NUREG/CR-6622

Probabilistic Liquefaction 

Analysis 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY NOTICE 

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

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/sudocs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161 -0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow> 

703-487-4650 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

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

ences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (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

XXXX). 

A single copy of each NRC draft report 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> 

All NRC documents released to the public are avail

able for inspection or copying for a fee, in paper, 

microfiche, or, in some cases, diskette, from the 

Public Document Room (PDR):

NRC Public Document Room 

2120 L Street, N.W., Lower Level 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PDR/pdrl.htm> 

1-800-397-4209 or locally 202-634-3273 

Microfiche of most NRC documents made publicly 

available since January 1981 may be found in the 

Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs) located in 

the vicinity of nuclear power plants. The locations 

of the LPDRs may be obtained from the PDR (see 

previous paragraph) or through: 

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/ 

SR1350N9/lpdr/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.
NUREG/CR-6622

Probabilistic Liquefaction 

Analysis 

Manuscript Completed: October 1999 

Date Published: November 1999 

Prepared by 

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
Probabilistic Liquefaction: ;nalysis

ABSTRACT 

This document provides a technical basis for formulating probabilistic approaches to liquefaction evalu

ation. The three basic elements of probabilistic liquefaction analysis are described: (1) uncertainty in the 

earthquake load, (2) uncertainty in the available resistance, and (3) uncertainty in the method of analysis. 

The probabilistic approach is built from the steps in a deterministic liquefaction analysis; however, the 

input parameters, such as penetration resistance, site stratigraphy, acceleration, and magnitude, are 

treated as random variables and the accuracy of the method of analysis is factored in as part of a 

capacity-demand model. Uncertainty in the earthquake load is generally treated with a probabilistic 

seismic hazard analysis which introduces time as a parameter. The site stratigraphy and engineering 

properties are generally treated as one-, two-, or three-dimensional random fields. Uncertainty in the 

method of analysis is generally estimated with logit regression analysis of the field performance data 

base. It is assumed that the reader has a working knowledge of probability theory, stochastic processes, 

liquefaction evaluation, and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis calculations.

iii N NUREG/CR-6622
Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

A B STR A C T ........................................................................ iii 

PREFA CE ......................................................................... vi 

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................................. 1 

2 UNCERTAINTY IN EARTHQUAKE LOAD ........................................... 1 

2.1 A pparatus .................................................................... 1 

2.2 Probabilistic Site Response ...................................................... 2 

2.3 Artificial Earthquake Records .................................................... 3 

3 UNCERTAINTY IN LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE .................................... 3 

3.1 Calculation of Liquefaction Resistance ............................................ 3 

3.2 Spatial M odeling of the Soil Deposit ............................................... 5 

4 UNCERTAINTY IN METHOD OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS .......................... 6 

4.1 Uncertainty in the Seed-Idriss Chart ............................................... 6 

4.2 Other Types of Analysis and Inputs ............................................... 13 

4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test .................................................... 13 

4.2.2 Shear Wave Velocity, Becker and Large Penetrometer Tests ..................... 13 

4.2.3 Arias Intensity and SPT .................................................. 13 

4.2.4 Liquefiable Fine-Grained Soils ............................................. 14 

4.2.5 Steady-State Liquefaction Evaluation ........................................ 14 

4.2.6 Advanced Constitutive Models and Deformation Codes ......................... 14 

5 CAPACITY-DEMAND MODEL .................................................... 16 

6 DISCUSSION AND CLOSURE ..................................................... 19 

REFERENCES ..................................................................... 22 

APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... A-1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 4.1. Logit results for sands with <12 percent fines after Liao et al. (1988) and Liao (1996) (figure 

from Youd and Noble 1997) ................................................. 8 

Figure 4.2. Logit results for sands with >12 percent fines after Liao et al. (1988) and Liao (1996) (figure 

from Youd and Noble 1997) ................................................. 8 

Figure 4.3. Logit results from Youd and Noble (1997) ...................................... 9 

Figure 4.4. Liao et al. (1988) and Youd and Noble (1997) logit results plotted against Seed et al. (1985) 

curve for clean sands (after Youd and Noble 1997) ............................... 10 

Figure 4.5. Interim logit results from Dr. Seed (1998) for clean sands ......................... 11 

Figure 4.6. Interim logit results from Dr. Seed (1998) for <5, 15, and >35 percent fines ........... 12 

Figure 4.7. Logit results for Arias Intensity (this study) from data by Kayen and Mitchell (1997) .... 15

V NUREG/CR-6622
Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis

Figure 5.1. Triggering combination of peak ground acceleration and magnitude given N,,,o . . . . . . . . 17 

Figure 5.2. Deaggregated PSHA hazard curves for example problem .......................... 18 

Figure 5.3. Approach to determine annual probability of liquefaction using Arias Intensity ........ 21 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 5.1 Probability of Liquefaction Calculation for Example Problem ....................... 20

NUREG/CR-6622 vi
Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis

PREFACE 

The study described in 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 

Kornasiewicz and Dr. Ernst Zurflueh, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, NRC. 

The report was prepared by Dr. Mary Ellen Hynes, Chief, Earthquake Engineering and Geophysics 

Branch, Earthquake Engineering and Geosciences Division (EEGD), Geotechnical Laboratory (GL), 

WES. General supervision was provided by Dr. Lillian D. Wakeley, Acting Chief, EEGD, and 

Dr. William F. Marcuson III, Director, GL. 

The author would particularly like to thank the reviewers, Dr. John C. Christian, Dr. Carl J. Costantino, 

Dr. Raymond B. Seed, and Dr. Robert V. Whitman, for their thoughtful and constructive reviews. Their 

comments have significantly improved the content of this report. 

At the time of preparation of this report, Director of WES was Dr. Robert W. Whalin. Commander was 

COL Robin R. Cababa, EN.

vii NUREG/CR-6622
1. Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION 

The professional literature has numerous papers on probabilistic liquefaction analysis as shown in 

Appendix A. The three basic elements of probabilistic liquefaction analysis are: (1) uncertainty in the 

earthquake load, (2) uncertainty in the available resistance, and (3) uncertainty in the method of analysis. 

The probabilistic approach is built from the steps in a deterministic liquefaction analysis (see for example 

Koester, Sharp, and Hynes 1999); however, the input parameters, such as penetration resistance, site 

stratigraphy, acceleration, and magnitude, are treated as random variables and the accuracy of the method 

of analysis is factored in as part of a capacity-demand model (see for example Benjamin and Cornell 

1970). Uncertainty in the earthquake load is generally treated with a probabilistic seismic hazard analy

sis (Cornell 1968, Frankel et al. 1996) which introduces time as a parameter. The site stratigraphy and 

engineering properties are generally treated as one-, two-, or three-dimensional random fields (see for 

example VanMarcke 1983, Joumel 1989, Wackernagel 1995). Uncertainty in the method of analysis is 

generally estimated with logit regression analysis of the field performance data base (see for example 

Liao, Veneziano, and Whitman 1988; Liao 1996; and Liao and Lum 1998). A logit regression was devel

oped in this study for a relatively new empirical liquefaction chart using Arias Intensity (Kayen 1993; 

Kayen and Mitchell 1997). 

This report describes these three basic elements of probabilistic liquefaction analysis and the formulation 

of the capacity-demand model. More detail is provided on uncertainty in the method of analysis; proba

bilistic seismic hazard analysis and random fields are well covered elsewhere in the literature. This 

report does not discuss the consequences of liquefaction, such as increased pore water pressures, settle

ment, deformations, slope instability, and reduced strength, stiffhess, and bearing capacity; however, 

probabilistic treatment of these consequences uses the same techniques as the probabilistic liquefaction 

analysis model developed in this report, namely a capacity/demand type of probabilistic model based on 

a more complex model of liquefaction and consequent soil behavior and deformations. It is assumed that 

the reader has a working knowledge of probability theory, stochastic processes, liquefaction evaluation, 

and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis calculations. This report provides a structured summary of the 

literature and current practice in this topic area, and presents some additional contributions, research in 

progress, and recommendations. There are many researchers who have contributed to this topic area; a 

limited selection of contributions are discussed in the text. In an effort to provide a broader list of con

tributions, a bibliography on probabilistic liquefaction analysis is provided in Appendix A. 

2 UNCERTAINTY IN EARTHQUAKE LOAD 

2.1 Apparatus 

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is widely used in engineering practice and has evolved with 

increasing sophistication over the years since it was first formulated by Cornell (1968) to its current 

application in USGS earthquake hazard maps (Frankel et al. 1996). A PSHA is a model for estimating 

the frequency of occurrence of earthquakes of various sizes for each source zone that affects a site and 

combining their contributions to the probability of exceeding a particular ground motion parameter at a 

site within a specified time period. Although PSHA has advanced in its sophistication and use over the 

years, it is not a perfect descriptor of the natural process of earthquake occurrence. There are shortcom

ings in its formulation and the data base for input parameters. These shortcomings are well documented

I NUREG/CR-6622
2. Uncertainty in Earthquake Load

by Krinitzsky (1993a, 1993b, 1995a, and 1995b). Nevertheless, PSHA is the best tool available at this 

time for attempting to quantify uncertainty in earthquake ground motions in future time and space. 

The basic steps in a PSHA are: (1) identify seismic source zones that could affect the site; (2) for each 

source zone, determine maximum or characteristic earthquake size and recurrence relationships which 

relate frequency of occurrence to earthquake size; (3) for each source zone and ground motion parameter 

of interest, select an attenuation relationship which accounts for changes in the parameter as a function of 

the distance from the source to the site; and (4) combine the probability of exceedance contributions from 

each source zone for the time period of interest. 

Attenuation functions exist for many types of ground motion parameters, source types, and site condi

tions. Advances are being made in direct calculation of site motions from energy release at the source; 

however, development, validation, and quantification of uncertainty in these advanced seismology 

models were still in progress at the time of this study. 

The ground motion parameter needed from the PSHA depends on the type of liquefaction analysis used. 

For example, Simos, Costantino, and Reich (1995) use power spectral density for stochastic modeling of 

the earthquake and probability density functions for the engineering properties of their two-phase (soil

water) analytical technique. Hwang and Lee (1991) use the Iwasaki et al. (1982) liquefaction potential 

index and moment magnitude. Todorovska (1998) uses seismic wave energy determined from the 

Fourier spectrum of strong motion velocity with an empirical liquefaction model. Cao and Law (1991) 

also use an energy approach with an empirical liquefaction model. Kayen's (1993) approach uses Arias 

Intensity of the acceleration in the liquefiable layer. 

The most widely used and accepted type of liquefaction analysis is the Seed-Idriss approach (see for 

example Youd and Idriss 1997). The Seed-Idriss simplified method has evolved to a practical form since 

1971 (Seed and Idriss 1971; Seed, Idriss, and Arango 1983; Seed et al. 1985; Idriss 1999). The simpli

fied method uses the earthquake magnitude and peak site acceleration to estimate cyclic shear stresses in 

the soil deposit. Changes in site response with depth and magnitude are quantified by a factor rD which 

has been determined primarily from numerical wave propagation calculations (Idriss 1999). 

2.2 Probabilistic Site Response 

Incoming earthquake ground motions are modified as they propagate through the soil deposits at a site. 

The resulting cyclic shear stresses and acceleration response in the soil deposit depend on the stratigra

phy (thickness, depth, and areal extent of various soil units, depth to rock) and engineering properties of 

the soil units (such as soil type, density, stiffness, modulus changes with cyclic straining). Rigorous 

probabilistic modeling of all the parameters that affect site response to incoming ground motions has 

been attempted by various researchers. Popescu, Deodatis, and Prevost (1996) use multi-dimensional, 

multi-variate, non-Gaussian homogeneous stochastic fields to investigate the effect of varying soil 

stratigraphy and properties on site response. Arango et al. (1996) present an alternative approach that 

uses simplified one-dimensional site response calculations together with a simplified deaggregated 

seismic hazard to yield an estimate of probability of liquefaction. Other researchers have used fuzzy 

logic to incorporate uncertainty in site response (Rahman and El Zahaby 1997; Zhou, Su, and Fan 1992). 

Three-dimensional modeling of the soil deposits at a site and the resulting physical distribution of 

response can provide very useful information for sites with complex geomorphology, topographic relief, 

and varying bedrock surface. Also, many parameters are physically and statistically correlated, which 

further complicates a rigorous analysis (for example, soil density, stiffness, and confining stress).

NUREG/CR-6622 2
3. Uncertainty in Liquefaction Resistance

Consequently, a probabilistic site response analysis with many variable parameters and statistical regres

sions for estimation is not necessarily better than a more simplified approach. 

2.3 Artificial Earthquake Records 

Probabilistic techniques have been used to generate artificial earthquake records. Artificial earthquake 

records can be divided into two groups: those that derive from signal processing techniques and those 

that derive from physical modeling of wave propagation. 

Frequency domain and time domain signal processing techniques have been widely used to generate arti

ficial earthquake records that are consistent with prescribed power density spectra or response spectra; 

these records are particularly applicable for linear elastic analyses typically used in structural dynamics. 

These records are appealing to an analyst because they are easy to manipulate numerically. However, 

such artificial records have too much energy throughout the frequency spectrum compared to natural 

records. Such records should not be used for an analysis that includes nonlinear effects. Consequently, 

such records are not recommended for evaluation of liquefaction and consequent stability and nonlinear 

deformation analyses. If such records are used for a probabilistic liquefaction analysis, a reality check 

with actual records would help to evaluate confidence in the results. 

Advances in seismology have resulted in three-dimensional wave propagation codes to estimate source to 

site transmission of earthquake motions. These codes generally are limited to low frequency output since 

the computational requirements to capture source to site characteristics are so demanding. Costantino 

(1999) cites an example in which the computations had to be limited to a two-dimensional configuration 

in order to even approach 2 Hz capability in the output, while mesh size characteristics severely limited 

site descriptions. Seed (1998) describes developments to statistically "roughen" the rupture/release of 

energy to capture higher frequency motions. Although the progress in this work is very promising, devel

opment, validation, and quantification of uncertainty in these advanced seismology models were still in 

progress at the time of this study, as noted above. 

3 UNCERTAINTY IN LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE 

3.1 Calculation of Liquefaction Resistance 

Almost any soil can be liquefiable. Typically, liquefaction is observed in the form of surface sand boils 

from loose, saturated, or nearly saturated, Pleistocene or younger, water-laid deposits at depths less than 

50 ft. These observations do not preclude the occurrence of liquefaction at greater depths. Gravels, 

sands, silts, and high water content, low plasticity clays, and mixtures of these soil types can liquefy if 

shaken hard enough and long enough. Low permeability layers, if present, can trap developing high pore 

water pressures; consequently, even thin layers of potentially liquefiable materials may be damaging. 

Probabilistic analysis of liquefaction resistance follows from the form of deterministic analysis used. 

Deterministic liquefaction evaluation methods are either analytical (constitutive models based on first 

principles of soil behavior), empirical (field observations and laboratory testing), or a combination of the 

two. The 1997 evolution of the Seed-Idriss procedure is the standard recommended for practice at the 

time of this writing (Youd and Idriss 1997), and is the focus of this section. Additional liquefaction 

evaluation methods are mentioned at the end of this section.

3 NUREG/CR-6622
3. Uncertainty in Liquefaction Resistance 

The liquefaction resistance of a soil in the empirical Seed-Idriss procedure is determined from N1 ,60, 

defined as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blowcount corrected to a confining stress of 1 atm and an 

energy efficiency of 60 percent. The liquefaction resistance in terms of a cyclic shear stress ratio is: 

T /ov' =f(N d x (E/60) x CN + KF) x KM x K. x K. X ... (3.1) 

where 

Nme.d = SPT blowcount measured in the field 

E = energy efficiency of the equipment used in the field 

CN = overburden correction to convert Nm~eed to a confining stress of 1 atm 

KF = fines content correction 

Ko = overburden correction factor for cyclic shear strength 

Ka = initial shear stress correction factor 

KM = magnitude correction factor 

f( ) = is defined by the Seed-Idriss chart 

-y / ov' = cyclic shear strength / vertical effective confining stress 

Note that (Nne..u..d x (E / 60) x CN ) is equal to N,,6o, and (N e .. d X (E / 60) x CN + KF) is equal to an 

equivalent clean sand N1,60 . Each of the factors noted in Equation I can be treated as a random variable; 

however Nmeured, CN , KF, K0 and K, are correlated to each other. The factors K" and K,, estimated 

from laboratory tests, are applied to the chart strength values to extend the chart beyond the field perfor

mance data base. Additional factors have been developed for age, overconsolidation, and other aspects 

that influence liquefaction resistance, but they are not usually applied in practice. 

The magnitude correction factor, KM, has been studied by a number of researchers since its introduction 

by Seed and Idriss in 1982 (Ambraseys 1988, Idriss 1999, Arango 1996, Youd and Noble 1997, Youd 

and Idriss 1997, and Liao and Lum 1998). For a magnitude 6 earthquake, KM ranges from 1.32 (Seed 

and Idriss 1982) to 2.92 (Youd and Noble 1997). In their statistical analyses, Liao and Lum concluded 

that the Seed and Idriss (1982) relationship for KM best fits the Liao and Whitman (1986) database. 

Youd and Idriss (1997) recommended using KM values similar to Idriss (1997); for a magnitude 6 earth

quake, KM = 1.76, compared to 1.32 from Seed and Idriss (1982). Values for KM are still under study. 

Liao and Lum (1998) provide an example of the impact of KM on probabilistic analysis of liquefaction 

and risk analysis for Keenleyside Dam. 

Silva and Costantino (1999) have examined liquefaction data from the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes 

and recommend an additional correction factor for distance. They note that empirical liquefaction corre

lations are based mainly on distant events and cannot easily treat close-in "fling effects," or exaggerated 

vertical ground motions as measured in the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes, for which the fault rup

tures occurred very near the recording instruments. 

Cyclic shear strength can also be estimated with laboratory tests that can be used to develop site specific 

relationships for KF, K, and K, , and better define CN for the materials and stress range of interest at the 

site (see for example Koester, Sharp, and Hynes 1999). Like blowcounts, laboratory tests are not perfect 

measurements of in situ cyclic shear strength. The test results are altered by unavoidable disturbance that 

occurs during sampling, changes in density and stress state in the sample as it is extracted from the field 

and prepared for testing, and loading and boundary conditions in the testing apparatus that do not per

fectly simulate field conditions and earthquake loads.

NUREG/CR-6622 4
3. Uncertainty in Liquefaction Resistance

Reconstituted specimens have been widely used by researchers to investigate liquefaction potential. 

These specimens are constructed either by pluviation or moist-tamped or moist-vibrated layers. Labora

tory test results are available for gravels, sands, silts, clays, and mixtures of these soil types. Hynes and 

Olsen (1998) have shown that reconstituted pluviated specimens underestimate in situ cyclic shear 

strength by a factor of two to three at a confining stress of one atm; this error becomes smaller as con

fining stresses increase. Hynes and Olsen (1998) have shown that specimens constructed by moist

tamped or moist-vibrated layers may overestimate in situ cyclic strength at low relative densities and 

underestimate cyclic strength at high relative densities. The problem is that the reconstruction process 

does not duplicate or preserve stress history, fabric, or aging effects that are present in situ. Pluviated 

specimens may be representative of recently dredged or recently liquefied materials, but with time, the 

deposit will densify, develop stress history, etc., and its cyclic strength will usually increase. Conse

quently, laboratory testing of reconstructed specimens is not a panacea to the deterministic or probabilis

tic modeling problem. 

At this time, there is no clearly established "best" procedure for modeling these uncertainties in cyclic 

shear strength. In spite of the many uncertainties and correction factors involved, the Seed-Idriss-Arango 

1983 chart for liquefaction based on SPT measurements has performed well in distinguishing liquefiable 

from nonliquefiable materials during the 16 years of field observations since 1983. The implication is 

that a rigorous probabilistic treatment of all contributing factors to uncertainty in calculating liquefaction 

resistance may overestimate actual uncertainty. An alternative is to incorporate uncertainty estimates 

from expert elicitation; this approach has its problems (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky 1982; Hynes and 

VanMarcke 1975), but can introduce engineering and geological expertise that is missing in a purely 

mathematical analysis. 

3.2 Spatial Modeling of the Soil Deposit 

For simplicity, let us assume that if Nmemed is known, then an equivalent clean sand N 1,60 can be deter

mined with certainty. The problem now becomes modeling the variability in Nme, d throughout the 

volume of the soil deposit, since only a few locations will have actual measurements. Geostatistics 

(Journel 1989, Wackemagel 1995) and random fields (VanMarcke 1983; Popescu, Deodatis, and Prevost 

1996) provide numerical techniques for stochastic modeling of this three- dimensional stratigraphy 

problem, which includes thickness, orientation, and continuity of layers, depth to rock, surface topog

raphy, and varying blowcounts. Variograms, kriging, and autocorrelation are techniques used in a 

stochastic model to estimate properties and uncertainties for materials between measured points in the 

three-dimensional space of the deposit. A shortcoming of this purely mathematical treatment of geomor

phologic data is the absence of knowledge of the processes of deposition and erosion which formed the 

deposit being modeled. This geologic knowledge and expertise reduces the degree of uncertainty below 

the values calculated in stochastic models. 

If the subsurface geology is not very complex and the location, thickness, and extent of a potentially 

liquefiable, low blowcount layer can be defined, the problem is greatly simplified. What is needed is a 

probability density function that represents the uncertainty and variability of the average N 1, 60 over the 

low blowcount layer. The average N1,

60 values in the low blowcount layers for liquefied and nonliquefied 

sites are the values used to develop the Seed-Idriss chart. The probability distribution for an average 

N1,60 has a smaller standard deviation than the distribution for a point value of N 1,

60. 

Safety factors in a Seed-Idriss liquefaction analysis are used to estimate residual excess pore pressures 

for follow-on analyses such as pore pressure redistribution and dissipation, slope stability, bearing capac

ity, and deformations. The concept is that safety factors against liquefaction greater than unity may still

5 NUREG/CR-6622
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

result in damaging levels of residual excess pore pressure from cyclic shaking. Vasquez-Herrera and 

Dobry (1989) found that if residual excess pore pressures of 40 percent or greater, but less than 100 per

cent, were generated in a liquefiable soil (strain softening stress-strain curve under undrained conditions), 

then the soil would creep (deformation under constant load) until a triggering strain level was reached; 

then the soil would liquefy and its strength would drop to the steady-state or residual strength. Ishihara 

(1985) and Hynes (1988) show that safety factors against liquefaction of about 1.15 to 1.25 correspond to 

residual excess pore pressures of 40 percent. Consequently, in a risk analysis, the probability of liquefac

tion may be centered on a safety factor of 1.2 (± 0.05) rather than unity. 

Since N1,60 typically has considerable variability in a natural deposit, liquefaction at a single point has a 

relatively large probability of occurrence (given sufficient loading). Liquefaction over a surface or vol

ume of sufficient size to cause a problem to a structure has a lower probability. However, due to the 

communication of high pore water pressures to the surrounding material, the effective size of the lique

fied zone may be larger than its geometric boundaries. This is observed in the results of effective stress 

analyses for design of remedial measures that involve rapid dissipation of earthquake-induced residual 

excess pore pressures (for example, stone columns to increase permeability and shorten the drainage 

path; see Ledbetter and Finn (1993); Finn, Ledbetter, and Marcuson 1994); these analyses indicate that a 

liquefaction-resistant layer may develop high residual excess pore pressures if adjacent to liquefied 

layers. An assessment of the effective volume of potentially liquefiable materials from effective stress 

analyses may assist in developing cross sections for follow-on stability and deformation analyses and in a 

risk analysis. 

4 UNCERTAINTY IN METHOD OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 

4.1 Uncertainty in the Seed-Idriss Chart 

The 1997 evolution of the Seed-Idriss procedure is the standard recommended for practice (Youd and 

Idriss 1997). Lay, Shich, and Lee (1991) developed a misclassification model for evaluating probability 

of soil liquefaction with the Seed-Idriss chart. Liao et al. (1988), Youd and Noble (1997) and Liao and 

Lum (1998) present results of logistical regression of the observational database for occurrence and non

occurrence of liquefaction for the Seed-Idriss chart. As discussed by Youd and Noble (1997), the results 

from Liao et al. (1988) have been applied in a number of studies to estimate the probability of liquefac

tion (see for example Budhu et al. 1987; Arango et al. 1996; and FEMA (1997) for loss estimation stud

ies in the HAZUS code). 

Logit regression on the liquefaction data base is a technique to quantify the uncertainty in the empirical 

liquefaction analysis procedure. If PL is the probability of liquefaction given N1,60 or given N1,60 and 

magnitude, the logit transformation is used to yield QL , where: 

QL = Logit (PL) = ln[PL /(1 -PL] (4.1) 

Because probabilities vary from 0 to 1, the logit transformation changes the variable PL to QL, which 

varies monotonically from -- to +- as PL varies from 0 to 1. QL can then be expanded through a regular 

polynomial regression. From QL PL is computed as follows:

NUREG/CR-6622 6
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

PL = 1 /[1 + exp(-QL)] (4.2) 

Liao et al.(1988) conducted regression analyses on a data set of 278 points (CSRN = cyclic shear stress ratio generated at the depth of interest (CSR) normalized to a magnitude of 7.5; N1,60 ). The data were divided into two sets: relatively clean sands with fines less than or equal to 12 percent and silty sands with fines greater than 12 percent. The Seed and Idriss (1982) magnitude scaling factors were used to normalize CSR to CSRN. The logit equation developed by Liao et al. (1988) for fines less than 12 per

cent (182 data points) is: 

QL = 16.477 - 0.39760 NI,6o, + 6.4603 ln(CRRN) (4.3) 

Logit results for Equation 4.3 are shown in Figure 4.1 with the data. The logit equation developed by Liao et al. (1988) for fines greater than or equal to 12 percent (96 data points) is: 

QL = 6.4831 - 0.18190 N1,6o.cs + 2.6854 ln(CRRN) (4.4) 

Figure 4.2 shows the logit results from Equation 4.4 compared to the Seed-Idriss curves for 35 and 15 percent fines. Note that Liao et al. (1988) used the minimum value of N1.6, reported rather than an 

average; consequently, these logit results need to be shifted slightly (to increase N,,6,) for comparison with the Seed-Idriss chart. 

Youd and Noble (1997) re-examined the observational database and added new data for a total of 369 points. They added data from earthquakes with magnitudes less than 7 and performed the logistical regressions with magnitude as an independent variable. They used a fines content correction proposed by Idriss and Seed (see Youd and Idriss 1997) to correct all the data to an equivalent clean sand blow count value, NI,60,cs. Loertscher and Youd (1994) and Youd and Noble (1997) detected points in the database that may have been misclassified in the original construction of the Seed-Idriss baseline curve. 

The regression equation developed by Youd and Noble (1997) is: 

QL = -7.633 + 2.256 Mw - 0.258 N1,60 ,CS + 3.095 ln(CRR) (4.5) 

The Youd and Noble (1997) logit results for magnitudes from 7.25 to 7.75 are shown in Figure 4.3. With the changes in the data set, the Youd and Noble (1997) logit results plot below those of Liao et al. (1988), as shown in Figure 4.4 along with the Seed-Idriss baseline curve. 

Work in progress at the University of California, Berkeley, by Dr. Raymond B. Seed (Seed 1998) at the time of this study indicated that the baseline curve would be moved slightly downward as suggested by Youd and Noble (1997). Additional logit studies by Dr. Seed indicate a bias may exist in the reported observations, favoring occurrences of liquefaction and under-representing occurrences of no liquefaction. The study in progress uses a weight of 1.5 on the no-liquefaction data points to better represent the actual field performance. Dr. Seed used the average of the N1,60 values in the low blowcount zone. Dr. Seed incorporated 165 additional data points, mainly from Loma Prieta, Northridge, and Kobe events, and deleted 5 case histories from the Seed et al. (1984) data set due to poor quality in the data and documen tation. This is a work in progress, but interim results from Dr. Seed are provided in Figure 4.5 for N1., ,cs 5 and in Figure 4.6 for fines contents of <5, 15, and >35 percent.

7 NUREG/CR-6622
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis 

0.6,

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

o 0.2 

C 0.1 

0.0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Corrected / Normalized SPT Value (N1)60 

Figure 4.1. Logit results for sands with <12 percent fines after Liao et al. (1988) and Liao (1996) 

(figure from Youd and Noble 1997)

0.6

U 

Cd) 

C.) 

C.) 

U 

0. 

NQ 

0)

. 0 10 20 30 40 50 

Corrected / Normalized SPT Value (N0)60

Figure 4.2. Logit results for sands with >12 percent fines after Liao et al. (1988) and Liao (1996) 

(figure from Youd and Noble 1997)

NUREG/CR-6622

I 1 1 

35% 15% 

Seed et. al. (1984, 1985) 

curves forFC = 15% and

FC = 35%

nl~

8

I') I I I I i I I I
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

PL = 90% 50% 10%

0.50 

0.40 _ 

0 

6 0.30 

Cz. 

1:4 0m 

0 

.2 0.20

0/ 0 Magniti 

0.10 7i 

S~Liq 

Non-liq 

Seed, i 

0.00 

0 10 20 30 

Corrected Blow Count, (NI)6Ocs 

Figure 4.3. Logit results from Youd and Noble (1997)

NUREG/CR-6622

40 50

9
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

0.6 

Liao et al. (1988), P=50. / 

0.5.. Liaoetal. (1988), PL=20% / g/ 0.5 

------- Youd and Noble, PL= 2 0% i / 

.................. Youd and Noble, PL=50% / / / 

0.4 Seed et al. (1985) / 

Simplified Base Curve / 

0.3 

0 

"t 0.2 .- ,, o 

0 I I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

Corrected Blowcount, (Ni) 60 

Figure 4.4. Liao et al. (1988) and Youd and Noble (1997) logit results plotted against Seed et al. (1985) 

curve for clean sands (after Youd and Noble 1997)

NUREG/CR-6622 10
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

225 Data Points 

Measurement Errors 

Included 

Non-Liquefied x 1.5 

0.6 M,= 7.5 

0.5 

0.4

z 

Z0.3 

* SG 

* @6 

0.2 U 

0.1 

0 0 

0• 

0~0

0

80% 20% 

95% 50% 5%

10 20 30 40

o Non-Liquefied * Liquefied 

Figure4.5. Interim logit results from Dr. Seed (1998) for clean sands

I1I NUREG/CR-6622
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

225 Data Points 

Measurement Errors 

Included 

Non-Liquefied x 1.5 

Mw = 7.5 PL=15% 

0.6 .

0.5. 

0.4. 

z 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0

0 10 20 N1 30 6o

FC

40

o Non-Liquefied e Liquefied 

Figure 4.6. Interim logit results from Dr. Seed (1998) for <5, 15, and >35 percent fines

NUREG/CR-6622 12
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

4.2 Other Types of Analysis and Inputs 

4.2.1 Cone Penetration Test 

Other empirical approaches for liquefaction analysis exist that are based on field observations of lique

faction, laboratory tests, and the type of field measurement used to assess engineering properties. 

Approaches using Cone Penetration Test (CPT) results (Olsen 1997, Robertson and Wride 1997) are 

widely used. The CPT is less expensive to perform than SPT and provides a continuous record of pene

tration resistance of the cone tip and friction resistance of the sleeve behind the tip. Equipment can be 

mounted on the CPT to measure pore pressure during and between pushes, velocity, electrical resistance, 

and other properties. Only a few sites that have liquefied have been investigated with the CPT and the 

data collected has not been made available in usable, digital form to the research community. As with 

the SPT, careful equipment calibration and field procedures need to be used to minimize the influence of 

equipment and operator error in measurements. Since the database for direct comparison of CPT to field 

observations of liquefaction and no liquefaction is quite limited, probabilistic evaluations have relied 

primarily on translating the CPT to an equivalent SPT N1,60 , and then using the SPT procedure (see for 

example Arango et al. 1996). 

4.2.2 Shear Wave Velocity, Becker and Large Penetrometer Tests 

Shear wave velocity is also an indicator of liquefaction potential. The database for this technique is 

documented by Andrus and Stokoe (1997) and could be used for a probabilistic model; however, the 

shear wave velocity technique is still developing and the supporting database needs to be enlarged. Shear 

wave velocity is also used in the "threshold strain" approach (Dobry et al. 1982, Hynes 1988); however, 

this approach is a conservative, preliminary screening tool. Shear wave velocity is particularly useful for 

investigation of coarse-grained deposits where SPT and CPT are not practical. Alternative penetrometers 

such as the Becker Penetration Test (BPT; Harder 1988; Sy, Campanella, and Stewart 1995; Harder 

1997) and Large Penetrometer Test (LPT) (see Ishihara 1996) have been used to investigate liquefaction 

potential in gravelly soils. These approaches are primarily aimed at translating the BPT and LPT results 

to equivalent values of N 1 60 . 

4.2.3 Arias Intensity and SPT 

As part of this study, a logit analysis was conducted for the Arias Intensity-SPT liquefaction chart devel

oped by Kayen (Kayen 1993; Kayen and Mitchell 1997). The total horizontal Arias Intensity, Ih, is 

defined as: 

Ih = I + = ((2g))a at)]dt (4.6) 

0 

The Kayen chart uses Arias Intensity at the depth of the liquefied layer, Ihb. This is computed as the 

product of 1h and an Arias Intensity depth reduction factor rd (see Youd and Idriss 1997). 

The Arias Intensity approach internalizes earthquake magnitude corrections since I hb is an indicator of 

the energy applied at the location of the liquefied material in the soil profile. Attenuation functions for 

Arias Intensity were being developed at the time of this study. Consequently, PSHA results for Arias 

Intensity are not readily available, but may be in the near future. The logit results developed in this study

13 NUREG/CR-6622
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

are plotted in Figure 4.7. The N160 values (average values in the low blowcount zone as used by Seed 

and Idriss 1982) were converted to equivalent clean sand values, N1,60.CS, with the fines content correc

tion developed by Olsen (1997). The regression developed for the Kayen (1993) data set is: 

QL = Logit (PL) = ln[PL/(l-PL)l = 8.3324 + 3.97718 x ln(Ihb) - 0.381227 N1,60,CS (4.7) 

and, as above, the probability of liquefaction given the blowcount information can be computed with 

Equation 4.2. 

4.2.4 Liquefiable Fine-Grained Soils 

High water content, low plasticity silts, and clays are also potentially liquefiable. The empirical database 

for this was published by Wang (1981) for several sites in China for earthquakes ranging in intensity 

from MMI VII to IX (note: MMI VII could correspond to earthquake magnitudes as low as 5.4, from 

Krinitzsky 1995c). Criteria for assessing liquefaction potential of these soils was published by Seed and 

Idriss (1982). The input properties for the procedure are index tests, namely gradation (including 

hydrometer), liquid and plastic limits, and natural water content. A probabilistic model could be devel

oped to characterize the database and typical testing errors in laboratory measurement of index proper

ties. Vane shear testing has also been an informative technique for estimating residual strength of these 

soils. Laboratory testing of these materials is also possible; however, the materials are extremely diffi

cult to sample, cannot be frozen, and are subject to large volume changes when reconsolidated in the 

laboratory to in situ stress conditions. The laboratory tests do not perfectly simulate the loading and 

boundary conditions in the field, as mentioned earlier. 

4.2.5 Steady-State Liquefaction Evaluation 

Kramer (1989) developed a probabilistic model for dealing with the uncertainties in steady-state 

approaches to liquefaction and flow failure (Poulos, Castro, and France 1985). The steady-state 

approach involves laboratory testing of soil samples, careful measurement of in situ densities, and calcu

lation of initial stress state and earthquake-induced cyclic and permanent shear strain. Liquefaction and 

flow occur if the material is contractive under added shear strain and if the earthquake-induced shear 

strain exceeds the triggering strain level determined from the laboratory tests. This description of the 

steady-state approach indicates the types of parameters that could be considered as random variables in a 

probabilistic formulation. 

4.2.6 Advanced Constitutive Models and Deformation Codes 

Another type of liquefaction evaluation technique is an advanced constitutive model in a numerical 

stress, deformation, and wave propagation analysis code. The liquefaction evaluation procedures dis

cussed previously are decoupled approaches (such as SHAKE, FLUSH, QUAD4; Schnabel, Lysmer, and 

Seed 1972; Lysmer et al. 1973; and Idriss et al. 1973, respectively), since the load is decoupled from the 

resistance throughout the analysis. In partially coupled or direct models (POROSLAM, FLAC, TARA; 

Simos et al. 1996; Itasca 1991; Finn et al. 1986, respectively), the load is decoupled from resistance for a 

portion of a time increment or stress cycle in a time domain calculation. In a fully-coupled model 

(DYNAFLOW; Prevost 1981), the load and resistance are related throughout the calculation. Published 

probabilistic assessments of the accuracy or bias in this class of numerical liquefaction analysis codes 

were not found during this study.

NUREG/CR-6622 14
4. Uncertainty in Method of Liquefaction Analysis

10 / // 

/AA 

/* 00 

! ,;// 

A 0 

A - A A . 0 

0 

0.1 <> <>%o > 

0 

* Liquefaction 

SNo-Liquefaction 

A Liquefaction ? 0.01 I , , 

0 5 10 51 20 25 30 35 40 

M60 

Figure 4.7. Logit results for Arias Intensity (this study) from data by Kayen and Mitchell (1997) 

(reprinted with permission from ASCE)

15 NUREG/CR-6622
5. Capacity-Demand Model

5 CAPACITY-DEMAND MODEL 

The numerical formulation to compute probability of liquefaction comes from a classic capacity-demand 

model (Benjamin and Cornell 1970), also known as interference theory in reliability computations 

(Kapur and Lamberson 1977). The demand is the earthquake cyclic shear stress (or strain) or cyclic 

stress ratio (CSR), the capacity is the soil cyclic shear strength (or triggering strain level) or cyclic resis

tance ratio (CRR), and the method of liquefaction analysis defines the threshold values of load that will 

result in liquefaction. The probability of liquefaction is then: 

P[liquefaction] = P[CSR > CRR] (5.1) 

In a simplified analysis, CSR can be considered a function of acceleration and magnitude, and CRR can 

be considered a function of N1,60. Uncertainty in CSR can be determined from a PSHA deaggregated on 

acceleration and magnitude. The uncertainty in N1,60 can be estimated from analysis of variability of data 

from the site, modified by expert opinion, such as geologic knowledge of the deposit and past perfor

mance of the site and similar deposits during earthquakes. 

Note that the CSR and the CRR are actually not independent quantities. The cyclic stress ratio at a point 

or over a zone in a deposit is a function of the energy delivered to the deposit by the earthquake (Arias 

Intensity or combinations of acceleration and magnitude) and the mass and stiffness of the soil deposit. 

The cyclic resistance ratio is related to the density and stiffness of the deposit, and is indicated by shear 

wave velocity, density, and blowcounts. However, for simplicity, if it is assumed that CSR and CRR are 

independent, then the probability of liquefaction can be determined as: 

P[liquefaction] = f f GcSR (crr) fCRRIN,60 (crr IN1,60 = n1 60 ) FN1,60 (n1,60 ) dcrr dnl,60 (5.2) 

all all 

N1,

60 CRR 

where the complementary cumulative distribution for CSR is GCSR, the conditional probability density 

function for CRR given N1,60 is fCI N1,60 from the logit analyses, and the probability density function for 

N 1,6 0 is fNl,60" 

A threshold chart based on the 1997 evolution of the Seed-Idriss SPT procedure (which corresponds to a 

probability of liquefaction of about 15 percent according to Seed 1998) is shown in Figure 5.1 for N1,60,CS 

values of 5,10, 15, and 20. For a given value ofN1 ,

60,cs , deaggregation matrices from a PSHA can be 

used to compute the annual probability of exceeding safe threshold combinations of PGA and M. 

An example problem is provided to illustrate the steps in a probabilistic liquefaction calculation. For 

simplicity, the problem is discretized and expert opinion is used to assign probability mass values to the 

average N1,60 in a loose foundation deposit. Deaggregated hazard curves are shown in Figure 5.2, adapted 

from a PSHA for a site in California with a relatively quiet near-field seismic source capable of a magni

tude 6.5 earthquake and the San Andreas fault zone as a far-field seismic source. Two magnitude bins 

are used to describe the seismic hazard, magnitude 6 ± 0.5 and magnitude 8 ± 0.5. For this example, the 

magnitude bin 7 ± 0.5 had extremely low probability values, several orders of magnitude less likely than 

the other two bins.

NUREG/CR-6622 16
5. Capacity-Demand Model

0.6 

Threshold combinations of a and M 

(D for iquefaction (Seed Chart) 0 <] 0.5 H

L 

C 

cD 0.4 

0 

L 

U 

--- 0.3 

C 

0 6 

+

0 0.2 

L 6 

ci) 

06 

0 7 

0.1 

0 6C 

Q. 

0 

5.5 6.5 7.5 

Moment Magnitude, Mo 

Figure 5.1. Triggering combination of peak ground acceleration and magnitude given N1 60

17 NUREG/CR-6622
5. Capacity-Demand Model

10"2

O10"3 

CU 

4-

0 

10~-4 

CU 

0 I

CL 

C 5 

< 10-

lO-6 1 a 1 0 1 a I I i I I ' I ' 

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 

Peak Acceleration, g 

Figure 5.2. Deaggregated PSHA hazard curves for example problem

NUREG/CR-6622

0.2 0.25

18
6. Discussion and Closure

The cyclic stress ratio is computed with the Idriss (1999) simplified method: 

CSR = 0.65 PGA [o/o'] rd (5.3) 

where 

PGA = peak ground acceleration (g) 

= total vertical stress 

= effective vertical stress 

rd = depth reduction factor, a function of magnitude 

The 

method 

deposit for this example consists of a hydraulically-placed soil with little or no fines. Because of the of deposition and recent age of the deposit, the relative density of the material is quite uniform with depth. Examination of numerous borings indicates average values of N,,60 of about 8. Subjective assignment of probability mass yields P[ N1,

60 = 6 ± 1] = 0.05, P[ N1,

60 = 8 ± 1] = 0.75 and P[ N160 = 10 

+ 1] = 0.20. 

The logit chart from Seed (1998) was used to estimate fCRRI N160 in a discretized form with probability masses of 0.2, 0.6, and 0.2 for the nine values of CRR corresponding to the three values of average N1, A magnitude 60 correction factor of 1.46 for magnitude 6 and 0.89 for magnitude 8 were used, from Idriss (1999). Given the N1,60 , the corresponding CRR can be computed. The CSR is set equal to CRR, and unsafe combinations of magnitude and PGA are determined from Equation 5.3. A factor of safety of one against liquefaction was used in this example. 

The computations are summarized in Table 5.1. The result is a return period of 1140 yrs for a damaging level earthquake sufficient to cause liquefaction. If the standard 1997 Seed-Idriss procedure (Figure 5.1) is used and uncertainty in the Seed-Idriss chart and N1,

60 are ignored, the resulting return period is 1380 yrs. Arango et al. (1996) and other papers listed in the bibliography provide further examples. 

A similar approach can be developed for Arias Intensity, as illustrated in Figure 5.3. At this time, proba bilistic seismic hazard maps for Arias Intensity are not readily available, but may be in the near future. 

6 DISCUSSION AND CLOSURE 

Conclusions and recommendations from this review of existing work on probabilistic liquefaction analy sis are: 

(a) There is no single, well established procedure extant at this time for modeling and quantifying uncertainties in liquefaction evaluations. 

(b) Evaluation of the probability of liquefaction should build upon commonly accepted deterministic procedures and incorporate the uncertainties in demand and capacity. 

(c) Modeling a large number of input parameters as random variables in more sophisticated models does not necessarily yield better results.

NUREG/CR-6622 19
6. Discussion and Closure

Table 5.1 Probability of Liquefaction Calculation for Example Problem 

Triggering Earthquake 

Load for Liquefaction, CSR Annual Probability of Exceedance 

Cyclic Cyclicsum over 

In-situ Resistance sum sum 

N1,60 CRR acceleration magnitude magnitude weighted sum weighted sum 

(P[N1,

6 o]) (P[CRR IN1

,

6 ) magnitude g contribution given CRR over CRR over N1,60 

6 0.07 6 ±_0.5 0.097 1.6x 10U 1.675 x 10-3 1,164 x 10-3 0.877 x 10-'

(0.20) 

0.09 

(0.60) 

0.12 

(0.20) 

0.08 

(0.20) 

0.11 

(0.60) 

0.14 

(0.20) 

0.09 

(0.20) 

0.12 

(0.60)

8 ±0.5 

6 ±0.5 

8 0.5 

6 0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 _ 0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 ±0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 ±0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 ±0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 0.5 

8 ±0.5 

6 ±0.5

0.049 

0.125 

0.063 

0.166 

0.084 

0.111 

0.056 

0.153 

0.077 

0.194 

0.098 

0.125 

0.063 

0.166 

0.084 

0.222

7.5 x 10.' 

1.1 x 10,3 

5.0 x 10.' 

6.7 x 104 

2.5 x 10"* 

1.5 x 10." 

6.0 x 10-5 

8.0 X 10-4 

3.0 x 10-5 

4.5 x 10-4 

1.5 x 10.5 

1.1 x 10.3 

5.0 x 1051 

6.7 x 104 

2.5 x 10.6 

3.0 x 10-4

8 ± 0.5 0.112 9.0 x 10.6 

NUREG/CR-6622 20

1.15 x 10-3 

6.95 x 10-4

Annual return period = 

(0.877 x 103}"1 

= 1140 yrs

1.56 x 10.' 0.903 x 10-3 

8.3 x 10-4 

4.65 x 10-4 

1.15 x 10.3 0.709 x 10-3 

6.95 x 10-4 

3.09 x 10"4

0.16

(0.05)

8 

(0.75)

10 

(0.20)
6. Discussion and Closure

H

Cr

HL 

- -- - - - - <

Annual Probability

Exceedance, G

o-f

I hb

Liquefaction

n

No 

L ique-Fact i on

N1 ,60

(n) 

N1 , 60

Annual Probability 

of Liquefaction

all N1 , 6 0 

Figure 5.3. Approach to determine annual probability of liquefaction using Arias Intensity

NUREG/CR-6622

G h t -- lhb N1

nt ) dn 

,60

21
References

(d) A fairly simplified analysis that focuses on the key parameters that control liquefaction may yield 

practical, reasonable results. The level of sophistication needed for solving the deterministic prob

lem can be used as a guide for developing the probabilistic model. 

(e) The probabilistic study needs to build a logical development of the approach used and show that 

the dominant parameters have been modeled. 

(f) The three main elements to be modeled are: 

1. Uncertainty in the earthquake load ("demand" from a PSHA in terms such as 

acceleration and magnitude or earthquake-induced cyclic shear stress ratio at depth or 

Arias Intensity at depth). 

2. Uncertainty in the earthquake resistance ("capacity" from modeling the spatial 

distribution and variability of cyclic shear strength inferred from laboratory or in situ test 

measurements). 

3. Uncertainty in the method of liquefaction evaluation (such as logit results). 

(g) Estimates of probability should be obtained from a combination of theory, expert subjective input, 

supporting databases, site-specific data, and computation. 

(h) Generation and use of earthquake records artificially generated from signal processing techniques 

widely used for probabilistic structural dynamics should be discouraged for liquefaction and 

follow-on nonlinear analyses such as permanent deformation analyses. 

(i) The purpose of a probabilistic analysis is usually to provide an ordered framework for 

examining the seriousness of the risk of occurrence of a particular event in the context of the 

range of events possible. A number of examples in the literature demonstrate the application 

of probability of liquefaction in risk assessment and evaluation of a range of earthquake 

scenarios. 

REFERENCES 

Ambraseys, N. N. (1988). "Engineering seismology," Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 

17, 1-105. 

Andrus, R. D., and Stokoe, K. H. (1997). "Liquefaction resistance based on shear wave velocity," 

Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, 5

6 January 1996, Youd and Idriss, ed., Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. 

Arango, I. (1996). "Magnitude scaling factors for soil liquefaction evaluations," Journal of 

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(11), 929-936. 

Arango, I., Ostadan, F., Lewis, M. R., and Gutierrez, B. J. (1996). "Quantification of seismic 

liquefaction risk," Proceedings of the 1996 ASME pressure vessels and piping conference, Montreal,

NUREG/CR-6622 22
References 

CAN, 21-26 July 1996, Seismic Engineering American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME, New York, NY. 

Benjamin, J. R., and Cornell, C. A. (1970). Probability, statistics and decision for civil engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 

Budhu, 

State: A 

M., Vijayakumar, V., Giese, R. F., Baumgras, L. (1987). "Liquefaction potential for New York preliminary report on sites in Manhattan and Buffalo," Technical Report NCEER-87-0009, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY. 

earthquakes," 

Cao, Y. L. and 

Proceedings 

Law, K. T. (1991). "Liquefy: A program for soil liquefaction potential assessment in of the 44th Canadian geotechnical conference, Part 1 (of 2), 29 September 2 October 1991, Calgary, Alberta, Can. 

Cornell, C. A. (1968). "Engineering seismic risk analysis," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58, 1583-1606. 

Costantino, C. J. (1999). Letter, subject: "Review comments on draft report entitled, "Probabilistic liquefaction analysis,"" 10 January 1999. 

pressure 

Dobry, R., Ladd, R. S., Yokel, F. Y., Chung, R. M., and Powell, D. (1982). "Prediction of pore water buildup and liquefaction of sands during earthquakes by the cyclic strain method," NBS Building Science Series 138, National Bureau of Standards. 

FEMA. (1997). Natural hazard loss estimation methodology (HAZUS) (see also www.fema.gov/hazus/ hazus2a.htm). 

Finn, 

compute 

W. D. L., Yogendrakumar, M., Yoshida, N., and Yoshida, H. (1986). "TARA-3: a program to 

Department 

the response of 2-D embankments and soil-structure interaction systems to seismic loadings," of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 

Finn, W. D. L., Ledbetter, R. H., and Marcuson III, W. F. (1994). "Seismic deformations embankments in and slopes," Proceedings, Symposium on developments in geotechnical engineering (from Harvard to New Delhi, 1936 - 1994). 

Frankel, 

Hopper, M. 

A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E., Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and 

Open-File 

(1996). National seismic-hazard maps: documentation June 1996, U.S. Geological Survey Report 96-532, (see also http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/). 

Harder, L. F., Jr. (1988). "Use of penetration tests to determine the cyclic loading resistance of gravelly soils during earthquake shaking," Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

Harder, 

for gravelly 

L. F. Jr. (1997). "Application of the Becker penetration test for evaluating liquefaction potential 

Salt Lake City, 

soils," Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, 5-6 January 1996, Youd and Idriss, ed., Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. 

Report 

Hwang, H. H. M. and Lee, C. S. (1991). "Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential," Technical NCEER-91-0025, Memphis State Univ., TN, Center for Earthquake Research and Information, Washington, DC. 

23 NUREG/CR-6622
References

Hynes, M. E. and VanMarcke, E. H. (1975). "Subjective reliability assessment in geotechnical 

engineering: 1-95 embankment case study," Constructed Facilities Division, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 

Hynes, M. E. (1988). "Pore pressure generation characteristics of gravel under undrained cyclic 

loading," PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

Hynes, M. E. and Olsen, R. S. (1998). "Influence of confining stress on liquefaction resistance," 

Proceedings, International workshop on the physics and mechanics of soil liquefaction, Baltimore, MD, 

10-11 September 1998, Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 

Idriss, I. M., Lysmer, J., Hwang, R., and Seed, H. B. (1973). "QUAD-4, a computer program for 

evaluating the seismic response of soil structures by variable damping finite elements," Report EERC 

73-16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA. 

Idriss, I. M. (1997). from "Summary," Proceeding of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction 

resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, UT, 5-6 January 1996, National Center for Earthquake and 

Engineering Research, Report NCEER-97-0022. 

Idriss, I. M., and Seed, R. B. (1997). from "Summary," Proceeding of the NCEER workshop on 

evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, UT, 5-6 January 1996, National Center for 

Earthquake and Engineering Research, Report NCEER-97-0022. 

Idriss, I. M. (1999). "An update of the Seed-Idriss simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction 

potential," Presentation Notes, Transportation Research Board 1999 workshop on new approaches to 

liquefaction analysis, Washington, D.C. 

Ishihara, K. (1985). "Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes," Proceedings, Eleventh 

international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, 12-16 August 

1985, Theme Lecture No. 7, 1 of 5, A. A. Balkema Publishing Company, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 321

376. 

Ishihara, K. (1996). Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (1991). "FLAC Version 3.0," Minneapolis, MN. 

Iwasaki, T., Tokida, K., Tatsuoka, F., Watanabe, S., Yasuda, and S., Sato, H. (1982). "Microzonation 

for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods," Proceedings, International microzonation 

onference, Seattle, 28 June- 1 July 1982, 111, 1319-1330. 

Journel, A. G. (1989). Fundamentals ofgeostatistics infive lessons. (short course presented at the 28th 

Intl. Geological Congress, Washington., D.C.). 

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., ed. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty, heuristics and 

biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Kapur, K. C. and Lamberson, L. R. (1977). Reliability in engineering design, John Wiley & Sons, New 

York, NY.

NUREG/CR-6622 24
References

Kayen, R. E. (1993). "Accelerogram-energy approach for prediction of earthquake-induced ground 

liquefaction," Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

Kayen, R. E., and Mitchell, J. K. (1997). "Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias Intensity," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 123 (12), 1162-1174. 

Koester, J. P., Sharp, M. K., and Hynes, M. E. (1999). "Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential for 

foundations of nuclear facilities - technical basis for regulatory guidance," NUREG/CR-5741, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD. 

Kramer, S. L. (1989). "Uncertainty in steady-state evaluation procedures," American Society of Civil 

Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(10). 

Krinitzsky, E. L. (1993a). "Earthquake probability in engineering - Part 1: The use and misuse of 

expert opinion," Engineering Geology, 33(4), 257-288. 

Krinitzsky, E. L. (1993b). "Earthquake probability in engineering - Part 2: Earthquake recurrence and 

limitations of Gutenberg-Richter b-values for the engineering of critical structures," Engineering 

Geology, 36(1), 1-52. 

Krinitzsky, E. L. (1995a). "Problems with logic trees in earthquake hazard evaluation," Engineering 

Geology, 39(1), 1-3. 

Krinitzsky, E. L. (1995b). "Deterministic versus probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for critical 

structures," Engineering Geology, 40(1), 1-7. 

Krinitzsky, E. L. (1995c). "State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States," 

Report 29, Selection of earthquake ground motions for engineering, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, U.S. 

Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Lay, S. Y., Shich, M. J., and Lee, F. B. (1991). "Minimum misclassification model for evaluating soil 

liquefaction probability by SPT-N value," Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on field 

measurements in geomechanics, Oslo, Norway, 9 September 1991, Field measurements in geomechanics, 

A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 

Ledbetter, R. H. and Finn, W. D. L. (1993). "Development and evaluation of remediation strategies by deformation analysis," Proceedings of the specialty conference, geotechnical practice in dam 

rehabilitation,, 25-28 April, Raleigh, NC, Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of 

Civil Engineers, 386-401. 

Liao, S. S. C. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). "Catalogue of a liquefaction and non-liquefaction 

occurrences during earthquakes," Research Report, Dept of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 

Liao, S. S. C., Veneziano, D., and Whitman, R. V. (1988). "Regression models for evaluating 

liquefaction probability," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 

114(4).

25 NUREG/CR-6622
References 

Liao, S. S. C. (1996). Discussion of "Reconsideration of initiation of liquefaction in sandy soils," by 

C.E. Fear and E.C. McRoberts, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 122(11), 957-959. 

Liao, S. S. C. and Lum, K. Y. (1998). "Statistical analysis and application of the magnitude scaling 

factor in liquefaction analysis," ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75, Geotechnical 

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, 1, 410-421. 

Loertscher, T. and Youd, T. L. (1994). "Magnitude scaling factors for analysis of liquefaction," 

Proceedings, 5th U.S. -Japan workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and 

countermeasures against soil liquefaction, National Center for Earthquake and Engineering Research, 

Report NCEER-94-0026, 703-715. 

Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C., and Seed, H. (1973). "FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 

3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems," Report EERC 75-30, Earthquake Engineering 

Research Center, Berkeley, CA. 

Olsen, R. S. (1997). "Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test," Proceedings of the 

NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, 5-6 January 1996, 

Youd and Idriss, ed., Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. 

Popescu, R., Deodatis, G., and Prevost, J. H. (1996). "Simulation of multi-dimensional, multi-variate, 

non-gaussian, homogeneous stochastic fields with applications to soil liquefaction," Proceedings of the 

1996 7th specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, Worcester, MA, 

7-9 August 1996, ASCE, New York, NY. 

Poulos, S. J., Castro, G., and France, J. W. (1985). "Liquefaction evaluation procedure," American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(6), 772-792. 

Prevost, J. H. (1981). "DYNA-FLOW: a nonlinear transient finite element analysis program," Report 

No. 81-SM-1, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. 

Rahman, M. S. and El Zahaby, K. M. (1997). "Probabilistic liquefaction risk analysis including fuzzy 

variables," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 16(1). 

Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E. (1997). "Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT and 

CPT," Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake 

City, 5-6 January 1996, Youd and Idriss, ed., Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. 

Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972). "SHAKE, a computer program for earthquake 

response analysis of horizontally layered sites," Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research 

Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1971). "Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential," 

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 107(SM9), 1249-1273. 

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1982). "Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes," 

monograph published by Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

NUREG/CR-6622 26
References

Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M., and Arango, I. (1983). "Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 111(3), 458-482. 

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. F. (1984). "The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations," Report No. UBC/EERC-84/15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 

Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985). "Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations," Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, December, 1425-1445. 

Seed, R. B. (1998). Letter, in reference to "Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis," 14 December 1998. 

Silva, W. and Costantino, C. (1999). "Assessment of liquefaction potential for the Kobe earthquake including finite-source effects," Contract Report for U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. 

Simos, N., Costantino, C.J., and Philippacopoulos, M. (1996). "POROSLAM: A finite element 

computer code for dynamic analysis of porous media," Technical Report No. L-13316, Brookhaven 

National Laboratory, Upton, New York. 

Simos, N., Costantino, C. J., and Reich, M. (1995). "Probabilistic model to liquefaction assessment of dams," Proceedings, Joint ASME/JSMvE pressure vessels and piping conference, Honolulu, HI, 

23-27 July 1995. 

Sy, A., Campanella, R. G., and Stewart, R. A. (1995). "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, 23-27 October, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 56. 

Todorovska, M. 1. (1998). "Quick reference liquefaction opportunity maps for a metropolitan area," ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 75, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil 

Dynamics III, 1, 116-127. 

VanMarcke, E. (1983). Random fields: analysis and synthesis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Vasquez-Herrera, A. and Dobry, R. (1989). "Re-evaluation of the lower San Fernando Dam, Report 3: The behavior of undrained contractive sand and its effect on seismic liquefaction flow failures of earth structures," Contract Report GL 89-2, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

MS. 

Wackernagel, H. (1995). Multivariate geostatistics; an introduction with applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York. 

Waong, Z. Q. (1981). "Foundation problems in aseismatic design of hydraulic structures," Proceedings, Joint US-P.R C. microzonation workshop, Harbin, China, 11-16 September 1981.

NUREG/CR-6622 27
References 

Youd, T. L., and Idriss, I. M., ed. (1997). Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of 

liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, 5-6 January 1996, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, 

Buffalo, NY. 

Youd, T. L., and Noble, S. K. (1997). Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on evaluation of 

liquefaction resistance of soils, Salt Lake City, 5-6 January 1996, Youd and Idriss, ed., Technical Report 

NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. 

Zhou, X., Su, J., and Fan, S. (1992). "Fuzzy-probability method for soil liquefaction hazard evaluation 

and its application," Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration, 12(4).

28 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography

APPENDIX A 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Note: This bibliography is listed in chronological order of publication. 

Donovan, N. C. (1972). A STOCHASTIC APPROACH TO THE SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION PROBLEM, Statistics and probability in civil engineering (ed. Lumb, P.), Hong Kong Univ. Press, Hong-Kong. 

KEY WORDS: Cohesionless, earthquakes, effects, engineering geology, engineering properties, liquefaction, loading, shear strength, soils, statistical analysis, stochastic methods 

Banister, J. R., Ellett, D. M., Pyke, R. and Winters, L. (1976). COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND OBSERVED PORE PRESSURE INCREASES ON RIO BLANCO, Sandia Labs, Albuquerque, NM. 

KEY WORDS: Rio Blanco event, ground motion, earthquakes, simulation, liquefaction, soils 

Haldar, A. (1976). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION OF SAND UNDER EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS, Doctoral thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, Urbana, IL, United States. KEY WORDS: Clastic sediments, earthquakes, engineering geology, liquefaction, probability, sand, sediments, soil mechanics, statistical analysis 

Chou, 

World 

I. H. and Oguntala, A. (1977). LIKELIHOOD OF LIQUEFACTION, Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, 10-14 January 1977, Prentice-Hall (for the) Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, International, no. 6. KEY WORDS: Depth, earthquakes, effects, ground motion, liquefaction, loading, materials, properties, probability, saturated materials, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, stochastic processes, water table 

Crouse, C. B., Guzman, R., and Espana, C. (1977). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION WITH AN APPLICATION TO A SITE NEAR A SUBDUCTION ZONE, Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, India, 10-14 January 1977, Prentice-Hall (for the) Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, International, no. 6. 

KEY WORDS: Asia, attenuation, case studies, coastal environment, cyclic processes, earthquakes, effects, engineering geology, experimental studies, Far East, ground motion, Indonesia, Java, liquefaction, magnitude, materials, properties, probability, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, strength, subduction zones, triaxial tests 

Ferritto, John M. (1977). EVALUATION OF PROBABILITY OF SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION, Journal of the Technical Councils of ASCE: Proceedings of the ASCE v 103, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-moisture, Geophysics-seismic, probability 

Ferritto, J. M. and Forrest, J. B. (1977). DETERMINATION OF SEISMICALLY INDUCED SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT PROPOSED BRIDGE SITES. VOLUME I. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS (Final report 1 Jul 75-30 Jun 77), Civil Engineering Lab. 

(Navy), Port Hueneme, CA. 

KEY WORDS: Bridges, earthquakes, soil dynamics, site surveys, soil surveys, probability theory, shear 

stress, cyclic loads, computer programming

NUREG/CR-6622 A-1
Appendix A Bibliography 

Ferritto, J. M. and Forrest, J. B. (1977). DETERMINATION OF SEISMICALLY INDUCED SOIL 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT PROPOSED BRIDGE SITES. VOLUME II. PLANNING 

GUIDE FOR EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION (Final report 1 Jul 75-30 Jun 77), Civil 

Engineering Lab. (Navy), Port Hueneme, CA. 

KEY WORDS: Bridges, earthquakes, soil dynamics, site surveys, soil surveys, probability theory, shear 

stress, cyclic loads 

Yegian, M. K. and Whitman, R. V. (1977). SOIL LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS BASED ON FIELD 

OBSERVATIONS, Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, 

India, 10-14 January 1977, Prentice-Hall (for the) Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ, no. 6. 

KEY WORDS: Acceleration, dynamic properties, earthquakes, effects, intensity, liquefaction, 

Liquefaction Potential Index, magnitude, materials, properties, new methods, pore pressure, pressure, 

probability, shear stress, soil mechanics, statistical analysis 

Chou, I. Hsin and Fischer, Joseph A. (1978). LIQUEFACTION AND PROBABILITY, Probab Anal 

and Des of Nucl Power Plant Struct, Presented at ASME, Winter Annual Meet, San Francisco, Calif, 

Dec 10-15, Publ by ASME, (PVP-PB-030). 

KEY WORDS: Nuclear power plants-earthquake effects, probability, geology 

Ferritto, J. M. and Forrest, J. B. (1978). SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL (Technical note, 

Oct 77-Mar 78), Civil Engineering Lab (Navy) Port Hueneme, CA. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes, soil dynamics, stress analysis, compression, damping, soil mechanics, 

seismic data, computerized simulation, risk, models, shear tests 

McGuire, R. K., Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., Tokidu, K. I. (1978). PROBABLISTIC PROCEDURES 

FOR ASSESSING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, Journal of Research (Public Works 

Research Institute). Tokyo, vol. 19. 

KEY WORDS: Acceleration, Asia, elastic sediments, earthquakes, effects, engineering geology, Far 

East, ground motion, Honshu, in situ, Japan, liquefaction, liquefaction potential index, materials, 

properties, penetration tests, probability, reclamation, sand, sediments, seismicity, shear strength, shear 

stress, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, strength, strong motion, Tokyo Bay 

Yegian, Mishac K. and Whitman, Robert V. (1978). RISK ANALYSIS FOR GROUND FAILURE 

BY LIQUEFACTION, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 

Division v 104, n 7. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-earthquake resistance, earthquakes, mathematical models, probability, 

geophysics-seismic 

Haldar, Achintya and Tang, Wilson H. (1979). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical 

Engineering Division v 105, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, soils-earthquake resistance, statistical methods, probability, earthquakes 

McGuire, R. K., Tatsuoka, F., Iwasaki, T., and Tokida, K. (1979). ASSESSMENT OF THE 

PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION OF WATER-SATURATED RECLAIMED LAND, Appl of 

Stat and Probab in Soil and Struct Eng, 3rd Int Conf (ICASP 3), Proc, Sydney, Aust, 29 Jan-2 Feb 1979, 

Unisearch Ltd, Kensington, NSW, Aust, v 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, earthquakes, probability

A-2 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography

Christian, John T. (1980). PROBABILISTIC SOIL DYNAMICS: STATE-OF-THE-ART, Journal 

of the Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE, v 106(GT4), Proc. Paper, 15339. 

KEY WORDS: Dynamics, earthquakes, liquefaction, offshore structures, probability theory, random 

vibration, soil dynamics, soil liquefaction, soil structure interaction, statistical analysis. 

Chou, I-Hsin and Ehasz, J. L. (1980). PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION DUE TO 

EARTHQUAKE, Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turk, 

8 September 1980, Publ by Turk Natl Comm on Earthquake Eng, Ankara. 

KEY WORDS: Sand and gravel 

Chou, I-Hsin and Ehasz, J. L. (1980). PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION DUE TO 

EARTHQUAKE, Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, 

Turkey, 8-13 September 1980, Prentice-Hall (for the) Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, no. 7, Vol. 3. 

KEY WORDS: Analysis, earthquakes, epicenters, liquefaction, probability, seismic risk, seismicity, soil 

dynamics, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, stochastic processes, strength 

de Herrera, Milton A., Zsutty, Theodore C., and Aboim, Carlos A. (1980). ANALYSIS OF 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL BASED ON PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOTIONS, Soils 

Under Cyclic and Transient Loading, Proc of the Int Symp, v 2, Swansea, UK, 7-11 Jan 1980, Publ by 

A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Neth. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, seismic waves-spectrum analysis, stresses, probability 

Chameau, Jean-Lou. (1981). PROBABILITIES AND HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR PORE 

PRESSURE INCREASE IN SOILS DUE TO SEISMIC LOADING, Doctoral thesis, Stanford 

University, Stanford, CA, United States, 

KEY WORDS: Cohesionless materials, deformation, earthquakes, effects, experimental studies, 

geologic hazards, liquefaction, loading, pore pressure, pressure, probability, seismic risk, seismology, 

soil mechanics, statistical analysis, theoretical studies 

Clough, G. W. and Chameau, J. L. (1981). PROBABILISTIC AND HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR 

PORE PRESSURE INCREASE IN SOILS DUE TO SEISMIC LOADING, 5I, NSF/CEE-81038. 

KEY WORDS: Soil dynamics, earthquakes, pore pressure, soil properties, cyclic loads, probability 

theory, cohesive soil, noncohesive soils, pore pressure, increase, probabilistic analysis, hazard, dynamic 

loading, earthquake, soil liquefaction, cohesionless soil, cyclic loading 

Fardis, Michael N. and Veneziano, Daniele. (1981). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SAND 

LIQUEFACTION, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 

Division v 107, n 10. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics-mathematical models, sand and gravel, statistical methods, probability 

Iwasaki, Toshio, Tokida, Ken-ichi, McGuire, Robin K., and Tatsuoka, Fumio. (1981). ASSESSMENT 

OF THE PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION OF UNCOMPACTED SANDY DEPOSITS, 

Structural Safety and Reliability, Proceedings of ICOSSAR '81, the 3rd International Conference, 

Trondheim, Norw, 23 June 1981, Publ by Elsevier Sci Publ Co (Dev in Civ Eng, 4), Amsterdam, Neth 

and New York, NY, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics

A-3 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography

Royce, B., Weeter, D., Shypailo, R., Meier, P., and Metz, W. (1981). SOLID AND HAZARDOUS 

WASTE DISPOSAL AT EASTERN COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION 

FACILITIES. (Portions of document are illegible.) 

KEY WORDS: Coal liquefaction plants, solid wastes, coal gasification plants, Src-ii process, Lurgi 

process, Lurgi slagging process, sanitary landfills, hazardous materials, waste disposal, topography, soils, 

hydrology, geology, site selection, site preparation, liners, coverings, leachates, aquifers, contamination, 

cost benefit analysis, ground disposal, simulation 

Talaganov, K., Petrovski, J., and Mihailov, V. (1981). SOIL LIQUEFACTION SEISMIC RISK 

ANALYSIS BASED ON POST 1979 EARTHQUAKE OBSERVATIONS IN MONTENEGRO, 

International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil 

Dynamics, St. Louis, Mo, USA, 26 April 1981, Publ by Univ of Mo, Rolla, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes-Yugoslavia 

Tang, Wilson H. (1981). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LOADS, American Society of Civil 

Engineers, New York, NY, USA, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division vol. 107, no. GT3. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes, effects, histograms, liquefaction, load casts, loading, pore pressure, 

pressure, probability, Richter Scale, sedimentary structures, seepage, seismic risk, slope stability, soil 

mechanics, statistical analysis, theoretical studies, turbidity current structures, wind transport 

Yegian, M. K. and Vitelli, B. M. (1981). PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS FOR LIQUEFACTION, 

Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA, Dept. of Civil Engineering. 

KEY WORDS: Soil dynamics, earthquakes, soil properties, sands, saturated soils, sand boils, probability 

theory 

Anderson, Loren R. and Keaton, Jeffrey R. (1982). DEVELOPMENT OF A LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL MAP, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering 

Symposium, Pocatello, Idaho, USA, 31 March 1982, Publ by Idaho Transportation Dep, Div of 

Highways, Idaho, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-physical properties 

Banks, E. W. (1982). SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS 

CENTER, CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA (Master's thesis, 1979-1980), Naval Weapons Center, 

China Lake, CA. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, soil dynamics, ground level, acceleration, soil stabilization, earthquakes, 

seismology, probability, computer applications, theses 

Fardis, Michael N. and Veneziano, Daniele. (1982). PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF DEPOSIT 

LIQUEFACTION, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering 

Division v 108, n GT3. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics-mathematical models, sand and gravel, soils-pore pressure, seismic 

waves, probability 

Haldar, A. and Miller, F. J. (1982). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF DAMAGE 

POTENTIAL IN EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION IN A 3-D SOIL DEPOSIT 

(Technical report), Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, School of Civil Engineering. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes, soil mechanics, soil properties, probability density functions, damage 

assessment, loads (forces), mathematical models

NUREG/CR-6622 A-4
Appendix A Bibliography

Haldar, Achintya and Miller, Frank J. (1982). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF 

LIQUEFACTION IN A 3-D SOIL DEPOSIT, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the Conference, Southampton, Engl, 13 July 1982, Publ by A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Neth. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics 

Katada, Toshiyuki and Hakuno, Motohiko. (1982). DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BURIED 

STRUCTURES IN LIQUEFACTION PROCESS, Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the Conference, Southampton, Engl, 13 July 1982, Publ by A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 

Neth. 

KEY WORDS: Structural design-earthquake resistance 

Anderson, Loren R. (1983). METHODS OF EVALUATING REGIONAL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 36th annual meeting, Cordilleral Section, 79th annual meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2-4 May 1983, Abstracts with 

Programs - vol. 15, no. 5. 

KEY WORDS: Cartography, critical acceleration, engineering geology maps, evaluation, liquefaction, liquefaction potential, liquefaction susceptibility, maps, penetration tests, probability, Salt Lake City region, slope stability, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, United States, Utah 

Chou, Lan-Yu. (1983). PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, Proceedings, 4th International Conference - Applications of Statistics and Probability in 

Soil and Structural Engineering, Florence, Italy, 13 June 1983, Publ by Pitagora Editrice, Bologna, Italy. KEY WORDS: Sand and gravel-mechanical properties 

Hadj Hamou, and Taric Aly. (1983). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF DAMAGE 

POTENTIAL DUE TO SEISMICALLY INDUCED PORE PRESSURES, Doctoral thesis, Stanford 

University, Stanford, CA, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Clastic sediments, damage, deformation, earthquakes, effects, failures, geologic hazards, liquefaction, pore pressure, pressure, probability, sand, sediments, shear strength, soil mechanics, 

statistical analysis, strain 

Haldar, A. (1983). PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION IN A 3-D SOIL DEPOSIT, Proceedings, Seminar on Probabilistic Methods in Geotechnical Engineering held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, on 

21 September 1982, Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta, School of Civil Engineering. KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, failure (mechanics), soils, earthquakes, mathematical prediction, 

mathematical models, probability 

Kavazanjian, Edward, Jr. (1983). EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN 

DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, Geological Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 36th 

annual meeting, Cordilleral Section, 79th annual meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2-4 May 1983, Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America vol. 15, no. 5. 

KEY WORDS: California, cohesionless materials, density, earthquakes, engineering geology, evaluation, liquefaction, liquefaction potential, penetration tests, pore pressure, pressure, probability, San 

Francisco California, shear stress, slope stability, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, United States 

Kavazanjian, Edward Jr., Roth, Richard A., and Echezuria, Heriberto. (1983). PROBABILISTIC 

EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL FOR DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, 

Report - Stanford University, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center n 60.

A-5 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography 

KEY WORDS: Geophysics-seismic, seismology-spectrum analysis, earthquakes-California: 

481 (Geology & Geophysics), 484 (Seismology), 48 (Engineering Geology) 

Kitaura, Masaru and Musashi, Masanobu. (1983). ANALYTICAL METHOD OF EARTHQUAKE 

RESPONSE OF SATURATED LOOSE SAND LAYERS AND EMBEDDED PIPE DURING 

LIQUEFACTION, Memoirs of the Faculty of Technology, Kanazawa University v 16, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Pipelines-earthquake resistance: 619 (Pipes, Tanks & Accessories), 484 (Seismology), 

61 (Plant & Power Engineering), 48 (Engineering Geology) 

Smart, John D. and Von Thun, J. Lawrence. (1983). SEISMIC DESIGN ANALYSIS OF 

EMBANKMENT DAMS, RECENT BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EXPERIENCE, Seismic 

design of embankments and caverns (ed. Howard, Terry R.), Seismic design of embankments and caves, 

Philadelphia, PA, USA, 16-20 May 1983, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, NY, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Analysis, behavior, Colorado, construction, dams, deformation, design, earthquakes, 

embankments, engineering geology, foundations, Fruitgrowers Dam, Henry's Fork, Idaho, Island Park 

Dam, Jackson Lake Dam, liquefaction, loading, magnitude, Nebraska, Niobrara River, Norden Dam, 

slope stability, Snake River, soil mechanics, strength, structures, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, United 

States, Western U.S., Wyoming 

Tinsley, John C., Youd, T. L., and Perkins, David M. (1983). EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA, Geological Society of America, 

Rocky Mountain Section, 36th annual meeting, Cordilleral Section, 79th annual meeting, Salt Lake City, 

UT, USA, 2-4 May 1983, Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America vol. 15, no. 5. 

KEY WORDS: Alluvium, California, Cenozoic, clastic sediments, earthquakes, engineering geology, 

Entisols, evaluation, floodplains, fluvial features, granular materials, ground water, Holocene, horizons, 

Inceptisols, levels, liquefaction, liquefaction opportunity, liquefaction potential, liquefaction 

susceptibility, Los Angeles County California, Los Angeles region, Los Angelos River, morphology, 

Paleosols, penetration tests, Pleistocene, probability, Quaternary, rainfall, San Fernando Valley, San 

Gabriel River, sand, Santa Ana River, saturation, sediments, shorelines, slope stability, soil mechanics, 

soils, statistical analysis, United States 

Atkinsons, Gail M., Finn, W. D. Liam, and Charlwood, R. G. (1984). SIMPLE COMPUTATION OF 

LIQUEFACTION PROBABILITY FOR SEISMIC HAZARD APPLICATIONS, Earthquake 

Spectra v 1, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes-evaluation, soil mechanics-pore pressure, sand and gravel-testing, 

probability-computer aided analysis 

Kitaura, Masaru and Miyajima, Masakatsu. (1984). RESPONSE SIMULATION OF BURIED 

PIPELINE DURING SOIL LIQUEFACTION, Memoirs of the Faculty of Technology, Kanazawa 

University v 17, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Pipelines, steel-earthquake resistance, seismic waves-wave effects: 545 (Iron & Steel), 

619 (Pipes, Tanks & Accessories), 484 (Seismology), 54 (Metal Groups), 61 (Plant & Power 

Engineering), 48 (Engineering Geology) 

Whitman, Robert V. (1984). EVALUATING CALCULATED RISK IN GEOTECHNICAL 

ENGINEERING, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering vol. 110, 

no. 2. 

NUREG/CR-6622 A-6
Appendix A Bibliography

KEY WORDS: Dams, design, earth dams, economics, embankments, failures, finite element analysis, 

liquefaction, materials, properties, pore pressure, pressure, probability, risk evaluation, shear strength, 

slope stability, soil mechanics, spatial variations, stability analysis, statistical analysis, stress 

Atkinson, Gail M. (1985). SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION PROBABILITY FOR CANADIAN 

OFFSHORE REGIONS, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering v 12, n 4. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-underwater, earthquake resistance, probability, soil mechanics-stability, dynamics 

Finn, W. D. Liam and Atkinson, Gail M. (1985). PROBABILITY OF SEISMICALLY INDUCED 

LIQUEFACTION IN BRITISH SECTOR OF NORTH SEA. Earthquake Engineering in Britain, 

Proceedings of a Conference, Norwich, Engl, 18 April 1985, ICE, London, Engl, Soc of Earthquake & 

Civil Engineering Dynamics, Publ by Thomas Telford, London, Engl. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquakes, soils-liquefaction, probability-computer aided analysis 

Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Roth, R. A., and Echezuria, H. (1985). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 

MAPPING FOR SAN FRANCISCO, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering - ASCE, v 111(1). 

Kavazanjian, Edward, Roth, Richard A., and Echezuria, Heriberto. (1985). LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL MAPPING FOR SAN FRANCISCO, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering v 111, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics-pore pressure, seismic waves-velocity, soils-shear strength 

Haldar, A. and Chem, S. (1986). PROBABILISTIC PREDICTION OF PORE PRESSURE

INDUCED SETTLEMENT FOR ISOTROPICALLY AND ANISOTROPICALLY 

CONSOLIDATED DEPOSITS, International symposium on Engineering geology problems in seismic 

areas, Bari, Italy. 

LANGUAGE: English SUMMARY LANGUAGE: French 

KEY WORDS: Anisotropic materials, clastic sediments, consolidated materials, cyclic loading, 

earthquakes, effects, isotropic materials, land subsidence, liquefaction, loading, pore pressure, prediction, 

pressure, probability, sand, sediments, seismic response, settlement, soil mechanics, statistical analysis 

Kavazanjian, Edward Jr. (1986). PROBABILISTIC STUDY OF SPT LIQUEFACTION 

ANALYSIS, Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of In Situ '86, Blacksburg, 

VA, USA, 23 June 1986, ASCE, (Geotechnical Special PubI n 6). 

KEY WORDS: Sand and gravel-physical properties, earthquake resistance-analysis, soils-pore 

pressure, materials testing-analysis, mathematical models 

Finn, W. D. Liam, Atkinson, G. M., and Charlwood, R. G. (1987). ESTIMATING THE 

PROBABILITY OF LIQUEFACTION DURING EARTHQUAKES, Reliability and Risk Analysis in 

Civil Engineering, Proceedings of ICASP5, the Fifth International Conference on Applications of 

Statistics and Probability in Soil and Structural Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Can, 25 May 1987, Publ by 

Inst for Risk Research, Univ of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont, Can v 2. 

KEY WORDS: Sand and gravel-vibrations, earthquakes, probability-computer aided analysis, 

soils-testing 

Jasinski, D. L. (1987). EFFECTS OF BAND-LIMITED WHITE NOISE EXCITATION ON 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL IN LARGE-SCALE TESTS (MASTER'S THESIS), Air Force Inst. 

of Tech., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, earthquake engineering, liquefaction, shear stresses, static loads, soils, 

experimental design, data reduction, graphs, pore pressure, ground water, models, white noise, theses

A-7 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography 

Veneziano, Daniele and Liao, Samson S. C. (1987). STATISTICAL ERRORS AND BIASES IN 

LIQUEFACTION CASE STUDIES, Reliability and Risk Analysis in Civil Engineering, Proceedings 

of ICASP5, the Fifth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Soil and 

Structural Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Can, 25 May 1987, Publ by Inst for Risk Research, Univ of 

Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont, Can v 2. 

KEY WORDS: Sand and gravel-vibrations, statistical methods-regression analysis, earthquakes, soil 

mechanics 

Zhou, Lan-Yu and Ueshita, Kano. (1987). LIQUEFACTION RISK MICROZONATION FOR 

LOW-VOLUME ROAD NETWORKS, Fourth International Conference on Low Volume Roads, 

Ithaca, NY, USA, 16 August 1987, Transportation Research Board, Committee on Low-Volume Roads, 

Washington, DC, USA, Transportation Research Record 1106 v 2, Publ by Natl Research Council, 

Washington, DC, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Roads and streets-stabilization, soils-liquefaction, risk studies, highway 

systems-earthquake resistance 

Blazquez, Rafael and Martinez, Felipe M. (1988). PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF SEAFLOOR 

LIQUEFACTION, Twenty-First Coastal Engineering Conference, Costa del Sol, Malaga, Spain, 20 

June 1988. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, oceanography, water waves, probability, mathematical 

techniques-sensitivity analysis 

Chagnon, J. Y. and Locat, J. (1988). SEISMIC MICROZONATION FOR THE QUEBEC CITY 

AREA, Proceedings of the 41st Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Kitchener, Ont, Can, 5-7 October 

1988. 

KEY WORDS: Earthquake resistance, probability, risk assessment, slope stability, soil liquefaction, 

seismic waves, soil mechanics, boreholes 

Finn, W. D. Liam. (1988). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF LEVEL GROUND: 

DETERMINISTIC AND PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT, Computers and Geotechnics v 5, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-vibrations, seismic waves, soil mechanics, dynamics, probability, stresses-analysis 

Liao, Samson S. C., Veneziano, Daniele, and Whitman, Robert V. (1988). REGRESSION MODELS 

FOR EVALUATING LIQUEFACTION PROBABILITY, American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering vol. 114, no. 4. 

KEY WORDS: Attenuation, catalogs, earthquakes, effects, engineering geology, ground motion, 

liquefaction, models, pore pressure, pressure, regression analysis, seismic intensity, soil mechanics, 

statistical analysis, stress 

Watts, Bryan D., Sy, Alex, and Rogers, Brian. (1988). FOUNDATION LIQUEFACTION 

ASSESSMENT AT AMAULIGAK F-24, BEAUFORT SEA, Proceedings of the 41st Canadian 

Geotechnical Conference, Kitchener, Ont, Can Conference, 5-7 October 1998. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, foundations, sand, risk assessment, hazards, probability, shear stress, 

stress analysis, safety factor, permafrost 

Budhu, M., Giese, R., and Baumgrass, L. (1989). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF SURFICIAL 

DEPOSITS IN THE CITY OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK (TECHNICAL REPT), Report 

No. NCEER-89-0036, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.

NUREG/CR-6622 A-8
Appendix A Bibliography

KEY WORDS: Liquefaction, sediments, earthquakes, field tests, soil properties, density (mass/volume), 

overburden, mathematical models 

Forrest, Carol L. and Noorany, Iraj. (1989). LIQUEFACTION RISK ANALYSIS FOR A HARBOR 

FILL, Marine Geotechnology v 8, n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Ports and harbors-California, port structures-earthquake resistance, soils-liquefaction, hydraulic structures-earthquake resistance, risk studies-assessment, soil mechanics 

Kramer, S. L. (1989). UNCERTAINTY IN STEADY-STATE EVALUATION PROCEDURES, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Vol. 115 Issue Number 10. 

KEY WORDS: Uncertainty, steady state, liquefaction (soil), evaluation, probabilistic analysis, saturated 

soils, sands, earth slides 

Mabey, M. A. and Youd, T. L. (1989). LIQUEFACTION SEVERITY INDEX MAPS OF THE 

STATE OF UTAH, Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical 

Engineering vol. 25, Reno, NV, USA, 20-22 March 1989, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 

KEY WORDS: Deformation, earthquakes, engineering geology, liquefaction, magnitude, probability, 

shear strength, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, United States, Utah 

O'Rourke, Michael J. (1989). RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF CRUDE OIL TRANSMISSION 

SYSTEMS, Proceedings of ICOSSAR '89, the 5th International Conference on Structural Safety and 

Reliability, Part I, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7 August 1989, ASCE. 

KEY WORDS: Petroleum pipelines-earthquake effects, pipelines, steel-failure, probability-random 

processes, soils-liquefaction, structural analysis-dynamic response, risk studies-assessment 

Shinozuka, Masanobu and Kishimoto, Shoji. (1989). DEVELOPMENT OF FRAGILITY CURVES 

FOR LIQUEFACTION, Proceedings of ICOSSAR '89, the 5th International Conference on Structural 

Safety and Reliability, Part I, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7 August 1989, ASCE. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, probability-random processes, mathematical statistics-Monte Carlo 

methods, earthquakes-United States, petroleum pipelines-earthquake effects 

Budhu, M., Vijayakumar, V., Giese, R. F., and Baumgras, L. (1990). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 

FOR SITES IN MANHATTAN AND BUFFALO, NEW YORK, Association of Engineering Geologists, Dallas, TX, USA, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists vol. 27, no. 1. 

KEY WORDS: Boreholes, Buffalo New York, cohesionless materials, engineering geology, Erie County New York, levels, liquefaction, liquefaction potential, Manhattan, materials, New York, New York City New York, New York County New York, penetration tests, properties, seismic response, soil mechanics, 

southeastern New York, United States, western New York 

Elton, David J. and Hadj-Hamou, Tarik. (1990). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL MAP FOR 

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering v 116, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, maps and mapping-Charleston, South Carolina, 

probability-calculations, land fill-Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake resistance 

Ho, C. L. and Kavazanjian, E. Jr. (1990). REDUCTION FACTOR FOR LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL ANALYSIS, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering v 9, n 6. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, probability, materials testing, soil mechanics-shear strength, 

earthquakes-California

A-9 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography 

Cao, Y. L. and Law, K. T. (1991). LIQUEFY: A PROGRAM FOR SOIL LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT IN EARTHQUAKES, Proceedings of the 44th Canadian Geotechnical 

Conference. Part 1 (of 2), Calgary, Alberta, Can, 29 September-2 October 1999. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, soil testing, soil mechanics, computer aided analysis, computer 

software, probability, earthquake resistance, database systems, strength of materials, engineering geology 

Hwang, H. H. M. and Lee, C. S. (1991). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION 

POTENTIAL (TECHNICAL REPT), Report No. NCEER-91-0025, Memphis State Univ., TN, Center 

for Earthquake Research and Information, Washington, DC. 

KEY WORDS: Liquefaction, earthquakes, probability theory, soil pressure, stochastic analysis, 

nonlinear systems, earthquake engineering, dynamic response, statistical analysis, soil mechanics, shear 

stress, seismic waves 

Keaton, Jeffrey R., Bischoff, Jon E., Youd, T. Leslie, and Mabey, Matthew A. (1991). 

LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN OF THE KERN RIVER PIPELINE AT 

THE MUDDY RIVER CROSSING, SOUTHERN NEVADA, Proceedings of the 3rd U.S. Conference 

on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22 August 1991, ASCE, Technical Council 

on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. 

KEY WORDS: Natural gas pipelines-earthquake resistance, soils-liquefaction, pipelines-river 

crossings, geology-Nevada, seismology, earthquakes 

Law, K. T. and Cao, Y. L. (1991). PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SEISMIC 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, Proceedings of the 44th Canadian Geotechnical Society Conference. 

Part 1 (of 2) Calgary, Alberta, Can, 29 September - 2 October 1991. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, soil testing, soil mechanics, earthquake resistance, seismology, 

probability, geologic models, integral equations, risk assessment, energy dissipation 

Lay, S. Y., Shich, M. J., and Lee, F. B. (1991). MINIMUM MISCLASSIFICATION MODEL FOR 

EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION PROBABILITY BY SPT-N VALUE, Proceedings of the 

3rd International Symposium on Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Oslo, Norway, 9 September 

1991, Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Publ by A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Neth. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, soil mechanics-mathematical models, materials testing-analysis, 

probability, sand and gravel 

Ostadan, F., Marrone, J., Litehiser, J., Arango, I. (1991). LIQUEFACTION HAZARD 

EVALUATION. METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION, Proceedings of the 3rd U.S. Conference 

on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22 August 1991, ASCE, Technical Council 

on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Publ by ASCE. 

KEY WORDS: Soils-liquefaction, probability, earthquakes, earthquake resistance, civil engineering 

Vahdani, Shahriar, Mejia, Lelio H., and Burley, Terry G. (1991). LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION 

AT A CALIFORNIA SUBSTATION SITE, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery v 6, n 3. 

KEY WORDS: Electric substations-earthquake resistance, soils-liquefaction, geology, seismic waves, 

probability 

Hamada, Masanori. (1992). DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF LIFELINE SYSTEMS IN JAPAN, 

Proceedings of the 4th US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Disaster Prevention for Lifeline Systems, Los 

Angeles, CA, USA, 19 August 1991, NIST Special Publication n 840.

A-10 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography

KEY WORDS: Earthquake resistance, public utilities, facilities, failure analysis, soil liquefaction, soil 

mechanics, deformation, dynamic response, structural analysis, mathematical models 

Hwang, Howard H. M. (1992). SEISMIC HAZARD ALONG A CENTRAL U.S. OIL PIPELINE, Proceedings of the Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in the Central and Eastern US, New York, NY, USA, 

September 1992, Publ by ASCE. 

KEY WORDS: Petroleum pipelines, earthquake resistance, soil liquefaction, mathematical models 

Zhou Xiyuan, Su Jingyu, Fan Shuirong. (1992). FUZZY-PROBABILITY METHOD FOR SOIL 

LIQUEFACTION HAZARD EVALUATION AND ITS APPLICATION. Dizhen Gongcheng yu Gongcheng Zhendong = Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration vol. 12, no. 4. 

LANGUAGE: Chinese SUMMARY LANGUAGE: English. 

KEY WORDS: Aseismic design, data processing, fuzzy logic, geologic hazards, liquefaction, probability, risk assessment, seismic response, soil mechanics, statistical analysis 

Liu Ying, Li Dahua. (1993). SCALE AND PROBABILITY OF SAND LIQUEFACTION, Journal 

of Seismological Research vol. 16, no. 2. 

LANGUAGE: Chinese SUMMARY LANGUAGE: English 

KEY WORDS: Clastic sediments, foundations, liquefaction, probability, sand, sediments, seismic 

response, soil mechanics, statistical analysis 

Martin, James R. (1993). DEVELOPMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM 

(GIS) FOR SEISMIC HAZARD STUDY OF CHARLESTON, SC, Geographic Information Systems and Their Application in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of a Workshop, Atlanta, 

GA, 29-30 January 1993, Pubi by ASCE. 

KEY WORDS: Seismology, database systems, soil mechanics, liquefaction, soil liquefaction 

Little, Tim E., Imrie, Alan S., and Psutka, John F. (1994). GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC SETTING 

PERTINENT TO DAM SAFETY REVIEW OF DUNCAN DAM, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 

v 31, n 6. 

KEY WORDS: Embankment dams, accident prevention, soil liquefaction, sand, earthquake resistance, 

parameter estimation, probability, earthquakes 

Pires, J. A., Ang, A. H.-S., and Katayama, I. (1994). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF 

LATERAL EXTENT OF SOIL LIQUEFACTION UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADING, 

Proceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, 

Tokyo, Japan, 18-23 October 1991, Nuclear Engineering and Design v 147, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, probability, Monte Carlo methods, earthquake effects, soils, vibrations 

(mechanical), correlation methods, shear strength, earthquakes, loads (forces) 

Ferritto, J. (1995). MICROSEISM MEASUREMENTS AT THE WATERFRONT - AN AID TO 

NAVY BASE MICROZONATION, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA. 

KEY WORDS: Naval shore facilities, microseisms, earthquake resistant structures, waterfront 

structures, earthquake engineering, risk, probability distribution functions, dynamic response, soil 

mechanics, ground motion, strength (general), seismic waves, computer applications, earthquakes, 

epicenters, liquefaction, seismology 

Little, Tim E. (1995). SEISMIC MICROZONATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, Geological Association of Canada, Mineralogical Association of Canada, annual meeting, program with abstracts--

A-11 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography 

Association Geologique du Canada, Association Mineralogique du Canada, reunion annuelle, programme 

et resumes, 17-19 May 1995, Mineralogical Association of Canada, Canadian Geophysical Union, Joint 

Annual Meeting, vol. 20. 

KEY WORDS: Aseismic design, British Columbia, Canada, dams, earthquakes, Fraser River delta, 

geologic hazards, gravel deposits, ground motion, ground water, Hell Creek Fault, landfills, liquefaction, 

mapping, power plants, probability, programs, remote sensing, sanitary landfills, seismic risk, seismic 

zoning, soils, spatial distribution, statistical analysis, surveys, water table, western Canada 

Loh, C. H., Cheng, C. R., and Wen, Y. K. (1995). PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION OF 

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL UNDER EARTHQUAKE LOADING, Soil Dynamics & 

Earthquake Engineering, v 14(4). 

KEY WORDS: Soil mechanics, seismicity, liquefaction, seismic hazard 

Popescu, Radu and Prevost, Jean H. (1995). COMPARISON BETWEEN VELACS NUMERICAL 

'CLASS A' PREDICTIONS AND CENTRIFUGE EXPERIMENTAL SOIL TEST RESULTS, Soil 

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering v 14, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, forecasting, centrifuges, soil testing, errors, probability, mathematical 

models, pore pressure, dynamic loads, stresses 

Popescu, Radu and Prevost, Jean H. (1995). RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CENTRIFUGE 

SOIL TEST RESULTS, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering v 14, n 2. 

KEY WORDS: Soil testing, reliability, centrifuges, soil liquefaction, error analysis, probability, 

mathematical models, dynamic loads, forecasting, pore pressure 

Simos, N., Costantino, C. J., and Reich, M. (1995). PROBABILISTIC MODEL TO 

LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT OF DAMS, Joint ASME/JSME pressure vessels and piping 

conference, Honolulu, HI, 23-27 July 1995. 

KEY WORDS: Dams, soils, distribution functions, earthquakes, ground motion, ground subsidence, 

Monte Carlo method, probability, statistical models, stochastic processes, stresses, soil-structure 

interfaces 

Arango, Ignacio, Ostadan, Farhang, Lewis, Michael R., and Gutierrez, Brent J. (1996). 

QUANTIFICATION OF SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION RISK, Proceedings of the 1996 ASME 

Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Montreal, Can, 21-26 July 1996, Seismic Engineering 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP 

v 340, ASME, New York, NY. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, earthquake effects, seismology, risk assessment, nuclear power plants, 

probability, decision making 

Popescu, Radu, Deodatis, George, and Prevost, Jean H. (1996). SIMULATION OF MULTI

DIMENSIONAL, MULTI-VARIATE, NON-GAUSSIAN, HOMOGENEOUS STOCHASTIC 

FIELDS WITH APPLICATIONS TO SOIL LIQUEFACTION, Proceedings of the 1996 7th 

Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, Worcester, MA, 7-9 August 

1996, ASCE, New York, NY. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, computer simulation, probability density function, algorithms, Monte 

Carlo methods, random processes, soil mechanics, mathematical techniques 

Popescu, Radu, Prevost, Jean H., and Deodatis, George. (1996). INFLUENCE OF SPATIAL 

VARIABILITY OF SOIL PROPERTIES ON SEISMICALLY INDUCED SOIL

A- 12 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography

LIQUEFACTION, Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment, 

UNCERTAINTY'96. Part 2 (of 2), Madison, WI, USA, 31 July - 3 August 1996, Geotechnical Special 

Publication n 58/2, ASCE, New York, NY, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, soils, soil mechanics, earthquake effects, mathematical models, Monte 

Carlo methods, probability 

Tang, Wilson H. and Angulo, Mauricio. (1996). BAYESIAN LIQUEFACTION RESISTANCE 

ANALYSIS, Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Uncertainty in the Geologic Environment, 

UNCERTAINTY'96. Part 2 (of 2), Madison WI, USA, 31 July - 3 August 1996, Geotechnical Special 

Publication n 58/2, ASCE, New York, NY. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, soil testing, soil mechanics, stress analysis, mathematical models, 

probability 

Chulick, John A., Brandwein, Sidney, and Callaham, John M. (1997). SEISMIC HAZARD 

ANALYSIS FOR TWO POTENTIAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL 

FACILITY SITES IN NORTH CAROLINA, Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 

46th annual meeting, Auburn, AL, USA, 27-28 March 1997, Abstracts with Programs - Geological 

Society of America vol. 29, no. 3. 

KEY WORDS: Appalachians, Atlantic Coastal Plain, bedrock, Deep River basin, earthquakes, geologic 

hazards, geophysical surveys, ground motion, liquefaction potential, low-level waste, models, North 

America, North Carolina, Piedmont, probability, radioactive waste, Richmond County North Carolina, 

seismic response, seismic risk, seismic surveys, site exploration, soil mechanics, statistical analysis, 

surveys, United States, Wake County North Carolina, waste disposal 

Cui Jie, Men Fulu, and Shen Shijie. (1997). INDETERMINATIC EVALUATION OF SEISMIC 

LIQUEFACTION OF SANDS BASED ON SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY, Earthquake Engineering 

and Engineering Vibration, v 17/3 91-99. 

Language: Chinese 

KEY WORDS: Liquefaction, shear wave velocity, sand, seismic response, liquefaction, shear wave 

velocity, sand, seismic response 

Rahman, M. S. and El Zahaby, Khalid M. (1997). PROBABILISTIC LIQUEFACTION RISK 

ANALYSIS INCLUDING FUZZY VARIABLES, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, v 16, 

n 1. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, risk assessment, probability, fuzzy sets, seismic waves, mathematical 

models, mapping 

Finn, W. D. Liam. (1998). SEISMIC SAFETY OF EMBANKMENT DAMS: DEVELOPMENTS 

IN RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 1988-1998, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Geotechnical 

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 2 (of 2), Seattle, WA, 3-6 August 1998, 

Geotechnical Special Publication v 2, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Embankment dams, earthquake resistance, structural analysis, accident prevention, 

dynamic response, strength of materials, sand, soil liquefaction, foundations, strain 

Lee, M. K., Lum, K. Y., and Hartford, D. N. D. (1998). CALCULATION OF THE SEISMIC RISK 

OF AN EARTH DAM SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference 

on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 2 (of 2), Seattle, WA, 3-6 August 

1998, Geotechnical Special Publication v 2, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA.

A-13 NUREG/CR-6622
Appendix A Bibliography 

KEY WORDS: Embankment dams, earthquake resistance, soil liquefaction, accident prevention, 

deformation, probability, approximation theory, risk assessment, decision making 

Little, Tim E. and Meidal, Kim M. (1998). SEISMIC GROUND MOTION STUDIES FOR 

ASSESSING FAILURE PROBABILITY OF AN EARTH DAM, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference 

on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 2 (of 2), Seattle, WA, 3-6 August 

1998, Geotechnical Special Publication v 2, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Soil structure interactions, embankment dams, earthquake resistance, failure analysis, 

probability, structural analysis, soil liquefaction, risk assessment, mathematical models 

Monahan, Patrick A., Levson, Victor M., McQuarrie, Eric J., Bean, Stephen M., Henderson, Paul, and 

Sy, Alex. (1998). SEISMIC MICROZONATION MAPPING IN GREATER VICTORIA, 

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake 

Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 1 (of 2), Seattle, WA, 3-6 August 1998, Geotechnical Special 

Publication v 1, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Seismology, zoning, mapping, earthquakes, risk assessment, soil liquefaction, computer 

simulation, probability 

Todorovska, Maria I. (1998). QUICK REFERENCE LIQUEFACTION OPPORTUNITY MAPS 

FOR A METROPOLITAN AREA, Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake 

Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 1 (of 2), Seattle, WA, USA, 3-6 August 1988, Geotechnical 

Special Publication v 1, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA. 

KEY WORDS: Soil liquefaction, mapping, probability, mathematical models, seismology

NUREG/CR-6622 A-14
NRC 

11289 

FORM 

2 

335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

NRCM 1102, (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev., 

3201,3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET adAdnu and Aendum Numbers, ubri n. i any.) 

(See instructions on the reverse) 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NUREG/CR-6622 

Probabilistic Liquefaction Analysis 

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 

MONTH YEAR 

November 1999 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

W6246 5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT 

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 Commisson, and maling address; if contradtr, provide name and mailing address.) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station 

3909 Halls Ferry Road 

Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZAT10N - NAME AND AnnO C ,o , ,...... ev.......NDvi,.eoRi.S.eaeurCmio.,- 

and..a,,ype sf)ceorRegisn) ýam as abve'; i contractor, provie NRC Dadisisn, U. Nuclear Regumatory Commission,

Division of Engineering Technology 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

E.G. Zurflueh, NRC Proiect Manaaer

11ARSRATSL,

This document provides technical bases for formulating probabilistic approaches to liquefaction evaluation. The three basic elements of probabilistic liquefaction analysis are: (1) uncertainty in the earthquake load, (2) uncertainty in the available resistance, and (3) uncertainty in the method of analysis. The probabilistic approach is built from the steps in a deterministic 

magnitude, 

liquefaction analysis; however, the input parameters, such as penetration resistance, site stratigraphy, acceleration, and are treated as random variables and the accuracy of the method of analysis is factored in as a part of a capacity-demand model. Uncertainty in the earthquake load is generally treated with a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, which introduces time as a parameter. The site stratigraphy and engineering properties are generally treated as one-, two-, or three-dimensional random fields. Uncertainty in the method of analysis is generally estimated with logit regression analysis of the field performance data base. It is assumed that the reader has a working knowledge of probability theory, stochastic 

processes, liquefaction evaluation, and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis calculations.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in boating the report) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

unlimited Capacity-demand model 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Uncertainty (This Page) Logit regression unclagei unclassified 

(This Report) 

unclassified 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE 

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)

110 ASTRACMET-R NOTESo

1
Federal Recycling Program
PK{UtAJtlLInI IL LIY2 UhIkA4 liOUN A-NALY ¥ 15

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

FIRST CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

USNRC 

PERMIT NO. G-67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

IN U I5i/lUx-6622 fu*hlVlbkAK 19Y9