NUREG/CR-5741

Technical Bases for 

Regulatory Guide for 

Soil Liquefaction 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY NOTICE

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol

lowing sources: 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

PO. Box 37082 

Washington, DC 20402-9328 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov> 

1-800-553-6847 or locally 703-605-6000 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-)000), (2) proceedings of confer

ences (NUREG/CP-)OXXQ, (3) reports resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), 

(4) technical and administrative reports and books 

[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-XXXX)], and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the 

Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under 

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG

XxOx. 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for com

ment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon 

written request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov> 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical informa

tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http://www.nrc.gov> 

After January 1,2000, the public may electronically 

access NUREG-series publications and other NRC 

records in NRC's Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), through the 

Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR), link 

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>. 

Publicly released documents include, to name a 

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register no

tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents 

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and 

internal memoranda; bulletins and information no

tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens

ee event reports; and Commission papers and 

their attachments. 

Documents available from public and special tech

nical libraries include all open literature items, such 

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder

al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, 

and congressional reports. Such documents as 

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla

tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may 

be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 

are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint 

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852-2738. These standards are available in the 

library for reference use by the public. Codes and 

standards are usually copyrighted and may be 

purchased from the originating organization or, if 

they are American National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036-8002 

<http://www.ansi.org> 

212-642-4900

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United 

States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em ployees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes

any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the 

results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by 

such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications
NUREG/CR-5741

Technical Bases for 

Regulatory Guide for 

Soil Liquefaction 

Manuscript Completed: October 1999 

Date Published: March 2000 

Prepared by 

3. P. Koester, M. K. Sharp, M. E. Hynes 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

3909 Halls Ferry Road 

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 

E. G. Zurflueh, NRC Project Manager 

Prepared for 

Division of Engineering Technology 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC Job Code W6246
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

ABSTRACT 

This document provides technical bases for development of a new U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Regulatory Guide for evaluation of the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction at nuclear facility 

sites, compiling current and state of the art techniques. The report summarizes the processes of acquiring 

and using geological, geophysical, geotechnical, and other kinds of relevant information that support 

design considerations with respect to liquefaction hazard and that may affect the construction or perfor

mance of a building or other engineered structure at selected sites. A historical perspective is provided to 

define liquefaction phenomena observed during earthquakes and to support identification of soil charac

teristics associated with liquefaction. Guidance is presented for site characterization studies, including 

the various in situ tests available for liquefaction potential evaluation. Screening techniques are 

described for preliminary hazard assessment; progressively more detailed procedures are presented to 

provide for investigations that are judged necessary once screening procedures identify soils that may 

pose a hazard to important facilities. Deterministic procedures are treated in this report; probabilistic 

approaches are detailed in a separate report, prepared by Dr. Mary E. Hynes of the U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station. 

This document is not intended to serve as a definitive manual; some specific recommendations are 

offered, however, it was the purpose of the authors to allow for engineering judgment, thus it is more 

comprehensive as a reference document. An example problem is included to illustrate the evaluation of 

liquefaction triggering and estimation of residual strength of liquefied soils. Current practice for evalu

ation and estimation of permanent deformations caused to earthen structures is discussed; deformations 

accompanying liquefaction are included, but limited to those resulting from inertial movements during 

shaking. Large, permanent deformations that may result from gravity slumping are not discussed; estima

tion of very large deformations is not a well-established process and is a subject of ongoing research.

i°i NUREG/CR-5741
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A BSTRA CT ........................................................................ iii 

PREFA CE ......................................................................... ix

1 INTRODUCTION ................................. 

1.1 Background ................................. 

1.2 Purpose and Scope ............................ 

2 LIQUEFACTION OF SOIL DEPOSITS ................ 

2.1 Definitions .............................. 

2.2 Mechanisms of Soil Liquefaction ................ 

2.3 Surface Manifestations of Liquefaction ............ 

2.4 Factors Influencing Liquefaction Potential ......... 

2.5 Characteristics of Liquefiable Soils ............... 

2.6 Residual Strength of Liquefied Soils .............. 

2.6.1 Use of In Situ Testing Procedures .......... 

2.6.2 Laboratory Based Method ................

3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES ...... 

3.1 Liquefaction Potential Assessment - Overview .................. 

3.1.1 Site Characterization - General ......................... 

3.1.2 In Situ Testing ...................................... 

3.1.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ................ 

3.1.2.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) ................... 

3.1.2.3 Becker Penetration Tests ...................... 

3.1.2.4 Large Penetrometer Tests ...................... 

3.1.2.5 Pressuremeter Applications .................... 

3.1.2.6 Seismic Wave Velocity Measurements ........... 

3.1.2.7 Other ...................................... 

3.1.3 Undisturbed Sampling ............................... 

3.2 Screening Techniques ..................................... 

3.2.1 G eneral ........................................... 

3.2.2 Liquefaction Hazard Screening Evaluation ............... 

3.2.2.1 Are Potentially Liquefiable Soil Types Present? ....

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

........... 

...........

3.2.2.2 Are They Saturated and/or May They Become Saturated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

3.2.2.3 Is the Geometry of Potentially Liquefiable Deposits Such that They Pose No 

Risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

3.2.3 Quantitative Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance ............................ 51 

3.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility - General .................................. 51 

3.3.1 Analytical M ethods ...................................................... 51 

3.3.2 Physical M odeling ...................................................... 52 

3.3.3 Empirical Procedures .................................................... 53 

3.3.4 Laboratory Cyclic Strength Testing ......................................... 53 

3.4 Procedures for Empirical Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility ..................... 54 

3.4.1 Evaluation of Earthquake-Induced Cyclic Stress Ratios ......................... 54 

3.4.1.1 Method 1. Simple, Empirical Evaluation Based on Prior Analyses .......... 54

NUREG/CR-5741

..................... 1 

..................... 1 

..................... 1 

..................... 2 

.... ................. 2 

..................... 3 

................... 3 

..................... 5 

..................... 14 

..................... 14 

..................... 14 

..................... 16 

..................... 22 

..................... 22 

..................... 22 

..................... 23 

..................... 23 

..................... 23 

..................... 31 

..................... 40 

..................... 40 

..................... 40 

.................... 44 

..................... 47 

..................... 47 

..................... 47 

..................... 48 

..................... 49

V
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

3.4.1.2 Method 2. Direct Calculation of thvcyc¢ic¢, or a,, at Each Point of Interest .. 58 

3.4.2 Evaluation of In Situ Liquefaction Resistance ................................. 60 

3.4.2.1 "Standardized" SPT criteria ........................................ 60 

3.4.2.2 Corrections to SPT Nm Values to Yield (N1)6o Values .................... 62 

3.4.3 Correction for Earthquake Magnitudes other than M = 7-1/2 ..................... 67 

3.4.4 Correction of CRR for Effective Overburden Stress ............................ 69 

3.4.5 Correction of CRR for Initial Static Shear Stress ............................... 69 

3.5 Energy Approach ............................................................. 71 

3.6 Evaluation of Factor of Safety and Residual Excess Pore Pressure Generation ............. 71 

3.7 Example Calculations ......................................................... 74 

3.7.1 G iven ................................................................. 74 

3.7.2 Problem ............................................................... 77 

4 ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTS ACCOMPANYING LIQUEFACTION .................. 81 

4.1 Background ................................................................. 81 

4.2 Inertial Deformations (Newmark Sliding Block Analogy) ............................. 81 

4.3 Lateral Spreading Estimation .................................................... 88 

4.4 Settlements Consequent to Liquefaction ........................................... 89 

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 91 

REFERENCES ..................................................................... 91 

APPENDIX A STEADY STATE STRENGTH TESTING ................................ A-1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Changes in soil fabric during cyclic loading (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after Youd, 

1977) .................................................................... 4 

Figure 2. Limiting shear strains in Monterey No. 0 sand as a function of relative density (after 

DeAlba, Seed and Chan, 1976) ............................ .................. 7 

Figure 3. Influence of initial principal stress ratio on liquefaction resistance of clean sands in 

simple shear tests (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after Seed, 1979) ..................... 9 

Figure 4. Relationship between cyclic strength and OCR (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after 

Ishihara and Takatsu, 1979) ................................................. 10 

Figure 5. Comparison of overburden pressure correction factor for liquefaction resistance, KI, 

for various soils (after Hynes, 1988) .......................................... 11 

Figure 6. Initial static shear stress liquefaction resistance correction factor, KY as a function of 

initial static shear stress ratio, a (Rollins, 1987) ................................. 12 

Figure 7. Liquefaction occurrence as a function of magnitude and distance, RMAx, from the zone 

of faulting (adapted from Carter and Seed, 1988) ................................ 13 

Figure 8. Relationship between equivalent clean sand SPT blowcount (N)60 and undrained 

residual shear strength (Seed and Harder, 1990) ................................. 17 

Figure 9. Typical stress-strain and pore pressure response in monotonic triaxial tests on sands 

(Department of the Army, 1970) ............................................. 19 

Figure 10. Charts relating normalized SPT resistance (NI)60 and residual shear strength (Sr) to 

vertical overburden pressure (a',.) for saturated nongravelly silt-sand deposits that 

have experienced large deformation (Baziar and Dobry, 1995) ..................... 21 

NUREG/CR-5741 vi
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

Figure 11. NCEER (1997) recommended cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands under 

level ground conditions based on CPT ......................................... 25 

Figure 12. Stress exponents for cone resistance on the CPT soil characterization chart (Olsen 

and M itchell, 1995) .............................. ......................... 27 

Figure 13. Depiction of cone resistance trends toward the stress focus for any relative density 

(O lsen, 1994) ............................................................ 28 

Figure 14. Estimation of the normalized liquefaction cyclic resistance ratio (CRR1) using the 

CPT soil characterization techniques (Olsen, Koester, and Hynes, 1996) ............. 29 

Figure 15. CPT estimation of SPT N1 using both CPT measurements (Olsen 1994, 1988, 1986, 

1984) ................................................................... 30 

Figure 16. Graphical procedural steps for CPT-based determination of the SPT blowcount, fines 

content, equivalent clean sand SPT blowcount, and normalization liquefaction cyclic 

resistance ratio (CRR1) (Olsen, 1988) ......................................... 32 

Figure 17. SPT blowcount fines content correction (Olsen, 1988) ............................ 33 

Figure 18. Curves recommended by NCEER workshop for calculation of CRR from SPT and 

fines content data (NCEER, 1997) ........ ............................. 34 

Figure 19. Schematic diagram of Becker Hammer sampling operation ........................ 36 

Figure 20. Correction curves adopted to correct Becker hammer blowcounts to constant 

combustion curve adopted for correction (from Harder and Seed, 1986) .............. 37 

Figure 21. Correlation between corrected Becker hammer and SPT blowcounts (from Harder 

and Seed, 1986) .......................................................... 38 

Figure 22. Concept of dynamic penetration test (Kokusho, 1989) ............................ 41 

Figure 23. Soil profile at T-site (Tanaka, et al., 1989) ..................................... 42 

Figure 24. SPT vs. LPT relationship for gravelly soils (Kokusho, 1989) ....................... 43 

Figure 25. Chart to predict liquefaction in clean sands from shear wave velocity and maximum 

acceleration (Stokoe et al., 1988) ............................................. 45 

Figure 26. Recommended liquefaction assessment chart based on Vs, and CSR for magnitude 7.5 

earthquake and uncemented soils of Holocene age (NCEER, 1997) .................. 46 

Figure 27. Schematic of cyclic triaxial test equipment (Department of the Army, 1986) .......... 55 

Figure 28. Typical analog recordings of load, deformation, and pore pressures during a cyclic 

triaxial test (Department of the Army, 1986) .................................... 56 

Figure 29. Cyclic triaxial strength curves for Monterey No. 0 sand (Department of the Army, 

1986) ................................................................... 57 

Figure 30. Variations of the parameter rd with depth (NCEER, 1997) ......................... 59 

Figure 31. Correlation between correction factor CN and effective overburden pressure 

(Marcuson and Bieganousky, 1977) ........................................... 65 

Figure 32. Several proposed relationships between SPT penetration resistance and relative 

density (Torrey, Dunbar, and Peterson, 1988) ................................... 66 

Figure 33. Relationship between KM and magnitude (NCEER, 1997) ......................... 68 

Figure 34. K•, recommendations from NCEER (1997) workshop ............................. 70 

Figure 35. K. recommendations from NCEER (1997) workshop ............................. 72 

Figure 36. Observed liquefaction data plotted as a function of fines content and Arias Intensity 

Ihb (after Kayen, 1983) ..................................................... 73 

Figure 37. Relationship between residual excess pore water pressure ratio and factor of safety 

against liquefaction, from laboratory data (Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin, 1990) ...... 75 

Figure 38. Example problem soil profile with raw SPT blowcounts .......................... 76 

Figure 39. Principal components of the sliding block analysis (Franklin and Chang, 1977) ........ 83 

Figure 40. Comparison of peak base and crest transverse accelerations measured at earth dams 

(from Harder, et al. 1990, as modified by Cameron, 1996) ......................... 85

vii NUREG/CR-5741
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

Figure 41. Relationship of the variation of maximum acceleration ratio with depth of sliding 

mass (M akdisi and Seed, 1978) .............................................. 86 

Figure 42. Variation of displacement with yield acceleration for various earthquake magnitudes 

(M akdisi and Seed, 1978) ................................................... 87 

Figure 43. Curves for estimating volumetric strain at liquefiable sites (Youd, 1988, after 

Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) ................................................. 90 

Figure A-1. Typical undrained triaxial test result on loose sand (Castro, Poulos, and France, 

1985) .................................................................. A -3 

Figure A-2. State diagram for compacted specimens (Castro, Poulos, and France, 1985) .......... A-5 

Figure A-3. Correction of steady state strength for void ratio changes (Castro, Poulos, and 

France, 1985) ........................................................... A -7 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Estimated Susceptibility of Sedimentary Deposits to Liquefaction During Strong 

Seismic Shaking Based on Geological Age and Depositional Environment (After 

Youd and Perkins 1978) ................................................. 15 

Table 2 Summary of liquefaction occurrences in gravel deposits (after Sy, Campanella, and Stewart, 

1995, supplemented by the author) ............................................. 35 

Table 3 Relative liquefaction susceptibility of natural deposits as a function of groundwater table depth 

(Y oud, 1998) .............................................................. 50 

Table 4 Summary of energy ratios (ER) for some common SPT procedures (after Seed, et al., 1984, 

1986) .................................................................... 6 1 

Table 5 Corrections to SPT N-values (NCEER, 1997, modified from Skempton, 1986) .......... 63 

Table 6 Corrections to N-values for Example Problem .................................... 78 

Table 7 Calculation of Factor of Safety and Residual Excess Pore Pressure Ratio ............... 79 

Table 8 Evaluation of Residual Strength of Liquefied Soil for Example Problem ............... 82 

NUREG/CR-5741 viii
Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction

PREFACE 

The study covered by this report was performed by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment 

Station (WES) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under Inter-Agency Agreement 

RES-95-008 during the period June, 1995 to January, 1999. The study was directed by Mr. Robert 

Komasiewicz, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC. 

The report was prepared by Dr. Joseph P. Koester, Mr. Michael K. Sharp, and Dr. Mary E. Hynes of the 

Earthquake Engineering and Geosciences Division (EEGD), Geotechnical Laboratory, WES. General 

supervision was provided by Dr. Mary E. Hynes, Chief, Earthquake Engineering and Geophysics Branch, 

and Dr. Lillian D. Wakeley, Acting Chief, EEGD. 

At the time of publication of this report, Commander and Acting Director of WES was COL Robin R. 

Cababa, EN.

ix. NUREG/CR-5741
1. Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

Soils subjected to earthquake shaking may undergo either transient or permanent reduction in undrained 

shear resistance (stiffness and/or strength) as a consequence of excess pore water pressures or disruption 

of the soil structure accompanying cyclic loading. Cyclic strength degradation may range from slight 

diminution of shear resistance to the catastrophic strength loss associated with seismically-induced 

liquefaction, which is a transient phenomenon. Regulatory documentation pertaining to the geotechnical 

engineering evaluation of potential or existing nuclear facilities reflects the concern of the Nuclear Regu

latory Commission (NRC) over the effect of seismic instability of foundation soil deposits. As previ

ously discussed by Koester and Franklin (1985) in a state-of-the-art report on liquefaction potential 

assessment methodologies prepared for the NRC, the reference regulation is Appendix A, "Seismic and 

Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR, Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," which 

requires the evaluation of geologic features which could affect the foundations of nuclear facility struc

tures, including liquefaction of soil when subjected to earthquake shaking. The National Center for 

Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER; recently renamed the Multidisciplinary Center for Earth

quake Engineering Research, MCEER) sponsored a January, 1996 workshop on liquefaction evaluation 

procedures, the proceedings of which (NCEER, 1997) will shape the state of practice for the next several 

years. 

The NRC requires new guidelines to be developed for design basis evaluation of liquefaction potential 

and post-earthquake stability of soils as a consequence of recent developments in geotechnical earth

quake engineering research and practice. This report provides technical bases for subsequent develop

ment of regulatory guidance that reflects both current practice and the state-of-the-art for evaluation of 

seismic stability of soils, with emphasis on the potential for and consequences of seismically-induced 

liquefaction of soils beneath foundations. 

Current guidance for conducting geotechnical site investigations is provided by: Regulatory Guide 1.132, 

"Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

1979);" and Regulatory Guide 1.138, "Laboratory Investigation of Soils for Engineering Analysis and 

Design of Nuclear Power Plants (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978)." Substantial changes 

have taken place since these guides were published, particularly in the performance of in situ investiga

tions and the interpretation and application of test results to evaluate seismic stability of foundation soils. 

The NRC requires that extant guidance be reevaluated in view of current practice and the state-of-the-art, 

and that new guidance be developed to address liquefaction potential assessment procedures. Compan

ion reports were prepared concurrently with this document to provide technical bases to support updates 

of the above Regulatory Guides. 

1.2 Purpose and Scope 

This report was prepared for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC, to provide technical bases 

for currently accepted methods used in the evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil deposits that may 

be subjected to earthquake shaking. The report describes deterministic procedures and criteria that are 

currently applied to assess the liquefaction potential of soils ranging in gradation from gravels to clays, 

and provides guidance for simplified analysis of the consequences of liquefaction, i.e., lateral spreading 

of level or gently sloping deposits. Approaches to estimate earthquake-induced deformation of slopes are 

also discussed, with emphasis on the applicability of simplified techniques and the informed selection of

I NUREG/CR-5741
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

strengths to use in these estimates. Probabilistic approaches are presented in a separate report, in view of 

the NRC's concern over seismic margin issues. 

The scope of the report is limited to evaluation of the behavior of soils subjected to earthquake shaking, 

and specifically excludes non-seismic failure of sensitive clays, failure under static load conditions (such 

as flow slides in loose point bar deposits), and soil response to machine vibrations and blasting. The 

selection or synthesis of appropriate ground motion records to use for response analysis is beyond the 

scope of this report. 

2 LIQUEFACTION OF SOIL DEPOSITS 

2.1 Definitions 

Several terms used in this document may be interpreted according to various perspectives; definitions are 

provided below to establish convention. Variables specific to a given measurement or calculation will be 

defined as they are introduced. 

Liquefaction. The word liquefaction literally means a state change from solid to a liquid. In the context 

of this guidance and soil mechanics in general, the term refers to a change from a solid or stable assem

blage of soil particles (structure) to a complete or substantially complete suspension of the solid particles 

in a fluid, such that the suspension has very low shear strength. In reality, the condition of full suspen

sion and zero strength is seldom encountered. Small and large scale laboratory tests and observations in 

instrumented sites during earthquakes indicate that, under certain circumstances, the soil may deform for 

a limited strain range with very low shear resistance; however, shear resistance, sometimes substantial, is 

mobilized for larger strains (particularly in dilative granular soils). Some practitioners restrict use of the 

term liquefaction to describe flow failure, as observed to occur in a failed slope when driving shear 

stresses remain higher than the post-failure shear strength of the soil materials (e.g., Castro and 

Poulos, 1977). Liquefaction as treated in this report includes any drastic loss of undrained shear resis

tance (stiffness and/or strength) resulting from repeated, rapid straining, regardless of the state of stress 

prior to loading. The term is interchangeably applied to the development of either excessive cyclic 

strains or complete loss of effective stress within an undrained laboratory specimen under cyclic loading. 

The term initial liquefaction is also occasionally used in practice to describe the buildup of pore water 

pressure in laboratory tests within an undrained soil specimen to a level equal to the total confining stress 

applied to the confining membrane. 

Liquefaction resistance is the capacity of a soil to resist the drastic strength loss described above. This 

term is generally interpretable regardless of the means of its measurement; every attempt has been made 

in this document to follow the convention established among contemporary researchers and practitioners 

to associate the term cyclic strength to laboratory determination of the capacity of a specimen under con

trolled conditions to resist development of a specified level of cyclic straining or excess pore pressures. 

Cyclic resistance ratio, CRR is defined for the purposes of this document as the ratio of a soil's capacity 

to resist liquefaction to the initial effective confining stress at the point in question. This follows the 

recommendations published in the proceedings of a definitive National Center for Earthquake Engineer

ing Research (NCEER, now the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 

MCEER) workshop on the subject (NCEER, 1997).

NUREG/CR-5741 2
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

Cyclic stress ratio is defined for the purposes of this document as the ratio of the demand shear load 

imposed (by earthquake shaking) on a soil to the initial effective confining stress at the point in question. 

This also follows the recommendations published in NCEER (1997). 

Excess pore pressure is defined as the differential pore water pressure induced in a soil deposit or speci

men by an externally applied load, i.e., the difference between initial and present pore water pressures, 

and may be either positive or negative. Residual excess pore pressure is that value of excess pore pres

sure measured at the end of an applied shear stress cycle. The latter quantity, when divided by initial 

effective confining stress, is termed the residual excess pore pressure ratio. 

Steady state strength, residual strength, and post-liquefaction strength are considered synonymous in this 

report and refer to the lowest value of shear strength potentially available in a soil deposit or specimen 

after liquefaction. The typically very low shear strength of liquefied materials is a vital parameter in 

post-earthquake stability evaluation practice. The measurement and understanding of this quantity are a 

matter of some controversy, e.g., whether monotonic or cyclic loading tests produce the appropriate 

values for use in analysis. 

2.2 Mechanisms of Soil Liquefaction 

Figure 1 illustrates the response of a relatively loose packing of soil grains to cyclic shear loading. With 

the onset of shear and at small shear strains, particles are caused to slide or roll along each other, which 

under undrained (constant volume) conditions causes decreased pore water pressure. For even denser 

soils, larger-than-initial voids form in the dilating zones, and the larger, unstable holes may ultimately 

collapse on stress reversal. Increased pore water pressure results from this collapse. Gravity loading also 

encourages net downward displacements and a tendency for volume reduction, which further contributes 

to the transfer of load to pore water. Soil fines present in the voids between larger grains of sand likely 

affect the response of the structure (fabric, anisotropy); recent research (e.g., Koester, 1992) examines 

the effects of the presence of fines of varying content and index properties on response of soils to 

undrained cyclic loading. 

The following references offer a historical perspective on the early development of analyses techniques 

for seismic response of saturated cohesionless soil deposits and the physical mechanisms of liquefaction: 

Casagrande (1936); Shannon and Wilson, Inc., and Agbabian and Associates (1972); Castro (1975); and 

Finn and Martin (1975). Empirical techniques based on field performance data were developed and 

promoted during the subsequent several years: Seed (1976, 1979a, 1979b); Castro and Poulos (1977); 

Casagrande and Rendon (1978); Finn (1981); and Seed and Idriss (1982). Hynes (1988) extended the 

state of knowledge on liquefaction mechanisms with regard to large-particled soils; Kaufman (1981); 

Puri (1984); Walker and Stewart (1989); Koester (1992); and others examined mechanisms of 

earthquake-induced liquefaction of sands containing fines and mixtures of silt and clay, both plastic and 

nonplastic. Additional references will be discussed with regard to influence of particle gradation and 

consistency in later sections. 

2.3 Surface Manifestations of Liquefaction 

Excess pore water pressures generated by earthquake shaking in a soil deposit usually dissipate upward, 

toward the free surface. The upward migration of excess pore water pressure is often sufficient to eject 

mixtures of soil and water through the ground surface, depositing transported soil around the pressure 

venting point in "volcanoes" or "boils." The violent ejection of soil and water at the ground surface

3 NUREG/CR-5741
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

S1o0faolly sloble 

lOCfge bolt -.7

SmoU 

cox~apse

(a) Changes in initial fabric at small strains

Upwoads maolion Oownwacds (fliOn(f

c7

(b) Changes in fabric due to dilatancy at large strains 

Figure 1. Changes in soil fabric during cyclic loading (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after Youd, 

1977)

NUREG/CR-5741 4
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

occurs only if the overburden soils are less pervious than the soils in which high pore pressures develop. 

The materials ejected and deposited around boils have been used to classify liquefied soils, but fine 

layering and in situ gradations that may have somehow impeded subsurface drainage and contributed to 

pore pressure buildup are lost on disturbance. Excess pore pressures sufficient to cause liquefaction may 

develop at depth, without provoking surface evidence; liquefaction may thus have occurred, but with no 

surface manifestations. 

Ground fissures, lateral spreading, and sand boils are the most common level-ground manifestations of 

subsurface liquefaction. Sand boils and their infilled craters may be the only tangible evidence of histor

ical liquefaction. Recent remote sensing and trench studies of remnant liquefaction sand deposits in 

southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas have helped engineers to define the extent and deline

ation of the New Madrid fault system (Wesnousky, Schweig, and Pezzopane, 1989). Liquefaction fea

tures in the north central United States have provided evidence of strong historical earthquake shaking 

(Obermeier et al., 1991). Liquefaction has also accompanied earthquakes in the northeastern part of this 

country (e.g., Tuttle and Seeber, 1989), and in the southeastern region affected by strong shaking from 

the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake (e.g., Obermeier et al., 1985, and Obermeier et al., 

1989). 

Wang (1981) postulated types of locally predominant ground motions by examining the patterns formed 

by surface expressions of liquefaction associated with the 1976 Tangshan earthquake. He also proposed 

that the likelihood of liquefaction recurrence may be determined from geologic evidence. Test pits dis

closed vertical sand pipes through less permeable overburden soils that apparently formed preferential 

drainage paths for earthquake-induced excess pore water pressures resulting from successive earth

quakes. Sand boils at several sites have reactivated during subsequent moderate earthquakes. 

Liquefaction-induced ground failure, in the extreme sense of surface manifestation, may take the form of 

flow failure, lateral spread as mentioned, and ground oscillation. Youd (1993) distinguishes these as 

follows: flow failures are most often associated with steep slopes in contractive soils and are character

ized by displacements on the order of tens of feet (several meters) or greater, and involve disruption of 

the moving mass of soil; ground oscillation is, as the name implies, associated with observations of 

large-amplitude ground waves during shaking of flat ground, resulting in generally small, random, perma

nent displacements, with visible fissures that may open and close, sometimes ejecting groundwater dra

matically; lateral spreads are defined between the two. Lateral spread deformation estimation will be 

discussed in a later section in more detail. 

2.4 Factors Influencing Liquefaction Potential 

Seed and Idriss (1982) provide a comprehensive list of the factors commonly considered as most influen

tial on liquefaction resistance of soils, divided into three categories: soil properties, including dynamic 

shear modulus and damping characteristics, density, gradation characteristics, relative density (in the 

case of granular, cohesionless soils), and soil structure (fabric); environmental factors, such as mode of 

soil deposition, seismic history (prior shear straining), geologic history (aging), coefficient of lateral 

earth pressure at rest, Ko, overconsolidation ratio, depth to water table, and effective confining pressure; 

and earthquake characteristics, specifically ground shaking intensity and duration. A few of these fac

tors are singled out in following paragraphs due to their relative importance to analysis procedures. 

Density. Liquefaction susceptibility is strongly a function of density (typically relative density of cohe

sionless soils). The capacity for volume reduction in a soil is the basic cause for cyclic pore pressure 

development and consequent liquefaction. The dependence of cyclic strength (defined here as the cyclic

5 NUREG/CR-5741
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

shear stress ratio required to cause residual excess pore pressures to attain equivalence with total confin

ing stress) on relative density was demonstrated in Monterey No. 0 sand by DeAlba, Seed and Chan 

(1976) from the results of large-scale laboratory cyclic simple shear tests. Cyclic shear strengths were 

shown to vary in direct proportion with relative density below relative densities of about 80 percent; 

cyclic strengths increased at a faster rate than relative densities above this level. Cyclic strengths were 

defined for 30 loading cycles to develop the relationships shown in Figure 2. This number of loading 

cycles corresponds, roughly, to the level of shaking associated with a Richter Magnitude 8.0 earthquake, 

according to a well-known study by Seed et al. (1975). 

The DeAlba, Seed and Chan (1976) study also described relationships between relative densities higher 

than 45 percent (up to 100 percent) and limiting shear strains (i.e., beyond which shear stresses in excess 

of the cyclic shear stresses would be required to produce additional shear strains). Sands having relative 

densities lower than 50 percent should be judged unsatisfactory as regards seismic stability on the basis 

of their very large strain potential. Sands at relative densities higher than about 85 percent possess lim

ited strain potential. The level of strain development must be evaluated for acceptability at intermediate 

relative densities. A later section on evaluation procedures discusses the most recent findings concerning 

adjustment factors on liquefaction resistance for various earthquake magnitudes. 

Gradation characteristics. The grain size distribution of a soil deposit somewhat dictates its capacity to 

densify on cyclic loading. Membrane penetration compliance effects on undrained laboratory test results 

are also tied to gradation. Finn (1981) noted that the influence of grain size as observed by Lee and 

Fitton (1969) (specifically that increased mean grain size was associated with increased liquefaction 

resistance) may in fact be a result of membrane compliance. Mean grain size may, in view of this con

tention, be an unconservative delimiter of liquefaction susceptibility. Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) 

found that soils containing up to 60 percent by weight silt-size particles and 12 percent clay-size particles 

(that is, particles smaller than 0.005 millimeters), if sufficiently loose, exhibited moderate-to-extensive 

liquefaction (in terms of affected land area) during historical Japanese earthquakes. 

Age of deposit. Liquefaction resistance, as observed from both laboratory and field performance data, is 

increased by sustained load, i.e., aging. Finn (1981) reported the common result of a number of studies 

that liquefaction resistance may be increased by as much as 75 percent due to geological aging. Micro

scopic evidence suggests that finer particles tend to occupy intergranular voids and even separate larger 

sand grains in hydraulic fills and other, naturally young deposits, creating a relatively compressible soil 

structure; more grain-to-grain contacts in older deposits contributed to increased frictional resistance and 

less potential for densification on shearing (Tohno, 1975). Liquefaction most commonly occurs in 

Holocene deposits, far less often in Pleistocene soils, and very rarely in pre-Pleistocene deposits (Youd 

and Hoose, 1977). Aging may result in cementation of the grain-to-grain contacts. Cementation pro

cesses were evaluated by Mitchell and Solymar (1984). Troncoso, Ishihara, and Verdugo (1988) exam

ined the effects of aging in tailings deposits. 

Initial state of stress. Overconsolidation (generally designated by the overconsolidation ratio, OCR) and 

associated lateral earth pressure (generally, the higher the OCR, the greater is the coefficient of lateral 

earth pressure at rest, K0, the latter defined as the ratio of horizontal to vertical effective stress) increase 

liquefaction resistance. Cyclic triaxial strengths of undisturbed specimens of sandy silts and silty clays 

were found by Campanella and Lim (1981) to be 75 percent greater when the specimens were isotropi

cally consolidated to have an OCR of 2, and 150 percent greater when they were consolidated to have an 

OCR of 4.

NUREG/CR-5741 6
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

30 

20 

10

0 

0.4

0.3

0.2 

0.1

Initial liquefaction 

with limited shear .4 Liquefaction -strain potential 

or cyclic mobility

40 60 

Relative Density, p I 

":I Y= 25% 15 % 5% 

I Initial 

Liquefaction 

30 Stress Cycles 

_ _ _ _ _I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100

Relative Density, %

Figure 2. Limiting shear strains in Monterey No. 0 sand as a function of relative density (after 

DeAlba, Seed and Chan, 1976, reprinted with permission from ASCE).

NUREG/CR-5741

- lU

A f% I

+1 

C 

I.

CU 

(D

n'0 

t> 

0 

02 

cc 

.2

0

I

7
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits 

Figure 3 (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after Seed, 1979a) illustrates the effects of OCR and Kc (the latter is 

analogous in the laboratory to K0, i.e., Kc = lc/fU3c, where 61c and U3c are major and minor effective 

principal stresses after consolidation in laboratory specimens) on liquefaction resistance of clean sands. 

The same trend is also shown in Figure 4 (adapted from Ishihara and Takatsu, 1979) as observed from 

cyclic torsional shear tests on Fuji River sand. 

Higher effective confining pressure increases undrained cyclic strength as evidenced by either develop

ment of 100 percent residual excess pore pressure response or an unacceptable level of cyclic strain. The 

rate of this increase with confining stress is less than linear, however, and the cyclic stress ratio required 

to cause liquefaction (generally expressed as the ratio of cyclic applied shear stress to the effective con

solidation stress) decreases with increasing effective confining pressure. An adjustment factor, K0 

(liquefaction resistance ratio at a given effective confining stress divided by liquefaction resistance ratio 

at 1 tsf effective confining stress) can be developed from laboratory tests on replicate specimens to relate 

cyclic stress ratios required for liquefaction in a given number of cycles to effective confining stress, to 

allow estimation of liquefaction resistance at other effective confining stresses without specific testing. 

Figure 5 is a collection of laboratory-determined relationships and shows the variation of K, with effec

tive confining stress for several soil types. Recent recommendations for K, adjustments arising from the 

1996 NCEER workshop will be discussed in a later section on procedures for liquefaction potential 

evaluation. 

Field occurrence data suggest that liquefaction generally occurs within relatively shallow soil deposits 

(less than about 10 m), corresponding to effective overburden pressures of less than 1.5 tsf (e.g., Seed, 

Idriss, and Arango, 1983). A few occurrences have, however, been documented in soils as deep as 100 m 

(Youd and Hoose, 1977). 

Initial, static shear stress (on potential failure planes in laboratory cyclic test specimens) increases lique

faction resistance in all but very loose granular soils. Figure 6 (Rollins, 1987, after the data of Szerdy, 

1985; Vaid and Chern,1983; Vaid and Finn, 1979; Seed et al., 1973; Lee and Seed, 1967; Castro et al., 

1982; Yoshimi and Tokimatsu, 1978; and Yoshimi and Oh-Oka, 1975), gives relationships between the 

factor, K, applied to adjust liquefaction resistance for the effects of initial static shear stress as a func

tion of a for sands of various relative densities. Current recommendations for adjustments to liquefac

tion resistance for initial static shear stress arising from the 1996 NCEER workshop (NCEER, 1997) will 

be discussed in a later section on procedures for liquefaction potential evaluation. 

Earthquake characteristics. The particular features of earthquake ground motion to which a soil deposit 

is subjected, particularly severity and duration of shaking, dictate whether a potentially liquefiable soil 

will experience significant strain or develop sufficiently high excess pore pressures to lose substantial 

stiffness and/or strength under ambient driving loads. Ground motion characteristics at a site are ulti

mately functions of three factors: (1) the source mechanism and magnitude of the earthquake; (2) wave 

propagation and attenuation behavior between the source and the site; and (3) wave propagation charac

teristics of the site itself. Figure 7 (adapted from Carter and Seed, 1988, after the data of Kuribayashi 

and Tatsuoka, 1975; Smart and Von Thun, 1983; and Fairless, 1984) correlates liquefaction occurrence 

to epicentral distance and magnitude; this compilation indicates no liquefaction occurrence for earth

quake magnitudes less than about 5.2, or for distances from the zone of faulting greater than about 

500 km. 

Larger settlements (which, in saturated soils, are a consequence of pore water pressure buildup) have 

been shown to occur in soils subjected to horizontally polarized shaking than in soils shaken vertically 

(Puri, 1984, and Prakash and Gupta, 1967). The effects of inherently multidirectional earthquake

NUREG/CR-5741 8
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

'4 

OCR=8. Kc>l 

2- ,4 

.1.7 

0 I 4

3 5 

Number of Cycles 

Pore Pressure

30 5Q 100

Causing Peak Cyclic 

Ratio of 100 %

Figure 3. Influence of initial principal stress ratio on liquefaction resistance of clean sands in 

simple shear tests (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after Seed, 1979, reprinted with permission 

from ASCE)

NUREG/CR-5741

0. 

0. 

0. 

0.

0 

i

0O

9
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits 

a'•~ 0.6 

.C C Fuji river sand 

• Dr= 5 5 % K• c .5 

00 ACý O 

0 0.4 AW.0 

0. 0.5 

cc 

Q- 0.2 A OX 

-C 

01 

o 0 2 4 6 

Overconsolidction Ratio, OCR 

Figure 4. Relationship between cyclic strength and OCR (Walker and Stewart, 1989, after 

Ishihara and Takatsu, 1979)

NUREG/CR-5741 10
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

0

0

a

Na

N

Foirmont Dam w 0 

Lake Arrowhead Dam El 

Upper San Leandro Dam 

Lower Son Fernando Dam Shell 

Upper San Fernando Dam Shelf 

Los Angeles Dam Shell 

Perris Dam Shell, RC=90. 95, 100% 

Sardis Dam Shell 

Sardis Dam Foundation 

Thermolito Afterbay Dam Foundation 

Thermolito Forebay Dam Foundation 

Antelope Dam Impervious Material 

Aswan Dam Dune Sand 

Sacramento River Sand. D, = 38, 60, 78. 100z 

Monterey 0 Sand, D, = 50S • Reid Bedford Sand. Dr = 40, 60x 

New Jersey Backfill, FPI RC = 95x

Estimated average curve for sand 

(Hynes-Griffin, et at. 1988, from 

Seed, letter dated 12/2/87) 

8

-Cu~veofor Ririe foundation gravel determined from laboratory tests 

0

urve for Folsom Fmbankment gravel 

Atermined from laboratory tests

) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Effective Normal Stress on Failure Plane, a'f., ksc

Figure 5. Comparison of overburden pressure correction factor for liquefaction resistance, Ko, 

for various soils (after Hynes, 1988) (Note: 1 ksc = 14.2 psi)

NUREG/CR-5741

1.2 

1.0 

0.8

b

0.6

0.4

0.2

o 

0 

0 U 

4

I I f I I I

tI th

I

I

0 .

11
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits 

2.25 

2.00 

Dr =55% 

1.75 

1.50 

0 

0 

c 1.25 0 

0 q1) 

k._•- Dr =45% 

o 1.00 

0.75 

Dr = 355g 

0.50 

0.2,o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 

Initial static stress ratio, a = T-/O-o' 

Figure 6. Initial static shear stress liquefaction resistance correction factor, K. as a function of 

initial static shear stress ratio, a (Rollins, 1987)

NUREG/CR-5741 12
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits 

LIQUEFACT4ON OCCURRENCE VS 

MAGNITUDE AND DISTANCE

I I I I I I II I I I I III I I I I 1111

x a 

*ý k ** N C 

1 -00 me*-O--0 

0 A 0 o 0 !No o 0

°" 

* 0 A X IN 

"" 0 

C 0 X 

x 0 

mC

I I 111111

10.00 100.00

Japanese Data before 1975 

Youd 

Others 

Other U.S. Data 

Japanese Data since 1975 

New Zealand 

Chinese

1000.00

I R max (km) 

Figure 7. Liquefaction occurrence as a function of magnitude and distance, Rm, from the zone 

of faulting (adapted from Carter and Seed, 1988) •

NUREG/CR-5741

8.00

6.00

CU 

t

w~

4.00

1.00

I I I I

13
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

shaking on liquefaction resistance have been estimated by Pyke, Chan, and Seed (1974), and irregular 

and multi-directional loading effects have been studied in laboratory programmed tests by Ishihara and 

Nagase (1985). Special studies to assess particular ground motion characteristics for site specific condi

tions are beyond the scope of this report. Later sections will discuss approaches to evaluating liquefac

tion potential that are based on the relationship between shear strain development and excess pore 

pressure development. 

2.5 Characteristics of Liquefiable Soils 

Earthquake-induced liquefaction is most commonly observed in (but not restricted to) the following types 

of soils: (1) fluvial-alluvial deposits; (2) eolian sands and silts; (3) beach sands; (4) reclaimed land; and 

(5) uncompacted hydraulic fills. Environmental, geological, and depositional characteristics associated 

with some documented liquefaction occurrences are reported by Youd and Hoose (1977); Kuribayashi 

and Tatsuoka (1975); and Seed and Idriss (1971). Table 1 presents an example of geologic (and topo

graphic) bases for preliminary estimation of liquefaction susceptibility, as summarized by Youd (1998, 

after Youd and Perkins, 1978). 

Koester and Franklin (1985) list the following observations that may be made during preliminary site 

investigations at critical sites (defined according to the consequences of failure as involving loss of life 

or substantial property damage or both) that would indicate potential for liquefaction: (1) low penetra

tion resistance, as measured by standard penetration tests (SPT's) or cone penetration tests (CPT's) in 

sands and finer grained soils, or Becker hammer penetration tests (BPT'S) in gravels; (2) artesian head 

conditions (it should be noted, however, that artesian head conditions have not been commonly found at 

historical liquefaction sites, and are therefore not currently considered as a useful screening tool); 

(3) persistent inability to retain soil samples in conventional sampling devices; (4) saturated zones of 

granular soil with impeded drainage; and (5) the presence of any clean, fine sand below the ground water 

table. It should be emphasized that the above are not necessarily indicative of imminent liquefaction, 

however, any of these occurrences should be noted on boring logs and followed up with further investiga

tion to define their threat to the project. 

2.6 Residual Strength of Liquefied Soils 

As early as 1936, Casagrande postulated that soils sheared under undrained conditions would achieve a 

residual condition at which further shearing would cause no additional change in strength or volume or 

pore pressure (Casagrande, 1936). This principle is the underlying basis of "critical state" soil mechan

ics (Schofield and Wroth, 1968) as well as more recently proposed "steady state" analysis techniques for 

evaluation of post-triggering stability of liquefiable soils. There are two techniques for evaluation of 

undrained residual strength (Sr, S.,,, or Sus) of soils: (a) performance-based correlation with in situ tests, 

and (b) laboratory test methods based mainly on the relationship between void ratio and S,,. 

2.6.1 Use of In Situ Testing Procedures 

Seed (1987) recommended a technique for evaluation of in situ undrained residual strength (Sr) based on 

penetration test results. This procedure, which is based on the use of in situ testing (now SPT and/or 

CPT), is widely applied for simplified evaluation of the in situ undrained residual strengths of silty and 

sandy soils. Seed (1987) presented the results of back-analyses of a number of liquefaction-related slope 

failures from which values of the undrained residual strength could be calculated for soil zones in which

NUREG/CR-5741 14
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

Table 1 Estimated Susceptibility of Sedimentary Deposits to Liquefaction During Strong 

Seismic Shaking Based on Geological Age and Depositional 

Environment (After Youd and Perkins 1978) 

Likelihood that Cohesionless Sediments, When Saturated, 

Would Be Susceptible to Liquefaction (by Age of Deposit) 

General Distribution of 

Type of Deposit Cohesionless Sediments < 500 yr Holocene Pleistocene 

(1) in Deposits (3) (4) (5) Pre-Pleistocene 

(a) Continental Deposits 

River channel Locally variable Very high High Low Very low 

Flood plain Locally variable High Moderate Low Very low 

Alluvial fan and plain Widespread Moderate Low Low Very low 

Marine terraces and plains Widespread - Low Very low Very low 

Delta and fan-delta Widespread High Moderate Low Very low 

Lacustrine and playa Variable High Moderate Low Very low 

Colluvium Variable High Moderate Low Very low 

Talus Widespread Low Low Very low Very low 

Dunes Widespread High Moderate Low Very low 

Loess Variable High High High Unknown 

Glacial till Variable Low Low Very low Very low 

Tuff Rare Low Low Very low Very low 

Tephra Widespread High High ? ? 

Residual soils Rare Low Low Very low Very low 

Sebka Locally variable High Moderate Low Very low 

(b) Coastal Zone 

Delta Widespread Very high High Low Very low 

Esturine Locally variable High Moderate Low Very low 

Beach 

High wave energy Widespread Moderate Low Very low Very low 

Low wave energy Widespread High Moderate Low Very low 

Lagoonal Locally variable High Moderate Low Very low 

Fore shore Locally variable High Moderate Low Very low 

(c) Artificial 

Uncompacted fill Variable Very high - -

Compacted fill Variable Low - - -

15 NUREG/CR-5741
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

SPT data were available, and proposed a correlation between Sr and (N1)6o-.- (N1)6o-, is the "corrected" 

penetration resistance with an additional correction for fines content to generate an equivalent "clean 

sand" blowcount as 

(N1)6O-cs= (Ni)60 + No (1) 

where No, is a function of percent fines, as shown below. 

% Fines N (blows/ft) 

10 1 

25 2 

50 4 

75 5 

It should be noted that this is not the same "fines" correction as is used in the evaluation of liquefaction 

resistance, described in a later section. 

Figure 8 presents the correlation between S, and (N 1)6,•, based on values back-calculated from an 

increased number of case studies (Seed and Harder, 1990), most often used in current practice. Many of 

the Sr values presented are slightly different from those in earlier correlations (Seed, 1987) due to the 

following reasons: (a) improved techniques have been used to account for dynamic effects (e.g., momen

tum) in developing estimates of Sr from the field failures, and (b) additional data have recently become 

available for several of these case studies. The lower-bound, or near lower-bound relationship between 

S, and (N1) 6o_ in Figure 8 is recommended for SPT-based undrained residual strength evaluation at pres

ent, due to inherent scatter and uncertainty in case history data. The relationship of Figure 8 should not 

be extrapolated to values of (N1)60 > 16 blows/ft, since no supporting field case history data are available 

to justify extrapolation. 

Finally, it should be noted that it is theoretically possible for soils to mobilize undrained strengths that 

are considerably higher than their fully-drained strengths (this requires that the soil be "dense" and thus 

dilative under uni-directional shearing). As the use of undrained residual strengths (S,) is a relatively 

recent development, however, it is suggested that residual strengths based on penetration test results and 

assigned to any soil zone or unit for post-liquefaction stability analyses (and/or seismic deformation 

analyses) be conservatively taken as the lesser of either: (1) the undrained residual strength, S, or (2) the 

fully-drained shear strength (as controlled by soil friction and initial in situ effective stresses). If analy

ses using the lower bound residual strength values indicate the structure in question to be stable and the 

seismic deformations (estimated as described in a subsequent section) to be tolerable, no further action is 

needed. If, however, the lower bound residual strength values are associated with potential instability or 

excessive deformations, site-specific determinations of undrained residual strength should be made fol

lowing steady state strength method such as described below or an equivalent rationale. 

2.6.2 Laboratory Based Method 

The penetration test - based method for residual strength estimation is not without its limitations and 

uncertainties, which should be duly noted in a comprehensive technical bases report for critical facilities. 

The determination of geotechnical parameters for analysis is always subject to uncertainties, and blind 

adherence to any single method without recognition of these uncertainties and limitations may be 

dangerous. It is traditional and prudent in geotechnical engineering that more than one method is used to

NUREG/CR-5741 16
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

2000 

1600 

1200

r) 

z 

V) 

Li 

r-1 

HCr) 

uJ 

Cr) 

z 

z 

DY 

-LJ

400 1-

0 

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

EQUIVALENT CLEAN SAND SPT BLOWCOUNT, (N.1 ) 60-CS 

Figure 8. Relationship between equivalent clean sand SPT blowcount (N0)60 and undrained 

residual shear strength (Seed and Harder, 1990, reprinted with permission from BiTech 

Publishers, Ltd.) .

NUREG/CR-5741

800. P

* EARTHQUAKE - INDUCED LIQUEFACTION AND SLIDING CASE HISTORIES WHERE 

SPT DATA AND RESIDUAL STRENGTH PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN MEASURED

0 .EARTHQUAKE "- INDUCED LIQUEFACTION AND SLIDING CASE HISTORIES WHERE SPT DATA AND RESIDUAL STRENGTH PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED 

[3 CONSTRUCTION - INDUCED LIQUEFACTION AND SLIDING CASE HISTORIES

T/

',-LOWER SAN FERNANDO DAM

I I I I

17
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

determine vital parameters whenever more than one method is available, and the consequences of an 

erroneous assessment of the parameters are serious in terms of safety or of incurring large construction 

expenses. Determination of SPT blowcounts, for example, is affected by various factors of the perfor

mance of the penetration test and the equipment employed, as will be discussed in some detail in subse

quent sections. The SPT may not properly interpret penetration resistance in potentially liquefiable 

layers thinner than about 3 ft (1 m); specific sampling and testing of suspect soils is a justifiable adjunct 

to large projects. 

Poulos, Castro, and France (1985) proposed a methodology for evaluation of in situ undrained residual 

"steady state" strengths (S,,), based on obtaining high-quality soil samples with minimal disturbance, 

testing these in the laboratory, and then using specially developed techniques to correct the resulting 

laboratory Su, values for the effects of void ratio changes due to sampling, handling, and test set-up in 

order to develop estimates of the field (in situ) S,,,. This represents a major contribution to geotechnical 

practice, as it has spurred considerable interest and research into the use of undrained residual strengths 

for post-liquefaction stability assessment. Castro, et al. (1989) report a case history application of the 

steady state strength approach to evaluate the damage caused to the Lower San Fernando Dam during a 

1971 earthquake. In that study, the steady state approach successfully represented the behavior of both 

the upstream, failed slope and the minor, non-flow failure deformations observed in the downstream 

slope of the dam. 

The steady-state strength is the shear strength at the steady state of deformation defined by Poulos (1981) 

as "the state in which the mass is continuously deforming at constant volume, constant normal effective 

stress, constant shear stress, and constant velocity. The steady state of deformation is achieved only after 

all particle orientation has reached a statistically steady-state condition, after all particle breakage, if any, 

is complete, so that the shear stress needed to continue deformation and the velocity of deformation 

remains constant." At steady state there is a strong correlation between void ratio and normal effective 

stress or shear strength (Castro, 1969). Thus, in the case of undrained behavior of a given saturated sand, 

the deformations that lead to steady state occur at constant void ratio, and thus the steady-state value of 

normal effective stress and shear strength are strongly dependent on the void ratio and appear to be inde

pendent of stress path and initial structure. The application of this laboratory test-based method is fully 

explained in the Appendix to this report. 

Liquefaction response may be indicated by monotonic, undrained triaxial compression test results. Fig

ure 9 illustrates typical stress-strain and pore pressure responses such as might result from isotropically 

consolidated, monotonic triaxial compression tests on sand specimens prepared to void ratios either side 

of and very close to the critical void ratio, that is, that void ratio at which a soil can deform continuously 

at constant shearing stress (Casagrande, 1936). A steady state of deformation developed in Test A. 

Tests B and C did not reach steady state within the strain and load limitations of the test equipment. 

A workshop was convened at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana (UIUC) in April 1997 to 

examine the issue of residual strength of liquefied soils. About 30 geotechnical engineering researchers 

and practitioners from industry, government, and the private sector met to discuss theoretical and concep

tual issues, back-calculation of residual strength from field case histories, and to compare and contrast 

procedures and results from laboratory and in situ tests to measure residual strength. The proceedings 

from that workshop are synopsized by Stark, et al. (1998); a complete set of proceedings is available 

from the National Science Foundation, referenced to Grant Number CMS-95-31678. Significant out

come items follow:

NUREG/CR-5741 18
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

0

C-DILATANT FAILURE 

L -LIMITED LIQUEFACTION FAILURE 

0.15 SEC 

~~I0MIA -ALIOUEFACrION FAILURE 

AXIAL STRAIN

EFFECTIVE CONFINING PRESSURE. _____ Ic 

C NOTE -'31 EOUALS EFFECTIVE CONFINING 

PRESSURE AT FAILURE.

Figure 9. Typical stress-strain and pore pressure response in monotonic triaxial tests on sands 

(Department of the Army, 1970)

19 NUREG/CR-5741
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

" Terminology: the use of two terms was proposed, one to describe back-calculated values (apparent 

residual strength) and one for laboratory generated values (quasi-steady state). The use of two terms 

will hopefully allow practitioners to immediately determine the origin and applicability of the data. 

" Normalization: A consensus was formed at the workshop that normalization (to effective confining 

stress) is appropriate, however, the range of soils that it is applicable to is a subject for additional 

study. For example, there is some uncertainty about normalization in clean sands but it is clearly 

applicable to silty or clayey sands. Dependence of residual strength on confining stress was investi

gated by Baziar and Dobry (1995); their data from field occurrences of embankment failures and 

lateral spreads is included in Figure 10 (note the caution on using lateral spread data for residual 

strength back-calculation, below). The relationships given in this figure are widely recognized as 

appropriate boundaries on available data. 

" Soil Mixing: Mixing of soil types once very large deformations develop appears to play a major role 

in post-earthquake shear strength and behavior. This complicates determination of appropriate prop

erties in field case studies. 

"• Field Case Histories: Back-calculation of shear strengths from field case histories are most applicable 

to silty sands. This suggests that considerable research should be conducted on the post-earthquake 

behavior of clean sands. 

" Lateral Spreads: The mechanism(s) of lateral spreading is very different from that of flow failure. 

Residual shear strengths back-calculated from lateral spreads should not be included in empirical 

charts for residual strengths from flow slides, nor should these residual strengths be used in evaluation 

of flow slide potential. Conversely, residual strengths back-calculated from flow slides should not be 

used in analyses of lateral spread displacement. 

" In Situ Tests: In situ tests appear to provide a more cost effective technique for estimating the post

earthquake shear strength than do programs of laboratory residual strength testing. However, the 

influence of grain characteristics and thin layers on the in situ test results needs to be understood. 

Lack of experience with sampling to obtain undisturbed sampling of sands makes in situ tests more 

desirable. 

"• A re-evaluation of existing case histories was strongly recommended given the uncertainties present in 

the currently published cases. 

Sands without fines that have been liquefied typically dilate with undrained shear loading beyond some 

minimum value, thus gaining strength and potentially restricting deformations unless further loaded. 

Soils containing fines, however, may not dilate and gain undrained shear strength, depending on such 

factors as fines content, cohesion, and void ratio (Koester, 1992). 

Residual strength of cohesive soils, included here for completeness with regard to post-earthquake defor

mation evaluation discussions to appear later in the document (not as a facet of liquefaction hazard anal

yses, per se), should be evaluated using a test device capable of imparting large deformations along a 

consistent surface within a soil specimen without changing its geometry and maintaining appropriate 

volume change characteristics. Standard laboratory triaxial or direct shear devices do not accommodate 

very large strain behavior. In recognition of these constraints, Stark and Contreras (1996) describe a 

constant volume ring shear device, based on the Bromhead (1979) ring shear apparatus to measure both 

peak and residual undrained strength of clays. Their device maintains specimen cross sectional area

NUREG/CR-5741 20
2. Liquefaction of Soil Deposits

O~po 

psf

(Ni)6o, blows/ft 

10

Sr, psf 0200 400 600 800 1000 

0 . --- I I I I 1 

Symbol Geomery Source (b EnIbakrftint Table 

X Lateral Spread .2

Bartlett and 

o0 Lateral Spread Youd (1 992) I 

i 0.2 O'Vo 

Sr=O.0 4 0vw 

SFernando 7ower San Dam

Figure 10. Charts relating normalized SPT resistance (Nt) 60 and residual shear strength (Sr) to 

vertical overburden pressure (ao') for saturated nongravelly silt-sand deposits that 

have experienced large deformation (Baziar and Dobry, 1995, reprinted with permission 

from ASCE)

NUREG/CR-5741

1o0 

G VO 

psf 204 

304 

40(

00 

00 

00

t

U

21
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

during shear and accommodates trimming of the specimen directly into the holding container. Constant 

volume conditions are maintained in the Stark and Contreras apparatus by decreasing the normal stress 

applied to the specimen during shear. The authors demonstrated agreement between peak undrained 

shear strength values obtained in clays from direct simple shear tests and by using the constant volume 

ring shear device. This is included as an example, and should not be construed as an endorsement of the 

procedure for all cases. 

3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES 

3.1 Liquefaction Potential Assessment - Overview 

3.1.1 Site Characterization - General 

Preliminary assessments may often be made to determine whether a given site is clearly likely or not 

likely to liquefy in response to earthquake shaking. Previous occurrence of liquefaction in site soils, 

knowledge of embankment placement techniques that have historically performed well or poorly when 

shaken, the seismicity of the site, and degree of saturation are some of the factors that may indicate the 

potential for future liquefaction. 

The importance of adequate site characterization to seismic stability analysis cannot be overstated. Much 

can and should be accomplished by acquiring and examining existing site data from the geological litera

ture, historical records, earlier field investigations and even remote sensing imagery before additional 

subsurface investigation is planned or undertaken. The following information is essential to initial 

assessment of the potential for earthquake-induced ground failure: 

(a) Site topography. 

(b) At any site, minimally, a detailed soil profile, including classification of soil properties and the 

origin of soils at the site in question. For major projects such as involving foundations of nuclear 

facilities, this takes on much more significance and requires development of three-dimensional 

soil stratigraphy to support a site conceptual model. Torres, et al. (1998) presents technical bases 

for field investigations for foundations of nuclear facilities and describes conceptual site model

ing procedures. 

(c) Water level records, representative of both current and historical fluctuations. 

(d) Evidence from project records, aerial photographs, or previous investigations of past ground fail

ure at the site or at similar (geologically and seismologically) nearby areas (including historical 

records of liquefaction, topographical evidence of landslides, sand boils, effects of ground move

ment on trees and other vegetation, subsidence, and sand intrusions in the subsurface). 

(e) Seismic history of the site. 

(f) Geologic history of the site, including age and mode of deposition of site soils, glacial preconsol

idation or preconsolidation by now-eroded overburden, and lateral extent and continuity of soil 

deposits.

NUREG/CR-5741 22
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Subsurface investigation should be performed in two phases, distinguished by coverage and purpose. 

The first of these should include cone penetration test (CPT) soundings and standard penetration tests 

(SPT's) for measuring penetration resistance; the latter for obtaining disturbed split-spoon samples for 

classification and water content determination. The author attended a workshop on new approaches for 

liquefaction potential evaluation, held in conjunction with the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Transporta

tion Research Board (TRB) in Washington, DC, 9-15 January. It was the majority opinion of the group 

of technical specialists assembled for this workshop from academia, government, and geotechnical engi

neering consulting practice, that the CPT is the tool of choice for initial site characterization studies in 

support of liquefaction potential assessment. Final proceedings of the TRB workshop will be available in 

the TRB Record publication series, accessible through the World Wide Web at http://www.nas.edu/trb/ 

meeting. The CPT is considered by the profession at large to provide superior stratigraphic detail for 

penetration resistance and soil characteristics than does the SPT, recognizing, of course, the inherent 

drawback that the CPT does not provide a physical sample. The CPT results should be used to select 

localities and depths for subsequent SPT borings and other sampling efforts. Coverage of the site with 

CPT soundings and SPT borings should be adequate to (1) establish general soil conditions, distributions 

of soil types, homogeneity and ground water elevations; (2) identify soils that, if shaking were suffi

ciently intense, might liquefy; and (3) assist in specifying the locations of additional borings and geo

physical surveys aimed at detailed seismic response evaluation. The second phase of subsurface 

investigation likely includes surveys and undisturbed sampling borings to: (1) refine preliminary inter

pretation of stratigraphy and the extent of potentially liquefiable soils; (2) measure in situ densities and 

dynamic properties for input to dynamic response analyses; and (3) recover undisturbed samples for 

laboratory testing when site soils are not adequately represented in the available data base. 

3.1.2 In Situ Testing 

3.1.2.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The SPT has the most extensive history of any in situ test 

employed in this country (Civics, Salomone, and Yokel, 1981) and perhaps worldwide for preliminary 

subsurface investigation. A large data base of SPT blowcounts, normalized to account for the effects of 

different overburden pressure and performance conditions, has been correlated to occurrence and non

occurrence of liquefaction in a wide variety of soils (Seed, Idriss and Arango, 1983; Seed et al., 1985; 

and Farrar, 1988). The SPT was, until recently, the desired tool for preliminary in situ investigation of 

liquefaction potential as a result of its empirical correlation to field performance. The term "standard" is 

of dubious relevance, as the standard procedure specified for SPT performance by the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (1967) is not so rigid as to prevent variations in practice. Other countries have 

also developed indigenous versions of the test, unconstrained by the U.S. regulation. The finer points of 

the SPT, its performance, and interpretation of test results have been rigorously studied (e.g., McLean, 

Franklin, and Dahlstrand, 1975; Federal Highway Administration, 1978; Kovacs, Salomone, and Yokel, 

1981; Seed, Idriss, and Arango, 1983; and Seed et al., 1985). Empirical procedures for liquefaction 

potential evaluation using the SPT will be discussed in more detail in a later section. 

3.1.2.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 

3.1.2.2.1 Background 

Cone penetration test (CPT) measurements (both tip resistance, q., and sleeve friction, f, ) are currently 

considered preferential to SPT N-values for use as a basis for evaluation of in situ liquefaction resistance. 

Historically, this has been accomplished by converting the CPT measurements into equivalent SPT blow

count values, from which liquefaction resistance (expressed as the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR) was 

judged using field performance charts described later in this text. The CPT has the advantage of

23 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

continuous measurement, ease of use, and low cost; however, unlike the SPT, soil samples are not 

retrieved during CPT soundings. Consequently, for CPT-based evaluations, some effort should be 

expended toward soil sampling, at least initially using the SPT to obtain disturbed samples, for confirma

tion of soil type and for soil index testing. 

3.1.2.2.2 NCEER (1997) Recommended Procedure for CPT-based Evaluation of CRR 

The NCEER (1997) workshop proceedings recommend the procedure described in this section, based on 

tip bearing resistance measured using the CPT, for relatively clean sand deposits. CPT penetration resis

tance may be normalized to a dimensionless quantity and corrected for the effects of overburden stress as 

follows (detailed in the NCEER, 1997 proceedings paper by P. K. Robertson and C. E. Wride): 

qcN = r- CQ - (2) Pa2 

where qc is the measured cone tip resistance; CQ = (PjOI' 0 o)n is a correction factor for overburden stress; 

n = exponent, typically equal to 0.5; Pa is a reference pressure in the same units as O'a, (i.e., Pa = 100 kPa 

if O',o is in kPa); and P. is a reference pressure in the same units as q. (i.e., P. = 0.1 MPA if q. is in 

MPA). A maximum value of CQ = 2 is generally applied to CPT tip resistances at shallow depths. The 

resulting CPT tip resistance, expressed as q1N is thus maintained as dimensionless. Available correla

tive field performance data have resulted in the NCEER (1997) recommended clean sand relationship 

between qIN and CRR shown in Figure 11. 

3.1.2.2.3 CPT Measurements and Relevance to Estimating Liquefaction Potential 

The CPT independently measures tip stress (cone resistance) and side friction (sleeve friction resistance). 

CPT cone resistance is a bearing stress influenced by many factors, of which the drained friction angle is 

the most dominant. The CPT sleeve friction resistance is an index of remolded strength after disruption 

of the soil structure and after the soil has undergone large strain. Historically, CPT cone resistance alone 

has been used to estimate liquefaction potential, but this is a limiting approach. Many factors influence 

liquefaction resistance such as confining stress, residual strength, density, soil type, fabric, etc. The use 

of both CPT measurements to estimate liquefaction potential may allow for yet improved accuracy; this 

is a subject of emergent research, particularly with regard to provisions for soil type and behavior, and 

several techniques are under evaluation. An approach developed by Olsen (1994, and elsewhere) to take 

advantage of both CPT measurements is presented in the following three sections. 

3.1.2.2.4 Stress Focus Approach to CPT Cone Tip Resistance Normalization 

Stress normalization is required for all CPT-based techniques for estimating normalized liquefaction 

cyclic resistance ratio (CRRI). Stress normalization is very important for low confining stresses (depths 

less than 2 meters) and very high confining stresses (depths greater than 25 meters). For vertical effec

tive stresses greater than one atmosphere (atm), an approximating linear stress normalization technique 

produces resultants which are increasingly overconservative. Recent research on the influence of confin

ing stress on CPT and SPT measurements has resulted in a new theory - the stress focus theory (Olsen, 

1994, and Olsen and Mitchell, 1995). The stress focus theory uses a variable stress exponent for stress 

normalization as shown in Equation 3.

NUREG/CR-5741 24
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

O.2 

0.1 

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Corrected CPT tip resistance, qcN

300

Figure 11. NCEER (1997) recommended cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands under 

level ground conditions based on CPT,

25 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

cle - ota (3) 

where 

qcie = normalized cone resistance (q,,) using a nonlinear variable stress exponent 

(equivalent value at a vertical effective stress of I atm) 

otow = total vertical stress in atm units 

c = stress exponent dependent on soil type sand relative strength level 

(see contours of stress exponent in Figure 12) 

The stress exponent, c, shown in Figure 12, is dependent on soil type and relative strength level. For 

sands, it defines the log-log slope for a constant relative density trend as shown in Figure 13. The cone 

resistance stress exponent, c, decreases as sand relative density increases and can be approximated (for 

sand) as shown below using relative density, Dr (Olsen and Mitchell, 1995): 

c = 1 - (D, - 10%)0.007 (4) 

The stress focus theory accounts for the dependence of the stress exponent for sands on initial relative 

density. For all overburden stress conditions, this "variable stress exponent" is believed by the authors to 

provide an accurate CPT cone resistance normalization. 

3.1.2.2.5 Estimating Liquefaction Resistance for All Soil Types using the CPT Soil 

Characterization Chart Technique 

The CPT soil characterization chart technique for estimating liquefaction resistance is shown in Fig

ure 14 (Olsen and Koester, 1995). The normalized liquefaction cyclic resistance ratio (CRRI) is deter

mined for any depth and any soil type based on the combination of normalized cone resistance and 

friction ratio. This technique does not require laboratory measured soil index tests to estimate liquefac

tion resistance. 

The CPT soil characterization chart technique for estimating liquefaction potential originated in the early 

1980s (Olsen, 1984) and has been subsequently refined with additional data (Olsen, 1988; Olsen and 

Farr, 1986; Olsen and Koester, 1995; Olsen, Koester, and Hynes, 1996). This technique indirectly 

includes the effects of soil type, fines content influence, peak strength, high strain strength, and lateral 

stress influence. Specifically, it was developed based on: (1) correlations to cyclic laboratory tests; 

(2) trends of CPT estimated normalized SPT values; (3) trends observed for SPT silt corrections using 

CPT- estimated silt content; (4) the Seed and De Alba (1986) SPT to CRR1 correlations; and (5) field 

performance data (Suzuki et al., 1995, 1995b; and elsewhere). 

3.1.2.2.6 Estimating SPT Blow Count using the CPT Soil Characterization Chart Technique 

The critical starting point for this chart technique was to using an accurate procedure for CPT-based esti

mation of SPT blow count. Contours of CPT-estimated SPT-normalized blow counts, N,, can be estab

lished on the CPT soil characterization chart as shown in Figure 15. These SPT contours were developed 

using both CPT measurements (Olsen, 1984, 1988, 1994), whereas similar contours reported by Robert

son, Campanella, and Wightman (1983) and Seed and De Alba (1986) are based on the qJN ratio. Seed

NUREG/CR-5741 26
1000

3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

10 0 

1 Loose 

C l 

10 CRasi Ic 

0 4 

10 -FGictioniRation(1 ) 

Figure 12. Stress exponents for cone resistance on the CPT soil characterization chart (Olsen and Mitchell, 1995)

27 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Net Cone Resistance (atm units)

1 10 100

P°,

0.01 

0.1

1000 10,000

Vertical 

(surface) 

Expansion 

Bearing 

Failure

1.0-" 

Normalized Cone 

Resistance 

is at this vertical 

10ý effective stress level

101 of, = 140 atm 

(Approximately 1 km

C=-I

Horizontal 

Expansion 

(Cavity 

Expansion) 

Bearing 

Failure

lepth) 

Stress Focus 

for a given sand

Sedimentary Rock Behavior 

(with minimal dilative behavior)

Figure 13. Depiction of cone resistance trends toward the stress focus for any relative density 

(Olsen, 1994).

NUREG/CR-5741 28
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

1 0 0 0 1 Olsen, Koester 6 & Hynes 1, .

(1996) . . . I .& . V - , I , a I , 

Olsen (1988, 1984), Olsen & Mitchell (1995) 

i 

I 

Medium 

Densee 

E S1000 Loose 

ci• 

C. 

(D, 

L) 

C:1 

00 

Liquefaction Cyclic Resistan e Ratio (CRRJ 11.0 

Frction Ratio (%) 

Figure 14. Estimation of the normalized liquefaction cyclic resistance ratio (CRR1 ) using the 

CPT soil characterization techniques (Olsen, Koester, and Hynes, 1996)

29 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

1000

1-00 

r, 

Z 10 

OCPT soil characterization lines 

- from Olsen (1988) 1 - 46 4 6 6II I I | 6 

24 2i 4 68 

0.1 1.0 10.0 

Normalized Friction Ratio (%) 

Figure 15. CPT estimation of SPT N, using both CPT measurements (Olsen 1994, 1988, 1986, 

1984)

NUREG/CR-5741 30
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

and De Alba (1986) used the q]N technique to establish a cone resistance-based technique for estimating 

CRR1; however, this approach may result in unconservative estimates of CRR,. The next step, after 

establishing SPT contours (Figure 15), was developing contours of CPT-estimated equivalent clean sand 

normalized blow counts, (N,)., using the procedure shown in Figure 16 (Olsen, 1988). Equivalent clean 

sand SPT contours were calculated based on the combination of SPT N, contours and CPT- estimated 

fines content together with the SPT-based silt correction relationship shown in Figure 17. CRR, contours 

were then approximated by converting the (N,),, contours to CRRI contours based on the Seed (N,),, to 

CRR1 relationship (Figure 18). These SPT-estimated CRR, contours may serve as a framework for fur

ther refinements based on future cyclic laboratory and field performance data. 

3.1.2.3 Becker Penetration Tests 

Until relatively recently, coarse-grained soils were considered sufficiently free-draining to preclude 

development and retention of residual excess pore water pressures during earthquake shaking. The 

inherently strong frictional nature of granular materials containing particle sizes larger than sand is the 

basis for their selection in the construction of earth and rock fill embankments. In addition, the abun

dance of larger fractions of materials separated during borrow and fill placement makes their use for 

buttressing impervious compacted zones attractive. 

Field observations of soil response during more recent moderate to strong earthquakes have revealed 

liquefaction and consequent post-earthquake instability in loose to medium dense gravels, both naturally 

deposited and placed by various artificial processes. Table 2 (Sy, Campanella, and Stewart, 1995) is a 

compilation of field occurrence data on liquefaction in gravels during earthquakes worldwide. Most of 

the observations recorded in the table are from events within the last 20 years; unless the gravels known 

to have liquefied were at or near the ground surface, there were no investigational tools available prior to 

the last two decades to confirm or deny the occurrence of liquefaction in gravels in the subsurface. 

The Becker Hammer Drill is the tool of choice at present for in situ investigation of the density and, by 

inference, strength, of soils containing gravels or cobbles. Operation of the Becker Hammer Drill is 

depicted schematically in Figure 19. Liquefaction resistance and residual strength of gravelly soils are 

currently estimated by converting Becker Hammer Penetration Test (BPT) blowcounts to equivalent SPT 

blowcounts. BPT/SPT correlations employed to date for Corps of Engineers projects have considered 

deposit behavior to be largely a function of the operating efficiency of the Becker Hammer drill's double

acting diesel pile driver. Test procedures and data reduction techniques applied to use the BPT for esti

mating liquefaction resistance of gravelly or cobbly soils as described herein are excerpted from NCEER 

(1997). 

Operating efficiency has been judged from measurements of the pressure acting within the bounce cham

ber of the pile driver apparatus, in the manner described by Harder and Seed (1986) and Harder (1988). 

Harder and Seed (1986) developed the relationship shown in Figure 20 to correct for combustion condi

tions within an ICE Model 180 diesel pile driver such as is used in Becker drill rigs, based on bounce 

chamber pressures. Once a combination of Becker blowcount, NB, and bounce chamber pressure is 

plotted on this figure, the blowcount is adjusted by following the parallel correction curves for reduced 

efficiency down to the A-A' curve that bounds the curves to the lower right. The adjusted BPT blow

count, N,, was related by Harder and Seed (1986) to equivalent SPT N60 values as shown in Figure 21. 

The NCEER (1997) report suggests further that bounce chamber pressures be increased by 1.5 to 2 psi 

(10 to 14 kPa) for measurements made at approximately 2000 ft (610 m) above sea level, and by 4 to 

6 psi (28 to 41 kPa) if measured at approximately 6000 ft (1829 m) above sea level.

31 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

V2) 

4-

0 

0) 

CD 

Cr 

4-" 

co 

"CD 

0 

0 

0

Corrected Friction Ratio (%) in terms of tsf 

FR, = -L1 f."~100 -s fS q0 = qc/(a') f00. n q, BlIn(100 100 

Figure 16. Graphical procedural steps for CPT-based determination of the SPT blowcount, fines 

content, equivalent clean sand SPT blowcount, and normalization liquefaction cyclic 

resistance ratio (CRRI) (Olsen, 1988)'

NUREG/CR-5741 32
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

10 ý431I4L1,.?I'*",-111, ,1,,, , ii,, , , ,i ,, III 

N1 =2( 

9 

8 8. / N, 15 

4

: 7 N N- IC 

8 

(D• 6 N , =5 

1(• U) 

,•O 5NI=3 

0 

U1) 4 

0 

0 3 

CD 

2 

Data from Seed, T 

Harder, and Chunj 

Correlation from C 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4' 

Fines content 

(percent passing #200 sieve) 

Figure 17. SPT blowcount fines content correction (Olsen, 1988)

0 45 50

33 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

029

"&u37 

Percent Fines = 35

25E

15 <5

0.5 I 

1 I I g 

I I 1 

_____ ____I ! I __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

D. 01 1 

I I 

I! 

31 CRR curves for 5,15, and 

D 2 / 35 percent fines, respectively 

E50+ I12 

600A/ 117 

0. 7 9 .0 /18S 

Is 200 A,50-,to 

L60° to *02 /,, 11 0• 

100 010 20 /10

0.1 

0

50o 20/0 

229 '13 

75n I 

.. 27Q/6/7; 7. m5 

A12

4, I I I 

FINES CONTENTŽ 5% 

Modified Chinese Code Proposal (clay content = 5%) 0

2 7 L i 

- 1 Adjumstmnt Pan - American data 

Recommended Japanese data 

By Workshop Chinese data I

0 10

"Marginal quefaction Liquefaction 

0

0 

A

0

I I

20 30 

Corrected Blow Count, (NI)6o

No 

Liquefaction 

A

40 50

Figure 18. Curves recommended by NCEER workshop for calculation of CRR from SPT and 

fines content data (NCEER, 1997) -

NUREG/CR-5741

0.4

0*' 

U34

I I

%J

(

V.L

C

W1
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

OBSERVED LIQUEFACTION IN GRAVELLY SOILS 

YEAR M EARTHQUAKE REFERENCE 

1981 7.9 Mino-Owari, Japan Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) 

1943 7.3 Fukui, Japan Ishihara (1985) 

1964 9.2 Valdez, Alaska Coulter and Migliaccio (1966) 

1975 7.3 Haicheng, PRC Wang (1984) 

1976 7.8 Tangshan, PRC Wang (1984) 

1978 7.4 Miyagiken-Oki, Japan Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) 

1983 7.3 Borah Peak, Idaho Youd, et al. (1985), Harder (1988) 

1988 6.8 Armenia Yegian, et al. (1994) 

1992 5.8 Roermond, Netherlands Maurenbrecher, et al. (1995) 

1993 7.8 Hokkaido, Japan Kokusho, et al. (1995) 

1995 6.8 Kobe, Japan Kokusho (1995)

Table 2. Summary of liquefaction occurrences in gravel deposits (after Sy, Campanella, and Stewart, 

1995, supplemented by the author)

35 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures 

MAST •OESEL HAMMER 

AIR IN• 

AIR COMPRESSOR AIR OUT 

U a 

'00 

I . C. * 

do 

Fi u e 9 S c e m atic dia ra of B e k e H a m e sa • pl n o peo eratio ( H r e an S ed 1 9 6 

• 0 • • • " • • F * •• "" 

a ' • • 1 •• •VI I * 

V * * * 

V C C 

C '4 • 4 • • 

.

. 

4 9 U I •(' 0 

0 • * 5 4P ' C -

Figure 19. Schematic diagram of Becker Hammer sampling operation (Harder and Seed, 1986)

NUREG/CR-5741 36
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

0---------------------------------------I- I- CI 

w x Ix I X 

A NOTEs ALL IBECKER 5LOWCOUINTS FALUNG 

-CORRECTED TO CAULBRATION CURVE 

DESIGNATED AS CORRECTED BECKER 

SLOWCOUNT, VC I 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 28 20 22 24 

BOUNCE CHAMBER PRESSURE AT SEA LEVEL. SPsL (psig) 

Figure 20. Correction curves adopted to correct Becker hammer blowcounts to constant 

combustion curve adopted for correction (from Harder and Seed, 1986) '

37 NUREG/CR-5741
"I T ; -- fitinn Potential Evaluation Prncedures

z 

0 

3 

CL 

0 

zd 

I

z 

C., 

U

. It

CORRECTED BECKER SLOWCOUNT, Nc (blows/foot)

a. Original Harder and Seed (1986) Correlation

- 0 80 

cD 

z 

D 60 

0 

0 

0 

m 40 

IC,, 

20 F- 20 0 

LLJl 

ai: 

0 0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

CORRECTED BECKER BLOWCOUNT, NBC (blows per foot)

140

b. Harder and Seed (1986) Correlation Supplemented 

with Data from Additional Test Sites 

Figure 21. Correlation between corrected Becker hammer and SPT blowcounts (from Harder 

and Seed, 1986)

NUREG/CR-5741

ec 

so 

Uf 

V A A SALWAS TEST StrE 

* TheImALr. TE ST 

* SAX ICGO TST 

(CULY SAND & SAND) 

120 0

0 zo

38
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

The BPT is not standardized as yet, and interpretation of test results is subject to uncertainties. Selection 

of engineering properties inferred from BPT results is also an uncertain science in remediated soils, due 

to the altered lateral stress conditions in these deposits. Recent studies have concluded from field mea

surements using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) equipment that BPT efficiency is also strongly influenced 

by mechanical energy losses, including friction acting along the driven casing (Sy, 1993; Sy and Campa

nella, 1993; and Sy and Campanella, 1994). Uncertainties inherent in present BPT/SPT correlations 

considering only bounce chamber pressure may result in overconservative estimates of liquefaction resis

tance (more so with increasing depth). Additional detail on the application of PDA measurements and 

quantification of casing friction are found in the references just cited. 

Ongoing research at the WES is directed toward minimizing accountable uncertainties in the in situ test

ing of gravelly soils; guidance will be published for Corps users as it is developed. For the present, the 

recommendations in NCEER (1997) should be followed with respect to BPT performance and results 

interpretation, adapted as follows: 

1. The Becker Penetration Test should be performed with plugged-bit soundings in order to avoid 

an overly conservative evaluation of subsurface deposits. 

2. In order to avoid the use of several correction factors, it is recommended that the Becker 

Penetration Test be performed with the following set of equipment: 

" AP-1000 Drill Rig (due to the establishment of much of the correlative data to date using this 

rig type; other rigs are acceptable, provided step 3, below, is followed to avoid equipment

specific variance of driving resistance). 

"* Plugged 168-mm O.D. Drive Bit and Casing. 

3. It is necessary to monitor the efficiency/performance of the diesel hammer during driving. This 

can be done using the bounce chamber pressure with the Harder and Seed method, or may be per

formed using more sophisticated instrumentation similar to that used by Sy and Campanella 

(1993). The Sy and Campanella approach provides insight on the tip and casing friction ele

ments of Becker penetration resistance. However, for most investigations where depths are less 

than about 30 meters, the simpler Harder and Seed (1986) approach is probably warranted 

because of the greater data base together with its ease of implementation and lower cost. 

4. Casing friction will remain a concern until either different equipment or approaches are devel

oped to make the determined penetration resistance independent of casing length. For most 

investigations, the Harder and Seed (1986) approach with friction effects implicitly incorporated 

will probably be adequate. However, for depths greater than 30 meters and/or for sites with thick 

deposits of very dense material overlying much looser material, more sophisticated approaches 

involving wave equation techniques may be necessary. (Note: as an interim recommendation, 

pending conclusive results from ongoing research at WES, total casing friction may be deter

mined by intermittent measurement of the force required to pull the casing upward, by means of 

a load cell affixed to the drive head of the Becker drill rig. Friction correction may then be 

effected using the relationship reported by Sy and Campanella (1993).) Unreasonably low 

penetration resistance will be determined with the Harder and Seed (1986) approach if Becker 

soundings are performed through cased boreholes to reduce friction effects.

39 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

5. For all projects involving the Becker Penetration Test to investigate gravelly deposits, it is 

recommended that a local correlation or check be performed either at the project site or nearby. 

This local check would consist of performing Becker soundings in sandy material near the depth 

of interest and to also perform high quality SPT's in the same layer. In this way, a check may be 

made on the applicability of the Becker equipment and correlations. 

6. Several investigations have indicated that the Becker Penetration Test may not detect the pres

ence of a very soft silt layer at depth. If such layers are thought to be present and of concern for 

the project, it is recommended that other investigative techniques (e.g., SPT) be carried out to 

explore and characterize such materials. 

3.1.2.4 Large Penetrometer Tests 

Gravel and larger particles in soil may impede the penetration of an SPT split spoon sampler and cause 

misleading high blowcounts and data scatter. Several sizes of split spoon drive samplers are available 

commercially and are often employed to sample soils containing coarse particles. Given the relatively 

recent emphasis on coarse soils in liquefaction potential evaluation, the data base is insufficient as yet to 

develop robust correlations of penetration resistance among various drive samplers. Most comparative 

research on larger penetrometers has been performed in Japan, where researchers have performed drive 

penetration tests using a Large Penetration Test (LPT) device, shown schematically in Figure 22 

(Kokusho, 1989), that has a larger diameter and is driven by dropping a hammer that is 50 percent 

heavier from twice the height used for an SPT sampler. Figure 23 (Tanaka et al., 1989) compares pro

files of penetration resistance blowcounts obtained using SPT and LPT equipment in natural gravelly 

soils. Figure 24 (Kokusho, 1989) illustrates penetration resistance comparisons from laboratory con

tainer experiments where gradation was controlled. Very close agreement was shown between SPT and 

LPT blowcounts in moderately dense uniform sand, in spite of the much larger driving energy involved 

in the LPT; in gravels, however, the LPT yields lower blowcounts. There is no standard practice for the 

performance of LPT's at present; ongoing research at WES is directed toward comparing results from 

various samplers and drive systems at a liquefiable gravel site to develop guidance for split spoon testing 

in coarse soils. In the interim, it is not considered sufficient to multiply blowcounts obtained using non

SPT samplers by a constant factor for evaluation of liquefaction potential. 

3.1.2.5 Pressuremeter Applications 

The use of the self-boring pressuremeter was proposed by Vaid, Byrne, and Hughes (1981) to evaluate 

liquefaction potential of sand through correlation with the dilation angle parameter. Dilation angle, 

defined as the inverse sine of the slope of a volume expansion-versus-shear strain curve, may be mea

sured either from drained laboratory triaxial of simple shear tests or from in situ pressuremeter tests. 

Pilot tests on a hydraulic fill dam yielded reasonably similar estimation of liquefaction resistance from 

SPT blowcount-based and pressuremeter-based techniques. 

3.1.2.6 Seismic Wave Velocity Measurements 

Seismic wave velocities (P-wave and shear, or S-wave) are routinely determined through field geophysi

cal surveys to obtain input for dynamic response analysis (Ballard and McLean, 1975 and Department of 

the Army, 1979). Dobry et al. (1981) describe the use of shear wave velocity to estimate a threshold 

earthquake acceleration for liquefaction.

NUREG/CR-5741 40
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

SPT : 0 40.5ram 

LPT : 0 60.Drmm

probe

(1) (2)

Details of 

penetration 

probe LL V I 

Standard Large 

Test name Penetration Penetration 

Test Test 

Symbol S.P.T L.P.T 

Drive method Fall weight Fall vight 

Weight 622.3N 980N 

Drop height 75 cm 150 cm 

Drive length 30 cm 30 cm

Figure 22. Concept of dynamic penetration test'(Kokusho, 1989) '

NUREG/CR-5741

Weight

Drop

41
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures 

Soil Profile SPT N-' 

Groundwater LPT Nd 

level G.L-3.Om/ 0 20 40 

•. reclaimed r 

10 .o. gravel 

sandy silt 

*9* gravel 

ý 15- • silty clay 

?-:A gravel 

2 clayey gravel 

clay 

Figure 23. Soil profile at T-site (Tanaka, et al., 1989)

NUREG/CR-5741 42
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

100 I I 1 

Soil container test 

S(IC v' --145kPa 

80 Fine Sand ' 

Gravel fraction 25% A 

o= Gravel fraction 50% E 

60 

r.4 

= 40 

-Q 0@ 

S20 

0 

0 20 40 60 so 

S P T blow-counts N blows/0.3m 

Figure 24. SPT vs. LPT relationship for gravelly soils (Kokusho, 1989)

NUREG/CR-5741

100

43
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Tokimatsu, Yoshimi, and Uchida (1988) proposed a method to evaluate in situ liquefaction resistance of 

dense sands that may eventually prove adaptable to other soils, wherein: (1) shear wave velocities are 

determined by geophysical survey; (2) high-quality samples are obtained by in situ freezing; (3) labora

tory initial shear modulus, G., is determined by low amplitude cyclic shear testing (type of equipment 

unspecified) and compared to that calculated from field shear wave velocity; (4) laboratory Gm,, is 

adjusted (increased) by application of low amplitude (equipment again unspecified) preshearing until 

field and laboratory values match, and (5) cyclic triaxial tests are performed to measure liquefaction 

resistance of thawed specimens. Adjusted specimen liquefaction resistance is claimed to represent in situ 

behavior. 

Stokoe et al. (1988) developed charts relating shear wave velocity to maximum surface acceleration, a., 

that predict liquefaction potential in clean sands (e.g., Figure 25). Applicability of the method to silty or 

clayey soils is not known; the method is attractive, due to the avoidance of sampling problems and its 

direct reliance on in situ stiffness of a deposit. Andrus and Stokoe (in NCEER, 1997) describe a shear 

wave velocity procedure based on field performance that is applied in the manner of penetration resis

tance methods; the resulting chart is shown in Figure 26. In this chart, shear wave velocity is adjusted for 

vertical effective confining stress to compute abscissa values, Vsl, from: 

( Pa ) 0.25 

=s- vs( .j 0 5 (5) 

The chart is based on field performance in earthquakes with moment magnitude, M" , equal to 7.5. 

Cyclic stress ratio causing liquefaction must be corrected for correspondence to other earthquake magni

tudes as described in a later section. The authors recognized that additional study is required to extend 

the method to soils and conditions other than those represented in the data base used, particularly in 

deeper deposits (depth > 8 m) and denser soils (Vs > 200 m/s) shaken by stronger ground motions (a,. Ž 

0.4 g). 

The Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves technique is widely applied to determine shear wave velocity 

profiles in a variety of applications (Stokoe and Nazarian, 1985 and Stokoe et al., 1988). This technique 

is also featured in the NCEER (1997) reference. 

3.1.2.7 Other 

A number of additional in situ testing techniques show promise as tools to assist in site characterization 

for liquefaction potential evaluation. None of the techniques mentioned in this section are yet substanti

ated by experience; their inclusion is for future reference. 

Electrical resistivity and conductivity geophysical survey methods have been applied to characterize in 

situ properties using either surface or borehole sensor arrays (Department of the Army, 1979). 

Arulanandan and Kutter (1978) studied electrical anisotropy of soil deposits, developing a structural 

index that may correlate to liquefaction resistance. Erchul and Gularte (1982) investigated densification 

in liquefying sand deposits in the laboratory using electrical resistivity; they proposed extending the 

method to evaluate field deposits and monitor compaction efficiency. 

Roe, DeAlba, and Celikkol (198 1) determined the response of reconstituted laboratory soil specimens to 

a given low-amplitude P-wave excitation, demonstrating a relationship between acoustic signature so

NUREG/CR-5741 44
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Jw, 

E 

CD 

CD

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 

amax, g amax, g 

(a) N. = 10 cycles (b) Nc = 15 cycles 

Figure 25. Chart to evaluate liquefaction potential based on shear wave velocity and maximum 

acceleration (NCEER, 1997, after Stokoe et al., 1988, and Andrus, 1994).

45 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

0. 

C,, 

0 

C) 

0.2 

0.0

200 

Velocity, VS 1 , rn/s

Figure 26. Recommended liquefaction assessment chart based on Vs, and CSR for magnitude 7.5 

earthquake and uncemented soils of Holocene age (NCEER, 1997),

NUREG/CR-5741

0.

100 

Stress-Corrected Shear Wave

Boundaries Defined by: 

ORR = a(Vs8 /100)2 + b[l/(yVSe-Vss)-1Ns]cM = 7.5 

a = 0.03, b = 0.9 

-Vsl = 220 mis for sands and gravels with FC •5% 

Vsje = 210 m/s for sands and gravels with FC = 20% 

Vslc = 200 m/s for sands and silts with FO k 35% 

Chart Based on: 

Average values of Vs1 & a.. 

Uncemented, Holocene-age soils 

Average fines content (FC) 

FC k35 20 _<5 

Ill 

III 

Liquefaction 

No 

Liquefaction 

- -

0 300

A

46
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

measured and liquefaction resistance. The study was aimed at evaluation of liquefaction potential in 

marine deposits where sampling is particularly difficult and a data base exists for acoustic response. 

3.1.3 Undisturbed Sampling 

Soil samples are disturbed both mechanically and by changes in their effective stress state on removal 

from a deposit in situ and transportation to testing facilities. The term "undisturbed" used in this report 

is liberally interpreted to imply sampling activities that minimize mechanical disturbance. As concerns 

liquefaction potential evaluation, Marcuson and Franklin (1979) reviewed techniques and apparatuses 

that are still commonly applied to sample granular soils. Significant conclusions reported in that refer

ence include: (1) fixed-piston, thin-walled tube samplers used in boreholes supported by appropriately 

mixed drilling mud or fluid generally yield high quality samples of many sands; (2) the use of radio

graphs of samples within sampling tubes permits judgment of sampling disturbance for selection of 

representative specimens; (3) undisturbed gravel specimens can be successfully obtained only by hand 

carving larger block samples; and (4) in situ freezing of a larger-than-required volume of soil for subse

quent trimming produces very high quality (with regard to mechanical disturbance) soil samples, as long 

as the freezing front is propagated in a manner that assures free drainage. 

Marcuson and Franklin (1979) reported that fixed piston sampling operations tend to produce the best 

samples so obtained when used in medium dense sands. Tube sampling was observed to densify loose 

sands and dilate dense sands. The implication is that cyclic strength test results on tube sampled speci

mens, if interpreted directly, would be unconservative in the case of sands that were loose in situ, and 

overconservative in dense sands. 

3.2 Screening Techniques 

3.2.1 General 

This section describes techniques for initial or screening evaluation of sites for liquefaction susceptibility 

of soils. The goal of these evaluations is to determine whether the site is clearly safe or if soils clearly 

will liquefy. Either determination will make further, more detailed, liquefaction potential evaluations 

unnecessary and work can proceed to the next phase (e.g., stability evaluation, design, etc). If the result 

of a screening evaluation is unclear, however, then a more detailed analysis will be needed, as described 

in subsequent sections. 

The scope of the investigation required is dependent not only on the nature and complexity of geologic 

site conditions, but also on the economics of a project and on the level of risk acceptable for the proposed 

structure or development. Naturally, a more detailed liquefaction field study is necessary for critical 

structures and facilities (e.g., nuclear facilities, hospitals, large dams, power plants, air fields, critical 

harbor facilities, major bridge abutments, etc.) than for non-critical structures and facilities. 

As discussed in earlier sections, most liquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils and/or silty 

soils of low plasticity. Cohesive soils with fines contents of greater than 30 percent, and whose fines 

either (a) classify as clays based on the Unified Soil Classification System, or (b) have a Plasticity Index 

(PI) of greater than 30 percent, are not generally considered potentially susceptible to soil liquefaction. 

In the People's Republic of China, numerous instances of liquefaction have been observed in deposits of 

fine-grained silty, clayey soils, during recent strong earthquakes (Wang, 1979). Some soils with clay 

content (particles finer than 0.005 microns) less than 15 percent by weight, liquid limit less than 35 per

cent, and occurring at natural water contents greater than 90 percent of their liquid limit were found to

47 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

have liquefied. There is, however, no available information (based on the observations in China) on the 

ground motion characteristics required to trigger this behavior, except that occurrences were reported for 

earthquakes ranging in Modified Mercalli Intensity from VII to IX (magnitude 5.5 to 7.4). These obser

vances evolved into the criteria published in a definitive EERI monograph by Seed and Idriss (1982). 

Certain cohesive soils may be vulnerable to strength loss on remolding (e.g., sensitive clays and "quick" 

clays), and the hazard posed by the presence of these soils, though not classically defined as liquefaction 

and therefore not addressed by these guidelines, should also be assessed. Youd (1998) suggests that it is 

sufficiently conservative to assume, for screening purposes, that soils having dual Unified Soil Classifi

cation System designations, such as CL-ML, SM-SC, or GM-GC are potentially liquefiable; other desig

nations involving the "C" descriptor exceed the clay content observed by Wang (1979) to bound 

liquefiable deposits. 

In addition to sandy and silty soils, some gravelly soils are potentially vulnerable to liquefaction. Histori

cally, geotechnical engineers have tended to consider gravelly soils safe with respect to potential lique

faction, and numerous references abound in which soil gradation plots indicate a boundary beyond which 

coarse (typically gravelly) soils will not liquefy. Considerable research since 1980 has shown, however, 

that gravelly soils can liquefy, and there are a number of well-documented field case histories confirming 

this (e.g., Coulter and Migliachio, 1966; Ishihara, 1984; Harder, 1988; Andrus and Youd, 1987; Andrus 

and Youd, 1989; Andrus, et al., 1992). Most coarse, gravelly soils drain relatively freely, but when 

(a) their voids are filled with finer particles, or (b) they are surrounded by less pervious soils, their drain

age can be impeded and they may be vulnerable to cyclic pore pressure generation and/or liquefaction. 

Similarly, when they are of considerable thickness and lateral extent, deposits of coarse gravelly soils 

may not be capable of dissipating seismically-induced pore pressures and so may be vulnerable to poten

tial liquefaction. 

When gravelly soils are dense, and so are highly resistant to liquefaction, preliminary screening methods 

involving assessment of their density (and approximate relative density), shear wave velocity, and/or 

geologic age and depositional history may often suffice for evaluation of their liquefaction susceptibility. 

When these types of preliminary screening methods do not suffice, the best techniques currently avail

able for detailed quantitative evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of coarse, gravelly soils are those 

described by Harder and Seed (1986), Sykora, Koester, and Hynes (1991), and NCEER (1997) involving 

the use of Becker Hammer penetration test resistance correlations. Given the uncertainties involved in 

the penetration resistance measured with the Becker Hammer, and in correlating BPT resistance to SPT 

resistance, it may be necessary to directly measure densities of gravelly materials in exploratory test pits. 

These pits can be expensive, since they may involve dewatering and excavation support by means of 

large casing. 

3.2.2 Liquefaction Hazard Screening Evaluation 

Liquefaction hazard at a site may be screened in two general steps: (1) a preliminary geologic/ 

geotechnical site evaluation; and, if warranted, (2) a more detailed geotechnical evaluation of liquefac

tion potential and its potential consequences. In many instances, the early stages of such investigations 

will suffice to demonstrate the absence of liquefaction hazard at a proposed project site. Otherwise, it 

will be necessary to proceed with the types of studies described in the next section. 

Preliminary geological/geotechnical site evaluation studies must address three basic questions: 

(a) Are potentially liquefiable soil types present?

NUREG/CR-5741 48
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

(b) If so, are they saturated and/or may they become saturated at some future date? 

(c) If so, are they of sufficient thickness and/or lateral extent as to pose potential risk to the survival 

or function of the project? 

If preliminary geologic investigations addressing these issues can clearly demonstrate the absence of 

liquefaction hazard at a site, then these preliminary investigations may, by themselves, be sufficient. If 

some uncertainty remains, however, then more comprehensive geotechnical studies should be 

undertaken. 

3.2.2.1 Are Potentially Liquefiable Soil Types Present? 

In assessing the potential presence of liquefiable soil types, investigations should extend to depths below 

which liquefiable soils cannot reasonably be expected to occur (e.g., to bedrock, or to hard competent 

soils of sufficient geologic age that possible underlying units could not reasonably be expected to pose a 

liquefaction hazard). At most sites where soil is present, such investigation will require either borings or 

trench/test pit excavation. Simple surface inspection will suffice only when bedrock is exposed over 

essentially the full site, or in very unusual cases when the local geology is sufficiently well-documented 

as to fully ensure the complete lack of possibility of occurrence of liquefiable soils (at depth) beneath the 

exposed surface soil unit(s). 

Liquefaction resistance can be at least roughly correlated with geologic age, depositional environment 

and prior seismic history (see Table 1, introduced earlier). It should be noted that most liquefaction risk 

is associated with recent Holocene deposits and uncompacted fills, as progressively older units tend to 

have progressively higher resistance to liquefaction. There have, however, been a few observed cases of 

liquefaction of Pleistocene and even Pre-Pleistocene deposits, and particular caution should be used 

when dealing with very loose soils (e.g., dune sands, talus, etc.) and with extremely loose collapsible 

soils (e.g., loess). 

3.2.2.2 Are They Saturated and/or May They Become Saturated? 

If it can be demonstrated that any potentially liquefiable soil types present at a site (a) are currently 

unsaturated (e.g., are above the water table), (b) have not previously been saturated (e.g., are above the 

historic high water table), and (c) cannot reasonably be expected to become saturated, then such soils 

may be considered to pose no potential liquefaction hazard. Table 3 summarizes historical data relating 

water table depth to liquefaction susceptibility. It should be emphasized that project development, and/or 

changes in local or regional water management patterns, can significantly raise water table elevations. 

Extrapolation of data regarding water table elevations from adjacent sites will not, by itself, usually suf

fice to demonstrate the absence of liquefaction hazard in the absence of additional supporting data from 

the proposed project site itself, except in those unusual cases where a combination of uniformity of local 

geology and very low regional water tables permits very conservative assessment of water table depths. 

Preliminary geologic site evaluations should also address the possibility of local perched water tables or 

locally saturated soil units being present at a proposed project site. 

3.2.2.3 Is the Geometry of Potentially Liquefiable Deposits Such that They Pose No Risk? 

If the presence of potentially liquefiable soil types cannot be discounted, and if it cannot be shown that 

such soils are not and will not become saturated, then the absence of significant liquefaction hazard may 

still be demonstrated if it can be shown that potentially liquefiable soil deposits are of insufficient

49 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Groundwater Table Depth Relative liquefaction 

Susceptibility 

<3m Very High 

3mto6m Hig 

6 m to 10 m Moderate 

lOmto 15 m Low 

>15m Very Low

Table 3. Relative liquefaction susceptibility of natural deposits as a function of groundwater table depth 

(Youd, 1998)

NUREG/CR-5741 50
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

thickness and/or lateral extent to pose any risk to the proposed structure(s) or facilities. It should be 

noted that relatively thin seams of liquefiable soils (on the order of only a few inches thick), if (a) very 

loose (and thus having very low or negligible residual undrained strength), and (b) laterally continuous 

over sufficient area, can represent potentially hazardous planes of weakness and sliding, and may thus 

pose hazard with respect to translational site instability and/or lateral spreading and related ground dis

placements. When suitably sound lateral containment is provided to eliminate potential sliding on lique

fied layers, then potentially liquefiable zones of finite thickness occurring at depth may be deemed to 

pose no significant sliding risk. It must be considered, however, that buildings may settle (uniformly, or 

more likely, differentially) even if a liquefiable soil layer is contained, and sand boils can cause serious 

damage if they fill the floor of a critical facility. 

3.2.3 Quantitative Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance 

If the preliminary geologic site evaluation indicates the presence of potentially liquefiable soils, either in 

a saturated condition or in a location which might subsequently become saturated, and of sufficient 

extent as to pose some level of risk, then the resistance of these soils to liquefaction and/or significant 

strength loss due to cyclic pore pressure generation under seismic loading should be evaluated. Simi

larly, if the preliminary geologic site evaluation does not conclusively eliminate the possibility of lique

faction hazard at the site, then more extensive analyses are required. Quantitative evaluation of liquefac

tion potential, addressed in the next section, is generally accomplished in two steps: (1) a quantitative 

evaluation of resistance to cyclic pore pressure generation or "triggering" of liquefaction, and (2) an eval

uation of the undrained residual strength characteristics of the potentially liquefiable soils, leading to an 

assessment of post-earthquake stability and deformations. 

3.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility - General 

Liquefaction susceptibility at a site is commonly expressed in terms of a factor of safety against the 

occurrence of liquefaction. This factor is defined as the ratio between available soil resistance to lique

faction, expressed in terms of the cyclic stresses required to cause soil liquefaction and the cyclic stresses 

generated by the design earthquake. Both of these parameters are in turn commonly normalized with 

respect to the effective overburden stress at the depth in question, and are respectively represented by 

CRR and CSR: 

Available Soil Resistance Faagainst liquefaction = 

Earthquake Induced Stresses (6) 

SFS1 

CRR1 

CSR 

The following methods for calculating the factor of safety against liquefaction have been used to various 

extents: 

3.3.1 Analytical Methods 

These methods typically rely on laboratory test results to determine either liquefaction resistance or soil 

properties that can be used to predict the development of liquefaction. Various equivalent linear and 

nonlinear computer methods are used with the laboratory data to evaluate the potential for liquefaction.

51 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Because of the considerable difficulty in obtaining undisturbed samples of loose granular (liquefiable) 

sediment for laboratory evaluation of constitutive soil properties, the use of analytical methods, which 

rely on accurate measurements of constitutive properties, are usually limited to critical projects or to 

research. If reliable screening procedures have not ruled out the possibility of liquefaction at a nuclear 

power facility, a comprehensive laboratory testing program may be justified. Laboratory methods are 

discussed in a subsequent section. 

3.3.2 Physical Modeling 

Physical modeling is a well-known approach to solving engineering problems so complex that they are 

not amenable to exact mathematical solution. Obviously, the state of stress in a small-scale model under 

normal self-weight (gravity) loading will be much different from the state of stress in a full size proto

type. If the model materials have stress-dependent constitutive behavior and exhibit time dependent 

response phenomena, quantitative and even qualitative differences in behavior might be expected 

between a small-scale model and the corresponding full size prototype. Unless measures are taken in the 

small scale modeling process, not only will measurable parameters such as stress, deformation, pressure, 

and time for processes in the model be different from those in the prototype, but the observed response or 

failure mechanism may also be quite different in the model than in the prototype. However, if a small 

scale model could be subjected to an increased acceleration field, the stress level caused by self weight in 

the model would be the same as the corresponding stress level existing in the prototype. Many of the 

problems and limitations associated with testing a small-scale model would thus be removed. Accelera

tion above normal gravity (1 g) is achieved through the use of a centrifuge, and in the elevated gravity 

field, model behavior will theoretically be directly correlated with that of the full sized prototype if the 

experiment has been designed properly. 

The primary advantages of a centrifuge test are that model stresses and strains can be made equal to those 

of the prototype, and extrapolation of model results to predict prototype behavior are simpler and more 

reliable than in 1 g models for most cases (due to the effects of self weight stress states). For models that 

involve nonlinear material behavior, the stresses in the model will be equal to those in the corresponding 

prototype. If the same materials in a prototype are used for a model and if the model experiences the 

same stresses as the prototype, the strains will be the same at corresponding points within the model and 

prototype, and the patterns of deformation will be identical. This is the main principle in centrifuge 

modeling, that a 1/N model accelerated to a gravitational force of Ng will be subjected at comparable 

points in the soil mass to the same stresses as the prototype, where N is the scaling factor and g is the 

acceleration of gravity. 

In recent years, no application in centrifuge modeling has received more attention than seismic simula

tion, especially in the United States and Japan, where earthquakes are common occurrences and earth

quake hazard mitigation is a major challenge to the engineering profession. This is especially true in the 

geotechnical engineering community. Considerable advances have been made in developing an under

standing of the pertinent dynamic soil properties that influence the performance of soil deposits and soil 

structures under seismic loading. Numerous analytical procedures have been proposed to explain and 

correlate the observed earthquake induced phenomena. Some procedures are empirical, while others are 

based on coupled theories of soil/water interaction incorporating elasto-plastic constitutive models. 

However, due to a lack of quality field data, there remains a considerable gap in our understanding of the 

phenomena of permanent deformations, especially those occurring during liquefaction. Because of this 

and the inherent difficulties in orchestrating full-scale seismic events, physical modeling in the centrifuge 

has become a popular alternative for studying the seismic performance of earth structures. Scale models 

can be prepared with prescribed soil property profiles and shaken in the simulated gravity environment in

NUREG/CR-5741 52
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

a centrifuge with controllable base input motion. The model response may be studied qualitatively, and 

also produces quantitative data for calibrating numerical procedures and validating specific prototype 

designs. 

Numerous studies by many researchers have demonstrated the benefits of centrifuge modeling (Whitman, 

Lambe, and Kutter, 1981; Schofield, 1981; Scott, 1983; Arulanandan, Anandarajah, and Abghari, 1983; 

Steedman, 1984; Coe, Prevost, and Scanlan, 1985; Hushmand, Scott, and Crouse, 1988; and Ketcham, 

Ko, and Sture, 1991). In addition, a cooperative research project called VELACS (Verification of Earth

quake Liquefaction Analysis by Centrifuge Studies) sponsored by the National Science Foundation veri

fied the use of centrifuge studies for seismic simulation capabilities. Arulanandan and Scott (1993) have 

reported results of these centrifuge experiments and their predictions. Centrifuge modeling may prove to 

be very cost-effective, given the amount of data obtainable from each test. 

The primary disadvantage to centrifuge testing involves the improper modeling of particle size. When an 

experiment is conducted in the laboratory or in a field environment, the soil particle size is correct but the 

stresses and strains can not be accurately duplicated. Centrifuge testing permits correct modeling of the 

stresses and strains through the increased gravity field. However, models are constructed with small par

ticle size material to compensate for the scaling effects that occur in the increased gravity environment. 

Therefore, the particle size is incorrect and the relationships such as interlocking, etc. are lost. A second 

disadvantage involves the replication of in situ soil conditions and the in situ loading history. This is 

typically not a problem in applications such as verification of theories, parametric studies, verification of 

numerical analysis, or study of soil response phenomena. However, it is a problem if the objective of the 

test is to realistically model an existing facility and judge it's response to external stimuli such as a dam 

shaken by an earthquake. It will not be possible to build a centrifuge model and incorporate the soils in 

situ conditions and loading history. Modeling and interpretation problems arise if the stress-strain behav

ior of a material is strain-rate dependent. For true similitude, the time scales would need to be the same 

in the model and prototype. 

3.3.3 Empirical Procedures 

Because of difficulties in analytically or physically modeling soil conditions at liquefiable sites, the use 

of empirical methods has become widely adopted in routine engineering practice. Procedures for carry

ing out a liquefaction assessment using the empirical method are summarized in following sections. 

More detail on development of the methods is given by (Seed, 1983), National Research Council (NRC, 

1985), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Build

ings (BSSC, 1991). The most recent information on empirical methods is found in the proceedings of the 

1996 NCEER workshop on the subject, held at Salt Lake City, Utah (NCEER, 1997). Subsequent discus

sions on various methods reflect consensus achieved among the geotechnical engineering community 

during and consequent to that workshop. 

3.3.4 Laboratory Cyclic Strength Testing 

Ideally, the best cyclic test to evaluate response of soils to earthquake shaking would be one that cor

rectly simulates the loading to which the soil would be subjected in situ. Cyclic simple shear tests may 

best reproduce the straining in a soil specimen caused by upwardly propagating earthquake waves. Vari

ous configurations of cyclic simple shear, cyclic triaxial, large-scale shake table, and cyclic torsional 

shear (on solid or hollow specimens) apparatuses have been employed to study liquefaction resistance. 

Elemental laboratory cyclic test techniques and their relative applicabilities are surveyed by Woods 

(1981) and Wood (1982).

53 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures 

Historically, the most common cyclic loading technique for investigating liquefaction resistance involves 

the performance of the cyclic triaxial test, as a consequence of such factors as availability of equipment 

and relative ease of preparing undisturbed specimens. This is in spite of wide recognition of the inability 

of the test to accurately represent field earthquake stresses and boundary conditions (Seed and Idriss, 

1982). Figures 27 and 28 are a schematic drawing of the cyclic triaxial test apparatus and a sample 

recording of load, deformation, and pore pressure response, respectively. Cyclic strength curves such as 

are typically generated from cyclic triaxial data are shown in Figure 29. Instructions for performance of 

cyclic triaxial tests may be found in Engineer Manual 1110-2-1906 (Department of the Army, 1986). 

Previous studies have demonstrated that cyclic triaxial strengths (in fact, strengths determined from any 

unidirectional loading test) are higher than those expected to produce equivalent effects in the field 

(Seed, 1976). Reduction factors were developed to adjust laboratory cyclic test strengths to estimate 

field liquefaction resistance (e.g., multiplication of cyclic triaxial strengths by factors ranging from 

0.57 to 1 for soils where the lateral earth pressure coefficient, K0, ranges from 0.4 to 1, respectively, 

described by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Estimation of field liquefaction resistance from laboratory cyclic 

test results may not be possible by universal application of simple factors; recent research has shown that 

the comparison between cyclic triaxial and cyclic simple shear strengths depends on gradation, density, 

and soil type (Koester, 1992). Furthermore, boundary conditions have been shown to cause water migra

tion within the test specimens subjected to cyclic loading (Castro, 1969, Casagrande and Rendon, 1978), 

leading to unreliable results. Thus the use of cyclic load tests for evaluating seismically induced pore 

pressures in sandy soils in situ is very rare in the U.S.; laboratory cyclic tests are more often used to 

establish parametric effects on cyclic strength behavior. 

3.4 Procedures for Empirical Evaluation of Liquefaction Susceptibility 

3.4.1 Evaluation of Earthquake-Induced Cyclic Stress Ratios 

This step consists of evaluating the equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio (CSRP) induced by the design 

earthquake. CSRq is a measure of the intensity of earthquake-induced cyclic loading, normalized with 

respect to vertical effective stress. For relatively level ground conditions (surface slopes or grades of less 

than about 15 degrees), this can be done by either of two basic methods as follows: 

3.4.1.1 Method 1. Simple, Empirical Evaluation Based on Prior Analyses 

This is the most widely used method of evaluating CSR, for liquefaction studies for structural founda

tions. The first step is to evaluate the peak (maximum, transient) horizontal acceleration occurring at the 

surface of the site (the peak ground surface acceleration; am). This may differ significantly from the 

peak ground acceleration value selected from the seismological study, as local site conditions can signifi

cantly modify a.. It should be noted that soft alluvial deposits may amplify levels of ground surface 

acceleration relative to the acceleration levels which might be expected if the site conditions consisted of 

either stiff, shallow soils or rock. Evaluation of am, to account for local site conditions may either be 

done empirically, or may involve performing dynamic site response analyses. 

Having developed an estimate of a, at the ground surface, corresponding estimates of the maximum 

horizontal acceleration at various depths (at points of interest within potentially liquefiable soil deposits) 

can be developed as 

amax~z = (amax) (rd) (7)

NUREG/CR-5741 54
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures 

A. HYDROSTATIC SEAL AIR SUPPLY PORT 

B. VENT 

C. TOP DRAINAGE PORT 

D. CHAMBER FLUID DRAIN 

E. TRANSDUCER CABLE CONNECTOR 

F. BOTTOM DRAINAGE PORT

NAME 

CHAMBER FOOT 

CHAMBER BASE 

SPECIMEN BASE 

POROUS PLATE 

SPECIMEN MEMBRANE 

SPECIMEN CAP 

SPECIMEN CAP CONNECTOR 

BEARING SUPPORT ROD 

CYLINDER 

CHAMBER CAP 

CYLINDER SEALING RING 

LOCKING KNOBS 

AIR BEARING ASSEMBLY 

PISTON LOCK 

LOADING PISTON 

SHOULDER SCREW 

BALL BUSHING 

O-RING 

0-RING 

O-RING 

O-RING 

0-RING 

O-RING

MATERIAL 

ALUMINUM CHANNEL 

ALUMINUM PLATE 

ALUMINUM 

STAINLESS STEEL 

RUBBER 

ALUMINUM 

BRASS 

STAINLESS STEEL 

CLEAR ACRYLIC 

ALUMINUM 

ALUMINUM 

STEEL 

ALUMINUM 

BRASS 

STAINLESS STEEL 

STEEL 

STAINLESS STEEL 

RUBBER 

RUBBER 

RUBBER 

RUBBER 

RUBBER 

RUBBER

QUANTITY 

2 

2 

1 2 

1 

1 

2 3 

2 

2

'1 0 1 2 3

TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION CHAMBER 

Figure 27. Schematic of cyclic triaxial test equipment (Department of the Army, 1986)

NUREG/CR-5741

PART NO. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23

55
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

LOAD

DEFORMATION

INITIAL LIQUEFACTION

PORE PRESSURE 

Figure 28. Typical analog recordings of load, deformation, and pore pressures during a cyclic 

triaxial test (Department of the Army, 1986) 

NUREG/CR-5741 56

Uj 

Uw 

0t.

-j 

C-,

0 

0 

C-, 

0 

cm 

4-, 

M
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

0.6

b b -I-I 

II 

I0.4 

0.2

0 1 10 100

NUMBER OF CYCLES 

Figure 29. Cyclic triaxial strength curves for Monterey No. 0 sand (Department of the Army, 

1986),

57 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

where 

a,. = Peak ground surface acceleration [g] 

a,.,, = Peak horizontal acceleration at depth = z 

rd = Empirical reduction factor from Figure 30 

The results of numerous response analyses were summarized by Seed and Idriss (1971), and the results 

are presented in Figure 30 (NCEER, 1997), which shows the peak acceleration reduction factor (rd) as a 

function of depth for analyses of level and nearly level sites. It should be noted that rd is fairly 

well-defined to depths of up to about 40 feet, but is highly variable at greater depths (so that conservative 

selection of upper-bound or near upper-bound rd values is recommended here). Similarly, the rd values 

shown in Figure 30 are directly applicable to level sites with relatively horizontal subsurface soil 

layering. These rd values should be applied with caution to significantly sloping sites and/or to sites with 

complex subsurface geometry: in such cases, it may be advisable to perform two-dimensional or even 

three-dimensional seismic response analyses to evaluate cyclic shear stresses directly, as described in 

Method 2 below. 

Having developed estimates of the maximum horizontal acceleration at each point of interest, the 

equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio (CSRq) at each point can then be taken as 

CSReq = 0.65 ma• xo (8) 

where 

Go = Total (vertical overburden stress at point of interest 

O' = Effective vertical overburden stress at point of interest 

a•=., = Maximum horizontal acceleration at the point of interest 

g = acceleration of gravity. 

As computed by Eq. 10 above, CSRP is taken to be equal to 65 percent of the peak (transient, non

repeating) cyclic stress ratio at the point of interest. This is a consequence of analyses reported by Seed 

and Idriss (1971) that determined the average equivalent uniform shear stress to be about 65 percent of 

the maximum shear stress developed by a typical irregular stress history. 

3.4.1.2 Method 2. Direct Calculation of •ui,cydr,m or am1 at Each Point of Interest 

A second approach is to directly calculate the peak (transient, non-repeating) cyclic shear stress acting on 

a horizontal plane ('bv,cYC•iC,n) or the peak (transient, non-repeating) horizontal acceleration (a..) at each 

point of interest. This is accomplished through a dynamic site response analyses. If am,, values are 

calculated, then CSR, can be derived using Eq. 10. If values of Chvcyctic:.x are calculated at each point of 

interest, then the associated values of CSR! can be calculated as 

CSR = 0.65 ( hqvcyclic max (9) CS~eq= 0.5 oa

NUREG/CR-5741 58
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

(Tmax)d 

rd = (Tmax)r 

0.1 02 03 0.4 0.5 0.6

rd = 1.0- 0.00765z 

rd = 1.174- 0.0267z 

0.744 

- 0.008z 

rd= 0.5 0

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

forz !g 9.15 m 

for 9.15 <z _• 23 m 

for 23 < z • 30 m 

for z> 30 m

Figure 30. Variations of the parameter rd with depth (NCEER, 1997) '

NUREG/CR-5741

O 

3(10) 

6(20) 

9(30) 

12(40) 

15(50) 

18(60) 

21(70) 

24(80) 

27(90) 

30(100)

Average values 

Mean values of rd calculated 

- from expressions below 

_ Range for different 

soil profiles 

Simplified procedure. -not verified with. 

casehistoydat . .. 

..iegion . . . 

. .o . . . °

I

59
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

where 

zh~cycl~c = the peak horizontal cyclic shear stress at the point of interest, and 

ao' = the effective (vertical) overburden stress at the point of interest. 

It should be noted that for non-level ground conditions (e.g., slopes, embankments, dams, etc.) it is gener

ally necessary to incorporate consideration of the overall problem geometry (and stratigraphy) in evalu

ation of either "thvcycic,.max or ama,z at each point within the slope or the underlying foundation soils. This 

often requires the use of either two-dimensional or three-dimensional finite element analyses of dynamic 

response, as described by Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin (1990). 

3.4.2 Evaluation of In Situ Liquefaction Resistance 

Having calculated the equivalent uniform cyclic shear stress ratios resulting from the earthquake loading 

at each point of interest, the next step is to evaluate the resistance of the in situ materials to cyclic pore 

pressure generation or accumulation of cyclic shear strain. This constitutes evaluation of the resistance 

to "triggering" or initiation of liquefaction, defined as in Section 2.1. The evaluation of in situ liquefac

tion resistance of soils not containing significant amounts of gravel can be accomplished using either 

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or Cone Penetration Test (CPT) penetration resistance data; Becker 

Penetration Tests (BPTs) may be used to determine penetration resistance analogous to SPT or CPT data 

in gravelly soils. The following discussions emphasize the SPT-based approach, due to its extensive 

worldwide data base and practice; Section 3.1.2.2 detailed liquefaction potential evaluation using the 

CPT. 

Figure 18 shows a recommended relationship between corrected SPT penetration resistance (N1)60 and 

the equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio required to "trigger" liquefaction during an earthquake with a 

duration (or number of loading cycles) representative of a typical earthquake with a magnitude of M = 

7-1/2 (NCEER, 1997, based on the data of Seed et al., 1985). In this relationship, cyclic resistance ratio 

(CRR) is defined as the ratio of the cyclic shear stress acting on a horizontal plane (Thc.cYlic) to the initial 

(pre-earthquake) effective vertical or overburden stress (a,') for the boundary lines in the figure. The 

relationships presented in Figure 18: (a) directly account for the influence of fines content on the rela

tionship between penetration resistance and liquefaction resistance, and (b) are based on a corrected or 

"standardized" SPT penetration resistance. Figure 18 summarizes a very large data base of field (case 

history) performance, and presents the most reliable basis currently available for assessment of in situ 

liquefaction resistance based on SPT penetration resistance. The relationships described earlier in this 

report for CPT assessment of liquefaction resistance are also considered reliable in current practice. 

Additional field data from seismic events occurring between 1984 and 1991 have upheld the relation

ships presented in this figure. 

3.4.2.1 "Standardized" SPT criteria 

The following commentary and guidance is given with respect to the standard penetration test in recogni

tion of the variety of equipment and procedures used to conduct standard penetration tests, and because 

the measured blow count, Nm, is sensitive to equipment and operational procedures. Special attention 

must be given to the determination of normalized blow count, (N)60, used in Figure 18. When develop

ing the empirical relation between blow count and liquefaction resistance, it was recognized that the blow 

count from the SPT is influenced by factors such as the method of drilling, the type of hammer, the sam

pler design, and type of mechanism for lifting and dropping the hammer. The magnitude of these vari

ations are shown by the data in Table 4. The following procedures and specifications for SPT tests,

NUREG/CR-5741 60
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Country Hammer Hammer Release ER:.Energy Ratio or Correction Factor 

Type Estimated Rod Energy for 60% Rod Energy 

I. JAPAN** 

A. Donut Free-Fall 78% 78/60 = 1.30 

* B. Donut Rope & Pulley with 67% 67160 1.12 

special throw release (55%)** (55160 = 0.89)** 

H. USA 

* A. Safety Rope & Pulley 60% 60160 = 1.00 

B. Donut Rope & Pulley 45% 45160 = 0.75 

C. Pilcon-type 

"free-fall" Mechanical 70% 70/60 = 1.16 

nII. ARGENTINA 

* A. Donut Rope & Pulley 45% 45/60 = 0.75 

IV. CHINA 

* A. Donut Free-Fall*** 60% 60/60 1.00 

B. Donut Rope & Pulley 50% 50160 = 0.83 

* Most prevalent method in this country today. 

** Japanese SPT results require additional corrections for borehole diameter and blow frequency effects, 

and the cumulative effect of both hammer type and hammer release along with these additional 

corrections is equivalent to an overall 'effective energy ratio" of ER 55 %. 

* Plem-Type hammers develop an energy ratio of about 60%. 

Table 4. Summary of energy ratios (ER) for some common SPT procedures (after Seed, et al., 1984, 

1986)

61 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

excerpted from Seed, et al. (1985), were developed in order to reduce variability in Nm for liquefaction 

investigations: 

(a) The impact should be delivered by a rope and drum system with two turns of the a rope around 

the rotating drum (cathead winch) to lift a hammer weighing 140 lb; ideally, a drive system 

should be used for which the energy ratio (ER) has been measured or can be reliably estimated. 

(b) The hole should be approximately 4 in.. (100 mm) diameter and drilled with a tricone or baffled 

drag bit that produces upward deflection of the drilling fluid to prevent erosion of soil below 

the cutting edge of the bit. Bentonitic drilling mud should be used for borehole stability, and 

special care is required to assure that the drilling fluid level in the hole never drops below the 

ground water table. 

(c) A or AW rod should be used in holes less than 50 ft deep. N or NW rod should be used in 

deeper holes. 

(d) The split spoon sampling tube should be equipped with liners or otherwise have a constant 

internal diameter of 1-3/8 in. 

(e) Application of blows should be at a rate of 30 to 40 blows per minute. (Some engineers suggest 

that a slower rate of 20 to 30 blows per minute is easier to achieve and control and gives com

parable results.) The blow count, Nm, is determined by counting the blows required to drive the 

penetrometer the last 12 in. of an 18-in. depth interval, i.e., from 6-in. to 18 in. below the bot

tom of the hole. 

The consensus of current practice toward standardized procedures and adjustments for SPT blowcounts 

measured in evaluations of liquefaction resistance is reflected in the following expression for calculation 

of (N1)60 (NCEER, 1997). 

(Nd)60 = NCN CE CB CR CS (10) 

Table 5 (NCEER 1997, after Skempton, 1986) provides values for the correction factors in this 

expression, which are described in more detail in the following sections. 

3.4.2.2 Corrections to SPT N. Values to Yield (NJ)6 Values 

3.4.2.2.1 Corrections for Hammer Type and Release System 

Blowcounts (N-values) obtained using hammer-types and/or hammer release mechanisms other than 

those listed in Table 4 must be corrected to generate "standardized" bloA counts (N60-values) as: 

N= ER 60 7 60%) (11) 

where ER is an energy ratio, expressed as the percent of theoretical maximum free fall energy delivered 

to the top of the drill stem by the hammer system actually used. This can be determined directly, using a 

dynamic energy measurement system, or can be estimated (for the most common alternate systems in

NUREG/CR-5741 62
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Table 5. Corrections to SPT N-values (NCEER, 1997, modified from Skempton, 1986)

NUREG/CR-5741

Factor Equipment Variable Term Correction 

Overburden Pressure CN (PO'vo) 

CN_< 2 

Energy ratio Donut Hammer CE 0.5 to 1.0 

Safety Hammer 0.7 to 1.2 

Automatic-Trip Donut- 0.8 to 1.3 

Type Hammer 

Borehole diameter 65 mm to 115 mm CB 1.0 

150 mm 1.05 

200mm 1.15 

Rod length 3 mto4m CR 0.75 

4mto6m 0.85 

6m to 10 m 0.95 

10 to 30 m 1.0 

>30 m <1.0 

Sampling method Standard sampler Cs 1.0 

Sampler without liners 1.1 to 1.3

63
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

widespread use) based on correlations and data summarized by Seed et al. (1985) and presented in 

Table 4. For most applications, the choice is simplified by using the values available in Table 5. It 

should also be noted that automatic trip hammers are becoming more commonly used in practice and are 

generally less variable with regard to energy delivery. 

3.4.2.2.2 Correction for Sampler Configuration 

An additional correction, increasing the measured N-value by between 10 percent and 30 percent, can be 

necessitated by the use of an ASTM standard sampler configured to accommodate an internal sample 

liner (tube), but with the liner omitted, so that the inside diameter of the sampler is larger than the 

1.375 in. specified by ASTM. The use of such an unlined sampler is actually by far the most common 

practice in the U.S., and it causes a reduction in frictional drag inside the sampler, lowering the measured 

blowcounts by about 10 percent to 30 percent (increasing percentage change with increased blowcount). 

Accordingly, when an unlined sampler with space for a liner is used, the resulting blowcounts must be 

corrected using the Cs factor given in Table 5. It is further recommended that Cs be varied from 1.1 to 

1.25 for N _< 5to N > 30 blows/ft. 

3.4.2.2.3 Correction for Short Rod Lengths 

It is recommended to use the correction factors CR given in Table 5 to adjust N-values measured at the 

given depth ranges for dynamic inefficiencies inherent in short rod driving systems. 

3.4.2.2.4 Correction for Overburden Stresses 

Penetration resistance, once adjusted for energy input as described above, must then be further corrected 

to account for effective overburden stress to develop the final, standardized and corrected penetration 

resistance at a hypothetical overburden stress of 00' = 1 ton/ft2 (1 kg/cm2). Dr. H. B. Seed and his col

leagues have long recommended a pair of relationships between a0' and CN: one for sandy soils at DR 

40 percent to 60 percent and one for DR z 60 percent to 80 percent, as shown in Figure 31. An alternate 

relationship, proposed by Liao and Whitman (1985), is 

1 

CN = (12) 

where 0o' is expressed in units of [tons/ft2]. The value given in Table 5 reflects this relationship, adapted 

to account for other units of pressure, and constrains the value to be not greater than 2. 

This provides a relationship intermediate between the two suggested relationships shown in Figure 31, 

and so eliminates the need to estimate DR. If DR must be estimated, then for in situ, clean sandy soils not 

placed recently, the approximate relationships presented in Figure 32 (Torrey, Dunbar, and Peterson, 

1988) can be used as a guide. This relationship should not be used for freshly placed soils, or for coarser 

materials than fine to medium sands. (Additional proposed relationships between penetration resistance 

and relative density are presented in Figure 32). It should also be noted that these overburden corrections 

are applicable only to silty and sandy soils; the overburden corrections for coarser gravelly soils differ 

significantly. 

It should be noted in Figure 18 that varying levels of CRR vs. (N1)6o, are shown for fines contents of 

S5 percent, 15 percent, and Ž 35 percent. In sandy soils, increased fines contents results in an increase

NUREG/CR-5741 64
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

CN 

-~~~ ~~ A.S~,c 

1

0

2

CL 

4

Dr =40 to 60% 

CL ~Drz 60to 80% 

0 

Figure 31. Correlation between correction factor CN and effective overburden pressure (based on data 

from Marcuson and Bieganousky, 1977) /

65 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

100 4 4A 14A 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 -'* Terzaghi & Peck (from Ske. 

After Tokimatsu and S~ 

4UXE Relationship used to a~

0/

rnpton,. 1986) 

~ed (1.987) 

pproximacte

joioKrrwtu* and Seed and cocJ~ulate 

relative densities for M~ontz and 

Bonnet Carre Point sites, i.e., 

.0.0460r2 - (N1)6O. 

After MAarcuson and Biegatiousky '(1!977)- for NC Reid Bed ford Model 

Sarnd, .0046Dr' = (Nl)60 + 2.72

I V V 11111 V VIII IT

10 20 (N 1)60

30 40

Figure 32. Several proposed relationships between SPT penetration resistance and relative 

density (Torrey, Dunbar, and Peterson, 1988)

NULREGICR-5741 6

CO 0J

30 

20 

1'0 

0 

0

' I 

I V

50

66
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

in the ratio of liquefaction resistance (or CRR) to penetration resistance (or (N1)6o). It was recognized by 

participants in the NCEER (1997) workshop that the reason for this increase is unclear; it is not well 

understood whether it results from greater liquefaction resistance or lesser penetration resistance conse

quential to increased compressibility and reduced permeability of soils containing fines. The consensus 

of workshop participants was that any correction for fines content should be related to penetration resis

tance and fines content, and the following relationship was produced to facilitate spreadsheets and other 

automated computational schemes in the determination of the equivalent clean sand corrected blowcount, 

(N)60.s: 

(N)6 = a + P (Nt)60 (13) 

where coefficients a and P3 are given by the following equations: 

a = 0 for FC : 5 percent (14a) 

a = exp { 1.76 - (190/FC2)] for FC < FC < 35 percent (14b) 

a = 5.0 for FC ; 35 percent (14c) 

3= 1.0 for FC _• 5 percent (15a) 

= [0.99 + (FC'1/1000)] for FC < FC < 35 percent (15b) 

= 1.2 for FC Ž 35 percent (15c) 

and where FC is the fines content measured from laboratory gradation tests on recovered soil samples. 

3.4.3 Correction for Earthquake Magnitudes other than M = 7-1/2 

The relationships between (N1 )60 and the equivalent uniform cyclic stress ratio necessary to cause lique

faction (CRR) in Figure 18 can be extended to earthquakes of magnitude other than M = 7-1/2 by noting 

that earthquakes of larger magnitude tend to produce a longer duration of shaking and thus more cycles 

of loading. Seed, Arango, and Chan (1975) and Seed and Idriss (1982) introduced procedures for con

verting a typical, irregular earthquake-induced cyclic load history to an equivalent number of uniform 

loading cycles with an amplitude equal to 65 percent of the peak or maximum amplitude of the irregular 

load history. A number of relationships have been developed to adjust liquefaction resistance for mag

nitudes other than M = 7-1/2; the NCEER (1997) recommended range for a magnitude scaling factor, 

MSF, is depicted in Figure 33. The hashed section for earthquakes with magnitudes less than 7.5 allows 

designers to choose levels of conservatism appropriate to their application. The curve labeled "Idriss" is 

recommended for earthquakes of magnitudes larger than 7.5. In any event, for earthquakes of M * 7-1/2, 

the value of CRR determined from Figure 18 can be corrected as follows: 

CRR1(M=M) = CRRI(M=7 .12)" MSF (16) 

It should be noted that this scaling of CRR, for magnitude (or duration) effects using MSF, is equivalent 

to a vertical shifting of the relationships shown in Figure 18. The "limiting" values of (N1)60 shown in 

Figure 18 (e.g., (N1 )60 z 30 blows/ft for clean sands with less than 5 percent fines) are penetration resis

tances corresponding to sufficiently high densities (or relative densities) that the soils in question are 

strongly dilative and thus not vulnerable to liquefaction. These cut-off values are not magnitude

dependent (or duration-dependent). Similarly, the factor of safety with respect to liquefaction (FS1) 

formulated in terms of CRR and CSR will have no meaning to the right of the relationships shown in

67 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

C.) 

C.

4.5 

4 

3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5

0 

5.0 

M < 7.5 

M>7.5

6.0 7.0 

Earthquake Magnitude, Mw

Lower bound, Idriss, MSF = 10-2 4

/M 2 .

5 6 

Upper bound, Andrus and Stokoe (NCEER, 1997), MSF = (M,/7.5)"33

Idriss, MSF = 10. 24/M2 56 

Figure 33. Relationship between KM and magnitude (NCEER, 1997)

NUREG/CR-5741

8.0 9.0

68
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Figure 18: any meaningful discussion of uncertainty or factor of safety at these high (N)60-values should 

more correctly revolve around the uncertainties in (a) determining the position of these cut-offs, and 

(b) uncertainties in evaluation of in situ (N1)w for the soil deposits in question. 

3.4.4 Correction of CRR for Effective Overburden Stress 

Virtually all of the field (case history) data represented in Figure 18 (and in similar collections of data for 

other magnitude ranges) are for level ground conditions and relatively shallow soils with relatively small 

initial effective overburden stresses. Laboratory measurements typically indicate that for a given soil, 

consistency (relative density for sands and gravels) and stress history, there is a non-linear relationship 

between liquefaction resistance and confining stress (Seed and Idriss, 1981; Seed, 1983; Vaid and 

Thomas, 1995; Hynes, 1988; Harder, 1988; Seed and Harder, 1990; Pillai and Byrne, 1994; and NCEER, 

1997). Consequently, if liquefaction resistance, either from laboratory measurements performed at a con

fining stress of 1 atm or estimated from correlations to in situ measurements such as Standard Penetration 

Tests (SPT), are linearly extrapolated to higher effective confining stress levels, the calculated liquefac

tion resistance may be too high. The effect of confining stress on liquefaction resistance is further com

plicated by soil compressibility and stress history. 

The state-of-the-practice approach to account for the non-linear relationship between liquefaction resis

tance and vertical effective stress is to use published charts derived from existing laboratory data on simi

lar materials or to determine a site specific relationship with a comprehensive laboratory testing program. 

For a given soil at a given consistency and stress history, the CRR generally decreases with increasing 

vertical effective stress. This decrease is described by the factor K,,, defined as the ratio of CRR for a 

given o,' to the CRR at a vertical effective stress of 1 atm, CRR, (compared at the same relative density). 

Values of CRR from Figure 18 can be used for in situ conditions where a,,' • 1 ton/ft2 (1 kg/cm2), but 

must be corrected for conditions with initial effective overburden stresses greater than 1 ton/ft2 as: 

CRR1I(o' = o') = CRRI(oo = I ISO * K. (17) 

Hynes and Olsen (1998) determined from a study of the available lab data base that method of deposi

tion, aging, stress history and density strongly influence K,. These effects are emphasized at low confin

ing stresses, such as 1 atm, and are de-emphasized as confining stresses increase, and ultimately converge 

at the stress focus. Within the stress range of interest for most critical structures, typically less than 

10 atm, K, is not strongly influenced by soil type. Specimens pluviated in the laboratory may represent 

recently deposited materials such as dredged and liquefied materials. Hynes and Olsen (1998) con

cluded, however, that for water-laid foundation deposits (typical for dams and many facilities on alluvial 

ground), high quality undisturbed specimens are necessary to determine field-relevant values of K,. Fig

ure 34 presents a series of relationships for Ko; the "clean sand" curve may be used for most applications. 

3.4.5 Correction of CRR for Initial Static Shear Stress 

All of the above corrections have been based on level ground conditions, that is, conditions in which no 

pre-earthquake static shear stresses act on horizontal planes within the soil. Generation of pore pressures 

and accumulation of shear strains under cyclic loading can be significantly affected by the presence of a 

static (non-cyclic) shear stress, and this too must be accounted for in analysis of liquefaction resistance 

within dams and embankments. Early relationships suggested to account for this suggested that the pres

ence of initial static shear stress on a horizontal plane was strongly beneficial, and that it significantly 

increased the soil's resistance to liquefaction. This remains true for relatively dense soils, or soils which

69 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

u Sardis Dam She 

Sardis Dam Foundati 

DSac. River Sand 

a Monterey 0 Sand 

*Reid Bedford Sand 

* New Jersey Backti11 

WTaitinxgs Sand Dr=60 

x Taitings Sand Dr=-65 

a Otlowa Sand Dr-6O 

"*Ottowa Sand Dr--70

1 2 3 

Effective

.O TSF 96 kPa

4 5 6 7 8 9 t0

Confining Pressure (tsf)

V. -

I J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Effective Confining Pressure (tsf)

K, = -(1.106E-9 * cy',o) + (2.552E-6 * o vo2 ) - (2.053E-3 * + 1.1893 

NOTE: this equation is for y'vo in kPa 

Figure 34. Ko recommendations from NCEER (1997) workshop

NUREG/CR-5741

0

0.8 

0,6 

0.4

- -

- - - -

__________ - - - - - - - -

1. 4 FI 6 ka 'A L

U

70

v
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

would tend to dilate under uni-directional shearing. Studies have shown, however, have shown that for 

very loose soils (soils which are less dilative or more contractive under uni-directional shearing), the 

presence of initial static shear stress can actually decrease the resistance of the soil to the initiation of 

liquefaction (e.g., Castro, 1969; Seed and Harder, 1990). The original method proposed by Seed (1983) 

to account for the effects of initial static shear stresses employed the following equation: 

CRR 1(,C = CRR (a=o) 0 * K. (18) 

where a is defined as the ratio of initial static shear stress on a horizontal plane to the initial effective 

overburden stress as a = Ch,/'). Relationships between a and K. are presented in Figure 35 (Seed and 

Harder, 1990), based on data available at this time. These are based on data for conditions where ao' < 

3 tons/ft2 (3 kg/cm2), and are appropriate only for these conditions. At higher initial effective overburden 

stresses, soils will be less dilative or more contractive, and K. values will decrease. 

3.5 Energy Approach 

An empirical procedure has been recently developed that delineates field occurrence data for liquefaction 

based on consideration of the seismic energy to which sites were subjected. The methods described 

above consider the maximum cyclic stress ratio, which has been shown to be a function of peak acceler

ation, and a later correction is necessary to adjust liquefaction resistance for various earthquake magni

tudes. Kayen (1993) correlated liquefaction occurrence data with seismic energy, characterized by the 

Arias intensity associated with site motions where recordings were available or could be reliably esti

mated. Arias intensity is defined by the total energy of the undamped response spectrum of a motion, 

that is, the energy absorbed by a series of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators when excited by an earth

quake's motion history. This total energy may be calculated from the following expression: 

1 t 

,h = + !=-foa 2 (,)dt + -f ay(t) dt (19) 

0 0 

where Ih is total Arias intensity, I4, and I. are components of Arias intensity in orthogonal horizontal 

directions, respectively, ak(t) and ay(t) are acceleration histories from accelerograms in the x and y direc

tions, and g is the acceleration of gravity. Dimensional units of Arias intensity are length divided by 

time, or velocity. Figure 36 is a plot of Arias intensity versus (N1)60 developed by Kayen (1993) after 

adjusting for depths of the data set's deposits and incorporating the corrections for fines contents used to 

develop Figure 18. This method has the advantage that corrections to liquefaction resistance for earth

quake magnitude are unnecessary, and ties the evaluation of liquefaction potential to a measure of the 

entire motion history. This procedure has not yet been sufficiently verified for immediate use in practice, 

but many feel that it is fundamentally attractive and will see more use in the future as additional ground 

motion records become available. 

3.6 Evaluation of Factor of Safety and Residual Excess Pore Pressure 

Generation 

Comparing the calculated equivalent, uniform, earthquake-induced cyclic stress ratios (CSRq) with the 

uniform cyclic stress ratios necessary to fully trigger liquefaction (CRR), the factor of safety against

71 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

2.0 

cvy, < 3 tsf 

D, = 55-70% 

1.5(N)= 14-22 

K. 1.o D, = 45-50% 

)ro 8-12 

0.5 D, 35% (Ni)6o = 4-6 " 

0 

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 

Figure 35. Ka recommendations from NCEER (1997) workshop

NUREG/CR-5741 72
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures 

Ilib - vs - (N1) 60 

United States & Japan

10

I1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

(N,) 6 0 

Figure 36. Observed liquefaction data plotted as a function of fines content and Arias Intensity 

Ihb (Kayen and Mitchell, 1997, after Kayen, 1993, reprinted with permission from ASCE)

NUREG/CR-5741

.Q)

0.1

73
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

"triggering" of liquefaction can be calculated as shown in Eq. 5. This factor of safety, FS1, can be inter

preted in a number of ways. Figure 37 (Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin, 1990) shows a plot of residual 

excess pore pressure ratio (ru = Au~oo') based on laboratory test data for level ground conditions (x = 0) 

as summarized by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) for sandy soils, and Evans (1987) and Hynes (1988) 

for gravelly soils. For non-level ground conditions (x E 0), the effective vertical stress need not neces

sarily be fully balanced by pore pressure increases to initiate large deformations in the presence of com

bined cyclic and static shear stresses. Accordingly, when ax # 0, the residual excess pore pressure ratio is 

best defined as the ratio of cyclically-generated pore pressures (Aue) to the excess pore pressure neces

sary to initiate large deformations (Au1 im) as 

.. Au (20) 

AUlim) 

Considerable judgment should be used in interpreting the ramifications of these levels of pore pressure 

generation. Nonetheless, it appears that a reliable analysis can be performed by considering that: 

1. Soil elements with low factors of safety (FS, • 1.1) would achieve conditions wherein soil lique

faction should be considered to have been "triggered," and undrained residual strengths (S,) 

should be assigned to these zones for further stability and deformation analyses. 

2. Soil elements with a high factor of safety (FS, Ž 1.4) would suffer relatively minor cyclic pore 

pressure generation, and should be assigned some large fraction of their (drained) static strength 

for further stability and deformation analyses. 

3. Soil elements with intermediate factors of safety (FS1 = 1.1 to 1.4) should be assigned strength 

values somewhere between (though in some cases including) the values appropriate to condi

tions 1 and 2 above. Whether the values assigned should be nearer to the initial static strength or 

to the residual undrained strength is a function of FS, whether or not the soil is judged to be 

strongly contractive in unidirectional shearing (and thus potentially vulnerable to progressive 

failure), and levels of uncertainty involved in various steps of the analysis up to this point (for 

any specific case). When soils are strongly contractive (e.g., when residual undrained strengths 

are low relative to the initial static shear stresses acting to promote failure), then the possibility 

of progressive failure/deformation should be considered; it is prudent in such cases to assume 

mobilization of undrained residual strengths within the contractive soil units. 

3.7 Example Calculations 

3.7.1 Given 

It is proposed to construct a 3-story reinforced concrete office building on a site near to a harbor. The 

approximately level site consists of 90 feet of fine to medium sands and silty sands (fines content varies 

randomly from about 5 percent to 30 percent), underlain by 75 ft of very stiff, overconsolidated silty clay. 

Bedrock occurs at a depth of about 165 ft. The groundwater table occurs at a depth of about 20 ft, and 

varies little with seasonal changes. Two borings with SPT have been performed at the site, and Figure 38 

shows the resulting measured SPT N-values. SPT were performed using a safety hammer, with a 

mechanical trip-hammer release system. The SPT sampler was of constant 1.375-inch inside diameter 

(there was no space for a liner within the sampler barrel).

NUREG/CR-5741 74
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

o; 0.8 SAND (TOKIMArTSU AND 

YOSHIMI 1983) .7 

m 0.6 'U 

0. 

-0.2 

01 

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 

FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION. FSL 

Figure 37. Relationship between residual excess pore water pressure ratio and factor of safety 

against liquefaction, from laboratory data (Marcuson, Hynes, and Franklin, 1990, reprinted 

with permission from EERI)

75 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

D•÷) o (,-en.)

1001

3-1_ 6 

N/= 10 

N-Is 

1J;: 12 

-t'J 35 

Ce Sf;($ S;u CIA7 (&L/ML)

$& Tz

't'

Figure 38. Example problem soil profile with raw SPT blowcounts '

NUREG/CR-5741

. W =2-7

N 16 

N= 37

J

-2-

.zz"

76
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Seismicity studies indicate that the level of peak acceleration on rock at the site, a. rock = 0.19 g, and this 

has been selected as the design-level seismic event. These studies have also resulted in selection of a 

magnitude of M, = 7 as characterizing the design-level event. 

3.7.2 Problem 

Evaluate resistance to liquefaction, and develop estimates of pore pressure generation (in terms of 

cyclically-induced pore pressure ratio: Arj) for the design-level seismic event. Finally, determine values 

for undrained residual strength, Sur for liquefied soils to use in post-earthquake stability analysis. 

Step 1: The SPT N-values must be corrected for equipment and procedural effects to develop (N1)6, 

values: 

There was no measurement of actual hammer energy made, so the safety hammer with mechanical 

trip-release will be based on use of Table 4 for Type ll.C having an efficiency or energy ratio of ER 

70 percent. Accordingly, all N-values will be multiplied by (70 percent/60 percent). 

No correction for sampler configuration is required in this case. 

The first SPT N-value in Boring B-1 could be multiplied by 0.75 to account for short rod lengths, but as 

it is at the margin of the range recommended for correction, this will not be done. 

As the only equipment and procedural corrections required are the energy ratio corrections, N60 values 

will be calculated (using Equation 14) as 

N6o = (N)(70/60) = (1.16)N 

The resulting N6o-values are presented in the fourth column of Table 6. 

Stev 2: The Nm-values must be corrected for overburden effects to develop (N1)60-values. Estimates of 

effective overburden stress will be made based on the following assumed soil unit weights: 

ym (above W.T.) = 120 lb/ft3 

y, (below W.T.) = 125 lb/ft3 

Overburden correction factors will be calculated as 

CAT = 1/F, 

where oY' = effective vertical stress in units of tons/ft2. The resulting calculated values of ao', CN, and 

(NI)60 are presented in the last three columns of Table 6. 

Step 3: Based on inspection of Table 6, it now appears that a somewhat looser zone of sands exists at 

depths of between about 35 ft to 65 ft. Accordingly, the sand stratum will be subdivided into four sub

strata as indicated in Table 7. 

The depth ranges and representative (N) 6o-values used for analyses of each of these four substrata are 

presented in the first two columns of Table 7. It should be noted that the representative (N1)6o-values

77 NUREG/CR-5741
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Table 6 Corrections to N-values

Boring No. 

B-1 

B-2 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-2 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-2

B-1

Depth (ft) 

10.0 

15.5 

25.5 

28.0 

40.0 

41.5 

52.0 

56.0 

68.0 

72.0

82.0

N (blows/ft) 

15 

20 

21 

27 

12 

17 

10 

16 

29 

37 

35

for Example Problem 

N,, 

(blows/ft) Oa' (tons/ft2 

17.4 0.60 

23.2 0.93 

24.4 1.37 

31.3 1.45 

13.9 1.83 

19.7 1.87 

11.6 2.20 

18.6 2.33 

33.7 2.70 

42.9 2.82

40.6 3.14

NUREG/CR-5741

CN, 

1.29 

1.04 

0.85 

0.83 

0.74 

0.73 

0.67 

0.66 

0.61 

0.59

(N,)6 0 

(blows/ft) 

22.5 

24.1 

20.7 

26.0 

10.3 

14.4 

7.8 

12.2 

20.5 

25.5

(N,)60 = 22 

blows/ft 

(N) 60 = 10 

blows/ft 

(N,)60 = 22 

blows/ft

0.56 22.7

78
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

Table 7 Calculation of Factor of Safety and Residual Excess Pore Pressure Ratio 

Depth Representative Sublayer Range (N1 ) No. 60 00 oo CRR (ft) (blows/ft) (tons/ft2 ) (tons/ftz) rd CSR,, (M = 7.0) FS, Aru (%M 

1 0 to 20 22 0.60 0.60 0.98 0.20 NA NA 0 

2 20 to 36 22 1.70 1.45 0.93 0.22 0.38 1.73 20% 

(0 to 30%) 

3 36 to 62 10 3.01 2.11 0.77 0.22 0.16 0.73 Liquefies 

Fully 

4 62 to 85 22 4.51 2.85 0.57 0.18 0.34 1.21 45% 

(15 to 50%)

NUREG/CR-5741 79
3. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Procedures

selected are not exact numerical averages within each depth range, but are instead conservatively selected 

values corresponding more nearly to lower-33-percentile values. 

Step 4: Within each sub-layer, estimate CSRq: 

As the upper sub-layer is not saturated, it is not necessary to evaluate CSReq within this sub-stratum for 

the purpose of determining liquefaction potential. It has been estimated here to be used in a later exam

ple to develop estimates of seismically-induced settlements. 

If sub-strata are relatively thick, it can be necessary to develop estimates of CSRe, at more than one 

depth within each stratum. Similarly, for non-level ground conditions, it can be necessary to develop 

estimates of CSRP at multiple points within each soil unit. For this example problem as site conditions 

correspond to level ground conditions (a = 0) and as the sub-layers are of manageable thickness, it will 

suffice to simply evaluate CSRP at the mid-point of each sub-stratum. 

Site response analyses have been performed, and it has been found that local site conditions (the soil 

profile present) can amplify acceleration levels relative to those which would occur "on rock." For the 

levels of acceleration considered here, these analyses suggested that the value of the a,, = 0.19 g be 

increased to a peak ground surface acceleration of a. = 0.31 g. Values of CSRq will then be calculated 

using Equation 11, and this calculation is presented in the third through seventh columns of Table 7. 

Values of rd for depths of more than 40 ft are "near-upper-bound" values from Figure 30. Effective and 

total overburden stresses, as well as CSR,, are calculated at the mid-point of each layer. Note: It is 

often desirable to subdivide into smaller sublayers to better discretize the system for analysis. The 

resulting calculated CSRP values for the magnitude 7 design-level event are presented in Table 7, 

Column 7. 

Step 5: Evaluate the CRR, required to "trigger" liquefaction: 

Values of CRR (M = 7.5) for each sub-layer can be obtained from Figure 18. For the sands at this exam

ple site, an average fines content of 15 percent will be used. The resulting values must then be scaled for 

both overburden pressure and magnitude effects (Equations 20 and 19, respectively). Overburden correc

tions for sub-layers 2 through 4 range from 0.93 to 0.80 (from Figure 34), and the magnitude scaling fac

tor was CM = 1.26 (from the upper bound of the recommended range in Figure 33, for M = 7.0). Note: If 

"Th, was not equal to zero (as it is in this example), then a would not be equal to zero, and a Ku-correction 

would also have been required. 

Stev 6: Divide Column 8 by Column 7 to estimate FS, and then estimate Aru using Figure 37: 

The last two columns of Table 7 present the results of this step. As the upper sub-layer is above the 

water table, no calculation is necessary for Sub-layer No. 1. Sub-layer No. 2 has a high FS, and will 

experience only minor cyclic pore pressure increase. Sub-layer No. 3 has a low FS: liquefaction would 

occur here. The deepest layer, Sub-layer No. 4, has a relatively low FS, and can be expected to experi

ence significant cyclic pore pressure generation. 

Step 7: Evaluation of undrained residual (steady state) strength, S•.r (Ss). 

Now develop estimates of the in situ undrained residual strengths of the sandy (silty sand) foundation 

soils.

NUREG/CR-5741 80
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

First, based on an average or representative fines content of approximately 15 percent, correct the (N1)60 

values for each sub-layer (from Table 7) using N,,, = 1.5 blows/ft (see Eq. 1). The resulting corrected 

penetration resistances are then as shown in the fourth column of Table 8. Second, using the (N1)60-. val

ues from Table 8, and the relationship in Figure 8, evaluate S,,,. The resulting values are shown in the 

last column of Table 8. For Sub-layer No. 1, which is above the water table, fully-drained (C-D) effec

tive stress shear strengths should be employed in seismic stability, displacement and bearing capacity 

analyses. For Sub-layers No. 2 and 4, the S,,,-values shown represent a conservative extrapolation of the 

relationship in Figure 8. The actual strengths modeled in these layers should not, however, be greater 

than their fully-drained (C-D) effective stress shear strengths. The value of Su.r = 250 psf is appropriate 

for Sub-layer No. 3 for all subsequent seismic stability, displacement, and bearing capacity analyses. 

4 ANALYSIS OF DISPLACEMENTS ACCOMPANYING 

LIQUEFACTION 

4.1 Background 

Several techniques have been proposed for estimating lateral ground displacement at sites where lique

faction is anticipated consequent to design earthquake shaking, including analytical models, physical 

models, and empirical correlations. The two most popular analytical approaches include finite element 

analysis and sliding block analysis. Non-linear finite element analyses have been proposed for evalu

ation of ground deformation at liquefaction sites (such as TARA-3FL (Finn and Yogendrakumar, 1989)). 

These analyses require constitutive stress-strain relationships and/or undrained steady state strength data. 

Because of difficulties inherent in sampling and testing to define these properties for field sites, applica

tions of these procedures are usually limited to critical projects or to research. Final design of nuclear 

facilities would be best served by rigorous analysis; the techniques discussed here will assist preliminary 

evaluations of deformation potential and consequences. 

Empirical procedures have become a standard procedure for determining liquefaction susceptibility and 

are now available for estimating lateral spread displacement. These empirical procedures have the 

advantage of using standard field tests and soil classification properties. For general engineering appli

cations, where a high degree of accuracy is not required, empirical analyses are adequate and can be con

servatively applied for basic engineering design. Where additional accuracy is required, the empirical 

estimates may be improved by the more sophisticated finite element or mechanistic sliding block analy

ses. This report does not address distinction of deformations as to whether their levels are acceptable or 

tolerable; neither are forces exerted on structures by deforming ground addressed. Both aspects must be 

considered in design of critical structure foundations. 

4.2 Inertial Deformations (Newmark Sliding Block Analogy) 

The potential magnitude of seismically-induced down slope permanent deformations in earth dams and 

embankments that are not directly associated with pervasive liquefaction are often estimated using a 

"sliding block" analogy first used in the 1950's to this purpose (Taylor and Whitman 1952) that was later 

formalized as a procedure by Newmark (1960, 1965). In this method of analysis, the part of the slope 

displaced by earthquake shaking is idealized as a rigid block sliding on an inclined plane with a pseudo

static horizontal acceleration (expressed as a fraction of gravity) applied to the center of the gravity of the 

sliding mass (Figure 39). The value of pseudo-static horizontal acceleration that causes the factor of

81 NUREG/CR-5741
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

Table 8 Evaluation of Residual Strength of Liquefied Soil for Example Problem 

Representative Fines-Corrected 

Sub-Layer No. Depth Range (ft) (N,)60 (blows/ft) (N,)6., (blows/ft) S., 

1 0 to 20 22 23.5 NA 

2 20 to 36 22 23.5 1,400 psf 

3 36 to 62 10 11.5 250 psf 

4 62 to 85 22 23.5 1,400 psf

NUREG/CR-5741 82
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

Figure 39. Principal components of the sliding block analysis (Franklin and Chang, 1977) 

83 NUREG/CR-5741
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction 

safety against sliding of the slope to equal unity is called the yield acceleration. During the course of an 

earthquake, the acceleration applied to the base fluctuates. Displacement begins when the earthquake

induced accelerations of the base exceed the yield acceleration between the block and the base. Dis

placement stops when the relative velocity between the block and the base returns to zero. Several 

variations of this method have been subsequently published including: Ambraseys (1960); Ambraseys 

and Sarma (1967); Sarma (1975); Nadim and Whitman (1983); Chang et al. (1984); Constantinou et al. 

(1984); Constantinou and Gazetas (1984); Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984); Dakoulas and Gazetas 

(1986); Lin and Whitman (1986); Starnatopoulos and Whitman (1987); Ambraseys and Menu (1988); 

Yan (1991); Yegian et al. (1992); Marcuson et al. (1992); and Gazetas and Uddin (1994). 

Franklin and Chang (1977), Makdisi and Seed (1978), and Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) present 

displacement calculations for a large data base of ground motions (more than three hundred records). 

Generalized charts were developed from Makdisi and Seed (1978) to be used as described below. The 

method is applicable where a well-defined shear plane/shear zone develops as a sliding surface. Other 

assumptions include: (1) no displacement occurs at accelerations below the yield acceleration, (2) defor

mation occurs plastically along a discrete basal shear surface when the yield acceleration is exceeded, 

(3) the shear surface is inclined and planar, (4) there is no up slope movement, and (5) the yield acceler

ation is not displacement dependent, and thus remains constant throughout the analysis. 

Calculations of yield acceleration of the potential sliding mass, maximum average acceleration over a 

specified depth and maximum crest acceleration (for a trapezoidal embankment, such as a dam) are 

required inputs for this analysis. Yield accelerations .of potential sliding masses in the embankment may 

be determined using a slope stability computer program, such as UTEXAS3 (developed by Stephen G. 

Wright at the University of Texas at Austin) adapted for microcomputer use as documented by Edris and 

Wright (1992). In this computer program, a pseudo-static horizontal force is applied to the center of 

gravity of each slice of the potential sliding mass to simulate earthquake loading. A seismic coefficient 

by which the weight of each slice is multiplied to obtain the pseudo-static horizontal force is required as 

an input parameter. A reduction of 20 percent in the static strength of the embankment material is typi

cally initially assumed to result from earthquake loading in this analysis, as recommended by Makdisi 

and Seed (1978) and Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984). UTEXAS3 or similar codes are used to search 

for sliding surfaces having minimum factors of safety against sliding for a given seismic coefficient. 

Seismic coefficients are then varied as input parameters; the seismic coefficient producing a factor of 

safety against sliding of unity for a particular sliding mass is its yield acceleration. 

The Makdisi and Seed procedure involves three steps: determining the yield acceleration K,, as just 

described; determining the maximum averaged cyclic load expressed as acceleration K.. induced by the 

earthquake; and determining the displacement u resulting from the motions. The average cyclic load 

K. varies with the volume and location of material involved in the sliding mass. In the case of dams, a 

number of case histories have produced the relationship accounting for geometric amplification effects 

between base and crest acceleration, U,,., shown in Figure 40 (modified by W. I. Cameron, U.S. Army 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1996, after Harder, 1991). The chart is entered with a peak 

ground acceleration selected for the site. Figure 41 shows how Kn., normalized by the crest acceleration 

U,,x, varies with depth of the sliding surface. For full-depth surfaces, the ratio of K,,, to iinx is about 

0.35. These full depth surfaces are generally the most important for dams, since movement along them 

could involve disruption of internal drainage and water barrier features. Figure 42 shows the variation of 

displacement with yield acceleration for various magnitudes; the ratio of KI to KI may then be used to 

estimate displacement of the sliding mass in question.

NUREG/CR-5741 84
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

0.7 

z 0.6 

0 

W 0.5 

w o U 

0.4 

Cl) 

w 

0 A# 

W 0.3 * 

w > WES DATA 

< 0.2 A * A 4 PEAK BASE ACCELERATION 

< A 

Of A PEAK ABUTMENT ACCELERATION 

"- HARDER (1990): 

S•0 PREVIOUS EARTHQUAKES 

< 0.1A 

w A] 1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE 

{3+A ___ UPPER BOUND 

0 .0 I I I I I I 

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 

PEAK TRANSVERSE BASE ACCELERATION (g) 

Figure 40. Comparison of peak base and crest transverse accelerations measured at earth dams 

(from Harder, et al. 1990, as modified by Cameron, 1996)

85 NUREG/CR-5741
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

0 

0.2 

0.4

Y h 

0.6

Average of 

0.8- all data 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

krTOX/U max 

Figure 41. Relationship of the variation of maximum acceleration ratio with depth of sliding 

mass (Makdisi and Seed, 1978, reprinted with permission from ASCE)

NUREG/CR-5741 86
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

E 

CI0

S -I 

D v •M=7 

0 

a) 

E M0. 6. o )

.2 M=(O V2 v 

0.1 

0.01, 

0 0. 2 0"`4 0.6 0. 8 1 (" 

ky/kmox 

Figure 42. Variation of displacement with yield acceleration for various earthquake magnitudes 

(Makdisi and Seed, 1978, reprinted with permission from ASCE) -

87 NUREGICR-5741
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction 

The Newmark sliding block analogy was developed primarily to estimate inertial displacements for earth 

dams and embankments. However, the Newmark method has also been applied to a number of different 

design and remediation problems involving not only earth dams and embankments, but also natural and 

man-made slopes and waste containment facilities. A recent study sponsored by the U.S. Corps of Engi

neers examined case histories of earthquake-induced deformations in a variety of earthen structures and 

concluded that the Newmark method of analysis appears to be suitable for estimation of earthquake

induced permanent deformations in those structures. However, the method appears to be most reliable in 

the range of permanent deformations from about 0.3 m to 1.0 m for maximum accelerations ranging from 

0.1 g to 0.5 g, respectively. Selection of shear strengths to use in the aforementioned slope stability cal

culations is a function of the deformation estimate; studies by Stark and Contreras (1996a, b) of land

slides caused during the 1964 Alaska Earthquake produced the recommendation that a shear strength 

equal to 80 percent of the peak undrained shear strength is appropriate for cohesive soils when deforma

tions are estimated to be 0.1 m or less. If deformations are estimated to be 1.0 m or greater in cohesive 

soils, analysis should be repeated using no more than about 20 percent of the peak undrained shear 

strength. In saturated cohesionless soils, strength may be adjusted to account for increase in residual 

pore water pressures developed during shaking; if these soils are less than 80 percent saturated, it is 

appropriate to use drained shear strength for seismic loading conditions. 

4.3 Lateral Spreading Estimation 

Another mode of lateral deformation to consider, once the potential for complete slope failure or unac

ceptably large inertial deformations accompanying sliding of substantially intact masses of ground during 

or after earthquake shaking are evaluated, is liquefaction-induced lateral spread. Gently sloping ground 

may displace down slope or toward free faces (such as incised river channels or excavations), generating 

earth pressures against any obstacles to the deformation, such as retaining walls, abutments, or founda

tions. A screening guide produced by Youd (1998) notes that this mode of deformation has been respon

sible for most liquefaction-induced damage to bridges during past earthquakes. Several empirical lateral 

spread estimation methods have been proposed, as published by Hamada et al. (1987); Towhata et al. 

(1991); Yasuda et al. (1991); and Bartlett and Youd (1995). The first three methods use elastic models to 

predict lateral spread displacements. Although these elastic beam procedures have yielded results com

parable to measured displacements, some assumptions create uncertainty in the results. These include 

the elastic moduli of the soil beam and shear moduli for the liquefied soil. Also, the assumption of a 

continuous elastic soil beam seems to be contrary to the fissured and fractured ground surface observed 

to be created by many lateral spreads. 

The procedure by Bartlett and Youd (1995) was selected to be explained in further detail in this report. 

This empirical procedure has the advantage of using standard field tests, commonly determined soil tex

tural properties, and easily obtained topographical information for estimating lateral displacement. 

The Bartlett and Youd (1995) approach is based on lateral spread case history data collected and evalu

ated from eight earthquakes and numerous lateral spreads. All information pertaining to these earth

quakes and lateral spreads can be found in the Bartlett and Youd (1995) reference. The procedure is 

derived in recognition of a number of factors associated with liquefaction and by applying the technique 

of stepwise multiple linear regression to first define the factors that most influence ground displacements 

and then to construct a regression model incorporating those factors. To incorporate the influences of 

geometric factors, two independent models are required: a free-face model (areas near steep slopes) and a 

ground-slope model (areas with gently sloping terrain). The respective empirical expressions follow: 

For free-face conditions:

NUREG/CR-5741 88
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

LOG = -16.3658 + 1.1782M- 0.9275 LOGR - 0.0133 R + 0.6572 LOG W 

+ 0.3483 LOG Ti5 + 4.5270 LOG (100 - F1 5 - 0.9224 (D50))15 (21) 

For ground-slope conditions: 

LOGDH = -15.7870 + 1.1782M- 0.9275 LOG R - 0.0133 R + 0.4293 LOGS 

+ 0.3483 LOG T15 + 4.5270 LOG (100 - F1 5 - 0.9224 (D50))15 (22) 

where 

DH = estimated lateral ground displacement in meters 

(D50)15 = average mean grain size in granular layers included in TI., in mm 

F15 = average fines content (fraction of sediment sample passing No. 200 sieve) for granular 

layers included in T,5, in percent 

M = earthquake magnitude (moment magnitude) 

R = Horizontal distance from the seismic energy source, in kilometers 

S = ground slope, in percent 

T15 = cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with corrected blow counts, (N1) 60, 

less than 15, in meters 

W = Ratio of the height of the free face to the distance from the base of the free face to the 

point in question, in percent 

The reader is strongly encouraged to review the Bartlett and Youd (1995) paper before utilizing the 

method, in order to fully understand the applications and limitations of the procedure. In particular, the 

method was developed from lateral spread data on gently sloping ground; it should not be applied to 

engineered slopes of larger embankments or excavations. 

4.4 Settlements Consequent to Liquefaction 

One consequence of liquefaction is some degree of densification in saturated soils, leading to often sub

stantial ground settlement. The time necessary for complete pore water pressure dissipation is, of course, 

a function of permeability, which is, in turn, strongly dependent on fines content and gradation in gen

eral. A procedure developed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) is appropriate for hazard screening purposes 

and is summarized below for estimation of settlement due to liquefaction of granular soils. Fully non

linear analytical modeling of earthquake-induced soil deformations is a subject of much contemporary 

research, as discussed earlier. 

Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) demonstrated the dependence of volumetric strains produced by dissipation 

of excess pore water pressures on cyclic shear strain amplitude and initial relative density of the deposit. 

Cyclic shear strains are themselves a function of cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR), relative density, and 

earthquake magnitude. The relationship shown in Figure 43 may be used to estimate volumetric strain in 

a given layer, if the SPT blowcount (adjusted for fines contents effects if necessary) and the earthquake

induced cyclic shear stress ratio (divided by the correction factor described in earlier sections on lique

faction resistance for magnitudes other than 7.5 on which the supportive data were based) are known. 

The change in layer thickness is then determined by multiplying the volumetric strain by layer thickness. 

Changes in discrete layer thicknesses may be summed over total depth in a profile to estimate total settle

ment induced by liquefaction.

89 NUREG/CR-5741
4. Analysis of Displacements Accompanying Liquefaction

0.6

-o 

0) 

0 

U

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1

0.0 00 10 20 30 40 50

Corrected Blow Count, (N1)60 

Figure 43. Curves for estimating volumetric strain at liquefiable sites (Youd, 1998, after 

Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) /

NUREG/CR-5741

Volumetric Strain - % 

1054 3 2 1 0.5 II / 

, 5, ,-'0.2 

0.1 

Arahama 

E~I 

2]Hachinohe, P6* HcioeP. 

N iigta C. 0 Niigata, A.

90
5. Geophysical Investigations

5 CONCLUSIONS 

This report was prepared in response to a request by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for devel

opment of new guidelines design basis evaluation of liquefaction potential and post-earthquake stability 

of soils as a consequence of recent developments in geotechnical earthquake engineering research and 

practice. This report provides technical bases for subsequent development of regulatory guidance that 

reflects both current practice and the state-of-the-art for evaluation of seismic stability of soils, with 

emphasis on the potential for and consequences of seismically-induced liquefaction of soils beneath 

foundations. Substantial changes have taken place during the last three decades, particularly in the per

formance of in situ investigations and the interpretation and application of test results to evaluate seismic 

stability of foundation soils. 

The report describes deterministic procedures and criteria that are currently applied to assess the lique

faction potential of soils ranging in gradation from gravels to clays, and provides guidance for simplified 

analysis of the consequences of liquefaction, i.e., lateral spreading of level or gently sloping deposits. 

Approaches to estimate earthquake-induced deformation of slopes are also discussed, with emphasis on 

the applicability of simplified techniques and the informed selection of strengths to use in these esti

mates. Probabilistic approaches are presented in a separate report, in view of the NRC's concern over 

seismic margin issues. 

This document is a comprehensive compilation of the state of the art in geotechnical earthquake engi

neering applied to liquefaction potential evaluation. It begins with historical background information and 

definitions to establish a convention for analysis. The determination and use of residual of strength of 

liquefied soils is described, to allow informed selection of shear resistance parameters for post

earthquake stability analysis on earthen structures or foundations. Screening procedures are detailed that 

can be readily performed in a preliminary site assessment for liquefaction hazard; more complex analysis 

schemes are presented for cases where liquefaction cannot be reliably precluded by screening studies and 

for which a larger, site specific investigation effort is justified. In situ testing procedures are emphasized 

throughout, as representative of the prevalent practice. An Appendix presents guidance for a sampling

and-testing method for steady state strength determination; the use of multiple techniques for assessing 

liquefaction hazard at critical sites is encouraged. 

Procedures are described for estimation of earthquake-induced permanent deformations that occur during 

shaking, including down slope sliding of slopes and lateral spreading of essentially level ground deposits 

toward an open face. Gross flow sliding displacements within soils that experience pervasive liquefac

tion are beyond the scope of this report and are the subject of great controversy and research. This 

document is not intended to serve as a step-by-step manual; some specific recommendations are offered, 

however, it was the purpose of the authors to allow for engineering judgment, thus it is more comprehen

sive as a reference document. An example problem is included to illustrate the evaluation of liquefac

tion triggering and estimation of residual strength of liquefied soils. 

REFERENCES 

Ambraseys, N. N., "On the behavior of Earth Dams, "Proceedings of the Second World Conference on 

Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 331-356, 1960.

91 NUREG/CR-5741
References 

Ambraseys, N. N. and Sarma, S. K., "The response of Earth Dams to Strong Earthquakes," Geotech

nique, Vol. 17, pp. 181-213, 1967. 

Ambraseys, N. N. and Menu, J. M., "Earthquake-Induced Ground Displacements," Earthquake Engi

neering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 985-1006, 1988. 

American Society for Testing and Materials, "Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split-Barrel 

Sampling of Soils," ASTM D1586-67, Annual Book of Standards, 1967. 

Andrus, R. D., "In Situ Characterization of Gravelly Soils that Liquefied in the 1983 Borah Peak 

Earthquake," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 533 p. 

Andrus, R. D. and Youd, T. L. "Subsurface Investigation of a Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread, 

Thousand Springs Valley, Idaho," Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-8, U.S.A.E. Waterways Experiment 

Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987. 

Andrus, R. D. and Youd, T. L. "Penetration Tests in Liquefiable Gravel," Proceedings, 12th Int. Conf. on 

Soil Mech. and Found. Engineering, Rio De Janiero, Brazil, Vol. 1, pp. 679-682, 1989. 

Andrus, R. D., Stokoe, K. H., Bay, J. A., and Youd, T. L., "In Situ V, of Gravelly Soils Which Lique

fied," Proceedings, 10th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 19-25 July, pp. 1447

1452, 1992. 

Arulanandan, K., Anandarajah, A., and Abghari, A., "Centrifugal Modeling of Soil Liquefaction Suscep

tibility," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 109(3), pp. 281-300, 

March 1983. 

Arulanandan, K. and Kutter, B, "A Directional Structure Index Related to Sand Liquefaction," Proceed

ings, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, American Society of Civil Engineers Specialty Con

ference, Pasadena, CA, Vol. II, pp. 213-230, 19-21 June 1978. 

Arulanandan, K. and Scott, R. F., "Project VELACS - Control Test Results," American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, pp. 1276-1292, 1993. 

Ballard, R. F., Jr. and McLean, F. G., "Seismic Field Methods for In Situ Moduli," Proceedings, Confer

ence on In Situ Measurements of Soil Properties, American Society of Civil Engineers, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, Vol. I, pp. 121-150, 1975. 

Bartlett, S. F. and Youd, T.L., "Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spread," American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 121(4), pp. 316-329, 

1995. 

Baziar, M. H., and Dobry, R., "Residual Strength and Large-Deformation Potential of Loose Silty 

Sands," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 

Vol. 121, No. 12, pp. 896-906, 1995. 

Bromhead, E. N., "A simple ring shear apparatus," Ground Engineering, Vol. 12(5), pp. 40-44, 1979.

NUREG/CR-5741 92
References

BSSC, "NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Build

ings," Building Seismic Safety Council, Chapter 7 Commentary, pp. 151-163, 1991. 

Byrne, P. M., Jitno, H., and Salgado, F., "Earthquake Induced Displacement of Soil-Structures Systems," 

Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp. 1407-1412, 1992. 

Campanella, R. G. and Lim, B. S., "Liquefaction Characteristics of Undisturbed Soils," Proceedings, 

International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynam

ics, St. Louis, Vol. I, pp. 227-230, 1981. 

Carter, D. P., and Seed, H. B., "Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits under Low Levels of Excita

tion," Report No. EERC 88-11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 1988. 

Casagrande, A., "Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the Stability of Slopes and Earth Fills," 

Journal of Boston Society of Civil Engineers, January, 1936 (Reprinted in Contributions to Soil 

Mechanics, Boston Society of Civil Engineers, October 1940). 

Casagrande, A. and Rendon, F., "Gyratory Shear Apparatus Design, Testing Procedures, and Test Results 

on Undrained Sand," Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi, 1978. 

Castro, G., "Liquefaction of Sands," Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No. 81, Harvard University, Cam

bridge, MA, January, 1969. 

Castro, G., "Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility of Saturated Sands," American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 101 (GT6), pp. 551-569, 1975. 

Castro, G., Keller, T. 0., and Boynton, S. S., "Re-evaluation of the Lower San Fernando Dam - Report 1: 

An Investigation of the February 9, 1971 Slide," Contract Report GL-89-2, U.S. Army Engineer Water

ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, September, 1989. 

Castro, G. and Poulos, S. J., "Factors Affecting Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility," American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103(GT6), pp. 501-506, 1977. 

Castro, G., Poulos, S. J., France, J. W., and Enos, J. L., "Liquefaction Induced by Cyclic Loading," 

Report by Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., March, 

1982. 

Chang, C-J., Chen, W. and Yao, J. T. P., "Seismic Displacements in Slopes by Limit Analysis," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. GT7, pp. 860-874, 

1984. 

Coe, C.J., Prevost, J. H., and Scanlan, R. H., "Dynamic Stress Wave Reflections/Attenuation: Earthquake 

Simulation in Centrifuge Models," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 13(1), 

pp. 109-128, 1985. 

Constantinou, M.C. and Gazetas, G., "Probabilistic Seismic Sliding Deformations of Earth Dams and 

Slopes," American Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Probabilistic 

Methods and Structural Reliability, New York, NY, pp. 318-321, 1984.

93 NUREG/CR-5741
References

Constantinou, M.C., Gazetas, G. and Tadjdakhsh, "Stochastic Sliding of Rigid Mass against Asymmetric 

Coulomb Friction," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, No. 12, pp. 777-793, 1984. 

Coulter, H. W., and Migliaccio, R. R., "Effects of the Earthquake of March 27, 1964, at Valdez, Alaska," 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 542-C, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1966. 

Dakoulas, P. and Gazetas, G., "Seismic Shear Strains and Seismic Coefficients in Dams & Embank

ments," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 75-83, 1986. 

DeAlba, P., Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K., "Sand Liquefaction in Large-Scale Simple Shear Tests," 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 102(GT9), 

pp. 909-927, 1976. 

Department of the Army, "Geophysical Exploration," Engineer Manual 1110-1-1802, Office, Chief of 

Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1979. 

Department of the Army, "Laboratory Soils Testing," Engineer Manual 1110-2-1906, Office, Chief of 

Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1986. 

Dobry, R., Stokoe, K. H., Ladd, R. S., and Youd, T. L., "Liquefaction Susceptibility from S-Wave 

Velocity," In situ Testing to Evaluate Liquefaction Susceptibility, Session No. 24, Preprint No. 81-544, 

American Society of Civil Engineers National Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, 1981. 

Edris, E. V., Jr., and Wright, S. G., "User's Guide: UTEXAS3 Slope Stability Package," Technical 

Report GL-87-1, Vol. IV, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 

1992. 

Erchul, R. A. and Gularte, R. C., "Electrical Resistivity used to Measure Liquefaction of Sand," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 108(GT5), 

pp. 778-782, 1982. 

Evans, M., "Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Testing of Gravels--The Effects of Membrane Compliance," 

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987. 

Fairless, G. J., "Liquefaction Case Histories in New Zealand," Research Report 84/18, University of 

Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1984. 

Farrar, J. A., "Study of In situ Testing for Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance and Occurrence," Pro

ceedings, 19th Joint Meeting of the U.S. -Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources Panel on 

Wind and Seismic Effects, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 239-280, 1988. 

Federal Highway Administration, "Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design," 

Report No. FHWA-TS-78-209, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation by Dr. John H. 

Schmertmann, University of Florida, 1978. 

Finn, W. D. L., "Liquefaction Potential: Developments Since 1976," Proceedings, International Confer

ence on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Vol. II, 

pp. 655-682, 1981.

NUREG/CR-5741 94
References

Finn, W. D. L. and Martin, G. R., "Fundamentals of Liquefaction under Cyclic Loading," American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 101 (GT5), pp. 81-92, 

1975. 

Finn, W. D. L. and Yogendrakumar, M., "TARA-3FL: Program for Analysis of Liquefaction Induced 

Flow Deformations," Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 

Canada, 1992. 

Franklin, A. G. and Chang, F. K., "Earthquake Resistance of Earth and Rockfill Dams; Permanent Dis

placements of Earth Embankments by Newmark-Sliding Block Analysis," Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, 

Report 5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1977. 

Gazetas, G. and Uddin, N., "Permanent Deformation on Preexisting Sliding Surfaces in Dams," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 11, pp. 2041-2061, 

1994. 

Hamada, M., Towhata, I., Yasuda, S., Isoyama, R., "Study of Permanent Ground Displacement Induced 

by Seismic Liquefaction," Computers and Geotechnics, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, Vol. 4(4), 

pp. 197-220, 1987. 

Harder, L. F., Jr., "Use of Penetration Tests to Determine the Cyclic Loading Resistance of Gravelly 

Soils During Earthquake Shaking," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1988. 

Harder, L.F. Jr., "Performance of Earth Dams during Loma Prieta Earthquake," Proceedings 2nd Interna

tional Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 

St. Louis, MO, pp. 1673-1690, 1991. 

Harder, L. F., Jr., and Seed, H. B., "Determination of Penetration Resistance for Coarse-Grained Soils 

Using the Becker Hammer Drill," Report No. UCB/EERC-86/06, University of California, Berkeley, 

CA, 1986. 

Hushmand, B., Scott, R. K., and Crouse, C. B., "Centrifuge Liquefaction Tests in a Laminar Box," Geo

technique, Vol. 38(2), pp. 253-262, 1988. 

Hvorslev, M. J., "Subsurface Exploration and Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Engineering Foundation, November, 1949. 

Hynes, M. E., "Pore Pressure Generation Characteristics of Gravels under Undrained Cyclic Loading," 

Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley;'CA, 1988. 

Hynes, M. E. and Olsen, R. S., "Influence of Confining Stress on Liquefaction Resistance," Proceedings, 

International Symposium on the Physics and Mechanics of Liquefaction, Johns Hopkins University, 

sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Baltimore, MD 10-11 September 1998, A. A. Balkema 

publishers (in press), 1998. 

Hynes-Griffin, M.E. and Franklin, A.G., "Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Methods," Miscellane

ous Paper GL-84-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1984.

95 NUREG/CR-5741
References

Ishihara, K., "Post-Earthquake Failure of a Tailings Dam Due to Liquefaction of the Pond Deposit," 

Proceedings, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St Louis, MO, 

May 6-11, 1984, Vol. III, pp. 1129-1146, 1984. 

Ishihara, K., "Stability of natural slopes during earthquakes," Proceedings, 11th International Confer

ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 1, 321-376, 1985. 

Ishihara, K. and Nagase, H., "Multi-Directional Irregular Loading Tests on Sand," Advances in the Art of 

Testing Soils under Cyclic Conditions, Proceedings of a session sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineer

ing Division in conjunction with the American Society of Civil Engineers Convention in Detroit, MI, 

October, 1985, (ed. Khosla, V.), pp. 99-119, 1985. 

Ishihara, K. and Takatsu, H., "Effects of Overconsolidation and K. Conditions on the Liquefaction Char

acteristics of Sands," Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and Foun

dations, Vol. 19(4), pp. 60-68, 1979. 

Kaufman, L. P., "Percentage Silt Content in Sands and its Effects on Liquefaction Potential," M.S. 

Thesis, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, 1981. 

Kayen, R. E, "Accelerogram-Energy Approach for Prediction of Earthquake-Induced Ground Liquefac

tion," unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1993. 

Kayen, R. E., and Mitchell, J. K., "Assessment of Liquefaction Potential During Earthquakes by Arias 

Intensity," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 123(12), pp. 1162-1174, 1997. 

Ketcham, S., Ko, H. Y., and Sture, S., "Performance of an Earthquake Motion Simulator for a Small 

Geotechnical Centrifuge," Proceedings, Centrifuge 91, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 

pp. 361-368, 1991. 

Koester, J. P., "Cyclic Strength and Pore Pressure Generation Characteristics of Fine-Grained Soils," 

thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy, College of Engi

neering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 1992. 

Koester, J. P. and Franklin, A. G., "Current Methodologies for Assessing the Potential for Earthquake

Induced Liquefaction in Soils," Research Report No. NUREG/CR-4430 prepared by Geotechnical 

Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, 1985. 

Kokusho, T., "Earthquake Geotechnical Studies for Gravelly Ground," Proceedings, International 

Seminar on Dynamic Behavior of Clays, Sands, and Gravels, Kitakyushu, Japan, November, 24-25, 

1989, pp. 228-266, 1989. 

Kokusho, T., Tanaka, Y., Kudo, K. And Kawai, T., "Liquefaction case study of volcanic gravel layer 

during 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake," Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Recent 

Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, 235-242, 1995. 

Kovacs, W. D., Salomone, L. A., and Yokel, F. Y., "Energy Measurement in the Standard Penetration 

Test," NBS Building Science Series 135 National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1981.

NUREG/CR-5741 96
References

Kuribayashi, E. and Tatsuoka, F., "Brief Review of Liquefaction During Earthquakes in Japan," Japa

nese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 15(4), pp. 811

92, 1975. 

Lee, K. L. and Fitton, J. A., "Factors Affecting the Cyclic Loading Strength of Soil," Vibration Effects of 

Earthquakes on Soils and Foundations, ASTM STP 450, American Society for Testing and Materials, 

Philadelphia, PA, pp. 71-95, 1969. 

Lee, K. L. and Seed, H. B., "Dynamic Strength of Anisotropically Consolidated Sand," American Society 

of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 93(SM5), pp. 169-190, 

1967. 

Liao, S. C. and Whitman, R. V., "Overburden Correction Factors for SPT in Sand," American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 112(3), pp. 373-377, 1985. 

Lin, J. S. and Whitman, R.V., "Earthquake Induced Displacements of Sliding Block," American Society 

of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 105, No. GT12, pp. 1427-1434, 1986. 

Makdisi, F. I. and Seed, H. B., "A Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake Induced Deformation 

in Dams and Embankments," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 

Vol. 104, No.GT7, pp. 849-867, 1978. 

Marcuson, W. F. III and Bieganousky, W. A., "Laboratory Standard Penetration Tests on Platte River 

Sand and Standard Concrete Sand," Research Report S-76-2, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1977. 

Marcuson, W. F. III, Hynes, M. E., and Franklin, A. G., "Evaluation and Use of Residual Strength in 

Seismic Safety Analysis of Embankments" Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 6(3), pp. 529-572, 1990. 

Marcuson, W.F. III, Hynes, M.E. and Franklin, A.G., "Seismic Stability and Permanent Deformation 

analyses: the last 25 years," Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments II, Geotechnical 

Special Publication No. 31, American Society of Civil Engineers, Berkeley, CA, University of California, 

vol 1, pp. 552-592, 1992. 

Marcuson, W. F. III and Franklin, A. G., "State of the Art of Undisturbed Sampling of Cohesionless 

Soils," Miscellaneous Paper GL-79-16, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MS, 1979. 

Maurenbrecher, P. M., Den Outer, A. And Lugef, H. J., "Review of geotechnical investigations resulting 

from the Roermond April 13, 1992 earthquake," Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Recent 

Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, MO, 645-652, 1995. 

McLean, F. G., Franklin, A. G., and Dahlstrand, T. K., "Influence of Mechanical Variables on the SPT," 

Proceedings, Specialty Conference on In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Vol. 1, pp. 287-318, 1975. 

Mitchell, J. K., and Solymar, Z. V., "Time-dependent Strength Gain in Freshly Deposited or Densified 

Sand," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110(11), 

pp. 1559-1576, 1984.

97 NUREG/CR-5741
References

Nadim, F. and Whitman, R.V., "Seismically induced movements of retaining walls," American Society 

of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. GT7, pp. 915-931, 1983. 

National Research Council, Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes, National Academy Press, Wash

ington, D.C., 1985. 

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evalu

ation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Report No. NCEER-97-0022, State University of New York at 

Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, viewable on the World Wide Web at http://mceer.buffalo.edu., 1997. 

Newmark, N. M., "The Earthquake Resistance of Portage Mountain Dam," Consulting Report submitted 

to International Power and Engineering Consultants Limited, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp. 30, 1960. 

Newmark, N. M., "Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments," Geotechnique, Vol 15, No. 2, 

pp. 139-160, 1965. 

Obermeier, S. F., Bleuer, N. R., Munson, C. A., Munson, P. J., Martin, W. S., McWilliams, K. M., 

Tabaczynski, D. A., Odum, J. K., Rubin, M., and Eggert, D. L., "Evidence of Strong Earthquake Shaking 

in the Lower Wabash Valley from Prehistoric Liquefaction Features," Science, Vol. 251, pp. 1061-1063, 

1991. 

Obermeier, S. F., Gohn, G. S., Weems, R. E., Gelinas, R. L., and Rubin, M., "Geologic Evidence for 

Recurrent Moderate to Large Earthquakes near Charleston, South Carolina," Science, Vol. 227, pp. 408

411, 1985. 

Obermeier, S. F., Weems, R. E., Jacobson, R. B., and Gohn, G. S., "Liquefaction Evidence for Repeated 

Holocene Earthquakes in the Coastal Region of South Carolina," Earthquake Hazards and the Design of 

Constructed Facilities in the Eastern United States, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (eds. 

Jacob, K. H. and Turkstra, C. J.), Vol. 558, pp. 183-195, 1989. 

Olsen, R. S., "Liquefaction Analysis using the Cone Penetrometer Test," Proceedings of the Eighth 

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 

pp. 247-254, 1984. 

Olsen, R. S., "Soil Classification and Site Characterization using the Cone Penetrometer Test," Proceed

ings of the First International Symposium on Penetration Testing (ISOPT-1), (ed. de Ruiter, J.), A. A. 

Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 887-893, 1988. 

Olsen, R. S., "Normalization and Prediction of Geotechnical Properties using the Cone Penetrometer Test 

(CPT)," Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the University of California, Berkeley, May 1994 (also available 

as Technical Report GL-94-29, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180, August 

1994), 1994. 

Olsen, R. S. and Farr, J. V., "Site Characterization Using the Cone Penetrometer Test," Proceedings, In 

Situ '86, American Society of Civil Engineers, Specialty Conference Use of In Situ Testing in Geotechni

cal Engineering, 22-25 June, 1986, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 

pp. 854-868, 1986.

NUREG/CR-5741 98
References

Olsen, R. S. and Koester, J. P., "Prediction of Liquefaction Resistance using the CPT," Proceedings, 

International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing - CPT '95, Linkopping, Sweden, October 1989, 

1995. 

Olsen, R. S., Koester, J. P., and Hynes, M. E., "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential using the CPT," 

Proceedings of the 28th Joint meeting of the US. -Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources 

Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, May 1996. 

Olsen, R. S. and Mitchell, J. K., "CPT Stress Normalization and Prediction of Soil Classification," Pro

ceedings of the International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing - CPT '95, Linkopping, Sweden, 

October 1989, 1995. 

Pillai, V. S, and Byrne, P. M., "Effect of Overburden Pressure on Liquefaction Resistance of Sands," 

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, 1994. 

Poulos, S. J., "The Steady State of Deformation," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geo

technical Engineering Division, Vol. 107(GT5), pp. 5513-5562; closure discussion in Vol. 108(GT8), 

pp. 1087-1091, August, 1981. 

Poulos, S. J., "Liquefaction and Related Phenomena," Chapter 9 in Advance Dam Engineering for 

Design, Construction, and Rehabilitation, (ed. Jansen, R. B.), Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1988. 

Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, J. W., "Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure," American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111(6), pp. 772-792, 1985. 

Poulos, S. J., Robinsky, E. I., and Keller, T. 0., "Liquefaction Resistance of Thickened Tailings," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111(GT 12), pp. 1380-1394, 

December, 1985. 

Prakash, S. and Gupta, M. K., "Compaction of Sand under Vertical and Horizontal Vibrations," Proceed

ings, Southeast Asian Regional Conference on Soil Engineering, Bangkok, pp. 201-210, 1967. 

Puri, V. K., "Liquefaction Behavior and Dynamic Properties of Loessial (Silty) Soils," Ph.D. Thesis, 

University of Missouri-Rolla, MO, 19.84. 

Pyke, R., Chan, C. K., and Seed, H. B., "Settlement and Liquefaction of Sands under Multi-Directional 

Shaking," Report No. EERC 74-2, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, 

Berkeley, CA, 1974. 

Robertson, P. K., Campanella, R. G., and Wightman, A.., "SPT-CPT Correlations," American Society of 

Civil Engineering, Journal of the Geotechnical Division, Vol. 109, November 1983. 

Roe, G. V., DeAlba, P. A., and Celikkol, B., "Acoustic Identification of Liquefaction Potential," Pro

ceedings, International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and 

Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, Vol. 2, pp. 199-202, 1981. 

Rollins, K. M., "The Influence of Buildings on Potential Liquefaction Damage," Ph.D. Thesis, University 

of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987.

99 NUREG/CR-5741
References

Sarma, S. K., "Seismic Stability of Earth Dams & Embankments," Geotechnique, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 743

761, 1975. 

Schofield, A. N., "Dynamic and Earthquake Geotechnical Centrifuge Modeling," Proceedings, Interna

tional Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, (ed. 

Prakash, S.), University of Missouri, Rolla, MO. Vol. 3, pp. 1081-1100, 1981. 

Schofield, A. N., and Wroth, C. P., Critical State Soil Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., London, UK, 

1968. 

Scott, R. F., "Centrifuge Model Testing at Caltech," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 

Vol. 2(4), pp. 188-198, 1983. 

Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground During Earthquakes," Liquefac

tion Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, Preprint No. 2752, American Society of Civil Engineers 

National Convention, Philadelphia, pp. 1-104, 1976. 

Seed, H. B., "19th Rankine Lecture: Considerations in the Earthquake Resistant Design of Earth and 

Rockfill Dams," Geotechnique, Vol. 29(3), pp. 215-263, 1979a. 

Seed, H. B., "Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes," 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, New York, 

Vol. 105(GT2), pp. 201-255, 1979b. 

Seed, H. B., "Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth Dams," Proceedings, Symposium on Seismic Design 

of Embankments and Caverns, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 41-64, May 6-10, 1983. 

Seed, H. B., "Design Problems in Soil Liquefaction," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the 

Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 113(8), 1987. 

Seed, H. B., Arango, I., and Chan, C. K., "Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential During Earth

quakes," Report No. UCB/EERC-75/28, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1975. 

Seed, H. B. and De Alba, P., "Use of SPT and CPT Tests for Evaluating the Liquefaction Resistance of 

Soils," Proceedings, Specialty Conference on the Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, 

Blacksburg, VA, American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 6, pp. 120

134, 1986. 

Seed, R. B. and Harder, L. F., Jr., "SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and 

Undrained Residual Strength," Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Proceedings, May, 1990, 

Berkeley, California, Bitech Publishers, Ltd., Vol. 2, pp. 351-376, 1990. 

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential," Ameri

can Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 97(SM9), 

pp. 1249-1273, 1971. 

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential of Sand Deposits Based on Observa

tions of Performance in Previous Earthquakes," Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers 

National Fall Convention, Session No. 24, St. Louis, MO, 1981.

NUREG/CR-5741 100
References

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monograph 

Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1982. 

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I., "Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance 

Data," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 109(3), pp. 458

482, 1983. 

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., Makdisi, F. I., and Banerjee, N., "Representation of Irregular Stress Time His

tories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses," Report No. EERC-75-29, Earth

quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1975. 

Seed, H. B., Lee, K. L., Idriss, I. M., and Makdisi, F. I., "Analysis of the Slides in the San Fernando 

Dams During the Earthquake of February 9, 1971," Report No. EERC-73-2, College of Engineering, 

University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1973. 

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R., "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Lique

faction Resistance Evaluations," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engi

neering Division, Vol. 111(12), pp. 861-878, 1985. 

Shannon and Wilson, Inc., and Agbabian and Associates, "Soil Behavior under Earthquake Loading Con

ditions," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report, Contract No. W-7405-eng-26, 1972. 

Shibata, T., Oka, F., and Ozawa, Y., "Characteristics of ground deformation due to liquefaction," Spe

cial Issue of Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp. 65-79, January, 1996. 

Skempton, A. W., "Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, 

relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation," Giotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 425-447, 

1986. 

Smart, J. D. and Von Thun, J. L., "Seismic Design and Analysis of Embankment Dams-Recent Bureau of 

Reclamation Experience," Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, 1983. 

Stamatopoulos, C.A. and Whitman, R.V., "Computation of Earthquake-induced permanent Deformations 

of Foundation on Liquefaction Susceptible Sand," Research Report No. R8705, Dept. of Civil Engineer

ing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1987. 

Stark, T.D. and Contreras, I.A., "Fourth Avenue Landslide During 1964 Alaskan Earthquake," submitted 

for review and possible publication in American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical 

Engineering Division, Vol. 123, 1996a. 

Stark, T.D. and Contreras, I.A., "Constant Volume Ring Shear Apparatus." ASTM Geotechnical Testing 

Journal, American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol. 19, No. 1, March, 1996, pp. 3-11, 1996b. 

Stark, T. D., Olson, S. M., Kramer, S. L., and Youd, T. L., "Shear Strength of Liquefied Soil," Geotech

nical Special Publication No. 75, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, (eds. 

Dakoulas, P., Yegian, M, and Holtz, R.), Proceedings of a Specialty Conference, American Society of 

Civil Engineers Geo-Institute, August 3-6, 1998, Seattle, WA, 1998.

101 NUREG/CR-5741
References

Steedman, R. S., "Modeling the Behavior of Retaining Walls in Earthquakes," Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge 

University, Cambridge, UK, 1984. 

Stokoe, K. H., and Nazarian, S., "Use of Rayleigh Waves in Liquefaction Studies," Proceedings, Mea

surement and Use of Shear Wave Velocity for Evaluating Dynamic Soil Properties, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, held at Denver, CO, pp. 1-17, 1985. 

Stokoe, K. H., Roesset, J. M., Bierschwale, J. G., and Aouad, M., "Liquefaction Potential of Sands from 

Shear Wave Velocity," Proceedings, Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo

Kyoto, Japan, Vol. III, pp. 213-218, August, 1988. 

Suzuki, Y., Koyamada K., Tokimatsu, K., Taya, Y., and Kurbota, Y., "Empirical Correlations of Soil 

Liquefaction based on Cone Penetrometer Test," Proceedings, First International Conference on Earth

quake Geotechnical Engineering, 1985, (ed. Ishihara, K.), 1995a. 

Suzuki, Y., Tokimatsu, K., Koyamada K., Taya, Y., and Kurbota, Y., "Field Correlation of Soil Lique

faction based on CPT Data," Proceedings, International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing 

CPT '95, Linkopping, Sweden, October 1995b. 

Sy, A., "Energy Measurements and Correlations of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and the Becker 

Penetration Test (BPT)," PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver, BC, 1993. 

Sy, A., and Campanella, R. G., "Dynamic Performance of the Becker Hammer Drill and Penetration 

Test," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 30(4), pp. 607-619, 1993. 

Sy, A., and Campanella, R. G., "Becker and Standard Penetration Tests (BPT-SPT) Correlations with 

Consideration of Casing Friction." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31(3), pp. 343-356, 1994. 

Sy, A., Campanella, R. G., and Stewart, R. A., "BPT-SPT Correlations for Evaluation of Liquefaction in 

Gravelly Soils," Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineering Annual Convention, Session on 

Dynamic Properties of Gravelly Soils, San Diego, CA, October 23-27, Geotechnical Special Publication 

No. 56, 1995. 

Sykora, D. W., Koester, J. P., and Hynes, M. E., "Seismic Stability Evaluation of Ririe Dam and Reser

voir Project - Report 2 - Stability Calculations, Analysis, and Evaluations, Vol I," Technical Report 

GL-91-22, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1991. 

Szerdy, F., "Flow Slide Failure Associated with Low Level Vibrations," Ph.D. Thesis, University of 

California, Berkeley, CA, 1985. 

Tanaka, Y., Kokusho, T., Yoshida, Y., and Kudo, K., "Dynamic Strength Evaluation of Gravelly Soils," 

Proceedings, Discussion Session on Influence of Local Conditions on Seismic Response, 12th Interna

tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as reprinted in 

Proceedings, International Seminar on Dynamic Behavior of Clays, Sands, and Gravels, Kitakyushu, 

Japan, November 24-25, 1989, pp. 274-282, 1989. 

Taylor, D. W. And Whitman, R. V., Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Los Angeles, 

regarding the Seismic Stability of Prado Dam (first known documentation of the sliding block method

NUREG/CR-5741 102
References

that recognizes the importance of strength reductions caused by earthquake shaking and shear move

ment), 1952. 

Tohno, I., "Diagenesis and Mechanical Characteristics of Sediments," (in Japanese), Geological Journal, 

pp. 547-559, September, 1975. 

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Amer

ican Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878, 

1987. 

Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., "Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT N-value and 

Fines Content," Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and Founda

tions, Vol. 15(4), pp. 81-92, 1983. 

Tokimatsu, K., Yoshimi, Y., and Uchida, A., "Evaluation of Undrained Cyclic Shear Strength of Soils 

with Shear Wave Velocity," Proceedings, Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo

Kyoto, Japan, Vol. III, pp. 207-212, August, 1988. 

Torres, N., Koester, J. P., and Llopis, J. L., "Field Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Facilities," 

draft contract report submitted for publication to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December, 

1998. 

Torrey, V. H., Dunbar, J. B., and Peterson R. W., "Retrogressive Failures in Sand Deposits of the Missis

sippi River, Report 1, Field Investigation, Laboratory Studies and Analysis of Hypothesized Failure 

Mechanism," Technical Report GL-88-9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicks

burg, MS, 1988. 

Towhata, I., Tokida, K., Tamari, Y., Matsumoto, H., and Yamada, K., "Prediction of Permanent Lateral 

Displacement of Liquefied Ground by Means of Variational Principle," Proceedings, 3rd Japan-US. 

Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefac

tion, NCEER, Technical Report NCEER-91-0001, pp. 233-251, 1991. 

Troncoso, J., Ishihara; K., and Verdugo, R., "Aging Effects on Cyclic Shear Strength of Tailings Mate

rials," Proceedings, Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, Vol. III, 

pp. 121-126, August 2-9, 1988. 

Tsuchida, H., "Prediction and Countermeasure Against Liquefaction in Sand Deposits," (in Japanese), 

Abstract of the Seminar of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, Yokosuka, 

Japan, pp. 3.1-3.33, 1970. 

Tuttle, M. P. and Seeber, L., "Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction in the Northeastern United States: His

torical Effects and Geological Constraints," Earthquake Hazards and the Design of Constructed Facilities 

in the Eastern United States, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (eds. Jacob, K. H. and 

Turkstra, C. J.), Vol. 558, pp. 196-207, 1989. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Regulatory Guide 1.138: Laboratory Investigations of Soils for 

Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Office of Standards Development, Wash

ington, D.C., April, 1978.

103 NUREG/CR-5741
References

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Regulatory Guide 1.132: Site Investigations for Foundations of 

Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, Office of Standards Development, Washington, D.C., March, 1979. 

Vaid, Y. P., Byrne, P. M., and Hughes, J. M. 0., "Dilation Angle and Liquefaction Potential," Proceed

ings, International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil 

Dynamics, St. Louis, Vol. I, pp. 179-185, 1981. 

Vaid, Y. P. and Chern, J. C., "Effect of Static Shear on Resistance to Liquefaction," Japanese Society of 

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 23(1), pp. 47-60, 1983. 

Vaid, Y. P. and Finn, W. D. L., "Static Shear and Liquefaction Potential," American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Division, Vol. 105(GT10), pp. 1233-1246, 1979. 

Vaid, Y. P. and Thomas, J., "Liquefaction and Post Liquefaction Behavior of Sand," American Society of 

Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121(2), pg. 163-173, 1995. 

Walker, A. J. and Stewart, H. E., "Cyclic Undrained Behavior of Nonplastic and Low Plasticity Silts," 

Technical Report NCEER-89-0035, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Uni

versity of New York at Buffalo, NY, July, 1989. 

Wang, W. S., "Some Findings in Soil Liquefaction," Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power Scien

tific Research Institute, Beijing, China, 1979. 

Wang, W. S., "Earthquake damages to earth dams and levees in relation to soil liquefaction and weak

ness in soft clays," Proceedings of the International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical 

Engineering, St. Louis, MO, Vol. 1, 511-521, 1984. 

Wang, Z. Q., "Macroscopic Approach to Soil Liquefaction," Proceedings, International Conference on 

Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Vol. I, pp. 179

185, 1981. 

Wesnousky, S. G., Schweig, E. S., and Pezzopane, S. K., "Extent and Character of Soil Liquefaction 

During the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquakes," Earthquake Hazards and the Design of Constructed 

Facilities in the Eastern United States, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, (eds. Jacob, K. H. 

and Turkstra, C. J.), Vol. 558, pp. 208-216, 1989. 

Whitman, R. V., Lambe, P. C., and Kutter, B. L. "Initial Results from a Stacked Ring Apparatus for 

Simulation of a Soil Profile," Proceedings, International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechni

cal Engineering and Soil Dynamics, (ed. Prakash; S.), University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, Vol. III, 

pp. 1105-1110, 1981. 

Wood, D. M., "Laboratory Investigations of the Behavior of Soils under Cyclic Loading: A Review," 

Soil Mechanics - Transient and Cyclic Loads, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1982. 

Woods, R. D., "Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties," Proceedings, Earthquake Engineering and 

Soil Dynamics, American Society of Civil Engineers Specialty Conference, Pasadena, Vol. I, pp. 91-178, 

June 19-21, 1981.

NUREG/CR-5741 104
References

Yan, L., "Seismic Deformation Analysis of Earth Dams: a simplified method," Report No. SML 91-01, 

Soil Mechanics Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1991. 

Yasuda, S., Nagase, H., Kiku, H., and Uchida, Y., "A Simplified Procedure for the Analysis of the Per

manent Ground Displacement," Proceedings, 3rd Japan-US. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design 

of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, NCEER, Technical Report NCEER-9 1

0001, pp. 25-236, 1991. 

Yegian, M. K., Ghahraman, V.G., and Gazetas, G., "Seismological, Geotechnical, and Structural Over

view," The Armenia Earthquake of December 1988, Northeastern University, Boston, pp. 1-34., 1992. 

Yegian, M. K., Ghahraman, V.G. and Harutiunyan, R.N., "Liquefaction and embankment failure case 

histories, 1988 Armenian earthquake," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(3): 581-596, 

1994. 

Yoshimi, Y. K. and Oh-Oka, H., "Influence of Degree of Shear Stress Reversal on the Liquefaction 

Potential of Saturated Sand," Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Soils and 

Foundations, Vol. 15(3), pp. 27-40, 1975. 

Yoshimi, Y. K. and Tokimatsu, K., "Two-Dimensional Pore Pressure Changes in Sand Deposits During 

Earthquakes," Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on Microzonation, San Francisco, Vol. 2, 

pp. 853-863, 1978. 

Youd, T. L., "Packing Changes and Liquefaction Susceptibility," American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 103(GT8), 918-923, 1977. 

Youd, T.L. , Harp, E. L., Keefer, D. K. and Wilson, R. C., "The Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 

28, 1983 - liquefaction," Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 2(1): 71-89, 1985. 

Youd, T. L., "Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread Displacement," Technical Note N- 1862, Naval Civil 

Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA., June, 1993. 

Youd, T. L., "Screening Guide for Rapid Assessment of Liquefaction Hazard at Highway Bridge Sites," 

Technical Report MCEER-98-0005, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 

State University of New York at-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 1998. 

Youd, T. L. and Hoose, S. N., "Liquefaction Susceptibility and Geologic Setting," Proceedings, Sixth 

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, Vol. 6, pp. 37-42, 1977. 

Youd, T. L. and Perkins, D. M., "Mapping of Liquefaction Induced Ground Failure Potential," American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 104, No. GT4, 

pp. 433-446, 1978.

105 NUREG/CR-5741
Appendix A Steady State Strength Testing

APPENDIX A 

STEADY STATE STRENGTH TESTING 

The procedure for measuring the undrained steady-state strength, Su, of sands presented herein is based 

on Poulos, Castro, and France (1985) and Poulos (1988). The steps of the determination of in situ S. 

values in sandy soils involve the following determinations: (1) In situ void ratio, (2) Steady state line for 

compacted specimens, (3) Undrained steady state strengths for "undisturbed" specimens, and (4) Correc

tion of strengths for void ratio. Subsequent paragraphs describe each step. 

Step 1: In Situ Void Ratio 

Undisturbed samples should be obtained to enable estimation of the in situ S.-value, which is dependent 

solely on the soil composition and the void ratio. The undisturbed samples should be taken in the loosest 

zones of the embankment or foundation to be conservative. Zones that have the lowest blowcounts, most 

narrowly graded soils, and most rounded grains are the zones likely to give the lowest S.-values. 

Currently, there are at least three satisfactory ways to obtain suitably undisturbed samples of loose sand 

at depth in situ: (1) fixed-piston sampling, (2) sampling in test pits, and (3) freezing of the ground and 

coring. A satisfactory method not only should cause minimal volume changes but should provide suffi

cient data to estimate the volume changes that do occur during sampling. All three methods listed above 

require care. For clays, it is relatively simple to measure the in situ void ratio using the procedures 

developed by Hvorslev (1949). For sands, considerably more care is needed. Some of the important 

sampling details are discussed below. 

The fixed-piston sampler contains a piston that is fixed at the bottom of the hole by a rod that extends to 

the ground surface. One pushes a thin-wall tube into the ground past the piston while holding the piston 

rod fixed. The clearance ratio of the cutting edge of the sampling tube should be adjusted for the particu

lar sand so that the ratio has the minimum value necessary for sample retention. This ratio might vary 

from near zero to 1 percent. The stroke length during sampling must be measured within approximately 

0.2 percent. It should be corrected for rod compression if the hole is deep. 

Trial sampling is needed to select the maximum hydraulic pressure that may be used without deforming 

the cutting edge. Short samples are acceptable for measuring void ratio and laboratory testing. The tube 

should not be hammered. Removal of the tube from the hole should be extremely slow (approximately 

1 mm/sec or even slower) to reduce the vacuum at the bottom, withdrawal should occur without vibra

tion, and the drilling water or mud should be kept above the water table. When the sample is removed 

from the hole, any gap between the piston and the top of the soil should be measured. This gap is caused 

by (1) compression of the sample during penetration, (2) downward movement as the soil fills the gap 

between the cutting edge and the inside wall, and (3) sample slippage during removal from the hole. To 

be conservative, it is usually assumed that, except for item 3, the gap is caused entirely by sample 

compression. 

The volume of a tube sample is computed as the product of stroke length and the area of the tube inside 

the cutting edge. The measured gap is prorated to each specimen tested. Thus when one knows the spe

cimen dry weight, specific gravity of solids, and specimen volume, one can calculate the void ratio it had 

in situ. Use of the above values to compute void ratio without accounting for possible downward slip

page of the soil in the tube during removal from the hole is conservative. If slippage occurs, the void 

ratio will be overestimated. At present there is no satisfactory way for estimating slippage except.when it

A-1 NUREG/CR-5741
Appendix A Steady State Strength Testing

is large enough that the calculated void ratio is unreasonable. Thus trial sampling with various clearance 

ratios is helpful in judging the clearance ratio needed to control slippage. 

Step 2: Steady State Line for Compacted Specimens 

"Undisturbed" samples of loose sand almost always have a lower void ratio in the laboratory than in situ. 

Therefore, a procedure for correcting laboratory measured steady state strengths to the in situ void ratio 

is required. For sands the S.-value is quite sensitive to void ratio; therefore, conservative techniques for 

making this correction are important. 

In practice it has been found that the volume changes during sampling are relatively small compared to 

those occurring during consolidation in the triaxial cell. Even if a sample is obtained by freezing the 

ground and coring, the density may increase significantly during reconsolidation in the laboratory to in 

situ stresses. 

In subsequent discussions the term "steady state line" will be used. It is the line drawn through points 

that show the steady state void ratio versus the effective minor principal stress during steady state defor

mation. The effective stress may be plotted on an arithmetic or logarithmic scale. 

The procedure for correcting laboratory-measured undrained steady state strengths to the in situ void 

ratio is based on two observations: (1) the slope of the steady state line on a semi-log plot is affected 

chiefly by the shape of the grains in a given soil, and (2) the vertical position of the steady state line is 

affected even by small differences in grain-size distribution (Poulos, Castro, and France, 1985 and Castro 

et al., 1982). 

The correction procedure requires that the steady state line be obtained by testing five or six compacted 

specimens of identical soil. Any suitable test method may be used. For clean, narrowly graded sands, 

the triaxial test is satisfactory. It is advisable to check the steady state line using a second type of test, for 

example, a rotation shear test or a direct sample shear test. For soils with a substantial percentage of 

fines, it is often necessary to use a rotation shear test to achieve steady state deformation. For clays the 

vane test can be used (Poulos, Robinsky, and Keller, 1985). 

The soil used should be as nearly as possible the same soil as that in the ground. Often several "undis

turbed" samples from the upper part of sampling tubes can be thoroughly mixed, as these zones may be 

more disturbed than the lower samples, which are used for subsequent steps. At this stage only the grain 

shape distribution need be well preserved because it has the major effect on the slope of the steady state 

line. It is also desirable to preserve the grain-size distribution. The slope of the steady state line for the 

compacted specimens will then be as close as possible to that for the associated undisturbed specimens to 

be tested in Step 3. 

Each compacted specimen should be placed in the test apparatus at a void ratio and effective stress com

bination that is well above the steady state line. Such a specimen will be highly contractive, and the 

strain needed to reach steady state will be minimized. 

Figure A-I gives plots of the data for one undrained test. These graphs are suggested as a standard 

method for plotting stress-strain data.

NUREG/CR-5741 A-2
LATERAL EFFECTIVE STRESS

0.4

&F 0.2

0.0

STRESS - STRAIN

0 10 20

Axial Strain, %

30

P, ksf.

SOIL STRUCTURE STATE '1OADING 

Batch Mix Compacted moist FN 1.02 ksf o/a = 0 Undrained mon6tonic 

Poorly graded SAND at 6• water content I d. = 91.3 pof Bo 0.98 e. 0.832 Ioaxialom presslorn 

with clay (SP - SC). In 8 layers. .u 0 2.63 Inch H. - 5.97 Inch- .- . :"'t :O'./1 . 

Figure A-i. Typical undrained triaxial test result on loose sand (Castro, Poulos, and France, 1985, reprinted with permission from ASCE)

STATE .I.U.

.0.9

0 

0.

i1111 I Ii i'l'l i I i i 111111 I I I I'lltI

0.0

0.8

0.7 

0.6 

0.5

0.1

,>

1 

F3,ksf

(a) 

nO 10

(C) 

P

1'

0

Cl) 

(D 

Cl) 

Cl) 

-3 0 

U2 

cIQ
Appendix A Steady State Strength Testing

A typical stress-strain curve from an undrained triaxial test on a contractive specimen is shown in Fig

ure A-ic. The steady state is reached at that strain where the shear stress and the effective minor prin

cipal stress are no longer changing as deformation continues. This is point S in graphs (a) and (c) of 

Figure A-1. Note that the strain at peak shear stress, point P in Figure A-Ic, must be exceeded greatly to 

reach the steady state of deformation. 

The results of the tests on compacted specimens are plotted on one "state diagram," such as Figure A-2. 

The best fit line through the points representing the steady state is the steady state line. Each point on 

this line represents a condition of continuous deformation. The original structure is completely remolded 

at the steady state. Therefore, the method of specimen preparation, which controls the original structure, 

has no influence on the position or slope of the steady state line for the particular soil used. 

As it is the steady state shear strength that is needed for liquefaction analysis by this procedure, it is con

venient to plot the results of the undrained triaxial tests in terms of void ratio versus undrained steady 

state shear strength on the failure plane, S., as shown in Figure A-2. To compute S. from the results of 

each consolidated undrained triaxial test, one uses the following equations: 

S. = q, cos Cj., (A-i) 

and: 

sin q., q, (A-2) 03 + q s ( a k - Us) + q ., 

for 

q, = (al. - 03.,)/2 (A-3) 

where 

°is - °3, = Principal stress difference at the steady state from the triaxial test 

63. = Effective minor principal stress at the steady state 

°f3c = Effective minor principal stress at start of shear (after consolidation) 

u, = Pore pressure induced in the test specimen at the steady state of deformation 

(ýý = Steady state friction angle 

The quantities q, 63c, and u, are obtained directly during triaxial tests. 

The steady state strength line (Figure A-2) obtained from the compacted specimens is used to correct the 

strengths of "undisturbed" specimens, which are determined in the following step. 

Step 3: Undrained Steady State Strengths for "Undisturbed" Specimens 

A series of consolidated undrained triaxial or other appropriate tests is performed on "undisturbed" spe

cimens from the zone being evaluated. Sufficient tests are needed tb determine the average steady state 

strength reliably.

NUREG/CR-5741 A-4
0.8. . . 11 . .. . . . .. .11.

0.7. 

Cp 

0 

> 0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

100

I I I I I I - I I I L I 

* STEADY STATE SHEAR STRENGTH MEASURED 

ON UNDISTURBED SPECIMEN,.' PLOTTED AT VOID 

RAXION OF SPECIMEN AFTER LAB CONSOUDATION 

0 CORRECTED STEADY-STATE SHER STRENM AT 

VOID RATIO IN TUBE MEASURED UPON REMOVAL 

FROM BOREHOLE

NOTE. Su= q, cos 

•)a .30" 

I I 11111 I I I "1 1111111 I

1,000 

STEADY

I* I

I '1. I I "lI II

10,000s 

STATE STRENGTH, q,1 psf

100,000

Figure A-2. State diagram for compacted specimens (Castro, Poulos, and France, 1985, reprinted with permission from ASCE) U'

'I

"-o 

0C cjQ

l ~ ~ ~~~~~ I1 ~~~ . I,, I I-. I I

0.8 I I I I I I lI l

I
Appendix A Steady State Strength Testing

To define the steady state well in a triaxial test - at strains achievable in that test - it is best to ensure that 

the undisturbed specimen is contractive, just as was done for the compacted specimens. One procedure 

is to consolidate the undisturbed specimens to high effective stresses (but not so high that the correction 

needed in Step 4 becomes excessive). At high effective stresses, sandy soils are more contractive than at 

low effective stresses. If the stresses used are not high enough to make the specimens contractive, the 

steady state still can be determined. However, the accuracy of the measurement is poorer than for con

tractive specimens, because more redistribution of void ratio probably occurs during tests on dilative 

specimens and the strain required to reach steady state are larger. 

The stress-strain data for the tests on contractive, undisturbed specimens are similar to those shown in 

Figure A-1. The steady state point for each "undisturbed" specimen is plotted on the state diagram, 

together with the steady state line for the compacted specimens, as shown in Figure A-2. The vertical 

distance between the individual points and the steady state line for compacted specimens is assumed to 

be due chiefly to minor differences in grain-size distribution. For the case in Figure A-2, all of the tests 

results on undisturbed specimens plotted below the steady state line for the compacted specimens. How

ever, they may plot above and/or below in other cases, and it is more common for the undisturbed speci

mens to plot above the steady state line for the remolded specimens. 

The undrained steady state shear strengths shown by the solid dots in Figure A-2 were obtained at the 

void ratio after consolidation, not at the in situ void ratio. Therefore, correction of the results to the in 

situ void ratio must be made, as described in the next, and final, step. 

Step 4: Correction of Strengths for Void Ratio 

The final, and most significant, step in this procedure is to compute the in situ void ratio for each of the 

tested "undisturbed" specimens from the measurements made during undisturbed sampling. Using the in 

situ void ratio, the correction procedure given in Figure A-3 is applied for each test in Figure A-2 on the 

undisturbed specimens. The dashed line is drawn through the point that shows the measured undrained 

steady state strength of the "undisturbed" specimen at its void ratio in the laboratory. The dashed line is 

drawn parallel to the steady state strength line for the compacted specimens. 

A horizontal line is drawn from the ordinate axis starting at the calculated in situ void ratio to intersect 

the dashed line for the test on that undisturbed specimen. The estimated in situ undrained steady state 

strength is selected from the abscissa. This strong dependence of the steady state strength approach on 

void ratio, which has been confirmed by many investigators, is the main source of uncertainty in evaluat

ing the undrained steady state strength (S.). Note that the uncertainty is present in any method to evalu

ate Su,, whether it is explicitly considered, as in the method just described, or not, such as in the empirical 

method. In other words, it is a clear experimental fact that minor changes in void ratio in the in situ soil 

represent significant changes in S., and thus index tests such as blowcounts that are not very sensitive to 

void ratio are themselves suspect to inaccuracy in measurement of S1 .

NUREG/CR-5741 A-6
Appendix A Steady State Strength Testing

IN-SITU VOID RATIO 

OF *UNDISTURBED" 

SPECIMEN 

B

VOID RATIO OF 

"UNDISTURBED" 

SPECIMEN DURING. 

jSHEAR

STEADY STATE 

UNE FOR COMPACTED

SPECIMENS

ESTIMATED 

IN-SITU Su,

1,000 10,000 100,000

STEADY STATE SHEAR STRENGTH, S us I psf

Correction of steady state strength for void ratio changes (Castro, Poulos, and France, 

1985, reprinted with permission from ASCE)

NUREG/CR-5741

1.0 

0.9

Q) 

& 

5r

0.8 

0.7

0.6 

0.5

100

Figure A-3.

I

I! , I

A-7
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

(2-89) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev., NRCMO1102. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET and Addendum Numbers, if any.) 

3201, 3202 BBIGAHCDT HE 

(See insbructions on the reverse) 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG/CR-5741 

Technical Bases for Regulatory Guide for Soil Liquefaction 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 

MONTH YEAR 

March 2000 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

W6246 

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT 

J.P. Koester, M.K. Sharp, M.E. Hynes Technical 

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates) 

June 1995 - July 1999 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contaector, 

provide name and mailing address.) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station 

3909 Halls Ferry Road 

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above'; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

and mailing address.) 

Division of Engineering Technology 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

E. Zurflueh, NRC Project Manager 

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less) 

This document provides technical bases for developing a new Regulatory Guide for evaluating the potential'for 

earthquake-induced liquefaction at nuclear facility sites, compiling current and state of the art techniques. A historical perspective is 

provided to define liquefaction phenomena observed during earthquakes and to support identification of soil characteristics 

associated with liquefaction. Guidance is presented for site characterization studies, including the various in situ tests available for 

liquefaction potential evaluation. Screening techniques and progressively more detailed procedures are presented for 

investigations necessary to identify soils that may pose a hazard to important facilities. Only deterministic procedures are 

described; probabilistic approaches are detailed in a separate report. 

An example problem illustrates the evaluation of liquefaction triggering and estimation of residual strength of liquefied soils. Current 

practice for evaluating and estimating permanent deformations to earthen structures is discussed. Deformations accompanying 

liquefaction are included, but limited to those resulting from inertial forces during shaking. Estimation of very large deformations is 

not a well-established process and is a subject of ongoing research.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Deterministic Procedures unlimited 

Liquefaction Potential 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

Displacement Analysis (This Page) 

unclassified 

(This Repot) 

unclassified 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)
UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

USNRC 

PERMIT NO. G-67

£llet 13