 4 Wanatowski & Chu (2007)
RS† (69) Illinois River (MT) 0.510 1 Sadrekarimi (2009)
Mississippi River (AP) 0.090 38
Ottawa (MT) 0.510 0
M10 (AP) 0.047 76 Wang et al. (2007)
M20 (AP) 0.043 78
M30(AP) 0.040 80
S8 (AP) 0.050 74
TxC (433) Erksak 330/0.7 (MT) 0.330 0. 7 Been et al. (1991)
Sand B (MT) 0.160 0 Castro (1969)
Sand C (MT) 0.270 1
Banding no. 6 (MT) 0.157 0 Castro et al. (1982)
Sydney (MT) 0.300 – Chu (1995)
Coal mine tailings (MT) 4–8 0 Dawson et al. (1998)
Ottawa banding (MT) 0.190 2 Dennis (1988)
Masonary (MT) 0.320 0 Finno et al. (1996)
Merriespruit tailings (MT) 0.128 0 Fourie & Tshabalala (2005)
Fourie & Papageorgiou (2001)
0.115 20
0.101 30
0.056 60
Alaskan (MT) – – Jefferies & Been (2006)
Amauligak F-24 (MT) – –
Banding sand (MT) – –
Erksak 320/1 (MT) – –
Erksak 355/3 (MT) – –
Nerlerk 270–1 (MT) – –
Nerlerk 280–2 (MT) – –
Ticino (MT) – –
Well-rounded silica (MT) 0.175 1 Konrad (1990)
Till Sand (MT) 0.110 32 Konrad (1993)
Hostun RF (MT) 0.380 0 Konrad (1993)
Fraser River (MT) 0.250 2–3 Konrad & Pouliot (1997)
Cambria (AP) – 0 Lade et al. (2006)
Ardebil silty sand (WP) 0.180 10 Naeini & Baziar (2000)
Ardebil silty sand (MT) 0.180 10
Monterey no. 0 (MT) 0.350 0 Riemer & Seed (1992, 1997)
Illinois River (MT) 0.510 1 Sadrekarimi (2009)
Mississippi River (AP) 0.090 38
Ottawa 20/40 (MT) 0.510 0
Ottawa C109 (MT) 0.340 0 Sasitharan et al. (1994)
Syncrude tailings (MT) 0.175 11 Sladen & Handford (1987)
Leighton Buzzard (MT) 0.860 0 Sladen et al. (1985)
Nerlerk berm (MT) 0.280 12
0.280 2
0.230 0
Portaway (MT) 0.400 1 Wang (2005)
Tottori (MT) 0.280 0 Takeshita et al. (1995)
50/200 Nevada sand (AP) 0.100 40 Yamamuro & Covert (2001)
Fujian (MT) 0.397 0 Yang & Wei (2012)
Toyoura (MT) 0.216 0
Toyoura sand with silica fines (MT) – 5
– 10
– 15
Toyoura sand with glass beads (MT) – 5
Toyoura (AP) 0.170 0 Yoshimine (1996); Verdugo (1992)
Fraser River (WP) 0.300 0 Vaid et al. (2001)
Toyoura (MT) 0.170 0 Verdugo (1992)

( continued)
328 SADREKARIMI
Table 1. ( continued )
Shear test Sand D50 : mm
(no. of tests)
TxE (73) Erksak 330/0.7 (MT) 0.330
Hostun RF 0.380
Cambria (AP) – 0
Monterey no. 0 (MT) 0.350
Fraser River (WP) 0.300
Portaway (MT) 0.400
Kawagishi-cho (AP) 0.320
Toyoura (AP) 0.200
 Letters in parentheses represent specimen preparation methods as AP for air pluviation, MT for moist tamping and WP for water pluviation.
† Significant particle crushing occurred at the end of ring shear tests at large shear displacements.
tion of liquefaction. This is commonly defined by the
undrained brittleness index, IB as below (Bishop, 1971)
su (yield)  su (liq)
IB ¼ (1)
su (yield)
IB ranges from 0 to 1, where IB ¼ 1 indicates a very brittle
soil behaviour associated with an extremely low su (liq),
whereas IB ¼ 0 occurs in non-brittle or strain-hardening soils
where no strength reduction occurs during undrained shear.
Figure 3 presents IB plotted against ó c9 =ó l9iq for the large
database of laboratory shear tests presented in Table 1,
where ó c9 and ó l9iq are respectively the consolidation and the
post-liquefaction (i.e. associated with su (liq) and critical
state) mean (for HCTS, PSC, TxC and TxE) or normal (for
DSS and RS) effective stresses. According to this figure, IB
increases with increasing ó c9 =ó l9iq with relatively little scatter
for different modes of shear and different specimen prepara-
tion methods. The ranges of data are curve-fitted by the
following equation
 
2:1  0:9
I B ¼ exp :  0:03 (2)
1 72  1:00  ó c9 =ó l9iq
Figure 3 and equation (2) indicate that the severity of
liquefaction and strain-softening increase with increasing ó c9
or decreasing ó l9iq for cohesionless soils. As ó c9 is the
primary parameter that controls the initial consolidation void
ratio of a cohesionless soil, and ó l9iq reflects the critical state
void ratio through the critical state line, ó c9 =ó l9iq is in fact an
alternative measure of the critical state parameter (Wang et
al., 2002; Sadrekarimi, 2013). Therefore, the contraction
tendency of sand is empirically captured in equation (2)
through its dependence on the critical state parameter (Jeff-
eries & Been, 1987).
COMPARISON WITH PAST STATIC LIQUEFACTION
FLOW FAILURES
The application of equation (2) – which is developed
based on a large database of laboratory shear tests – to
static liquefaction failures is evaluated by comparing
su (yield) estimated from this equation with those mobilised
in several cases of monotonic loading-induced field liquefac-
tion flow failures presented in Table 2. Except for the
submarine flowslide in Kitimat, British Columbia for which
su (yield) and su (liq) are obtained from in-situ vane shear
tests (Morrison, 1984), IB is calculated for these cases based
on the su (yield) and su (liq) backcalculated from static slope
stability analyses of the pre- and post-failure slope geome-
tries (Muhammad, 2012; Olson, 2001). As described by
Olson (2001) and Muhammad (2012), su (yield) is obtained
FC: % Reference
0.7 Been et al. (1991)
0 Doanh et al. (1997); Finge et al. (2006)
Lade et al. (2006)
0 Riemer & Seed (1992, 1997)
0 Vaid et al. (2001); Vaid & Thomas (1995)
1 Wang (2005)
1.4 Yoshimine et al. (1998, 1999)
0
by backcalculating the shear stress mobilised in the liquefi-
able soil zones of the pre-failure slope geometry immedi-
ately prior to the static flow failure. For estimating su (liq),
sufficient information (e.g. post-failure geometry, travel path
and distance of the failure soil mass) was available in cases
A, B, E and F to consider the kinetics of failure. Therefore,
analyses of the kinetics of motion were conducted by Olson
(2001) and Muhammad (2012) for these cases based on a
procedure described by Davis et al. (1988). However, owing
to limited information, simplified slope stability analyses
(Ishihara et al., 1990) were carried out to estimate su (liq) for
cases C, G and I. The ranges of the undrained strengths
reported in Table 2 reflect the uncertainties associated with
the limits of the liquefied soil zone, location of the failure
surface, and shear strengths of the non-liquefied soils, as
well as the effects of void redistribution, hydroplaning, mix-
ing with water, and changes in the weight of the liquefied
material if the failure mass slid into a body of water (Olson,
2001; Muhammad, 2012).
In order to apply equation (2) to the liquefaction flow
failures of Table 2, where the effective horizontal stress is
unknown, ó c9 and ó l9iq are replaced respectively with the
average pre-failure effective vertical stress (ó v90 ) and the
post-liquefaction effective normal stress on the critical fail-
ure plane in the zone of liquefaction. Based on the Mohr–
Coulomb’s failure criterion, the post-liquefaction effective
normal stress is further replaced by su (liq)/tan(ö9critical ) in
which ö9critical is the critical state friction angle. Unless
laboratory data are available, ö9critical ¼ 328  18 is a reason-
able assumption for most silica sands (Bolton, 1986; Sadre-
karimi & Olson, 2011; Andersen & Schjetne, 2012;
Sadrekarimi, 2013). With these changes, equations (1) and
(2) are combined and rearranged as below to obtain
su (yield)=ó v90 from IB (in equation (3)) or su (liq)=ó v90 (in
equation (4))
su (yield) tan (328) 3 ln (I B þ 0:03)
¼
ó 9v0 (1  I B )½(1 72  1:00) ln (I B þ 0:03)  2:1  0:9
:
(3)
su (yield) su (liq)=ó 9v0
¼  
ó 9v0 : 2:1  0:9
1 03  exp :
1 72  1:00  ½ó 9v0 tan(328)=su (liq)
(4)
Normalisation with respect to ó v90 incorporates the varia-
tion of ó v90 and allows the comparison of su (yield) among
field liquefaction failures with different liquefaction depths
by equations (3) and (4). According to Fig. 4, the average IB
and su (yield)/ó v90 of the liquefaction flow failures closely
follow the average trend of equation (3), indicating that
equation (3) provides reasonable estimates of su (yield) mobi-
 EFFECT OF SOIL CONTRACTION TENDENCY ON STATIC LIQUEFACTION FAILURE 329
1·0 1·0

0·8 0·8
Brittleness index, IB

Brittleness index, IB
0·6 0·6
Equation (2) Equation (2)

0·4 0·4

0·2 Air pluviated 0·2 Air pluviated

Moist tamped Water pluviated
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq
(a) (b)
1·0 1·0

0·8 0·8

Brittleness index, IB
Brittleness index, IB

0·6 0·6
Equation (2) Equation (2)

0·4 0·4

0·2 0·2 Air pluviated

Moist tamped Moist tamped

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq
(c) (d)
1·0 1·0

0·8 0·8
Brittleness index, IB

Brittleness index, IB

0·6 0·6
Equation (2) Equation (2)

0·4 0·4

Air pluviated Air pluviated

0·2 Moist tamped 0·2 Moist tamped
Water pluviated Water pluviated

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq σ ⬘c /σ ⬘liq
(e) (f)

Fig. 3. Variation of IB with ó9c =ó9liq for: (a) DSS; (b) HCTS; (c) PSC; (d) RS; (e) TxC; (f) TxE shear tests of Table 1

lised in static liquefaction failures of sloping grounds. Note
that while the ranges of su (yield)/ó v90 from equation (3) also
encompass the su (yield)/ó v90 variations (error bars) of the
liquefaction flow failures, the upper range of equation (3) –
which is established mainly based on laboratory shear tests
on loose, moist-tamped specimens (see Fig. 3) – is signifi-
cantly larger than the values of su (yield)/ó v90 from the
liquefaction flow failures. This implies that the in-situ fabric
of the soils involved in the liquefaction flow failures of
Table 2 were likely closer to those developed by air pluvia-
tion or water pluviation specimen preparation techniques.
Moreover, reconciling the overall good agreement among the
average relationships of equations (2) and (3) with the DSS
(Fig. 3(a)) and the HCTS (Fig. 3(b)) tests data and with the
average su (yield)/ó v90 from the liquefaction flow failures
(Fig. 4) indicates that the field liquefaction flow failures
essentially occurred under simple shear conditions. Through
the combination of equations (3) and (4), the average
relationship of su (liq)/ó v90 with IB is also included in Fig. 4.
According to this figure, brittleness initially arises primarily
by the reduction of su (liq)/ó v90 , while su (yield)/ó v90 remains
roughly around 0.25 for 0.1 , IB , 0.8, which reflects the
larger impact of Drc and IB on su (liq)/ó v90 than on su (yield)/
ó v90 : However, at IB ¼ 0.8, su (yield)/ó v90 exhibits a sharp
decline and continues to decrease with increasing IB at a
greater gradient for very brittle, cohesionless soils
(IB . 0.8), which is supported by both laboratory shear tests
and field liquefaction flow failures. In order to account for
the effect of soil contraction tendency, equation (4) can be
employed to calculate su (yield)/ó v90 from a measured value
330 SADREKARIMI
Table 2. Static liquefaction flow failures evaluated in this study

No. Case Triggering factor su (yield)=ó v90 su (liq)=ó v90 IB Soil type

A Calaveras dam, USA Construction loading 0.261 0.112 0.550 Silty sand
(0.244–0.274) (0.093–0.123) (0.518–0.684) (FC  10–50%)
B Fort Peck dam, USA Construction loading 0.255 0.078 0.695 Sandy silt
(0.230–0.285) (0.048–0.097) (0.579–0.832) (FC  55%)
C Helsinki harbour, Finland Raising slope height 0.240 0.060 0.750 Sand
(0.210–0.260) (0.055–0.098) (0.533–0. 858)
D Kitimat flowslide, Canada† Disturbance by low tide 0.203 0.017 0.914 Fine silty sand to silt
E Lake Ackerman road Weight of construction 0.245 0.076 0.690 Clean sand
embankment, USA equipment (0.220–0.275) (0.066–0.092) (0.582–0.760)
F Sullivan tailings dam, Raising dam height 0.241 0.132 0.452 Hydraulic fill iron
Canada‡ (0.228–0.254) (0.420–0.480) tailings
G Tar Island dyke, Canada Raising dyke height 0.265 0.058 0.781 Silty sand
(0.195–0.300) (0.037–0.105) (0.462–0. 875) (FC  10–30%)
H Merriespruit tailings dam, Oversteepening of slope 0.226 0.022 0.885 Sandy silt
South Africa{ (0.219–0.333) (0.004–0.048) (0.780–0. 989) (FC  60%)
I Asele road embankment, Weight of construction 0.280 0.104 0.629 Silty sand
Sweden equipment (0.232–0.316) (0.083–0.125) (0.461–0.737) (FC  23–38%)
 Based on limit equilibrium slope stability analyses of Olson (2001).
† From in-situ vane shear tests (Morrison, 1984).
‡ Based on limit equilibrium slope stability analyses of Muhammad (2012).

0·6 CONCLUSIONS
A B C
D E F While the existing methods for the liquefaction triggering
0·5 G H I analysis of sloping ground conditions fail to account for the
soil dilatancy behaviour, an empirical approach is developed
0·4 su(yield)/σ ⬘v0 in this study to estimate liquefaction triggering strength of
(equation (3)) strain-softening, saturated, cohesionless soils subject to a
su /σ ⬘v0

0·3 monotonically increasing shear load. The proposed method

accounts for the effect of decreasing soil contraction tendency
0·2
– as observed in a large database of laboratory shear experi-
ments – with increasing soil density or in-situ penetration
resistance on reducing the amount of strain-softening and
0·1
su(liq)/σ ⬘v0 brittleness of cohesionless soils. The major strength of this
approach is the blending of the sand dilatancy theory through
0 laboratory experiments with empirical correlations based on
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
IB in-situ penetration tests to establish a method for estimating
su (yield). This allows the method to differentiate liquefaction
Fig. 4. Comparison of su (yield)=ó9v0 and su (liq)=ó9v0 from the flow failures with different travel distances based on the
liquefaction flow failures of Table 2 (datapoints) with equation (3) amount of strain-softening and undrained collapse exhibited
following the initiation of liquefaction failure.

of su (liq)/ó v90 : The CPT-based empirical relationship devel- NOTATION

oped by Olson & Stark (2002) is considered more appro- D50 median particle size (mm)
priate as it incorporates the effects of failure kinetics, Drc consolidation relative density (%)
potential hydroplaning, soil mixing and the shear strength of ec consolidation void ratio
non-liquefied soils in providing the best estimate of su (liq)/ FC fines content (%)
ó v90 : IB brittleness index
The key contribution of the proposed method is that the (N1 )60 normalised standard penetration test blow count
fundamental effect of decreasing soil contraction tendency qc1 normalised cone penetration resistance (MPa)
on reducing brittleness and collapsibility of cohesionless ru,max excess pore-water pressure ratio (˜u=ó c9 )
su (liq) undrained post-liquefaction strength (kPa)
soils with increasing penetration resistance is accounted for
su (yield) undrained liquefaction triggering (yield) strength (kPa)
in the estimation of su (yield) and hence in field liquefaction ˜u shear-induced excess pore-water pressure (kPa)
triggering analysis. As the amount of kinetic energy im- ó c9 mean or normal consolidation stress (kPa)
parted on a sliding soil mass depends on the amount of ó l9iq post-liquefaction effective stress (kPa)
shear strength reduction upon failure (Bishop, 1973), the ó v90 initial effective vertical stress (kPa)
proposed method can explain the differences in the amount ô0 initial static shear stress (kPa)
of travel distances among liquefaction flow failures, which is ö9critical critical state friction angle (degrees)
not possible with the existing empirical correlations pre-
sented in Fig. 2. For example, because of the differences in
IB (see Table 2) the liquefaction flowslides of Merriespruit REFERENCES
tailings dam (IB ¼ 0.89) and Tar Island dyke (IB ¼ 0.78) Andersen, K. H. & Schjetne, K. (2012). Data base of friction angles
underwent very different travel distances of 2000 m and of sand and consolidation characteristics of sand, silt, and clay.
35 m, respectively. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 139, No. 7, 1140–1155.
 EFFECT OF SOIL CONTRACTION TENDENCY ON STATIC LIQUEFACTION FAILURE
Been, K., Jefferies, M. G. & Hachey, J. (1991). The critical state of
sands. Géotechnique 41, No. 3, 365–381, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1991.41.3.365.
Bishop, A. W. (1971). Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and
remoulded soil specimens. In Stress–strain behaviour of soils:
proceedings of the Roscoe memorial symposium, Cambridge
University (ed. R. H. G. Parry), pp. 3–58. Henley, UK: Foulis.
Bishop, A. W. (1973). The stability of tips and spoil heaps. Q. J.
Engng Geol. Hydrogeol. 6, No. 3–4, 335–376.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géo-
technique 36, No. 1, 65–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.
36.1.65.
Castro, G. (1969). Liquefaction of sands. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Harvard University.
Castro, G., Enos, J. L., France, J. W. & Poulos, S. J. (1982).
Liquefaction induced by cyclic loading, Report to National
Science Foundation, Washington D. C. Winchester, MA, USA:
Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
Chu, J. (1995). An experimental examination of the critical state
and other similar concepts for granular soils. Can. Geotech. J.
32, No. 6, 1065–1075.
Davis, A. P., Poulos, S. J. & Castro, G. (1988). Strengths back-
figured from liquefaction case histories. Proceedings of 2nd
international conference on case histories in geotechnical en-
gineering, St Louis, MO, pp. 1693–1701.
Dawson, R. F., Morgenstern, N. R. & Stokes, A. W. (1998).
Liquefaction flowslides in Rocky Mountain coal mine waste
dumps. Can. Geotech. J. 35, No. 2, 328–343.
Dennis, N. D. (1988). Influence of specimen preparation techniques
and testing procedures on undrained steady state shear strength.
In Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock (eds R. T.
Donaghe, R. C. Chaney and M. L. Silver), ASTM STP 977, pp.
642–654. Philadelphia, PA, USA: ASTM International.
Doanh, T., Ibraim, E. & Matiotti, R. (1997). Undrained instability
of very loose Hostun sand in triaxial compression and extension.
Part 1: experimental observations. Mech. Cohesive-Frictional
Mater. 2, No. 1, 47–70.
Finge, Z., Doanh, T. & Dubujet, P. (2006). Undrained anisotropy of
Hostun RF loose sand: new experimental investigations. Can.
Geotech. J. 43, No. 11, 1195–1212.
Finno, R. J., Harris, W., Mooney, M. & Viggiani, G. (1996). Strain
localization and undrained steady state of sand. J. Geotech.
Engng, ASCE 122, No. 6, 462–473.
Fourie, A. B. & Papageorgiou, G. (2001). Defining an appropriate
steady state line for Merriespruit gold tailings. Can. Geotech. J.
38, No. 4, 695–706.
Fourie, A. B. & Tshabalala, L. (2005). Initiation of static liquefac-
tion and the role of K-0 consolidation. Can. Geotech. J. 42, No.
3, 892–906.
Fourie, A. B., Blight, G. E. & Papageorgiou, G. (2001). Static
liquefaction as a possible explanation for the Merriespruit
tailings dam failure. Can. Geotech. J. 38, No. 4, 707–719.
Ishihara, K., Yasuda, S. & Yoshida, Y. (1990). Liquefaction-induced
flow failure of embankments and residual strength of silty sands.
Soils Found. 30, No. 3, 69–80.
Jefferies, M. G. & Been, K. (1987). Use of critical state representa-
tions of sand in the method of stress characteristics. Can.
Geotech. J. 24, No. 3, 441–446.
Jefferies, M. G. & Been, K. (2006). Soil liquefaction – a critical
state approach. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.
Konrad, J. M. (1990). The minimum undrained strength of two
sands. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 116, No. 6, 932–947.
Konrad, J. M. (1993). Undrained response of loosely compacted
sands during monotonic and cyclic compression. Géotechnique
43, No. 1, 69–90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.1.69.
Konrad, J. M. & Pouliot, N. (1997). Ultimate state of reconstituted
and intact samples of deltaic sand. Can. Geotech. J. 34, No. 5,
737–748.
Lade, P. V. (1992). Static instability and liquefaction of loose fine
sandy slopes. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 118, No. 1, 51–71.
Lade, P. V., Yamamuro, J. A. & Bopp, P. A. (2006). Drained and
undrained strengths of sand in axisymmetric tests at high
pressures. In Geomechanics II: testing, modeling, and simulation
(eds P. V. Lade and T. Nakai), Geotechnical Special Publication
156, pp. 87–102. Reston, VA, USA: American Society of Civil
Engineers.
331
Mesri, G. (2007). Yield strength and critical strength of liquefi-
able sands in sloping ground. Géotechnique 57, No. 3, 309–
311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.57.3.309.
Morrison, K. I. (1984). Case history of very large submarine land-
slide, Kitimat, British Columbia, IV. Proceedings of interna-
tional symposium on landslides, pp. 337–342. Richmond, BC,
Canada: Canadian Geotechnical Society.
Muhammad, K. (2012). Case history-based analysis of liquefaction
in sloping ground. Urbana, IL, USA: Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois.
Naeini, S. & Baziar, M. (2000). Effect of sample preparation on
steady state. In Geotechnical measurements: lab and field (Geo-
Denver 2000) (ed. W. A. Marr), pp. 16–29. Reston, VA, USA:
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Olson, S. M. (2001). Liquefaction analysis of level and sloping
ground using field case histories and penetration resistance.
Urbana, IL, USA: Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Illinois.
Olson, S. M. & Stark, T. D. (2002). Liquefied strength ratio from
liquefaction flow failure case histories. Can. Geotech. J. 39, No.
3, 629–647.
Olson, S. M. & Stark, T. D. (2003). Yield strength ratio and
liquefaction analysis of slopes and embankments. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 129, No. 8, 727–737.
Riemer, M. F. & Seed, R. B. (1992). Observed effects of testing
conditions on the residual strength of loose, saturated sands at
large strains. Proceedings of the 4th Japan–US workshop on
earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and counter-
measures for soil liquefaction, Tokai University Pacific Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 223–237.
Riemer, M. F. & Seed, R. B. (1997). Factors affecting apparent
position of the steady-state line. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng,
ASCE 123, No. 3, 281–288.
Riemer, M. F., Seed, R. B., Nicholson, P. G. & Jong, H. L. (1990).
Steady state testing of loose sands: limiting minimum density.
J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 116, No. 2, 332–337.
Sadrekarimi, A. (2009). Development of a new ring shear apparatus
for investigating the critical state of sands. PhD thesis, Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
Sadrekarimi, A. (2013). Influence of state and compressibility on
liquefied strength of sands. Can. Geotech. J. 50, No. 10, 1067–
1076.
Sadrekarimi, A. & Olson, S. M. (2011). Critical state friction angle
of sands. Géotechnique 61, No. 9, 771–783, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.9.P.090.
Sasitharan, S., Robertson, P. K., Sego, D. C. & Morgenstern, N. R.
(1994). State-boundary surface for very loose sand and its
practical implications. Can. Geotech. J. 31, No. 3, 321–334.
Sladen, J. A. & Handford, G. (1987). A potential systematic error
in laboratory testing of very loose sands. Can. Geotech. J. 24,
No. 3, 462–466.
Sladen, J. A., D’Hollander, R. D. & Krahn, J. (1985). The liquefac-
tion of sands, a collapse surface approach. Can. Geotech. J. 22,
No. 4, 564–578.
Stark, T. D. & Mesri, G. (1992). Undrained shear strength of
liquefied sands for stability analysis. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE
118, No. 11, 1727–1747.
Takeshita, S., Takeishi, M. & Tamada, K. (1995). Static liquefaction
of sands and its liquefaction index. In Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering
(ed. K. Ishihara), pp. 177–182. Rotterdam, The Netherlands/
Tokyo, Japan: A. A. Balkema.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B. & Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice, 3rd edn. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Tsomokos, A. & Georgiannou, V. N. (2010). Effect of grain shape
and angularity on the undrained response of fine sands. Can.
Geotech. J. 47, No. 5, 539–551.
Uthayakumar, M. & Vaid, Y. P. (1998). Static liquefaction of sands
under multiaxial loading. Can. Geotech. J. 35, No. 2, 273–283.
Vaid, Y. P. & Thomas, J. (1995). Liquefaction and postliquefaction
behavior of sand. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 121, No. 2, 163–
173.
Vaid, Y. P., Stedman, J. D. & Sivathayalan, S. (2001). Confining
stress and static shear effects in cyclic liquefaction. Can.
Geotech. J. 38, No. 3, 580–591.
332 SADREKARIMI
Verdugo, R. (1992). Characterization of sandy soil behavior under
large deformation. Tokyo, Japan: Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, University of Tokyo.
Wanatowski, D. & Chu, J. (2007). Static liquefaction of sand in
plane strain. Can. Geotech. J. 44, No. 3, 299–313.
Wang, G., Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H. & Tada, T. (2007). Experimental
study on the shearing behavior of saturated silty soils based on
ring-shear tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 133, No.
3, 319–333.
Wang, J. (2005). The stress–strain and strength characteristics of
Portaway Sand. Nottingham, UK: School of Civil Engineering,
The University of Nottingham.
Wang, Z. L., Dafalias, Y. F., Li, X. S. & Makdisi, F. I. (2002). State
pressure index for modeling sand behavior. J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Engng 128, No. 6, 511–519.
Yamamuro, J. A. & Covert, K. M. (2001). Monotonic and cyclic
liquefaction of very loose sands with high silt content. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 127, No. 4, 314–324.
Yang, J. & Wei, L. M. (2012). Collapse of loose sand with the
addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Géotechnique 62,
No. 12, 1111–1125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.062.
Yoshimine, M. (1996). Undrained flow deformation of saturated
sand under monotonic loading conditions. PhD thesis, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshimine, M., Ishihara, K. & Vargas, W. (1998). Effects of princi-
pal stress direction and intermediate principal stress on undrained
shear behavior of sand. Soils Found. 38, No. 3, 179–188.
Yoshimine, M., Robertson, P. K. & Wride, C. E. (1999). Undrained
shear strength of clean sands to trigger flow liquefaction. Can.
Geotech. J. 36, No. 5, 891–906.