You are on page 1of 54

1

CONTRI BUTI ONS OF FI ELD CASE HI STORI ES TO


GEOTECHNI CAL EARTHQUAKE ENGI NEERI NG
pr esent ed by
I . M. I dr i ss, Pr of essor Emer i t us
Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a at Davi s
e-mai l : i mi dr i ss@aol .c om
Pr esent ed at t he di nner meet i ng of t he
ASCE SEATTLE SECTI ON -- GEOTECHNI CAL GROUP
Seat t l e, Washi ngt on
Sept ember 30, 2010
Materials for this talk are based on work by
I. M. Idriss and R. W. Boulanger
Idriss & Boulanger (2008). "Soil Liquefaction During
Earthquakes." Monograph MNO-12, EERI.
Idriss & Boulanger (2010). "SPT-based liquefaction
triggering procedures. "Report UCD/CGM-10/02, University
of California, Davis, CA.
The "Peck Lecture", which was presented at ASCE's
GeoFlorida Conference on February 21, 2010 by I. M. Idriss.
The full text of the "Peck Lecture" (by I. M. Idriss and R. W.
Boulanger) is to be published in the Geotechnical Journal
of ASCE in 2011 or 2012, depending on the length of the
review process.
2
PECK AWARD
The Ralph B. Peck Award recognizes an
individual's contributions to the geotechnical
engineering profession through the
publication of a thoughtful, carefully
researched case history or histories, or the
publication of recommended practices or
design methodologies based on the evaluation
of case histories.
Case Histories have always played a strong role in
geotechnical engineering. They have been an essential
means for:
improving understanding;
Calibrating analytical procedures;
Designing & interpreting physical model tests; and
developing semi-empirical procedures
Under static as well as during earthquake and post-
earthquake loading conditions.
ROLE OF CASE HI STORI ES
3
SI GNI FI CANT EARTHQUAKES SI NCE 1960
1962 Mexico City
1964 ALASKA
1964 NIIGATA
1966 Parkfield
1967 Caracas
1968 Tokachi-Oki
1971 SAN FERNANDO
1975 Oroville
1975 Haicheng
1976 Gazli (USSR)
1976 Tangshan
1978 Miyagiken-Oki
1978 Santa Barbara
1978 Tabas
1979 Coyote Lake
1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY
1980 Livermore
1992 Petrolia
1992 Landers
1992 Big Bear
1994 NORTHRIDGE
1995 KOBE
1999 KOCAELI
1999 CHI-CHI
1999 Duzce
2001 Bhuj
2001 Nisqually
2004 Niigata
2010 Chile
1980 Mammoth Lake
1982 Miramichi
1983 Coalinga
1985 Chile
1985 MEXICO CITY
1985 Nahani
1986 NORTH PALM SPRINGS
1987 WHITTIER-NARROWS
1988 Armenia
1988 Saguenay
1989 LOMA PRIETA
1990 Manjil
1990 Philippine
1991 Costa Rica
1991 Sierra Madre
1992 Turkey
1992 Joshua tree
OUTLI NE OF THI S TALK
Case Histories of large deformations
involving soft cohesive soils:
Case Histories involving liquefaction of
cohesionless soils:
4
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Examples of Surface Evidence of Liquefaction
1978 Mi yagi ken-Ok i ear t hquake
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
5
1964 Ni i gat a ear t hquake (phot o: NI SEE)
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
1971 San Fer nando ear t hquake (phot o: Cal i f or ni a DWR)
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
6
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
1999 CHI -CHI ear t hquake
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Information needed for each case history
1. Site information:
i. Location, adjacent topography;
ii. Adjacent physical features;
iii. Surface [Evidence/No Evidence] of liquefaction.
2. Subsurface information:
i. Borings, samples methods used;
ii. Water table measurements;
iii. Standard penetration tests details used;
iv. Cone penetration resistance data;
v. Shear wave measurements method(s) used.
3. Earthquake & earthquake ground motions
information
i. M
w
, distance, nearby recordings, site "classification".
7
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Use of liquefaction case histories started in 1968.
At that time, there were only 23 cases with
observed surface evidence of liquefaction and 12
cases with no observed evidence of liquefaction.
These case histories were used in the
development of the Seed-Idriss simplified
liquefaction procedure, which was published in
the Journal of ASCE's SM&FE Division in 1971.
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Since then, the number of cases has dramatically increased.
While in 1968 correlation was made to relative density and SPT
blow count only, correlations are now made with:
SPT blow count;
CPT tip resistance, and
V
s
, shear wave velocity.
More recently, correlations with dilatometer measurements have
been proposed.
8
( )
1
60
N E R B S m
N C C C C C N =
( )
. ,
v
M 7 5 1 1
60cs
CRR f N
o ' = =

=

Anal ysi s f r amewor k
CYCLIC RESISTANCE RATIO (CRR)
[Framework is similar for SPT, CPT, or V
s
correlations]
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
60cs 60 60
N N N = + A
( )
. ,
,
vc
M 7 5 1 1
60
CRR f N FC
o ' = =

=

( )
1
60
N E R B S m
N C C C C C N =
( )
. ,
v
M 7 5 1 1
60cs
CRR f N
o ' = =

=

Anal ysi s f r amewor k
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
[Framework is similar for SPT, CPT, or V
s
correlations]
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
60cs 60 60
N N N = + A
( )
. ,
,
vc
M 7 5 1 1
60
CRR f N FC
o ' = =

=

C
N
= f(o'
v
; D
R
; FC)
C
R
= f(depth; rod stick-up length)
9
v
v d
M
v
a r
CSR 0 65
o
o
o
'
=
'
max
,
.
Anal ysi s f r amewor k
Earthquake-induced
CYCLIC STRESS RATIO (CSR)
based on using the Seed-Idriss (1971) Simplified Procedure
r
d
= f(depth; ground motion characteristics; dynamic soil properties)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Time
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Time
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Time
Ef f ec t s of dur at i on
M = 5.1
M = 6.5
M = 7.3
( )
v
M, '
vo max d
M 7.5
vo
CSR
a r 1
CSR 0.65
MSF ' MSF
o
o
o
=
| |
= =
|
\ .
10
Cyclic triaxial test results for clean Fraser Delta sand showing cyclic stress and
CRR to cause 3% shear strain in 10 uniform cycles at D
R
of 31-72% and
effective consolidation stresses of 50-400 kPa
(data from Vaid & Sivathayalan 1996).
EFFECTS OF I NI TI AL EFFECTI VE VERTI CAL STRESS, o'
v
Cyclic stress to cause 3% strain in 10 uniform cycles versus effective
consolidation stress in ICU cyclic triaxial tests on Fraser Delta sand
(data from Vaid & Sivathayalan 1996)
EFFECTS OF I NI TI AL EFFECTI VE VERTI CAL STRESS, o'
v
11
Ef f ec t s of o'
v
( )
( ) ( )
v
v
M. '
vo max d
M 7.5, ' 1 atm
vo
CSR
a r 1 1
CSR 0.65
MSF K ' MSF K
o
o
o o
o
o
= =
| |
= =
|
\ .
Framework includes 5 functions that describe fundamental aspects of
dynamic site response, penetration testing, and soil behavior:
r
d
= f(depth; ground motion characteristics; dynamic soil properties)
C
N
= f(o'
v
; D
R
; FC)
C
R
= f(depth; rod stick-up length)
K
o
= f(o'
v
; D
R
; FC)
MSF = f(ground motion characteristics; D
R
; FC)
These functions should be based on a synthesis of experimental and
theoretical methods, as they guide the application to conditions outside
those that are represented in the case history database.
Anal ysi s f r amewor k
12
Many questions have been raised over the years regarding
evaluation of liquefaction potential during earthquakes.
I will attempt to address in this presentation 4 of the most
recurring questions.
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Corrected standard penetration, (N
1
)
60
0 10 20 30 40
C
y
c
l
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Curves derived by
FCs 5%
Seed & Idriss (1982)
Seed et al (1984) & NCEER/NSF Workshops (1997)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
Seed (1979)
Cetin et al (2004)
1
2
3
5
3
2
1
5
4
4
13
QUESTI ONS RAI SED
Q-2. Can we treat these differences as "epistemic" uncertainty
and hence can use all models with "assigned weights"?
Q-3. Can we use site response analyses to obtain CSR or do we
have to always use the simplified stress ratio equation?
Q-4. How should we treat liquefaction at depths exceeding those
included in the liquefaction case histories?
Q-1. Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N
1
)
60
or versus
(N
1
)
60cs
different, depending on whose model is implemented?
QUESTI ON No. 1
Q-1. Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N
1
)
60
or versus
(N
1
)
60cs
different, depending on whose model is implemented?
In particular, why is the Cetin et al correlation so much lower
than the other correlations?
Equivalent clean sand corrected standard penetration, (N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
R
R
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Curves derived by 3
5 4
Seed et al (1984) & NCEER/NSF Workshops (1997)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
Cetin et al (2004)
3
4
5
14
QUESTI ON No. 1
The best way to address this question is to examine each model
in terms of how the interpretations were made for those case
histories that control the position of the correlation.
Specifically, it is essential that the derived liquefaction triggering
correlation for M = 7.5 and o'
v
= 1 atm be supported by the case
histories with o'
v
close to 1 atm.
Differences in the treatment of key case histories near o'
v
= 1 atm
(where differences in C
N
and K
o
are smallest) were found to be the
primary cause of differences in the correlations.
( )
1
60
N E R B S m
N C C C C C N =
( )
. ,
v
M 7 5 1 1
60cs
CRR f N
o ' = =

=

Cycl i c Resi st anc e Rat i o
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)
[Framework is similar for SPT, CPT, or V
s
correlations]
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
60cs 60 60
N N N = + A
( )
. ,
,
vc
M 7 5 1 1
60
CRR f N FC
o ' = =

=

C
N
= f(o'
v
; D
R
; FC)
C
R
= f(depth; rod stick-up length)
15
Wher e t he f unc t i ons ar e
( )
( ) ( )
v
v
M. '
vo max d
M 7.5, ' 1 atm
vo
CSR
a r 1 1
CSR 0.65
MSF K ' MSF K
o
o
o o
o
o
= =
| |
= =
|
\ .
Shear st r ess i nduc ed by t he
ear t hquake gr ound mot i ons
Sensitivity of case history interpretation to MSF
16
0 10 20 30 40 50
(N
1
)
60
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
)
Liquefaction
Marginal
No liquefaction
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CSR
M=7.5,o=1
16
12
8
4
0
5 6 7 8 9
M
16
12
8
4
0
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
FC (%)
16
12
8
4
0
Ef f ec t s of dur at i on
Earthquake moment magnitude, M
5 6 7 8
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

s
c
a
l
i
n
g

f
a
c
t
o
r
,

M
S
F
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Cetin et al (2004)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
Seed et al (1984)
17
Ef f ec t s of o'
v
( )
( ) ( )
v
v
M. '
vo max d
M 7.5, ' 1 atm
vo
CSR
a r 1 1
CSR 0.65
MSF K ' MSF K
o
o
o o
o
o
= =
| |
= =
|
\ .
Sensitivity of case history interpretation to K
o
EFFECTS OF I NI TI AL EFFECTI VE VERTI CAL STRESS, o'
v
K
o
relations recommended by Youd et al (2001) for a relative density of
40, 60 and 80% (solid lines) and relation used by Cetin et al (2004)
Vertical effective stress, o'
v
(atm)
0 1 2 3
K
o
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Cetin et al (2004)
Youd et al (2001);
D
R
= 40, 60 & 80%
18
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Vertical effective stress, o'
v
(atm)
0 1 2 3
K
o
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Boulanger & Idriss (2004);
D
R
= 40, 60 & 80%
K
o
relations recommended by Boulanger and Idriss (2004)
for a relative density of 40, 60 and 80%
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Vertical effective stress, o'
v
(atm)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
K
o
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Boulanger & Idriss (2004); D
R
= 60
Youd et al (2001); D
R
= 60
Cetin et al (2004)
19
LI QUEFACTI ON OF COHESI ONLESS SOI LS
Vertical effective stress, o'
v
(atm)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
K
o
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Boulanger & Idriss (2004); D
R
= 60
Youd et al (2001); D
R
= 60
Cetin et al (2004)
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Effective vertical stress, o'
v
(psf)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
C
u
m
.

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.8 atm
1.2 atm
1 atm
Values of o'
v
as listed in Cetin et al (2004) for
the "liquefaction" & "marginal" case histories
0.65 atm
20
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); Points 1 -- 11
identified for further examination
as described in text.
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point identified in
next figure Site name Earthquake
1 Miller Farm CMF-10 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
2 Malden Street, Unit D 1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
3 Kobe #6 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
4 Kobe #7 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
5 Miller Farm CMF-5 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
6 Rail Road #2 1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
7 Port of Oakland POO7-2 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
8 Port of Oakland POO7-3 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
9 Panjin Chemical Fertilizer
Plant
1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
10 Shuang Tai Zi River 1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
11 San Juan B-3 1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4
Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & o'
v
= 1 atm
21
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point identified in
next figure Site name Earthquake
1 Miller Farm CMF-10 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
2 Malden Street, Unit D 1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
3 Kobe #6 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
4 Kobe #7 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
5 Miller Farm CMF-5 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
6 Rail Road #2 1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
7 Port of Oakland POO7-2 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
8 Port of Oakland POO7-3 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
9 Panjin Chemical Fertilizer
Plant
1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
10 Shuang Tai Zi River 1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
11 San Juan B-3 1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4
Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & o'
v
= 1 atm
misclassified cases
Poi nt 1 Mi l l er Far m CMF-10
Profile across the failure zone at the Miller (south side of Pajaro River) during the
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Holzer et al. 1994)
22
Cet i n et al (2004)
From Cetin et al (2000)
Geotechnical Engineering
Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
Poi nt 2 Mal den St .
Uni t D
Poi nt 2: Mal den St r eet , Uni t D
Profile across the failure zone at the Malden Street site during the 1994
Northridge Earthquake (Holzer et al. 1998)
23
Expanded profile across the failure zone (Holzer et al. 1998)
[additional details in Bennett et al. 1998]
Poi nt 2: Mal den St r eet , Uni t D
Poi nt 3 Kobe pr opr i et ar y si t e 6
Original table from Tokimatsu (2010)
From Cetin et al (2000)
Geotechnical Engineering
Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
24
Point 10 Shuang Tai Zi River
Poi nt 10 Shuang Tai Zi Ri ver
From original source:
Shengcong & Tatsuoka (1984)
25
Point 10 Shuang Tai Zi River
From Seed et al (1984)
Points 1, 2, 3 & 10 were designated as "No Liquefaction" by the
original investigators of these sites; Cetin et al (2004) listed these
as "Liquefaction" sites.
Point 1 Miller Farm CMF 10 o'
v
~ 0.70 atm
Point 2 Malden Street o'
v
~ 1.2 atm
Point 3 Kobe No. 6 o'
v
~ 0.68 atm
Point 10 Shuang Tai Zi R. o'
v
~ 0.69 atm
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
26
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); Points 1, 2, 3 & 10
were designated as "No Liquefaction"
by the original investigators of
these sites; Cetin et al (2004) listed
these as "Liquefaction" sites .
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
r
d
values from summary tables in Cetin et al (2004)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
r
d

v
a
l
u
e
s

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

C
e
t
i
n

e
t

a
l
'
s

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
(
o
n
l
y

f
o
r

c
a
s
e
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

s
i
t
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
) Issue: The r
d
values computed using
the Cetin et al (2004) equation do not
agree with the r
d
values they used
in processing the case histories.
Discrepancy between r
d
values used in the Cetin et al (2004) database and the r
d
values computed using their referenced r
d
equation
27
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point identified in
next figure Site name Earthquake
1 Miller Farm CMF-10 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
2 Malden Street, Unit D 1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
3 Kobe #6 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
4 Kobe #7 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
5 Miller Farm CMF-5 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
6 Rail Road #2 1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
7 Port of Oakland POO7-2 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
8 Port of Oakland POO7-3 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
9 Panjin Chemical Fertilizer
Plant
1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
10 Shuang Tai Zi River 1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
11 San Juan B-3 1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4
Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & o'
v
= 1 atm
r
d
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); CSR for Points
3, 4, 6, 9. 10 & 11 recalculated
using equation for r
d
in Cetin et al
(2004) in lieu of their listed values.
28
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point identified in
next figure Site name Earthquake
1 Miller Farm CMF-10 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
2 Malden Street, Unit D 1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
3 Kobe #6 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
4 Kobe #7 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
5 Miller Farm CMF-5 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
6 Rail Road #2 1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
7 Port of Oakland POO7-2 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
8 Port of Oakland POO7-3 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
9 Panjin Chemical Fertilizer
Plant
1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
10 Shuang Tai Zi River 1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
11 San Juan B-3 1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4
Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & o'
v
= 1 atm
SPT data not included
Poi nt 4 Kobe Pr opr i et ar y Si t e No. 7 (f r om Cet i n et al (2000)
Point 4
(Kobe No. 7 site)
29
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point 4 (Kobe No. 7 site) o'
v
~ 0.8 atm
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Selection of a representative (N
1
)
60
for Point 4 (Kobe No. 7 site)
Average o'
v
~ 0.86 atm
Avg
depth
(m)
Depthto
GWT(m) o
vc(kPa) o'vc(kPa) (Nm) (N1)60 CB CE CN CR CS
FC(%) (N1)60,cs
3.3 3.2 62 60 8 10.4 1 1.22 1.26 0.85 1 0 10.4
4.3 3.2 82 71 21 28.2 1 1.22 1.16 0.95 1 0 28.2
6.3 3.2 124 93 32 37.7 1 1.22 1.02 0.95 1 12 39.8
7.3 3.2 144 104 23 25.6 1 1.22 0.96 0.95 1 0 25.6
8.3 3.2 165 114 21 23.4 1 1.22 0.92 1 1 0 23.4
Averages:
5.8 113 87 18.3 21.9 Average= 0 21.9
30
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); CSR & (N
1
)
60
for
Point 4 recalculated to include
a sublayer below the water table
with N = 8, which had not been
used by Cetin et al (2004).
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); CSR & (N
1
)
60
for
Point 4 recalculated to include
a sublayer below the water table
with N = 8, which had not been
used by Cetin et al (2004).
31
Poi nt 6 Rai l Road-2 (f r om Cet i n et al (2000)
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Average total unit weight (kN/m
3
)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
)
Idriss & Boulanger (this study)
Cetin et al (2004)
Seed et al. (1984), plus
Averages of all values
Kobe proprietary (Tokimatsu)
32
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); CSR & (N
1
)
60
for
Points 1 -- 11 recalculated using
unit weights described in text.
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm NCEER/Youd (2001)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); Changes to
Points 1 -- 11 described in text.
33
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Average total unit weight (kN/m
3
)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
)
Idriss & Boulanger (this study)
Cetin et al (2004)
Seed et al. (1984), plus
Averages of all values
Kobe proprietary (Tokimatsu)
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction
published by Cetin et al (2004)
Point identified in
next figure Site name Earthquake
1 Miller Farm CMF-10 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
2 Malden Street, Unit D 1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
3 Kobe #6 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
4 Kobe #7 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
5 Miller Farm CMF-5 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
6 Rail Road #2 1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
7 Port of Oakland POO7-2 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
8 Port of Oakland POO7-3 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
9 Panjin Chemical Fertilizer
Plant
1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
10 Shuang Tai Zi River 1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0
11 San Juan B-3 1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4
Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & o'
v
= 1 atm
Low total unit weights
34
(N
1
)
60cs
0 10 20 30 40
C
S
R

(
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d

t
o

M

=

7
.
5

&

o
'
v

=

1

a
t
m
)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
Cases for o'
v
= 0.65 to 1.5 atm
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
M = 7.5; o'
v
= 1 atm
Data and parameters from
Cetin et al (2004); Changes to
Points 1 -- 11 described in text.
Concl usi ons r e: Quest i on No. 1
The Cetin et al. triggering correlation, if it were updated
after correcting the above problems, would thus be
expected to move close to the Idriss-Boulanger
correlation at overburden stresses of 0.65-1.5 atm.
This would also cause the Cetin et al. K
o
relationship to
become flatter because it is regressed as part of their
analyses and higher CRR values at higher confining
stresses would dictate a flatter K
s
relationship.
Q-1. Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N
1
)
60
or versus
(N
1
)
60cs
different, depending on whose model is implemented? In
particular, why is the Cetin et al correlation so much lower than
the other correlations?
35
The combination of these changes would be expected to
reduce the degree to which the Cetin et al. procedure
predicts significantly smaller CRR values than the other
liquefaction triggering correlations as depth increases.
Until these issues are addressed, however, the Cetin et
al. procedure shoul d not be used.
Concl usi ons r e: Quest i on No. 1
Quest i on No. 2
Q-2. Can we treat these differences as "epistemic" uncertainty
and hence can use all models with "assigned weights"?
No, we should not treat these differences as "epistemic"
uncertainty and hence can use all models with "assigned
weights".
The examination I just summarized emphasizes the need to fully
examine any model before it is adopted for use.
36
Quest i on No. 3
Q-3. Can we use site response analyses to obtain CSR or do we
have to always use the simplified stress ratio equation?
The answer is it depends.
37
Shear wave velocity (m/sec)
0 200 400 600 800
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
V
s
profile used in 1990
V
s
profile used
in 1993 and 1996
1996
1993
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
damping = 5 percent
Calculated Motion using 1990 V
s
profile
Recorded Motion at Treasure Island
Rock Outcrop (Yerba Buena Island)
Calculated Motion using 1993 V
s
profile
Calculated Motion using 1996 V
s
profile
38
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
damping = 5 percent
Spectral values for motion
recorded at Treasure Island
Spectral values calculated using
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
39
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
damping = 5 percent
Spectral values for motion
recorded at Treasure Island
Spectral values calculated using
recordings at other rock sites
in the Bay Area as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
recordings at other rock sites
in the Bay Area as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
average shear stresses for all cases
40
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

/

P
G
A
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
damping = 5 percent
Target spectrum -- M = 6.9 at 80 km
Spectrum compatible motion -- SYN1
Spectrum compatible motion -- SYN2
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
recordings at other rock sites
in the Bay Area as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
average shear stresses for all cases
Input: SYN1
41
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
recordings at other rock sites
in the Bay Area as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
average shear stresses for all cases
Input: SYN2
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

/

P
G
A
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
damping = 5 percent
Target spectrum -- pre-NGA
Target spectrum -- NGA
42
Period (sec)
0.01 0.1 1 10
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

/

P
G
A
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
damping = 5 percent
Target spectrum -- NGA
Spectra -- synthetic time series
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
NGA-compatible time series
as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
43
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
NGA-compatible time series
as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
average shear stresses synth time series
Using simplified equation (F = ma):
( ) ( )
surf
max v d
surf
a
r
g
a 0.16g
t o
| |
=
|
\ .
=
44
Stress reduction coefficient, r
d
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
D
e
p
t
h

b
e
l
o
w

g
r
o
u
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

(
m
)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
M = 7 M = 8 Magnitude: M = 5 M = 6
Average of Range Published
by Seed & Idriss (1971)
M = 6.9
Maximum shear stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
5
10
15
20
Maximum shear stresses calculated using:
recordings at other rock sites
in the Bay Area as input motions
recording at Yerba Buena
as input motion
average shear stresses for all cases
Calculated using
r
d
for M = 6.9
45
Concl usi ons r e: Quest i on No. 3
Use of an appropriate r
d
is adequate for most cases.
For site response studies, you need to use at least 7
different rock outcrop motions.
Q-3. Can we use site response analyses to obtain CSR or
do we have to always use the simplified stress ratio
equation?
Q-4: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that
exceed those represented in liquefaction case histories?
Two critical parameters affecting liquefaction
potential with depth are C
N
and K
o
.
Studies at Perris Dam provide valuable data on C
N
at
large depths
Studies at Duncan Dam provide a valuable check on
the complete liquefaction analysis procedure for
large depths.
Quest i on No. 4
46
A critical parameter affecting liquefaction potential with depth is
the value of C
N
. Boulanger and Idriss (2004) recommended:
( )
m
a
N
vo
1
60
P
C 1.7
m 0.784 0.0768 N
o
| |
= s
|
'
\ .
=
Note that m = , originally derived by Liao & Whitman has been
extensively used, but it can produce unreasonably low C
N
values
as the depth increases.
The investigations carried out at Perris Dam (CDWR 2005, Wehling
and Rennie 2008) are very helpful is assessing the value of the
exponent m as a function of denseness.
Per r i s Dam and C
N
Aerial photo and boring locations at Perris Dam (Wehling & Rennie 2008)
47
SPT data by location and percentile groupings (Wehling & Rennie 2008)
0 20 40 60 80
SPT (N
1
)
60
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
E
x
p
o
n
e
n
t

m
0 20 40 60 80
SPT (N
1
)
60,CS
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
E
x
p
o
n
e
n
t

m
C
N
= (P
a
/o'
v
)
m
Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
[using (N
1
)
60
as input]
Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Perris dam foundation
(Wehling & Rennie 2008)
Perris dam foundation
(Wehling & Rennie 2008)
C
N
= (P
a
/o'
v
)
m
48
Overburden normalization factor C
N
: (a) dependence on denseness, and
(b) simpler approximations often used at shallower depths.
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
N
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
'
v
/
P
a
(N
1
)
60cs
=40
(N
1
)
60cs
=30
(N
1
)
60cs
=20
(N
1
)
60cs
=10
(N
1
)
60cs
=4
0 0.5 1 1.5
C
N
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
'
v
/
P
a
(a) (b)
(N
1
)
60cs
=4
(N
1
)
60cs
=30
Liao & Whitman (1986)
C
N
= (P
a
/o'
v
)
0.5
The investigations carried out at Duncan Dam (Special collection
of papers in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1994) are helpful
in assessing the application of liquefaction triggering procedures
to large depths.
Dunc an Dam
49
Frozen sand samples obtained from Unit 3c at the toe, and tested
at confining stresses of 2 to 12 atm.
Dunc an Dam
Table 5.2. Summary of SPT and laboratory test data for Duncan Dam

SPT data DSS tests Triaxial tests Conversion to o'
v
= 1 atm
o'
v

(kPa)
C
N
N
60
(N
1
)
60
(N
1
)
60cs
Lab
CRR
N=10

Field
CRR
M=7.5

Lab
CRR
N=10

Field
CRR
M=7.5
Field
CRR
M=7.5

K
o
Field
CRR
M=7.5,o=1


200 0.70 16.4 11.5 11.6 0.14 0.118 0.169 0.121 0.120 0.93 0.128
400 0.50 26.5 13.3 13.4 0.149 0.126 0.171 0.123 0.124 0.86 0.145
600 0.42 34.0 14.1 14.2 0.143 0.121 0.168 0.120 0.120 0.81 0.149
1200 0.30 49.1 14.7 14.8 -- -- 0.170 0.122 0.122 0.73 0.168

Notes:
(1) Original data from Pillai and Byrne (1994).
(2) Average ratio of CRR
DSS
/CRR
TX
= 0.85 is used to convert triaxial test results to field simple shear conditions.
(3) Cyclic strengths multiplied by 0.937 to convert from 10 to 15 equivalent uniform cycles (based on slope of
CRR versus number of uniform cycles curves).
(4) Cyclic strengths multiplied by 0.90 to convert from 1D to 2D cyclic loading conditions.
(5) Final value for field CRR
M=7.5
taken as average of strengths from DSS and Triaxial tests.
SPT-based prediction of CRR
M=7.5
versus depth (confining stress)
depends on combination of triggering curve, C
N
, and K
o
.
Dunc an Dam
Corrected standard penetration, (N
1
)
60
0 10 20 30 40
C
y
c
l
i
c

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Curves derived by
FCs 5%
Seed & Idriss (1982)
Seed et al (1984) & NCEER/NSF Workshops (1997)
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
Seed (1979)
Cetin et al (2004)
1
2
3
5
3
2
1
5
4
4
50
Pillai & Byrne (1994) used the Seed et al. (1984) triggering curve,
in-situ SPT data, and laboratory test data on frozen sand samples
to derive site-specific C
N
and K
o
relationships.
Dunc an Dam
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
C
N
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
'
v
/
P
a
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N
1
)
60
=10
(N
1
)
60
=20
Liao & Whitman (1986)
Pillai & Byrne (1994)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
K
o
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
'
v
/
P
a
(a) (b)
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N
1
)
60
=10
(N
1
)
60
=20
Hynes & Olsen
(1999);
f = 0.722
Pillai & Byrne
(1994)
Kayen et
al (1992)
CRR
M=7.5
predicted using the Pillai & Byrne (1994) site-specific
relationships with the Seed et al. (1984) triggering curve.
Dunc an Dam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N
60
values
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
a
t
m
)
0 10 20 30
(N
1
)
60
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
CRR
M=7.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Computed using relations by Pillai & Byrne (1994)
CRR
M7.5
from TX & DSS tests on frozen samples (Pillai & Byrne 1994)
Duncan Dam - Unit 3c:
(Pillai & Stewart 1994)
51
Dunc an Dam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N
60
values
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
a
t
m
)
0 10 20 30
(N
1
)
60
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
CRR
M=7.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Computed using relations by Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
CRR
M7.5
from TX & DSS tests on frozen samples (Pillai & Byrne 1994)
Duncan Dam - Unit 3c:
(Pillai & Stewart 1994)
CRR
M=7.5
predicted using the Idriss & Boulanger (2004, 2008)
liquefaction triggering procedures.
Dunc an Dam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N
60
values
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
a
t
m
)
0 10 20 30
(N
1
)
60
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
CRR
M=7.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Computed using relations by NCEER/NSF (Youd et al. 2001)
CRR
M7.5
from TX & DSS tests on frozen samples (Pillai & Byrne 1994)
Duncan Dam - Unit 3c:
(Pillai & Stewart 1994)
CRR
M=7.5
predicted using the NCEER/NSF (Youd et al. 2001)
liquefaction triggering procedures.
52
Dunc an Dam
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N
60
values
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
a
t
m
)
0 10 20 30
(N
1
)
60
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
CRR
M=7.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Computed using relations by Cetin et al. (2004)
CRR
M7.5
from TX & DSS tests on frozen samples (Pillai & Byrne 1994)
Duncan Dam - Unit 3c:
(Pillai & Stewart 1994)
CRR
M=7.5
predicted using the Cetin et al. (2004) liquefaction
triggering procedures.
Cetin et al. (2004) and Moss et al. (2006) used the same statistical
analysis procedures to regress K
o
from SPT and CPT case
histories, respectively.
Regr essi ng K
o
f r om c ase hi st or i es
0 2 4 6 8 10
Effective consolidation stress (atm)
0
0.5
1
1.5
K
o
Moss et al. (2006): From Bayesian regression
of CPT-based liquefaction triggering database
15
(N
1
)
60
= 5
25
Boulanger & Idriss (2004): From combination
of lab- & field-derived CRR-c
R
correlations
Cetin et al. (2004): From Bayesian regression
of SPT-based liquefaction triggering database
53
Q-4: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that
exceed those represented in liquefaction case histories?
C
N
describes how penetration resistance varies with
confining stress, and it fundamentally depends not only
on o'
v
but also on soil denseness.
For o'
v
> 2 atm, the Liao-Whitman (1986) or Kayen et al.
(1992) relationships for C
N
, as adopted for the
NCEER/NSF (Youd et al. 2001) procedures, can lead to a
significant under-estimation of (N
1
)
60
values for denser
soils.
For o'
v
> 2 atm, the Boulanger-Idriss (2004) relationship
for C
N
produces more realistic (N
1
)
60
values for denser
soils, as supported by calibration chamber test data,
penetration theory, and field studies.
Concl usi ons r e: Quest i on No. 4
K
o
describes a fundamental soil behavior that also
depends on o'
v
and on soil denseness.
The K
o
relationships regressed from case history data
by Cetin et al. (2004) & Moss et al. (2006) are not
justifiable and should not be used.
The K
o
relationships by Boulanger & Idriss (2004) or
Hynes & Olsen (1998) are reasonable options.
The procedures by Idriss & Boulanger were in good
agreement with data for Duncan Dam. The NCEER/NSF
(Youd et al. 2001) procedures with the Hynes-Olsen K
o
relationship under-estimated CRR for the larger depths.
Concl usi ons r e: Quest i on No. 4
54
Three recurring questions regarding assessment of liquefaction
potential were addressed.
1. Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N
1
)
60
or
versus (N
1
)
60cs
different so different if they are based on
largely the same case history data?
2. Can we treat these differences as "epistemic"
uncertainty and hence can use all models with
"assigned weights"?
1. Can we use site response analyses to obtain CSR or do
we have to always use the simplified stress ratio
equation?
2. How should we treat liquefaction at depth exceeding
those included in liquefaction case histories?
Summar y