Triggering of Liquefaction Recurring Questions 10-Boulanger

University of California, Davis
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Triggering of liquefaction:
Three recurring
questions
DFI Ground Improvement Seminar

Hollywood, California
October 12, 2010
Ross W. Boulanger
Three recurring questions

This presentation will address three recurring questions regarding
liquefaction evaluation procedures:
Question 1: Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N1)60
or versus (N1 )60cs so different if they are based on largely the
same case history data?
Question 2: Can we treat these differences as "epistemic"
uncertainty and hence use all models with "assigned weights"?
Question 3: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that
exceed those represented in the liquefaction case histories?
Materials for this talk are based on

work by I. M. Idriss & 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.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils
1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake
1964 Niigata earthquake (photo: NISEE)
1971 San Fernando earthquake (photo: California DWR)
Question 1
Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N1)60 or versus (N1)60cs so
different if they are based on largely the same case history data?
0.6
Curves derived by
y
1 Seed (1979)
2 Seed & Idriss (1982)
3 Seed et al (1984) & NCEER/NSF Workshops (1997)
0.5
Cyc
clic stress ratio
4 Cetin et al (2004)
5 Idriss & Boulanger (2004)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
FCd5%
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
Corrected standard penetration, (N1)60
Analysis framework
Earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR):
Seed-Idriss (1971) Simplified Procedure
CSRM ,V vc
CSRM
0.65
7.5 ,V vc 1atm
V v amax
r
V vc g d
V a
1 1
0.65 v max rd
V vc g
MSF KV
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)

Framework similar for SPT, CPT, or Vs correlations
N1 60
CRRM
CNCECRCBCS Nm
c 1
7.5 ,V vc
f N1 60 , FC
N1 60 cs N1 60 ' N1 60
CRRM
7.5 ,V vc 1
f N1 60cs
Analysis framework
Framework includes 5 functions that describe fundamental aspects of
dynamic site response, penetration testing, and soil behavior:
rd = f(depth; ground motion characteristics; dynamic soil properties)
CN = f(V'v; DR; FC)
CR = f(depth; rod stick-up length)
KV = f(V'v; DR; FC)
MSF = f(ground motion characteristics; DR; 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.
(N1 )60
Depth belo
ow ground surface (m)
Where the
data are
10
20
CSRM=7.5,V=1
30
40
50
12
0.2
0.6
0.8
12
Liquefaction
Marginal
No liquefaction
16
16
M
5
Depth below ground surface

e (m)
0.4
FC (%)
8
12
12
16
16
20
40
60
80
100
Where the differences are

(a) Contours of CRR IB / CRRNCEER
(b) Contours of CRR Cetin et al / CRR NCEER
Depth be
elow ground surface (m)
SPT N60
SPT N60
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
FC = 5%; water depth 1 m; Mw = 7.5; PL =15% for Cetin et al.
Where the functions are
KV
CN
0
0.5
1.5
0.4
0
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N1 ) 60=10 & 20
0.5
1.0
1.5
Youd et al. (2001): Accept

Liao & Whitman (1986)
with limit of 1.70.
Cetin et al. (2004):
with limit of 1.6 for
application [2.0 for
interpreting the
case histories
hi t i
Vertica
al effective stress, V'v /P a
Vertical effective stress, V'v /Pa
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N1 )60=10 & 20
0.5
Youd et al. (2001):

Accept Hynes &
Olson (1998)
with limit
of 1.0
Cetin et al.
(2004) with
limit of 1.5.
1.5
Back to Question 1
Q1: Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N1)60 or versus (N1)60cs so
The best way
y to address this q
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 V'v = 1 atm be supported by the case
histories with V'v close to 1 atm.
Differences in the treatment of key case histories near V'v = 1 atm
((where
h
differences
diff
in
i CN and
d KV are smallest)
ll t) were ffound
d tto b
be th
the
primary cause of differences in the correlations.
This finding is consistent with the fact that the greatest
differences in predicted CRR values, for the conditions covered
by the case history databases, are near V'v = 1 atm.
Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction

published by Cetin et al (2004)
0.4
CSR (ad
djusted to M = 7.5 & V'v = 1 atm)
Data and parameters from

Cetin et al (2004).
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm
03
0.3
0.2
01
0.1
Cases for V'v = 0.65 to 1.5 atm

Triangles: 1984 cases; Circles: 2000 cases;
Squares: Kobe proprietary cases.
Filled-in symbols: liquefaction;
Open symbols: no liquefaction;
Cyan symbol: marginal.
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs

Sites identified for further examination because they dictate the location of the
liquefaction triggering curve for M = 7.5 & V'v = 1 atm
Point identified in
next figure
Site name
Earthquake
Miller Farm CMF-10
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9
Malden Street, Unit D
1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7
Kobe #6
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
Kobe #7
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9
Miller Farm CMF-5
Rail Road #2
1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6
Port of Oakland POO7-2
Port of Oakland POO7-3
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

CSR (ad
0.4
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm

Cetin et al (2004); Points 1 -- 11
identified for further examination
as described in text.
03
0.3
2
5
3
4
0.2
7
8
9
11
01
0.1
10

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs
Point 1: Miller Farm CMF-10
Profile across the failure zone at Miller Farm (south of Pajaro river)
during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (Holzer et al. 1994)
Point 2: Malden Street , Unit D
Profile across the failure zone at the Malden Street site during the 1994
Northridge Earthquake (Holzer et al. 1998)
Point 2: Malden Street , Unit D
Expanded profile across the failure zone (Holzer et al. 1998)

[additional details in Bennett et al. 1998]
10
Cetin et al (2004)
Point 2:
Malden
Street,
Unit D
From Cetin et al (2000)

Geotechnical Engineering
Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
Point 3: Kobe proprietary site 6

Original table from Tokimatsu (2010)

Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
11
Point 10: Shuang Tai Zi River

Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
From Seed et al. (1984): EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15
12

From original source:
Shengcong & Tatsuoka (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
V'v | 0.70 atm
Point 2
Malden Street
V'v | 1.2 atm
Point 3
Kobe No. 6
V'v | 0.68 atm
Point 10
Shuang Tai Zi R.
V'v | 0.69 atm
13

CSR (ad
0.4
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 .
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm
03
0.3
2
5
3
4
0.2
7
9
11
01
0.1
10

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs

rd value
es computed using Cetin et al'ss equation
(only for ccases without site response ca
alculationss)
0.9
Issue: The rd values computed using

the Cetin et al (2004) equation do not
agree with the rd values they used
in processing the case histories.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
rd values from summary tables in Cetin et al (2004)
Discrepancy between rd values used in the Cetin et al (2004) database and the rd
values computed using their referenced rd equation
14


Cetin et al (2004); CSR for Points
3, 4, 6, 9. 10 & 11 recalculated
using equation for rd in Cetin et al
(2004) in lieu of their listed values.
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm
03
0.3
2
3
5
0.2
6
11
7
9
10
01
0.1

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs

Average total unit weight (kN/m3)
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Depth below
w ground surface (m)
CSR (ad
0.4
Idriss & Boulanger (this study)

Cetin et al (2004)
Seed et al. (1984), plus
Kobe proprietary (Tokimatsu)
Averages of all values
16.3 kN/m3
(104 pcf)
f)
vs
18.3 kN/m3
(116 pcf)
10
12
15

CSR (ad
0.4
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm

Cetin et al (2004); CSR & (N1)60 for
Points 1 -- 11 recalculated using
unit weights described in text.
03
0.3
2
5
3
4
0.2
7
8
11
01
0.1
10

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs

Research Report No.
UCB/GT-2000/09
16
From Cetin et al. (2000)

Our selection of representative (N1)60cs based on the original data
from Tokimatsu (2010)
Avg
depth Depthto
(m)
GWT(m) Vvc(kPa) V'vc(kPa)
3.3
4.3
6.3
7.3
8.3
Averages:
5.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
(Nm)
(N1)60
CB
CE
CN
CR
CS
FC(%)
(N1)60,cs
1
1
1
1
1
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.26
1.16
1.02
0.96
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.95
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
12
0
0
10.4
28.2
39.8
25.6
23.4
Average=
21.9
62
82
124
144
165
60
71
93
104
114
8
21
32
23
21
10.4
28.2
37.7
25.6
23.4
113
87
18.3
21.9
17

CSR (adjjusted to M = 7.5 & V'v = 1 atm)
0.4
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm

Cetin et al (2004); CSR & (N1)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)..
0.3
2
5
0.2
7
8
11
0.1
10

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs

CSR (adjjusted to M = 7.5 & V'v = 1 atm)
0.4
Cetin et al (2004); Changes to
Points 1 -- 11 described in text.
Idriss & Boulanger (2004)

M = 7.5; V'v = 1 atm
Cetin et al (2004)
M = 7.5;
7 5; V'v = 1 atm
0.3
2
5
0.2
7
11
0.1
6
8
9
10

0.0
0
10
20
30
40
(N1)60cs
18
CSRM=7.5,
'v = 1atm

updated database by Idriss & Boulanger (2010)
Back to Question 1
Q1: Why are the published curves of CRR versus (N1)60 or versus (N1)60cs so
0.6
Curves derived by
1 S
Seed
d (1979)
0.5
Cy
yclic stress ratio
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
FCd5%
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
19
Back to Question 1
The Cetin et al. triggering correlation, if it were
updated after correcting the above problems,
would be expected to move close to the IdrissBoulanger correlation at overburden stresses
of 0.65-1.5 atm.
This would also cause the Cetin et al. KV
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 KV relationship.
Back to Question 1
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 should not be used.
20
Question 2
Q2: Can we treat these differences as "epistemic"
uncertainty and hence use all models with "assigned
weights"?
No, the flaws in the Cetin et al (2004) correlation
should not be confused with "epistemic"
uncertainty. The Cetin et al correlation should
not be used with any weight.
Th
The examination
i ti just
j t summarized
i d emphasizes
h i
the need to fully examine any model and its
justification before it is adopted for use.
Question 3
Q3: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that
exceed those represented in liquefaction case
histories?
Two critical parameters affecting liquefaction
potential with depth are CN and KV.
Studies at Perris Dam provide valuable data on
CN at large depths
Studies at Duncan Dam provide a valuable check
on the complete liquefaction analysis procedure
for large depths.
21
Perris Dam and CN

A critical parameter affecting liquefaction potential with depth is
the value of CN. Boulanger and Idriss (2004) recommended:
CN
Pa
c
V vo
d 1.7
0.784 0.0768
N1 60
Note that m = , originally derived by Liao & Whitman has been

extensively used, but it can produce unreasonably low CN 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.
Aerial photo and boring locations at Perris Dam (Wehling & Rennie 2008)
22
SPT data by location and percentile groupings (Wehling & Rennie 2008)
0.8
Exponent m
CN = (Pa /V'v )
0.6
Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
[using (N1)60 as input]
0.4
0.2
Perris
e s da
dam foundation
ou dat o
(Wehling & Rennie 2008)
0
0
20
40
60
80
SPT (N1 )60

0.8
Exponentt m
CN = (Pa /V'v )
0.6
Idriss & Boulanger
g ((2008))
0.4
0.2
Perris dam foundation
(Wehling & Rennie 2008)
0
0
20
40
60
80
SPT (N1 )60,CS
23
CN
0
0.5
CN
1
1.5
2
(N1)60cs=40
4
(N1)60cs=30
1.5
Vertical effective stress, V'v /P

Pa
Ve rtical effective stress, V'v /P

Pa
0.5
(N1)60cs=20
(N1)60cs=10
8
(N1)60cs=4

CN = (Pa /V' v )0.5
0.5
1
(N1) 60cs=30
1.5
(N1)60cs=4
(a)
10
(b)
2
Overburden normalization factor CN: (a) dependence on denseness, and

(b) simpler approximations often used at shallower depths.
Duncan Dam
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.
24
Duncan Dam
Frozen sand samples obtained from Unit 3c at the toe, and tested
at confining stresses of 2 to 12 atm.
Table 5.2. Summary of SPT and laboratory test data for Duncan Dam
V'v
(kPa)
200
400
600
1200
SPT data
N60
CN
(N1)60
(N1)60cs
DSS tests
Lab
Field
CRRN=10 CRRM=7.5
Triaxial tests
Conversion to V'v = 1 atm
Lab
Field
Field
Field
KV
CRRN=10 CRRM=7.5 CRRM=7.5
CRRM=7.5,V=1
0.70
0.50
0.42
0.30
11.5
13.3
14.1
14.7
11.6
13.4
14.2
14.8
0.14
0.149
0.143
--
0.169
0.171
0.168
0.170
16.4
26.5
34.0
49.1
0.118
0.126
0.121
--
0.121
0.123
0.120
0.122
0.120
0.124
0.120
0.122
0.93
0.86
0.81
0.73
0.128
0.145
0.149
0.168
Notes:
(1) Original data from Pillai and Byrne (1994).
(1994)
(2) Average ratio of CRRDSS/CRRTX = 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 CRRM=7.5 taken as average of strengths from DSS and Triaxial tests.
Duncan Dam
SPT-based prediction of CRRM=7.5 versus depth (confining stress)
depends on combination of triggering curve, CN, and KV.
0.6
Curves derived by
y
1 Seed (1979)
0.5
Cyc
clic stress ratio
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
FCd5%
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
25
Duncan Dam
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 CN and KV relationships.
KV
CN
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N 1 )60=10
4 (N ) =20
1 60
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Vertical effecttive stress, V'v /P a
Vertical effecttive stress, V'v /Pa
0.2
Kayen et
al (1992)
Pillai & Byrne (1994)
8
10
2
4
Pillai & Byrne
(1994)
6
8
Hynes & Olsen

(1999);
f = 0.722
Boulanger &
Idriss (2004):
(N1 )60=10
(N1 )60=20
10
(a)
(b)
12
12
Duncan Dam
CRRM=7.5 predicted using the Pillai & Byrne (1994) site-specific
relationships with the Seed et al. (1984) triggering curve.
SPT N60 values
0
10
20
30
40
(N1 )60
50
60
10
CRRM=7.5
20
30
10
10
10
12
12
0.1
0.2
0.3
Vertical e
effective stress (atm)
Duncan Dam
D
D
- Unit
U it 3c:
3
(Pillai & Stewart 1994)
12
Computed using relations by Pillai & Byrne (1994)
CRRM7.5 from TX & DSS tests on frozen samples (Pillai & Byrne 1994)
26
Duncan Dam
CRRM=7.5 predicted using the Idriss & Boulanger (2004, 2008)
SPT N60 values
0
10
20
30
40
(N1 )60
50
60
10
CRRM=7.5
20
30
10
10
10
12
12
0.1
0.2
0.3
Vertical e
Duncan Dam
D
D
- Unit
U it 3c:
3
12
Computed using relations by Idriss & Boulanger (2008)
Duncan Dam
CRRM=7.5 predicted using the NCEER/NSF (Youd et al. 2001)
SPT N60 values
0
10
20
30
40
(N1 )60
50
60
10
CRRM=7.5
20
30
10
10
10
12
12
0.1
0.2
0.3
Vertical e
Duncan Dam
D
D
- Unit
U it 3c:
3
12
Computed using relations by NCEER/NSF (Youd et al. 2001)
27
Duncan Dam
CRRM=7.5 predicted using the Cetin et al. (2004) liquefaction
triggering procedures.
SPT N60 values
0
10
20
30
40
(N1 )60
50
60
10
CRRM=7.5
20
30
10
10
10
12
12
0.1
0.2
0.3
Vertical e
Duncan Dam
D
D
- Unit
U it 3c:
3
12
Computed using relations by Cetin et al. (2004)
Regressing KV from case histories

Cetin et al. (2004) and Moss et al. (2006) used the same statistical
analysis procedures to regress KV from SPT and CPT case
histories, respectively.
1.5
Boulanger & Idriss (2004): From combination

of lab- & field-derived CRR-[R correlations
Moss et al. (2006): From Bayesian regression
of CPT-based liquefaction triggering database
KV
1
(N1 )60 = 5
15
25
0.5
Cetin et al. (2004): From Bayesian regression
of SPT-based liquefaction triggering database
0
0
10
Effective consolidation stress (atm)
28
Back to Question 3
Q3: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that exceed
those represented in liquefaction case histories?
CN describes how penetration resistance varies with

confining stress, and it fundamentally depends on soil
denseness.
For Vcv > 2 atm, the Liao-Whitman (1986) or Kayen et al.

(1992) relationships for CN, as adopted for the NCEER/NSF
(Youd et al. 2001) procedures, can lead to a significant
under-estimation of (N1 )60 values for denser soils.
For Vcv > 2 atm, the Boulanger-Idriss (2004) relationship for

CN produces more realistic (N1 )60 values for denser soils,
as supported by calibration chamber test data, penetration
theory, and field studies.
Back to Question 3
Q3: How should we evaluate liquefaction at depths that exceed
those represented in liquefaction case histories?
KV describes a fundamental soil behavior that depends on

soil denseness.
The KV relationships regressed from case history data by

Cetin et al. (2004) & Moss et al. (2006) are not justifiable and
should not be used.
The KV 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 KV
relationship under-estimated CRR for the larger depths.
29
Summary
Three recurring questions regarding assessment of liquefaction
potential were addressed.
1. Why
y are the p
published curves of CRR versus ((N1)60 or
versus (N1)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"?
3 H
3.
How should
h ld we treat
t
t liquefaction
li
f ti att depth
d th exceeding
di
those included in liquefaction case histories?
University of California, Davis

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Questions?
DFI Ground Improvement Seminar

Hollywood, California
October 12, 2010
Ross W. Boulanger
30

Triggering of Liquefaction Recurring Questions 10-Boulanger

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Triggering of Liquefaction Recurring Questions 10-Boulanger

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of California, Davis

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

DFI Ground Improvement Seminar

Three recurring questions

Materials for this talk are based on

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils

1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils

1964 Niigata earthquake (photo: NISEE)

Liquefaction of cohesionless soils

1971 San Fernando earthquake (photo: California DWR)

5 Idriss & Boulanger (2004)

Corrected standard penetration, (N1)60

Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)

These functions should be based on a synthesis of experimental and

Depth below ground surface

Where the differences are

(b) Contours of CRR Cetin et al / CRR NCEER

FC = 5%; water depth 1 m; Mw = 7.5; PL =15% for Cetin et al.

Where the functions are

Youd et al. (2001): Accept

Vertical effective stress, V'v /Pa

Youd et al. (2001):

Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction

Data and parameters from

Cases for V'v = 0.65 to 1.5 atm

Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction

Miller Farm CMF-10

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9

Malden Street, Unit D

1994 Northridge earthquake; M = 6.7

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9

1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earthquake; M = 6.9

Miller Farm CMF-5

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9

1964 Niigata earthquake; M = 7.6

Port of Oakland POO7-2

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9

Port of Oakland POO7-3

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; M = 6.9

Panjin Chemical Fertilizer

1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0

Shuang Tai Zi River

1975 Haicheng earthquake; M = 7.0

San Juan B-3

1974 Argentina earthquake; M = 7.4

Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction

Data and parameters from

Cases for V'v = 0.65 to 1.5 atm

Point 1: Miller Farm CMF-10

Point 2: Malden Street , Unit D

Point 2: Malden Street , Unit D

Expanded profile across the failure zone (Holzer et al. 1998)

From Cetin et al (2000)

Point 3: Kobe proprietary site 6

From Cetin et al (2000)

Point 10: Shuang Tai Zi River

From Cetin et al (2000)

Point 10: Shuang Tai Zi River

From Seed et al. (1984): EERC Report No. UCB/EERC-84/15

Point 10: Shuang Tai Zi River

Case histories of Liquefaction/ No Liquefaction

Miller Farm CMF 10

V'v | 0.70 atm