Characterization of the Reduction in Undrained

Shear Strength in Fine-Grained Soils

due to Cyclic Loading
Beena Ajmera, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 1; Thomas Brandon, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and Binod Tiwari, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 3

Abstract: To evaluate the effect of plasticity characteristics and mineralogical composition on postcyclic shear strength degradation,
18 soils, prepared as different proportions of kaolinite, montmorillonite, and ground quartz, were characterized using static simple shear
and cyclic simple shear tests with postcyclic monotonic loading. The postcyclic undrained strength ratio (su;pc =σc0 ) was found to depend on
the clay mineral, plasticity index (PI), and cyclic stress ratio. In soils with kaolinite as the clay mineral, a greater reduction in shear strength
due to cyclic loading was noted at lower PIs, whereas soils with montmorillonite as the clay mineral typically experienced reductions between
0% and 30% of the static undrained shear strength. A relationship was established between degradation in undrained shear strength and
postcyclic effective stress ratio (PC-ESR), which is the ratio of the consolidation stress to the effective vertical stress after cyclic loading and is
0
equivalent to the reciprocal of the difference between the pore pressure ratio and one. A linear relationship between the ratio of su;pc =σpc
0 0
(where σpc is the effective vertical stress immediately after cyclic loading) and the undrained strength ratio (su =σc ) of a normally consolidated
soil and PC-ESR was also developed. Results from nine natural soils showed good agreement with the relationships developed for mineral
mixtures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002041. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Background by 11 of the 18 multistory buildings resulted from a 33%–55%

Understanding the behavior of clay deposits under earthquakes,
storm waves, traffic loads, and machine vibrations is important to
ensure the safe design of infrastructure. The cyclic loading resulting
from these conditions may lower the undrained bearing capacity
of foundations on clays (Andersen 1988; Chu et al. 2008), cause
slope instability (Stark and Contreras 1998; Boulanger and Idriss
2004; Tiwari and Pradel 2017; Tiwari et al. 2018), or lead to lateral
spreading and settlement (Boulanger et al. 1998). The Fourth
Avenue Landslide in Anchorage following the 1964 Alaska Earth-
quake is a pertinent example of the damage that infrastructure can
experience as a result of a loss of strength in clayey soils due to
cyclic loading. Specifically, Stark and Contreras (1998) stated that
the undrained shear strength of the Bootlegger Cove Clay under-
lying the Anchorage landslide reduced to approximately 80% of the
original static undrained shear strength as a result of the earthquake.
However, Boulanger and Idriss (2004) concluded that the reduced
strength of this material was closer to 70% of the original static
undrained shear strength. Likewise, Chu et al. (2008) studied a
series of buildings located in Wufeng, Taiwan, during the 1999
Chi-Chi Earthquake. They found that the severe damage sustained
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58108 (corresponding author). Email:
beena.ajmera@ndsu.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061. Email:
tbrandon@vt.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, California
State Univ., Fullerton, CA 92831. Email: btiwari@fullerton.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 27, 2017; approved on
October 24, 2018; published online on February 28, 2019. Discussion
period open until July 28, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
reduction in the undrained shear strength in the underlying clay
layer due to cyclic loading. Tiwari and Pradel (2017) and Tiwari
et al. (2018) showed that the ground failure observed in a very
gentle slope on Araniko Highway, Lokanthali, Nepal, during the
2015 Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal was a direct consequence of
a 25% strength loss as a result of the earthquake ground motions
in the underlying black cotton clay. The damages noted in these
case histories emphasize the need to understand how strength
loss in clayey materials can affect the overall stability of a
structure.
The majority of the studies in the literature evaluating the post-
cyclic shear strength of cohesive materials have focused on the in-
fluence of plasticity, and they arrive at the conclusion that soils with
higher plasticity indices (PIs) have lower reductions in undrained
shear strength as a result of cyclic loading (Ishihara and Yasuda
1980; Tan and Vucetic 1989; Bahr 1991; Ishihara 1993; Hyodo
et al. 1998; Matsui et al. 1999; Guo and Prakash 1999; Hyodo et al.
2000; Bray et al. 2004; Gratchev et al. 2006; Bray and Sancio
2006). The effect of clay mineralogy on postcyclic undrained shear
strength has not been studied, aside from the work of Sandoval
(1989), Prakash and Sandoval (1992), Gratchev et al. (2006), and
Beroya et al. (2009). However, Sandoval (1989) and Prakash and
Sandoval (1992) only tested kaolinite soils. Gratchev et al. (2006)
studied test specimens containing kaolinite, illite, and bentonite and
concluded that the relationship between postcyclic shear strength
and PI was insensitive to the type of mineral in the specimens.
However, PI values of some of their samples, such as Kaolin 15
and Illite 15, were plotted incorrectly in a graph of PI versus cyclic
stress ratio. If these values had been correctly plotted, the conclu-
sions might have been different. Beroya et al. (2009) presented
cyclic triaxial test results for nine soil samples (three containing
kaolinite, three containing illite, and three containing montmoril-
lonite). Their results showed that the cyclic resistance of soil
was strongly dependent on the mineralogy of the sample, with soils

© ASCE 04019017-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

 containing montmorillonite having the greatest cyclic resistance,
followed by soils containing illite and kaolinite, respectively.
However, Beroya et al. (2009) did not measure the postcyclic shear
strength of any of their soils. Ajmera et al. (2016) also examined the
influence of mineralogy on the cyclic and postcyclic behavior of
laboratory-prepared mineral mixtures composed of kaolinite, mont-
morillonite, and ground quartz. Their results were focused on
evaluating the influence of PI and mineralogical composition on
the power function parameters describing cyclic strength curves.
Additionally, they also provided the postcyclic undrained shear
strengths (su;pc ) of their samples in relation to recommendations in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
MSHA (2009).
The postcyclic shear strength has also been shown to depend
on the excess pore pressure at the end of cyclic loading, with
higher excess pore pressures corresponding to greater reductions
in the postcyclic shear strength (Yasuhara 1994; Thammathiwat and
Chim-oye 2004). A number of researchers (Hyde and Ward 1986;
Matsui et al. 1980, 1992, 1999; Andersen 1988; Andersen et al.
1988; Lefebvre et al. 1988; Azzouz et al. 1989; Bahr 1991; Dutt
et al. 1992; Yasuhara 1994) showed that test specimens that were
normally consolidated prior to cyclic loading exhibited characteris-
tics of overconsolidated soils after cyclic loading, and these soils
were referred to as “apparently” overconsolidated soils. This was
attributed to the development of positive excess pore pressures
due to the application of the cyclic loads, which resulted in a reduc-
tion in the effective stress. Despite this observation, the postcyclic
shear strength of these apparently overconsolidated soils has not
been examined in sufficient detail.
Introduction
In this study, su;pc was measured for 18 fine-grained soil mixtures
using a simple shear apparatus. The results were used to evaluate
the influence of clay mineralogy and plasticity characteristics on
su;pc . Postcyclic undrained shear strengths measured from the
postcyclic monotonic loading phase were also normalized by the
consolidation pressure. The resulting parameter is called the post-
cyclic undrained strength ratio (su;pc =σc0 ). Moreover, as static un-
drained shear tests are conducted more often and easily compared
to the cyclic tests, it would be useful to define su;pc =σc0 in terms of
the static undrained strength ratio (su =σc0 ). For this reason, the
degradation ratio (δ) or the ratio of su;pc to the su is examined
in this study. Additionally, the postcyclic effective stress ratio
(PC-ESR) of the soils following cyclic loading was calculated
as the ratio of the consolidation stress (σc0 ) to the effective vertical
stress immediately after cyclic loading (σpc 0 ), as shown in Eq. (1).
The postcyclic effective stress ratio is also equivalent to the
reciprocal of the difference between the pore pressure ratio
(ru = the ratio of the excess pore pressure immediately following
cyclic loading to the consolidation pressure) and one. The shear
strength is also expressed in terms of the normalized undrained
strength ratio (normalized USR), as defined in Eq. (2). The
results were corroborated using nine natural soils collected from
California and Nepal. The findings are used to provide recommen-
dations on appropriate values of su;pc to consider while conducting
seismic slope stability analysis and other pertinent geotechnical
design
σc0 1 specimen into a rubber member confined by a stack of 31 Teflon-
PC − ESR ¼ 0 ¼ 1−r ð1Þ
σpc u
0 the slurry was more of a soil paste as opposed to a soil suspension,
su;pc =σpc
Normalized USR ¼ 0 ¼ δðPC − ESRÞ ð2Þ
su =σc
© ASCE 04019017-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017
Methodology
Soil samples were prepared in the laboratory for a range of PIs by
mixing commercially available montmorillonite or kaolinite with
ground quartz in different proportions. In this study, 10 mineral
mixtures were prepared as mixtures of kaolinite with ground quartz,
and 6 mineral mixtures were prepared as mixtures of montmoril-
lonite with ground quartz. Grain size distribution curves for the
materials used to prepare the laboratory mixtures are shown in
Fig. S1 of Supplemental Data. These curves were determined from
hydrometer analyses using the procedure outlined in ASTM D422
(ASTM 2007b). The kaolinite used in this study had a maximum
particle size of 0.02 mm, while the maximum particle size in the
montmorillonite was 0.075 mm. The clay fraction, defined as the
percentage of particles smaller than 0.002 mm, was about 80% for
montmorillonite and 70% for kaolinite. The maximum particle size
of the ground quartz used was 0.09 mm with approximately 10%
finer than 0.002 mm. In addition to these mixtures, a granular
kaolin was also tested. Grain size distribution for the granular
kaolin is also included in Fig. S1. The granular kaolin had a maxi-
mum particle size of 0.02 mm and a clay fraction of approximately
30%. To verify the results from the laboratory-prepared mineral
mixtures, nine natural soils were also tested. The natural soils were
collected from a housing development site in Mission Viejo,
California; from a montmorillonite seam at the Portuguese Bend
Landslide, California; and from the site of ground failure on the
Araniko Highway, Lokanthali, Nepal.
For each soil, Atterberg limits were measured following proce-
dures outlined in ASTM D4318 (ASTM 2010). Mineralogical
compositions and plasticity characteristics of each soil tested are
provided in Table 1. Fig. 1 shows a plasticity chart providing liquid
limits and PIs for all tested soils. According to the Unified Soil
Classification System, the mineral mixtures tested included three
silty clays, one lean clay, five silts, three elastic silts, five fat clays,
and a nonplastic silt, whereas there were two lean clays, two silts,
four elastic silts, and one fat clay among the natural soils tested.
Sample Preparation Process
The reconstituted soils used in this study were prepared from pow-
dered dry minerals that were batch mixed to the desired proportions
based on the dry weight of the components. The mixture was then
mixed with de-aired distilled water so that an initial liquidity index
of one was achieved. The natural soils were first allowed to air dry.
The soils were then reconstituted to an initial liquidity index of one.
The remaining testing procedures were the same for both the min-
eral mixtures and the natural soils. After thoroughly mixing, the
slurried sample (both for natural soils and for mineral mixtures)
was placed in an airtight container and allowed to hydrate for at
least 24 h. These hydrated slurries were then used to conduct static
and cyclic simple shear tests using the methodology outlined in the
following sections.
Static Simple Shear Test Methodology
A Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)-type simple shear appa-
ratus was used in this study. The apparatus is fully automated and
controlled by a computer unit. The hydrated slurries were used to
create specimens tested in the simple shear device by placing the
coated rings, each 0.94 mm thick. Special attention was paid not to
leave any air pockets in the specimen during its formation. Because
the negative pore water pressures in the paste should have resulted
in an effective stress great enough to prevent particle segregation
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Mineralogical composition and plasticity characteristics for each sample tested in this study; ranges of cyclic stress ratios applied and undrained
strength ratios (su =σc0 ) obtained from static direct simple shear tests
MN M K I F G D C Ch Q LL PI Range of CSRs applied Static su =σc0
1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 8 4 0.180–0.212 0.23
2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 19 6 0.124–0.237 0.35
3 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 24 7 0.141–0.212 0.35
4 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 28 8 0.145–0.200 0.28
5 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 34 9 0.161–0.219 0.33
6 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 41 14 0.098–0.247 0.35
7 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 50 19 0.100–0.280 0.29
8 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 55 20 0.104–0.308 0.25
9 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 61 21 0.073–0.275 0.28
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 28 0.163–0.292 0.30

11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 45 14 0.175–0.288 0.31
12 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 88 59 0.188–0.357 0.35
13 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 134 98 0.194–0.363 0.35
14 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 209 180 0.216–0.274 0.31
15 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 304 262 0.240–0.289 0.28
16 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 486 431 0.175–0.276 0.25
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0.174–0.276 0.36
18 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 45 16 0.120–0.198 0.30
N1 80 0 <1 2 5 <1 0 0 13 58 22 0.096–0.254 0.41
N2 83 0 <1 2 5 <1 0 0 10 73 27 0.175–0.245 0.37
N3 78 0 <1 2 3 12 0 0 5 55 25 0.172–0.263 0.33
N4 80 0 <1 5 5 5 0 0 5 70 40 0.245–0.320 0.37
N5 1 5 8 8 0 0 2 1 75 32 12 0.097–0.175 0.32
N6 1 5 8 8 0 0 2 1 75 35 12 0.116–0.171 0.38
N7 3 3 7 8 0 0 1 1 77 46 17 0.197–0.225 0.34
N8 2 3 7 8 0 0 1 1 78 44 13 0.134–0.179 0.36
N9 60 <1 <1 15 0 0 2 0 23 52 15 0.139–0.307 0.34
Note: CSR = cyclic stress ratio; MN = mixture number; M, K, I, F, G, D, C, Ch, and Q = percentages of montmorillonite, kaolinite, illite, sodium-calcium
feldspar, gypsum, dolomite, calcite, chlorite, and quartz, respectively; LL = liquid limit; PI = plasticity index for each soil. Samples N1–N4 were collected
from the Portuguese Bend Landslide, CA. Samples N5–N8 were collected from Lokanthali, Nepal. Sample N9 was collected from a housing development
project in Mission Viejo, CA. For the natural samples, the listed mineralogical composition corresponds to the results obtained from X-ray diffraction.

primary consolidation at the final pressure, the specimen was sub-

jected to strain-controlled undrained loading at a rate of 5% shear
strain per hour, as recommended in ASTM D6528 (ASTM 2007a),
to determine su . The shearing phase of the test was terminated at a
maximum shear strain of 25%. Following the shearing phase, the
specimen was allowed to swell for the lesser of 90% of the time
required to complete primary consolidation or 1 h. The procedure
followed is consistent with ASTM D6528.

Cyclic Simple Shear Test Methodology

Fig. 1. Plasticity chart showing Atterberg limits for samples tested.
Atterberg limits of samples having liquid limits higher than 100 are
plotted in a separate chart and presented in inset image.
during specimen fabrication. Furthermore, no segregation of dif-
ferent size particles was observed during the sample formation
process. The specimen was consolidated under K o conditions to a
vertical stress of 100 kPa in three stress increments of 25, 50, and
100 kPa. Each stress increment was allowed to remain on the speci-
men until it was deemed that primary consolidation had completed
based on real-time consolidation curves. After the completion of
The cyclic simple shear apparatus used in this study is also a NGI-
type device. The specimen preparation process described previ-
ously for the static simple shear test was followed through the
consolidation phase. Because no ASTM standard for cyclic simple
shear testing is currently available, recommendations from ASTM
D5311 (ASTM 2013) were followed to the extent possible to
conduct the cyclic simple shear tests. After the final consolidation
step, the specimens were subjected to stress-controlled, constant-
volume, undrained cyclic loading in the form of a sinusoidal wave
at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, with the amplitude being determined from
the specified cyclic stress ratio (CSR), or the ratio of the amplitude
of the cyclic stress to the consolidation pressure. Cyclic loading
was applied until the specimen experienced 10% double ampli-
tude shear strain. As per ASTM D5311, the test was terminated at
the end of 500 cycles of loading if 10% double-amplitude shear
strains were not achieved prior to this point. Following the recom-
mendations of Andersen et al. (1976) and Brown et al. (1977),
immediately following the end of the cyclic loading phase, the
top platen remained secured as the bottom platen was pushed

© ASCE 04019017-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

 Table 2. Ranges, average, and standard deviation values of void ratio after postcyclic static shearing phase. Several tests were conducted from
consolidation, ranges of excess pore pressure at end of cyclic loading, and one batch of soil using different CSRs, and the ranges of the applied
strain required to achieve su and su;pc CSRs for each soil are provided in Table 1.
Void ratio after Excess pore Strain to Strain to
consolidation pressure at failure— failure—
(average, standard end of cyclic static DSS postcyclic Results and Discussion
MN deviation) loading (kPa) (%) DSS (%)
1 0.39–0.43 (0.42, 0.02) 14.5–85.8 10.0 17.2–25.0
Typical Behavior
2 0.58–0.63 (0.60, 0.02) 23.2–78.0 7.4 4.8–25.0
3 0.53–0.56 (0.55, 0.01) 47.7–83.1 8.2 2.1–25.0 Consolidation characteristics observed in samples tested using the
4 0.53–0.56 (0.54, 0.01) 45.4–78.9 8.0 6.4–25.0 static and cyclic simple shear apparatuses are shown in Fig. S2.
5 0.80–0.87 (0.85, 0.01) 45.8–75.1 8.2 8.5–25.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Provided next to the curves in Fig. S2 are the mixture numbers

6 0.83–0.90 (0.88, 0.02) 13.7–79.9 4.7 4.2–25.0 referenced in Table 1. For comparison, the virgin consolidation
7 1.48–1.56 (1.51, 0.02) 20.1–78.9 5.5 20.1–25.0
curves obtained from a one-dimensional (1D) consolidometer test
8 1.15–1.23 (1.19, 0.03) 13.7–69.6 9.4 3.5–24.6
9 1.01–1.10 (1.06, 0.03) 23.8–77.8 8.5 20.9–24.9 for the same mixture at the same initial moisture content (Tiwari
10 1.34–1.60 (1.47, 0.07) 14.4–75.1 11.8 15.9–25.0 and Ajmera 2011) are also included. As can be seen from Fig. S2,
11 0.67–0.86 (0.73, 0.07) 31.8–64.4 3.4 15.5–25.0 the consolidation characteristics observed when consolidation was
12 1.51–1.83 (1.70, 0.11) 21.8–60.3 17.3 9.1–25.0 conducted in the static and cyclic simple shear tests were similar
13 1.87–2.97 (2.67, 0.41) 24.7–74.0 7.5 6.9–25.0 to those characteristics observed in a 1D consolidometer. The
14 4.11–4.56 (4.37, 0.19) 15.3–39.2 7.1 7.1–25.0 ranges of the void ratio after primary consolidation are presented
15 5.10–5.40 (5.22, 0.15) 35.1–50.0 7.2 14.5–25.0 in Table 2. Table 2 also contains the average value and standard
16 6.17–8.07 (7.17, 0.72) 10.6–47.0 7.5 3.8–25.0 deviations of the void ratios after primary consolidation for each
17 1.92–1.98 (1.95, 0.03) 35.9–75.1 7.9 5.3–25.0
soil tested in this study.
18 0.87–1.09 (1.04, 0.10) 60.4–74.3 10.0 19.7–25.0
N1 0.73–0.99 (0.87, 0.08) 26.8–81.6 23.3 16.1–25.0 Fig. 2(a) shows the sinusoidal wave form used to apply the
N2 0.54–1.04 (0.78, 0.24) 21.7–55.8 15.6 5.6–25.0 cyclic loads on the soils tested. The results in Fig. 2 are for a speci-
N3 0.61–0.76 (0.69, 0.06) 33.4–58.6 12.0 10.5–24.9 men from Mixture 11 tested at a CSR of 0.26. As a result of the
N4 0.51–0.56 (0.54, 0.02) 36.1–68.5 19.0 6.4–13.7 constant volume cyclic loading, a reduced vertical stress on the
N5 0.67–0.81 (0.74, 0.06) 48.8–58.8 24.7 24.5–25.0 specimen is recorded by the vertical force transducer, labeled as
N6 0.72–0.77 (0.75, 0.02) 31.2–59.7 17.2 21.5–25.0 the effective vertical stress. The difference in the consolidation
N7 1.02–1.09 (1.06, 0.03) 26.7–63.7 16.0 16.2–24.8 pressure and the effective vertical stress during cyclic loading is
N8 1.01–1.26 (1.08, 0.12) 22.4–50.6 25.0 16.2–24.8 considered as the pore pressure, whose calculated response is also
N9 0.27–0.31 (0.29, 0.02) 11.7–66.8 8.4 7.7–25.0
presented in Fig. 2(a). Table 2 contains the ranges of the excess
Note: DSS = direct simple shear; and MN = mixture number. pore pressures developed as a result of cyclic loading. The applied
cyclic loads cause the sample to strain, as shown for one cycle of
loading in Fig. 2(b). Fig. 2(b) contains a stress-strain hysteresis
horizontally to subject the specimen to undrained strain-controlled loop for the fifth cycle of loading. The shear strain response and
static loading at a rate of 5% per hour (as per the recommendations the variation in the shear stress with effective vertical stress for this
in ASTM D6528) to determine su;pc . The same test termination sample are shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows that as the number of
criteria as with the static simple shear test were adapted for the applied cycles of loading increases, the shear strain experienced

Fig. 2. Applied sinusoidal stress function and resulting pore pressure and effective normal stress with hysteresis loop for fifth cycle of loading.
Results are shown for a specimen of Mixture 11 tested at a cyclic stress ratio of 0.26.

© ASCE 04019017-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. (a) Shear strain response; and (b) shear stress versus effective vertical stress curve for a specimen of Mixture 11 at a cyclic stress ratio of 0.26.
increases and the effective vertical stress during the cyclic loading
decreases. This causes the shear stress to oscillate around the hori-
zontal axis toward the origin as the effective vertical stress is de-
creased due to the generation of excess pore pressures from the
cyclic loading. It is noted that the effective vertical stress during
cyclic loading never reached the origin in any sample at any of
the CSRs tested.
Shown in Fig. 4 is the relationship between shear stress and
shear strain measured during the postcyclic phase of the test. Pore
Fig. 4. Shear stress and pore pressure response with shear strain for
postcyclic and static simple shear tests for several selected specimens
of Mixture 11.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017
pressure response with shear strain is also presented in Fig. 4. In
addition, shear stress versus shear strain and pore pressure response
for a static test conducted on another specimen from the same batch
is shown in Fig. 4 for comparison. The reduction in shear strength
that occurs as a result of cyclic loading is clearly seen in Fig. 4.
Furthermore, Fig. 4 shows that the strain required to obtain su;pc
is significantly higher than that required to obtain su . The ranges
of the shear strain at the peak undrained shear stresses for both the
postcyclic and static testing are presented in Table 2. Fig. 5 contains
shear stress versus effective vertical stress curves obtained during
the postcyclic phase. The shear stress versus effective vertical stress
curve from the static test on a specimen from the same batch is also
included. Fig. 5 shows a reduction in effective vertical stress ap-
plied on the soil resulting from excess pore pressures generated
during cyclic loading.
Static Undrained Strength Ratios
Static undrained shear strengths measured on specimens not sub-
jected to cyclic loading were normalized by the consolidation pres-
sure to obtain su =σc0 . The values obtained are plotted against PIs of
the samples in Fig. 6. su =σc0 ranged from 0.23 to 0.41 for the sam-
ples tested (Table 1) and is seen to increase with PI in soils with PIs
less than 50. For soils with PIs greater than 50, a decrease in su =σc0
with increasing PI is noted. Comparisons with the relationships be-
tween su =σc0 and PI proposed by Skempton (1957), Ladd (1991),
and Ladd and DeGroot (2003) are provided in Tiwari and Ajmera
(2014). Tiwari and Ajmera (2014) showed that the results obtained
matched with the relationship proposed by Ladd (1991) and Ladd
and DeGroot (2003) for simple shear conditions when the soils
had PIs less than 80, which corresponded to the maximum PI of
the soils reported by Ladd (1991) and Ladd and DeGroot (2003).
Fig. 5. Shear stress versus effective vertical stress curves from static
simple shear and postcyclic phase of cyclic simple shear tests for
several selected specimens of Mixture 11.
04019017-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Variation in su =σc0 (open symbols; solid line) and su;pc =σc0 (solid symbols; dashed lines) with plasticity index based on static and cyclic simple
shear test results, respectively. Dashed lines: upper and lower bounds for su;pc =σc0 in koalinite-ground quartz mixtures and montmorillonite-ground
quartz mixtures.

It was also demonstrated by Tiwari and Ajmera (2014) that the re-
lationship proposed by Skempton (1957) tended to underestimate
the su =σc0 for nearly all of the soils tested. This is understandable
since Skempton’s relationship was determined based on field vane
shear tests and triaxial tests.

Postcyclic Undrained Strength Ratio with Respect to

Plasticity Characteristics
su;pc =σc0 was found to range between 0.13 and 0.38 for the soils
tested. Variation in su;pc =σc0 with PI is also shown in Fig. 6. Dashed
lines in Fig. 6 indicate the upper and lower bounds for su;pc =σc0 . The
observed trends are similar to those seen for su =σc0 , but the su;pc =σc0
values are dependent on the mineralogical composition. Specifi-
cally, in soils with kaolinite as the clay mineral, an increase in
PI corresponded to an increase in the su;pc =σc0 , whereas in soils with
montmorillonite as the clay mineral, an increase in PI corresponded
Fig. 7. Ratio of postcyclic shear strength to static undrained shear
to a slight decrease in su;pc =σc0 . The increase in shear strength with
strength with respect to logarithm of plasticity index. Also plotted
PI observed in this study agrees with the conclusions in Ishihara
in figure are relationships proposed in this study (solid lines) and those
and Yasuda (1980), Hyodo et al. (2000), Bray et al. (2004),
proposed by Matsui et al. (1999) (dashed line).
Gratchev et al. (2006), and Bray and Sancio (2006). However, be-
cause the samples tested in those studies may not have had signifi-
cant proportions of montmorillonite, the trend observed in this
study for soils with montmorillonite as the clay mineral, i.e., reduc- was found to be insignificant. However, in the soils with montmo-
tion in su;pc =σc0 with PI, might not have been observed in their rillonite as the clay mineral, the degradation ratio was seen to de-
study. The differences in su;pc =σc0 in soils with kaolinite as the clay pend upon the CSR, with an increase in CSR corresponding to a
mineral versus soils with montmorillonite as the clay mineral may reduction in the degradation ratio. Ishihara and Yasuda (1980)
be attributed to the differences in the geometry of montmorillonite stated the deterioration in strength should be greater in soils with
and kaolinite platelets (Beroya et al. 2009; Gratchev et al. 2006). In lower PIs than soils with higher PIs since the sensitivity of clays
this study, the results from the natural soils match well the trends increases as PI increases. Fig. 7 reveals that soils with kaolinite as
obtained from the laboratory-prepared clay–silt mixtures. the clay mineral will experience a substantial reduction in un-
drained shear strength as a result of cyclic loading. su;pc ranged
between 44% and 95% of su in soils with kaolinite as the clay min-
Degradation Ratio
eral and between 70% and 100% of su in soils with montmorillonite
The degradation ratio was evaluated in terms of PI, as shown in as the clay mineral.
Figs. 7 and S3. Included in Figs. 7 and S3 are best-fit trend lines Fig. 7 also illustrates the relationship proposed by Matsui et al.
proposed in this study to estimate the degradation ratio as a func- (1999). This relationship tends to underestimate the degradation
tion of the PI, mineralogical composition, and CSR. Specifically, in ratio for soils with PIs less than 80 but significantly overestimates
the soils with kaolinite as the clay mineral, it is seen that the deg- the degradation ratio when PI is greater than 80. Furthermore, for
radation ratio increases as PI increases, but the variation with CSR soils with PIs greater than 90, the relationship suggests that the

© ASCE 04019017-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Relationships between pore pressure ratio at end of cyclic loading and (a) postcyclic undrained shear strength; and (b) degradation ratio.
Dashed lines: best-fit relationships established in this study.

degradation ratio is larger than one, meaning su;pc will be larger
than su . Although Matsui et al. (1999) presents a method for es-
timating the degradation in shear strength for soils with PIs greater
than 25, it may not be appropriate to use this equation for PIs
greater than 76, which was the upper limit PI of the soil samples
presented by Matsui et al. (1999).
Influence of Excess Pore Pressure at End of
Cyclic Loading
Beyond ru of 0.45, su;pc is found to reduce more substantially with
an increase in ru . Specifically, the su;pc reduces to about 50% of the
su at ru of nearly 0.85. As evident from Fig. 8, there is a significant
scatter associated with interpreting su;pc or δ in terms of ru . While
ru is a standard variable in geotechnical earthquake engineering,
this parameter did not directly provide good relationships with the
degradation in undrained shear strength as a result of cyclic load-
ing. As such, it appeared necessary to interpret the data in terms of
different parameters as shown in the following sections.

The pore pressure ratio is typically lower in the soils contain- Postcyclic Undrained Shear Strength with Respect
ing montmorillonite as the clay mineral than in the soils containing to Postcyclic Effective Stress Ratio
kaolinite as the clay mineral. Specifically, in the soils containing The normalized USR calculated for each sample tested in this study
montmorillonite as the clay mineral, ru tends to range between is plotted against PC-ESR, as presented in Fig. 9. When determin-
0.20 and 0.60, whereas in the soils containing kaolinite as the clay ing this relationship, the data corresponding to the natural soils
mineral, ru was usually between 0.60 and 0.85. The relationship were excluded. It is further noted that the results for ground quartz
obtained between ru at the end of cyclic loading and su;pc =σc0 is are merely included in the figure to provide comparison with the
shown in Fig. 8(a). Included in Fig. 8(a) is a dashed line that rep-
resents the average relationship between ru and su;pc =σc0 . Although
both su;pc =σc0 and the pore pressure are expected to depend upon
CSR, contours at different CSRs could not be developed, as was
possible in Fig. 7. Despite the substantial scatter, the figure shows
that an increase in ru corresponded to a decrease in su;pc =σc0 , in
agreement with the findings of Yasuhara (1994). Fig. 8(a) shows
that the average su;pc =σc0 ranged from about 0.33 at a pore pressure
ratio of 0.20 to approximately 0.15 at a pore pressure ratio of 0.85.
The degradation ratio is also found to be dependent on the
excess pore pressure at the end of cyclic loading, as illustrated in
Fig. 8(b). This is expected since shear strength is a function of the
effective normal stress and lower shear strengths are expected for
lower effective normal stresses. As with Fig. 8(a), it was not pos-
sible to establish clear trends between the variation in δ with ru and
CSR, even though it is expected that both the pore pressure and
degradation ratios will be influenced by CSR. Fig. 8(b) contains
a dashed line that shows the average relationship observed between
the excess pore pressure and the degradation ratio. The relationship,
despite significant scatter, generally shows that an increase in the
Fig. 9. Relationship between normalized undrained strength ratio
excess pore pressure at the end of cyclic loading results in a reduc-
and postcyclic effective stress ratio at end of cyclic loading. Natural
tion in the degradation ratio. From the relationship presented in
samples and ground quartz sample were not included in development
Fig. 8(b), su;pc is found to be approximately 96% of su when ru is
of best-fit power function.
0.2, further reducing to approximately 90% of su at ru of 0.45.

© ASCE 04019017-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

 laboratory-prepared mineral mixtures and have also been omitted in
the determination of the best-fit function. The figure shows that at a
PC-ESR of one, the normalized USR is also one. In other words,
0
su;pc =σpc is equal to the su =σc0 from static tests, or no reduction
in shear strength occurs. However, as PC-ESR increases, the nor-
malized USR increases, taking a value of approximately 10 at a
0
PC-ESR of 20. This suggests that the su;pc =σpc of the soils sub-
jected to cyclic loading is greater than the su =σc0 of the normally
consolidated sample under static conditions. This is a direct result
of the substantial reduction in the effective vertical stress (due to a
generation of excess pore pressures during cyclic loading) at the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

start of the postcyclic monotonic shearing phase. The figure further

demonstrates that the PC-ESR immediately following the cyclic
loading is directly related to the undrained shear strength available
after cyclic loading and the degradation in strength that occurs.
A unique relationship could be fitted to the results obtained from
the laboratory prepared mineral mixtures, as shown in Fig. 9. The
relationship had a coefficient of determination (R2 ) value of 0.93.
Two sets of curves, representing 95% confidence intervals and
95% prediction intervals, are also shown in Fig. 9. The confi-
dence interval is the potential variation in the best-fit regression and
suggests a 95% likelihood that the regression will lie between the
upper and lower bounds presented. The difference between lines
representing the confidence interval is inversely related to the cer-
tainty of the best-fit power function. As such, there is greater vari-
ability in this function at higher PC-ESRs where less data were
available to define the equation. On the other hand, the prediction
interval, also shown in Fig. 9, describes the potential range where
95% of the predictions using the regression should lie. The degra-
dation ratios for the natural samples agreed with the relationship
developed based on the mineral mixtures.
Fig. S4 shows the variation of the degradation ratio with
PC-ESR. As in Fig. 9, the results from all of the natural samples
and the ground quartz samples were excluded in the development
of the best-fit equation. Fig. S4 shows the variation of the degra-
dation ratio with PC-ESR. Although there is substantial scatter, the
relationship suggests that soils with higher PC-ESRs at the start of
the postcyclic monotonic loading will have greater reductions in the
undrained shear strengths as a result of cyclic loading. Detailed
examination of Fig. S4 shows that a single relationship could be
fitted to the data despite the differences in the mineralogical com-
position and plasticity characteristics of the soil samples. The best-
fit power function had an R2 of 0.53. The figure further reveals that
samples with montmorillonite as the clay mineral were typically
concentrated in the top left corner of the figure showing up to ap-
proximately 30% reductions in the undrained shear strength due to
cyclic loading when PC-ESR reached approximately 3. On the
other hand, samples with kaolinite as the clay mineral typically
had PC-ESRs between 3 and 20 after the application of cyclic loads
resulting in reductions in the undrained shear strengths by 30%
to 55% of su . The natural samples, which contained varying pro-
portions of montmorillonite, kaolinite, illite, and other minerals,
tended to span in the region between the montmorillonite-ground
quartz mixtures and the kaolinite-ground quartz mixtures prepared
in this study, as seen in Fig. S4.
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and estimated values of normalized
USR for specimens of natural soils.
Shown in Fig. 10 is the variation between the measured and esti-
mated normalized USRs. The estimations for the normalized USR
were obtained using the equation in Fig. 9. Lines representing no
difference and differences of 0.2 standard deviations of the nor-
malized USRs for the control data (mineral mixtures) are also in-
cluded. Only four points had estimated a normalized USR with
differences exceeding 0.2 standard deviations. Furthermore, the
estimates for the normalized USR of four specimens were found
not to satisfy the potential range from the 95% prediction intervals
shown in Fig. 9 and are represented with open circles in Fig. 10.
Fig. S5 presents the variation between the measured degradation
ratio and the degradation ratio estimated using the equation from
Fig. S4. The solid line represents no difference between the esti-
mated and measured degradation ratios, while the dashed lines re-
present a difference of one standard deviation from the control data
set from the measured degradation ratios in the natural soils. Aside
from the 10 specimens, all of the estimated degradation ratios were
within one standard deviation. Additionally, in four of the speci-
mens, shown with open circles in Fig. S5, the range of estimated
degradation ratios based on the 95% prediction interval did not
encompass the measured value.
Figs. 10 and S5 clearly demonstrate that results from the natural
soils are in good agreement with the findings from the mineral mix-
tures. Please note that some of the natural soils were collected from
coastal slopes that have an apparent effect of pore-fluid salinity.
That could be one of the reasons why slightly different values than
expected were observed for a few natural samples, but confirmation
of this is beyond the scope of this study.
Conclusions

Verification of Findings with Results from Natural
Samples
The relationships proposed in Figs. 9 and S4 were verified using
results from similar testing conducted on nine natural soils.
Although these results were included in the figures, it is again noted
that they were excluded when establishing all of the relationships.
Based on the cyclic and static simple shear test results of 18 mineral
mixtures prepared in the laboratory from kaolinite, montmorillon-
ite, granular kaolin, and ground quartz and 9 natural soils collected,
the following conclusions are drawn:
• Application of undrained cyclic loading to the soil samples led
to a generation of excess pore pressures and a reduction in the
effective vertical stress.

© ASCE 04019017-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017

 • su =σc0 ranged from 0.23 to 0.41 for the soils tested in this study.
An increase in PI resulted in an increase in su =σc0 for soils with
PIs less than 50, whereas for soils with PIs greater than 50,
su =σc0 decreased with an increase in PI.
• The average su;pc =σc0 for the samples tested in this study ranged
from 0.13 to 0.38. In soils with kaolinite as the clay mineral, an
increase in PI resulted in an increase in su;pc =σc0 . However, in
soils with montmorillonite as the clay mineral, su;pc =σc0 de-
creased with an increase in PI.
• The degradation in undrained shear strength due to cyclic load-
ing was more substantial in soils with kaolinite as the clay
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mineral than the soils with montmorillonite as the clay mineral.
In particular, the degradation ratio ranged from 0.44 to 0.95 in
the soils containing kaolinite as the clay mineral, while it ranged
from 0.70 to 1.00 in soils containing montmorillonite as the clay
mineral.
• The variation in the degradation ratio with PI could be general-
ized by a single relationship in soils with kaolinite as the clay
mineral, as presented in Fig. 7. The relationship shows that the
degradation in undrained shear strength as a result of cyclic
loading increases as PI of the soil decreases. For soils with
montmorillonite as the clay mineral, the degradation ratio was
dependent on CSR with a greater reduction in the undrained
shear strength corresponding to higher CSRs.
• A unique relationship was established between the normalized
USR and the PC-ESR. Specifically, at a PC-ESR of one, the
normalized USR was also one and increases linearly to normal-
ized USR of ten at a PC-ESR of 20.
• The results obtained from the natural soils collected and tested
strongly agree with the findings in this study that were devel-
oped based on the results from the laboratory-prepared mineral
mixtures.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the National Science Founda-
tion Graduate Research Fellowship (Fellow ID: 2011105853),
California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) Intramural Research
Fund and Instructionally Related Activities (IRA) Fund 3361, the
Charles E. Via Doctoral Fellowship, and the US Society of Dams
Scholarship for their generous support in conducting this study. The
efforts of CSUF graduate students, Mr. Pavitra Pandey, Mr. Brian
Yamashiro, Mr. Khalifa Alhassen, and Miss. Smriti Dhital, in con-
ducting the static and cyclic simple shear tests as well as analyze the
data obtained for the natural soils presented in this study are also
highly appreciated.
Supplemental Data
Figs. S1–S5 are available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Ajmera, B., B. Tiwari, and T. Brandon. 2016. “Influence of mineralogy
and plasticity on the cyclic and post-cyclic behavior of normally con-
solidated soils.” In Proc., Geotechnical and Structural Engineering
Congress 2016, 1522–1531. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Andersen, K. H. 1988. “Properties of soft clay under static and cyclic load-
ing.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Engineering Problems of Regional Soils.
Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
© ASCE 04019017-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017
Andersen, K. H., S. F. Brown, I. Foss, J. H. Pool, and W. F. Rosenbrand.
1976. “Effect of cyclic loading on clay behaviour.” Norw. Geotech. Inst.
Publ. 113 (113): 1–6.
Andersen, K. H., A. Kleven, and D. Heien. 1988. “Cyclic soil data for
design of gravity structures.” J. Geotech. Eng. 114 (5): 517–539. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:5(517).
ASTM. 2007a. Standard test method for consolidated undrained simple
shear testing of cohesive soils. ASTM D6528. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007b. Standard test method for particle size analysis of soils.
ASTM D422. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit and
plasticity index of soils. ASTM D4318. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
ASTM. 2013. Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial
strength of soil. ASTM D5311. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Azzouz, A. S., A. M. Malek, and M. M. Baligh. 1989. “Cyclic behavior of
clays in undrained shear.” J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (5): 637–657. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:5(637).
Bahr, M. A. 1991. “Mechanical behavior and modeling of saturated clays
subjected to cyclic loading.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Osaka Univ.
Beroya, M. A. A., A. Aydin, and R. Katzenbach. 2009. “Insight into the
effects of clay mineralogy on the cyclic behavior of silt-clay mixtures.”
Eng. Geol. 106 (3–4): 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009
.03.006.
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2004. Evaluating the potential for lique-
faction or cyclic failure of silts and clays. Rep. No. UCD/CGM-04/01.
Davis, CA: Univ. of California.
Boulanger, R. W., M. W. Meyers, L. H. Mejia, and I. M. Idriss. 1998.
“Behavior of a fine-grained soil during the Loma Prieta earthquake.”
Can. Geotech. J. 35 (1): 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1139/t97-078.
Bray, J. D., and R. B. Sancio. 2006. “Assessment of the liquefaction
susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
132 (9): 1165–1177. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)
132:9(1165).
Bray, J. D., R. B. Sancio, M. Riemer, and H. Turan Durgunoghr. 2004.
“Liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils.” In Vol. 1 of Proc.,
11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering and
3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 655–662.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Brown, S. F., K. H. Andersen, and J. McElvaney. 1977. “The effect of
drainage on cyclic loading of clay.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 9th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 195–200. London:
International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
Chu, D. B., J. P. Stewart, R. W. Boulanger, and P. S. Lin. 2008. “Cyclic
softening of low-plasticity clay and its effect on seismic foundation
performance.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (11): 1595–1608.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:11(1595).
Dutt, R. N., E. H. Doyle, and R. S. Ladd. 1992. “Cyclic behavior of a deep-
water normally consolidated clay.” In Vol. 5 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Civil
Engineering in Oceans, 546–558. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Gratchev, I. B., K. Sassa, V. I. Osipov, and V. N. Sokolov. 2006. “The lique-
faction of clayey soils under cyclic loading.” Eng. Geol. 86 (1): 70–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.04.006.
Guo, T., and S. Prakash. 1999. “Liquefaction of silts and silt-clay mix-
tures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (8): 706–710. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:8(706).
Hyde, A. F. L., and S. J. Ward. 1986. “The effect of cyclic loading on the
undrained strength of silty clay.” Marine Geotechnol. 6 (3): 299–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10641198609388192.
Hyodo, M., S. Ito, Y. Yamamoto, and T. Fujii. 2000. “Cyclic shear behavior
of marine clays.” In Proc., 10th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conf., 606–611. Mountain View, CA: International Society of Offshore
and Polar Engineers.
Hyodo, M., Y. Yamamoto, and T. Fujii. 1998. “Cyclic shear failure
and strength of undisturbed marine clays.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 8th Int.
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., 557–563. Mountain View, CA:
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Ishihara, K. 1993. “Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes.”
Géotechnique 43 (3): 351–451. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43
.3.351.
Ishihara, K., and S. Yasuda. 1980. “Cyclic strengths of undisturbed
cohesive soils of Western Tokyo.” In Proc., Int. Symp. on Soils under
Cyclic and Transient Loading, 57–66. Swansea, Wales.
Ladd, C. C. 1991. “Stability evaluation for staged construction.” J. Geo-
tech. Eng. 117 (4): 540–615. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1991)117:4(540).
Ladd, C. C., and D. J. DeGroot. 2003. “Recommended practice for
soft ground site characterization: Arthur Casagrande lecture.” In
Proc., 12th Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CALIF STATE UNIV-FULLERTON on 09/13/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Lefebvre, G., D. LeBoeuf, and B. Demers. 1988. “Stability threshold for
cyclic loading of saturated clay.” Can. Geotech. J. 26 (1): 121–131.
Matsui, T., M. A. Bahr, and N. Abe. 1992. “Estimation of shear character-
istics degradation and stress-strain relation of saturated clays after cyclic
loading.” Soils Found. 32 (1): 161–172. https://doi.org/10.3208
/sandf1972.32.161.
Matsui, T., Y. Nabeshima, and M. A. El Mesmarym. 1999. “Degradation
in cyclic shear behavior and soil properties of saturated clays.” In Vol. 1
of Proc., 9th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., 536–541.
Mountain View, CA: International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers.
Matsui, T., H. Ohara, and T. Iso. 1980. “Cyclic stress-strain history and
shear characteristics of clay.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 106 (10):
1101–1120. Reston, VA: ASCE.
MSHA (Mine Safety and Hazard Administration). 2009. Engineering and
design manual for coal refuse disposal facilities. Arlington, VA: US
Dept. of Labor MSHA Publication.
Prakash, S., and J. A. Sandoval. 1992. “Liquefaction of low plasticity silts.”
J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 11 (7): 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0267-7261(92)90001-T.
© ASCE 04019017-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(5): 04019017
Sandoval, J. A. 1989. “Liquefaction and settlement characteristics of
silt soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla.
Skempton, A. W. 1957. “Discussion on the planning and design of the
New Hong Kong airport.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 7 (1): 305–307.
Stark, T. D., and I. A. Contreras. 1998. “Fourth avenue landslide during
1964 Alaskan earthquake.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (2):
99–109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:2(99).
Tan, K., and M. Vucetic. 1989. “Behavior of medium and low plasticity
clays under cyclic simple shear conditions.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 4th Int.
Conf. on Soil Dynamic Engineering, 401–409. Southampton, UK:
Computational Mechanics Publications.
Thammathiwat, A., and W. Chim-Oye. 2004. “Behavior of strength and
pore pressure of soft Bangkok clay under cyclic loading.” Thammasat
Int. J. Sci. Technol. 9 (4): 21–28.
Tiwari, B., and B. Ajmera. 2011. “A new correlation relating the shear
strength of reconstituted soil to the proportions of clay minerals and
plasticity characteristics.” Appl. Clay Sci. 53 (1): 48–57. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.clay.2011.04.021.
Tiwari, B., and B. Ajmera. 2014. “Curvature of failure envelopes for
normally consolidated clays.” Landslide Sci. Safer Geoenviron. 2 (1):
117–122.
Tiwari, B., and D. Pradel. 2017. “Ground deformation at Lokanthali,
Kathmandu due to Mw 7.8 2015 Gorkha Earthquake.” Geotech. Spec.
Publ. 278 (1): 333–342.
Tiwari, B., D. Pradel, B. Ajmera, B. Yamashiro, and K. Diwakar. 2018.
“Landslide Movement at Lokanthali during the 2015 Earthquake in
Gorkha, Nepal.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (3): 05018001.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001842.
Yasuhara, K. 1994. “Postcyclic undrained strength for cohesive soils.”
J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (11): 1961–1979. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1994)120:11(1961).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.