International Journal of Computational and

Experimental Science and ENgineering

(IJCESEN)
Vol. 6-No.3 (2020) pp. 180-188
http://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijcesen
Copyright © IJCESEN ISSN: 2149-9144
Research Article

Determination of Liquefaction Resistance and Allowable Bearing Capacity of

Soils Based on VS (Shear wave) velocity; Case Study: Isparta Süleyman
Demirel Industrial Region Waste Treatment Facility

Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI*

Dokuz Eylül University, Engineering Faculty, Department of Geophysical Engineering, İzmir-Turkey

* Corresponding Author : [email protected]

ORCID: 0000-0002-0192-9300

Article Info: Abstract:

DOI: 10.22399/ijcesen.744183 It was a very common procedure to investigate liquefaction risk with standard
Received : 28 May 2020 penetration test (SPT). However, this method has been lost its importance after
Accepted : 17 November 2020 the developments of conic penetration method in 1971, Becker penetration
method and S-wave velocity measurements. S-wave velocity measurements could
Keywords be very reasonable alternatives in order to carry out penetration tests for the
gravelly and unconsolidated overburden soil investigations. In this study, S-wave
Bearing capacity velocity values were used in order to determine liquefaction resistance and
Liquefaction analysis
Seismic refraction
allowable bearing capacity of soil where two different methods were applied to S-
Isparta wave velocity values and the results were also compared. All the application steps
of the methods were defined. Data were collected along 4 profiles for the ground
investigations carried out for the Isparta Süleyman Demirel Industrial Region
Waste Treatment Facility.

1. Introduction
The use of S-wave (VS) velocity as an index of
Soil liquefaction defines an event where a saturated liquefaction resistance is soundly based because
or partially saturated soil layer suddenly loses both S-wave velocity liquefaction resistances are
strength in response to an applied stress. Generally similarly influenced by many factors. Some
the reason of the stress is a earthquake shaking which advantages of using S-wave velocity [14, 15, 16, 17]
forces the layer to behave like a liquid. This are that (1) the measurements are possible in soils
behaviour of the ground causes the buildings to lean that are hard to sample, such as gravelly soils where
to one side or a total collapse. Consequently penetration tests may be unreliable; (2)
liquefaction analyses of the shallow layers are very measurements can also be performed on small
important on ground investigations. laboratory speciments, allowing direct comparisons
between laboratory and field behaviour; (3) S-wave
Determination of the liquefaction resistance of velocity is a basic mechanical property of soil
layers is an important feature in geotechnical materials, directly related to small stress-strain shear
explorations especially in seismically risky areas. modulus Gmax given by Gmax=VS2 where  is the
First procedure was developed by [1] using the data mass density of soil, VS is the S-wave velocity; (4)
from the standard penetration test (SPT) correlated Gmax or VS is normally a required property in
with a parameter called the cyclic stress ratio. This earthquake site response and soil-structure
procedure has been revised and updated by several interaction analyses; and (5) S-wave velocity can be
geotechnicians in time [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Another measured by the spectral analysis of surface waves
method based on the cone penetration test (CPT) was (SASW) or multichannel analysis of surface waves
developed by [8] in 1985 which also has been (MASW) techniques at sites where borings may not
examined and updated [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. be permitted.
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

Three concerns when using S-wave velocity to

evaluate liquefaction resistance are that (1) no
samples are routinely obtained as a part of the testing
procedure for soil classification and identification of
nonliquefiable materials; (2) thin, low S-wave
velocity strata may not be detected if the
measurement interval is too large; and (3)
measurements are made at small strains, whereas
pore water pressure buildup and liquefaction are
medium to high strain phenomena [18, 19, 20].

Secondly, the ultimate bearing capacity of a

particular soil, under a shallow footing, was
investigated theoretically by Prandtl [21] and
Reissner [22] using the concept of plastic
Figure 1. Shear Stress Reduction Factor used to adjust
equilibrium as early as in 1921. The formulation
for flexibility in soil profiles during earthquake shaking
however is slightly modified, generalized, and [2].
updated later by Meyerhof [23], Hansen [24], De
Beer [25], and Sieffert et al. [26]. The correction factor (Kc ) is needed for high values
of VS1 caused by cementation and aging. Figure 2
S-wave velocity surveys, represent the actual ground illustrates a method for estimating the value of Kc by
conditions, are much more efficient and reliable than using SPT blow counts. Figure 2a indicates the VS1-
the shear strength parameters measured in (N1)60 correlation between silty sands implied by the
laboratory. In addition to seismic refraction survey, recommended CRR-VS1 curves and CRR-(N1)60
there are several other techniques of measuring VS at curves [34]. The theoretical curves presented in
the investigation site as defined by Stokoe and Figure 2b were improved from them [3].
Woods [27] and updated by Tezcan et al. [28]. The
reason is in-situ measured S-wave velocity indicates
the actual unchanged condition of the soil layers. VS
also enables the observer to determine the allowable
bearing capacity (qa), which is also an important
parameter for defining ground conditions, in a
reliable way.

In this study, it was intended to observe the ground

condition using seismic refraction surveys in
Isparta/Turkey. Data were collected along 4 profiles
and procedures of liquefaction analysis and
allowable bearing capacity were applied in order to
determine risky soil layers.

2. Evaluation Procedure of Liquefaction

Analysis

The evaluation procedure of determination of

liquefaction resistance requires the calculation of
three parameters; (1) The level of cyclic loading on
the soil caused by the earthquake, expressed as a
cyclic stress ratio (CSR) [1, 2] (Figure 1); (2)
stiffness of the soil, expressed as an overburden
stress-corrected shear wave velocity [3, 29, 30, 31];
and (3) resistance of the soil to liquefaction,
expressed as a cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) [1, 3, 32,
Figure 2. Correlations between VS1 and (N1)60 and an
33].
example for determining correction factor Kc [3].

181
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

In soils above the ground-water table, especially

silty soils, negative pore pressures increase the
effective state of stress and this effect should be
considered in the estimation of  V' for correcting VS
and VS1. The entire procedure is generally
summarized in several steps in [3].

3. Evaluation Procedure of Allowable Bearing

Capacity

The allowable bearing capacity, considering the

limits for the parameters [35], can be calculated from
the statements proposed by [34]. The change in
Figure 4. Unit weights based on S-wave velocities [34].
allowable bearing capacity qa, with respect to S-
wave velocity VS, is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 5. Location of the survey area.

This area is defined by the rocks of Miocene,

Pliocene and Pleistocene in age at the higher reliefs.
High altitude areas, where this system exists, are
broken apart in several levels by the faults and rivers.
Water drainage system of the area was usually
presented in the Pliocene. This system which is well
adjusted with the orogenic and structural features
and connected with the closed basin is partially
preserved nearby the northern and north-western
Figure 3. Allowable bearing capacity of soils based on part (Göller Region) of the survey area (Figure 6).
S-wave velocity [41].

The P-wave velocity of a layer is influenced directly

from the average unit weight . According to
previous studies on this relationship, a corrected unit
weight should be calculated by adding the effect of
VP [34, 36]. Also it can be clearly seen that the
calculated unit weights are in consistence with the
values measured in the laboratory (Figure 4).

4. Location and Geology of the Field

The survey area is located in the intersection point of

the western and middle Taurus Mountains, near the
Lakes (Göller) District of Turkey (Figure 5). The
study area is located in the Gümüşgün resort in city
of Isparta, on the crossroad of Ankara, Antalya and Figure 6. Geological map of the survey area.
İzmir. It is 26 km from Isparta and 4 km from the
local airport. It is planned to refine 4000-8000 m3 5. The Principles of Seismic Near-Surface
contaminated water each day in the purification site.
Investigations

182
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

It is hereby the traditional seismic refraction

technique was applied for the geotechnical
engineering purposes. Shallow refraction technique
is considered as one of the most effective method,
which can be used, for the engineering purposes.
Determining depth to the bedrock, the depth to
groundwater, types of lithology, the lateral and
vertical changes in lithology and investigating
structural features such as micro faults and cracks
are the main targets of shallow refraction
applications.

Traditional interpretation of seismic refraction data

has used a concept of layered horizons or zones
where each horizon has a discrete seismic velocity.
Interpretation methods based on the refraction of the
first portion of the seismic wave have been known
for many years [37]. The advent of hand-held
calculators in the 1970’s and personal computers by
the 1980’s, as well as the development of practical
seismographs for civil engineering use, has made
seismic refraction a practical geotechnical
exploration tool for more than two decades.

The seismic refraction method consists of measuring

(at known points along the surface of the ground) the Figure 7. Locations of the seismic profiles and drillings.
travel times of seismic waves either P- or S-wave
velocities generated by an impulsive energy source.
The energy is detected, amplified and recorded by 1. Determination of S-wave velocity, fines
special equipments (seismographs). content, densities (Table 1) and penetration
resistance (if possible). Densities were
At the seismic refraction study, data acquisition was calculated with the equation of Gardner et
designed to make effective use of the advanced data al. [38] = 0.31Vp0.25.
processing techniques. The seismic field data were
collected using a 12 channel named PASI (Italy) Table 1. S-wave velocities, fines contents and densities
of layers
engineering seismograph for refraction
investigation. Each seismic refraction spread VS Fines 
Content gr/cm3
(profile) consists of a series of 12 channel geophones (m/sn)
placed along the line at a set distance or geophone 1. Layer 121,24 FC  1,30
Profile 1 2. Layer 222,27 FC  1,48
interval. 14 Hz geophones were used. The average 3. Layer 425,35 FC  1,69
shot spacing (a sledge hammer of 8 kg as a surface 1. Layer 134,56 FC  1,26
impact source) was about 1-10 meter length. Profile 2 2. Layer 231,08 FC  1,46
Generally, for shallow depth investigation the 3. Layer 464,74 FC  1,82
sledgehammer is suitable because it is easy to 1. Layer 134,04 FC  1,22
operate, cheap, highly portable and safe. In case of Profile 3 2. Layer 249,62 FC  1,45
soft ground, an impact plate firmly embedded in the 3. Layer 347,71 FC  1,78
1. Layer 113,8 FC  1,26
ground is usually used. The locations of the
Profile 4 2. Layer 251,58 FC  1,45
refraction lines are displayed in Figure 7. The 3. Layer 498,53 FC  1,80
geophones were spaced at 3 m interval with a 3 m
nearest offset from the source. 2. Determination of water table, besides
nothing of seasonal differences and
6. Application of Liquefaction Resistance pressures of artesian wells. As a result of
Analysis insufficient data of water table, water level
is assumed to be at the surface.
The procedure of liquefaction resistance analysis is 3. Determination of v in all depths from the
given by [3] as below: seismic data.

183
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

Table 3. CV and VS1 values.

 V   .z
VS V  V' CV VS 1
 V'   V  u (1) (kg/cm ) 2
(kPa)
u   d .z Profile
1. Layer 121,2 0,23 23,43 1,4 169,7
2. Layer 222,2 1,06 104.44 0,99 219,8
1
3. Layer 425,3 1,85 182,20 0,9 382,8
where z is the liquefaction depth, γ is the 1. Layer 134,5 0,29 29,22 1,4 188,3
density, u is the pore water pressure,  V' is Profile
2
2. Layer 231,0 1,26 123,56 0,94 219,1

the initial effective vertical (overburden) 3. Layer 464,7 2,00 196,32 0,9 418,2

stress at the depth in question,  V is the Profile

1. Layer 134,0 0,16 16,57 1,4 187,6
2. Layer 249,6 1,00 98,16 1,0 250,7
3
total overburden stress at the same depth 3. Layer 347,7 1,94 190,44 0,9 312,9
[39]. Vertical stresses can be calculated from 1. Layer 113,8 0,18 18,04 1,4 159,3
these equations (Table 2). However it could Profile
2. Layer 251,5 1,04 102,47 0,99 250,0
4
also be better to use the penetration tests to 3. Layer 498,5 1,94 190,44 0,9 448,6
achieve better results, if possible.
6. Determination of Kc. If the soil is un-
Table 2. Calculated vertical stresses. cemented and <10.000 years old, than it is 1.
V  V' If the condition is not known than it is 0.6
(kg/cm2) (kg/cm2) (Table 4).
1. Layer 0,239 0,101
Profile 1 2. Layer 1,065 0,444 If there is an abnormal increase in VS of the
3. Layer 1,858 0,785 third layer it makes appropriate to apply Kc
1. Layer 0,298 0,126 correction. Also it is known that the bottom
Profile 2 2. Layer 1,260 0,53
layers are of the Pliocene.
3. Layer 2,002 0,844
Table 4. Kc, age corrected velocities and CRR values
1. Layer 0,169 0,076
KC VS1age CRR
Profile 3 2. Layer 1,001 0,451
3. Layer 1,942 0,884 1. Layer - - -
Profile 1 2. Layer 0,8 175,896 0,143183
1. Layer 0,184 0,078
3. Layer 0,7 267,9705 0,117173
Profile 4 2. Layer 1,045 0,456
1. Layer - - -
3. Layer 1,942 0,86
Profile 2 2. Layer 0,75 164,3807 0,141423
3. Layer 0,7 292,7862 0,164634
4. Correction of S-wave velocity
1. Layer - - -
measurements with CV stress parameter. Profile 3 2. Layer 0,75 188,084 0,340638
This parameter is accepted as 1.4 for surface
3. Layer 0,75 234,7043 0,030219
layers.
1. Layer - - -
Profile 4 2. Layer 0,75 187,5332 0,328283
0.25
P  3. Layer 0,65 291,6401 0,162523
VS1  VS CV  VS  a' 
 (2)
V  7. Determination of earthquake plan and
where Pa  100 kPa estimation of amax.
for profile 1 and layer 2,
 V'  1.065 kg/cm2 = 104.4408 kPa Although amax is not known it is possible to
estimate a value from Esteva’s maximum
VS1  222.27x(100/104.4408) 0.25 = 219.87 horizontal ground surface acceleration
m/s diagram (Figure 8).
All of the values are calculated in Table 3.
5. Determination of VS*1 according to fines It is assumed that the magnitude is 7.0, and
also the seismic risk is assumed as
content. If fines content is not known than it
maximum so epicenter distance is taken 0.
is assumed to be 215 m/s. Fines content is
greater than 35% in all layers (FC  35%).
So amax=532.2 cm/s2.
Thus VS*1 = 200 m/s.

184
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

amax = 532,2 cm/s2 = 5,322 m/s2 = 0,543 g 

Mw = 7.0 9. Calculating (Table 6) and plotting VS1 and
8. Determination of CSR of all layers under the CRR liquefaction resistance curves (Figure
water table. 9).

rd can be calculated from the figure of [1] Table 6. CRR values.

(Figure 1). VS VS 1 VS1age CRR
1. No
CSR = 0.65(max/g)(v/v)rd Layer 121,24 169,736 Correction 0,161768
Profile 2.
1 Layer 222,27 219,87 175,896 0,143183
As an example for Profile 1 and 1. Layer; 3.
for 1.38 m rd=0.98 (from Figure 8). Layer 425,35 382,815 267,9705 0,117173
1. No
Layer 134,56 188,384 Correction 0,347839
CSR = 0.65(5.322/9.81)(0.239/0.101)0.98 = Profile 2.
0,8185 can be found. Table 5 indicates all 2 Layer 231,08 219,1743 164,3807 0,141423
3.
the profiles and layers. Layer 464,74 418,266 292,7862 0,164634
1. No
Table 5. rd and CSR values. Layer 134,04 187,656 Correction 0,330946
Profile 2.
rd CSR 3 Layer 249,62 250,7787 188,084 0,340638
3.
Layer 347,71 312,939 234,7043 0,030219
1. Layer 0,98 0,8185 1. No
Profile 1 2. Layer 0,90 0,7619 Layer 113,8 159,32 Correction 0,126166
Profile 2.
3. Layer 0,80 0,6683 4 Layer 251,58 250,0442 187,5332 0,328283
1. Layer 0,96 0,8014 3.
Layer 498,53 448,677 291,6401 0,162523
Profile 2 2. Layer 0,88 0,7384
3. Layer 0,76 0,6363
10. Determination of FS. If FS > 1 than there is
1. Layer 0,99 0,7770 no liquefaction, if FS  1 than there is
Profile 3 2. Layer 0,91 0,7129 liquefaction.
3. Layer 0,79 0,6125
1. Layer 0,97 0,8076 FS is less than 1 in first layers of profile 1
Profile 4 2. Layer 0,89 0,7199 and 4, and second layer of Profile 2. So
3. Layer 0,78 0,6217 liquefaction risk is unimportant.

Figure 8. Esteva’s maximum acceleration diagram for

epicenter distances [40].

185
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

Table 7. Unit weights and allowable bearing capacities

of the layers in the survey area.
Allowable
Unit
VS VP Weight
Bearing
Capacity,
(m/sec) (m/sec) (kN/m3)
(kPA)
1.
Layer 121 311 16.62 48.27
Profile 2.
1 Layer 222 532 17.06 90.91
3.
Layer 425 893 17.78 181.41
1.
Layer 135 276.5 16.55 53.63
Figure 9. Liquefaction result curve for the study field.
Profile 2.
2 Layer 231 497 16.99 94.21
7. Application of Bearing Capacity Analysis 3.
Layer 465 1185 18.3 205.00
1.
The allowable bearing capacity, qa, under a shallow Layer 134 235 16.47 52.96
foundation in units of kPa, may be obtained from the Profile 2.
3 Layer 250 478 16.95 101.73
following empirical expressions: 3.
Layer 348 1088 18.17 151.80
qa  0.024Vs 1.
Layer 114 276 16.55 45.28
qa  2.4(10 4 ) Vs Profile 2.
(3) 4 Layer 252 479 16.95 102.56
3.
Layer 499 1143 18.28 218.99
where  is the unit weight (kN/m3),  is the mass
density (kg/m3), and VS is the shear(S-) wave
velocity (m/sec). There is a direct relationship
between the average unit weight , and the P-wave
velocity of a soil layer. Based on extensive case
histories of laboratory testing, a convenient
empirical relationship in this regard, is proposed in
detail by [36] as follows;

 p   0  0.002Vp (4)

P- and S- wave velocity values of the media were

obtained from the refraction seismic data of 4
profiles carried out at the survey area using the 12
channel PASI (Italy) seismic refraction equipment.
Seismic velocities vary as 235-311 m/s, 477-532 m/s
and 893-1184 m/s for the top, middle and bottom
layers respectively for the P-wave, whereas these
vary as 113-134 m/s, 222-251 m/s and 347-498 m/s
for the S-wave. All the layers have very close Figure 10. Allowable bearing capacity of soils based on
velocity values within themselves. This signifies that S-wave velocity.
these layers have homogeneous lithologies.
Equations 3 and 4 were used in order to calculate the
unit weights and allowable bearing capacities of the 8. Conclusion
layers in the survey area. Obtained results were
given in Table 7. Since S-wave velocity is less than In-situ seismic refraction studies were carried out in
500 m/s, equation 3 was used for the allowable order to determine liquefaction risk in Isparta
bearing capacity calculations. The graphics of the Industrial Region Waste Treatment Facility. Seismic
obtained allowable bearing capacity, qa – S-wave P-wave and S-wave velocities were defined to
velocity, S-wave velocities were given in Figure 10. calculate liquefaction resistance and allowable
As it was observed in the qa - S-wave velocity bearing capacity parameters. According to Figure 9,
profile, the allowable bearing capacity qa Show s it was observed that all of the first layers of the
linear variation with the shear wave velocity, S-wave refraction models have liquefaction risk. Besides the
velocity and this is increased with depth. variation of S-wave values between 114-135 m/sec
186
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

can be concerned with the relationship between Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE 111(3)
liquefaction risk and S-wave velocity values. 384-403 (1985)
Climatic changes and annual average rain amounts [9] Olsen R.S. “Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone
should also be considered while determining the penetration test”, Proc. NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Nat.
liquefaction risk of these first layers. Although a
Ctr. for Earthquake Eng. Res., State University of
measurement value is in the liquefaction zone on the New York at Buffalo, pp. 225-276 (1997)
Nomogram, it was determined that there is no [10] Robertson P.K., C.E.Wride “Evaluating cyclic
liquefaction risk if CRR value is more than 0.2 in liquefaction potential using cone penetration test”
silty and clayed medium. As a result, there is no Can. Geotech. J. 35(3) (1998) 442-459
liquefaction risk for the data which are in the [11] Seed H.B., , P.De Alba “Use of SPT and CPT tests
liquefaction zone and have a CRR value greater than for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands”
0.2 at the same time in Figure 9. Also first layers of SP Clemence Proceedings, in situ'86 Virginia Tech,
profiles 1 and 4 have less allowable bearing capacity Blacksburg, pp. 281-302 (1986)
than other two profiles’ first layers. So it can be said [12] Stark T.D., S.M.Olson “Liquefaction resistance
using CPT and field case histories” J. Geotech. Eng.
that allowable bearing capacity and liquefaction
ASCE 121(12) (1995) 856-869
analyse result support each other. Risky areas should [13] Youd T.L. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
be considered during the construction of the Summary Report from The 1996 NCEER and 1998
buildings by choosing appropriate foundation type NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of
and possible excavation areas. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils” J. Geotech.
Geonviron. Eng., ASCE 127(10) (2001) 817-833
Acknowlodgements [14] Dobry R., K.H.Stokoe II, R.S.Ladd, T.L.Youd
“Liquefaction susceptibility from S-wave velocity.
The authors are grateful to Sumet Ltd. Co. in İzmir In situ testing to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility”
ASCE, Geotechnical Engineering Division, New
for permission of the seismic refraction data.
York, (1981) 1-15
[15] Seed H.B., I.M.Idriss, I.Arango “Evaluation of
References liquefaction potential using field performance data”
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division.
[1] Seed H.B., I.M.Idriss “Simplified procedure for 109(3) (1983) 458-482
evaluating soil liquefaction potential” J. Soil Mech. [16] Stokoe K.H., S.Nazarian, G.J.Rix, I.Sanchez-
and Found. Div. 97(9) (1971) 1249-1273 Salinaro, J.C.Sheu, et al. “In situ seismic testing of
[2] Andrus R.D., , P.Paramananthan, S.E. Brian, Z. hard to sample soils by surface wave method” In:
Jianfeng, J.C.Hsein “Comparing liquefaction Von Thun, J.L. (ed.) Earthquake Engineering and
evaluation methods using penetration-Vs Soil Dynamics II-Recent advances in ground motion
relationships” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake evaluation. Geotechnical Special Publication 20
Engineering. 24 (2004) 713-721 Park City, Utah, pp. 264-278 (1988)
[3] Andrus R.D., K.H.Stokoe “Liquefaction resistance [17] Tokimatsu K., A.Uchida “Correlation between
of soils from shear-wave velocity” Journal of liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity”
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Soils and Found. 30(2) (1990) 33-42
ASCE 126(11) (2000) 1015-1025 [18] Jamiolkowski M., D.C.F.Lo Presti “Correlation
[4] Seed H.B. “Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility between liquefaction resistance and shear wave
evaluation for level ground during earthquakes” velocity” Soils and Found. 32(2) (1990) 145-148
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. [19] Roy D., R.G.Campanella, P.M.Byrne, J.M.O.
ASCE 105(GT2) (1979) 201-255 Hughes “Strain level and uncertainty of liquifaction
[5] Seed H.B., I.M.Idriss, Ground motions and soil related index tests” In: Shackelford, C.D., Nelson,
liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake P.P., Roth, M.J.S. (eds.) Uncertainty in the geologic
Engineering Research Institute Monograph, environment: From theory to practice. Geotech.
Oakland, California (1982) Spec. Publ. No: 58(2), ASCE New York, pp. 1149-
[6] Seed H.B., K.Tokimatsu, L.F.Harder, R.M.Chung 1162 (1996)
“The influence of SPT procedures in soil [20] Teachavorasinskun S., F.Tasuoka, D.C.F.Lo Presti
liquefaction resistance evaluations” J. Geotech. Eng. “Effects of the cyclic prestaining on dilatancy
ASCE 111(12) (1985) 1425-1445 characteristics and liquefaction strength of sand” In:
[7] Youd T.L., R.E.Kayen, J.K.Mitchell “Liquefaction Shibuya, S., Mitachi, T., Miura, S. (eds.) Pre-failure
criteria based on energy content of seismograms”, deformation of geomaterials, Balkema, Rotterdam,
Proc. NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of The Nederlands, pp. 75-80 (1994)
Liquefaction resistance of Soils, Nat. Ctr. for [21] Prandtl L. Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Härte)
Earthquake Eng. Res., State Univ. of New York at plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von
Buffalo, pp. 217-224 (1997) Schneiden. (On the penetrating strengths (hardness)
[8] Robertson P.K., R.G.Campanella “Liquefaction of plastic construction materials and the strength of
potential in sands using the CPT” Journal of the cutting edges). Zeit. Angew. Math. Mech. 1(1) 15-
20 (1921)
187
 Emre TİMUR, Coşkun SARI/ IJCESEN 6-3(2020)180-188

[22] Reissner H. “Zum Erddruckproblem” (Concerning basics for stratigraphic traps” Geophysics. 39(6)
the earth-pressure problem). Proc. 1st Int. Congress (1974) 770-780
of Applied Mechanics. Delft, pp. 295-311 (1924) [39] Yılmaz H.R. “Ground Mechanics-1 Lecture Notes”
[23] Meyerhof G.G. “Penetration tests and bearing Aegean University Engineering Faculty Department
capacity of cohesionless soils” Proceedings ASCE, of Civil Engineering. Unpublished (2001)
82(SM1) pp. 1-19 (1956) [40] Uyanık O., Ph.D. Thesis, The Graduate School of
[24] Hansen J.B. “A revised extended formula for Natural and Applied Sciences, Dokuz Eylül
bearing capacity” Danish Geotechnical Institute University, Izmir, Kayma Dalga Hızına Bağlı
Bulletin. 28 (1968) Potansiyel Sıvılaşma Analiz Yöntemi. 2002 (in
[25] DeBeer E.E. “Experimental determination of the Turkish).
shape factors and the bearing capacity factors of
sand” Geotechnique. 20 (1970) 387-411
[26] Sieffert J.G., Ch Bay-Gress. “Comparison of the
European bearing capacity calculation methods for
shallow foundations” Geotechnical Engineering
Institution of Civil Engineers. 143 (2000) 65-74
[27] Stokoe K.H., R.D.Woods “Insitu shear wave
velocity by cross-hole method” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Divison, ASCE.
98(SM5) (1972) 443-460
[28] Tezcan S.S., S.M.Erden, H.T.Durgunoğlu “Insitu
measurement of shear wave velocity at Bosphorus
(Boğaziçi) University Campus” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, 2 pp. 157-164 (1975)
[29] Belloti R., J.Jamiolkowski, D.C.F.Lo Presti, ,
D.A.O'Neill “Anisotropy of small strain stiffness of
Ticino sand” Geotechnique. 46(1) (1996) 115-131
[30] Roesler S.K. “Anisotropic shear modulus due to
stress anisotropy” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division. ASCE 105(7) (1979) 871-880
[31] Stokoe K.H., S.H.H.Lee, D.P.Knox “Shear moduli
measurements under true triaxial stresses” Proc.
Adv. in the Art of Testing Soil Under Cyclic
Conditions. ASCE, New York, pp. 166-185 (1985)
[32] Dobry R. “Some Basic aspects of soil liquefaction
during earthquakes” Earthquake hazards and the
design of constructed facilities in the eastern United
States. In: Jacob, K.H., Turkstra, C.J. (eds.) Ann. of
the New York Acad. of Sci., New York, 558 172-
182 (1989)
[33] Idriss I.M. “Presentation notes: An update of Seed-
Idriss Simplified Procedure for Evaluating
Liquefaction Potential” Proc. TRB Workshop on
New Approaches to Liquefaction Anal. Publ. No.
FHWA-RD-99-165. Washington DC Federal
Highway Administration (1999)
[34] Tezcan S.S., Z.Özdemir, A.Keçeli “Allowable
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on
Shear Wave Velocity”. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering. CV-338 24 (2006) 203-218
[35] Skempton A.W., D.H.MacDonald “Allowable
settlement of buildings” Proceedings ICE, 5(3) pp.
727-768 (1956)
[36] Tezcan S.S., Z.Özdemir, A.Keçeli, A.Erkal “A rapid
technique to determine allowable bearing pressure”
International Eartquake Symposium, Kocaeli pp.
234-241 (2007)
[37] Jakosky J.J. “Exploration Geophysics” Time-
Mirrors Press, Los Angeles (1940)
[38] Gardner G.H.F., L.W.Garner, A.R.Gregory
“Formation velocity and density-the diagnostic
188