CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Table 1: Factors affecting cyclic mobility or soil liquefaction Table 2: Recommended SPT procedure for use in
liquefaction correlations (Seed et al., 1984)
characteristics and penetration resistance (After Seed, 1979)

Effect on stress ratio

Effect on penetration 4 to 5-inch diameter rotary borehole with
Factor required to cause cyclic
resistance
mobility or liquefaction Borehole bentonite drilling mud for borehole
Increases stress ratio for
Increased relative Increases penetration stability
cyclic mobility or
density resistance
liquefaction Upward deflection of drilling mud
Drill Bit
Increases stress ratio for (tricone of baffled drag bit)
Increased stability Increases penetration
cyclic mobility or Outer Diameter = 2.00 inches
of structure resistance
liquefaction Sampler Inner Diameter = 1.38 inches – Constant
Increases stress ratio for (i.e. no room for liners in barrel)
Increase in time Probably increases
cyclic mobility or A or AW for depths less than 50 feet
under pressure penetration resistance Drill Rods
liquefaction N or NW for greater depths
Increases stress ratio for Energy Delivered to 2520 in.-lbs. (60 % of theoretical
Increases penetration
Increase in K0 cyclic mobility or Sampler maximum)
resistance
liquefaction Blowcount Rate 30 to 40 blows per minute
Increases stress ratio for Penetration Resistance Measures over range of 6-8 inches of
Prior seismic Probably increases
cyclic mobility or Count penetration into the ground
strains penetration resistance
liquefaction

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Table 3: Summary of the correction factors for SPT

measurements
(After 1997 NCEER Workshop)
Factor Term Equipment Correction
Variable
CN (Pa/v)0.5
Overburden Pressure -
CN  2
CE Safety Hammer 0.60-1.17
Energy Ratio
Donut Hammer 0.45-1.00
CB 65-115 mm 1.00
Borehole Diameter 150 mm 1.05
200 mm 1.15
3-4 m 0.75
4-6 m 0.85
Rod Length CR 6-10 m 0.95
10-30 m 1.0
> 30 m < 1.0 Fig. 11: Recommendations by Seed et al. (2003) regarding
CS Standard Sampler 1.0 assessment of “liquefiable” soil types
Sampling Method Sampler without 1.15-1.30
liners

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Fig. 12: Criteria for the evaluation of the liquefaction

susceptibility of fine-grained soils at low confining stresses
proposed by Bray et al. (2004)
Fig. 13: Schematic illustration of the transition from sand-like to
clay-like behavior for fine grained soils with increasing PI, and
the recommended guideline for practice by Boulanger and Idriss
(2004)

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Figure 2: Range of Values of rd for different soil profiles (After

Seed and Idriss, 1971)
Figure 1: Liquefaction boundary curves recommended by Seed
et al. (1984)

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Figure 3: Variations of the stress reduction coefficient with

Figure 4: Rd results for all the sites and all the input motions
depth for various magnitude earthquakes (After Idriss and
superimposed with the recommendations of Seed and Idriss
Golesorkhi, 1997)
(1971), Idriss and Golesorkhi (1997), and this study

d < 65 ft

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

  23.013  2.949  a max  0.999  M w  0.016  Vs*, 40  NCEER (1997) FC CORRECTION
1  

 16.258  0.201  e
0.104(  d  0.0785Vs*, 40  24.888) 
rd (d, M w , a max , Vs*, 40 )    r
  23.013  2.949  a max  0.999  M w  0.016  Vs*, 40  d

1  
 16.258  0.201  e
0.104( 0.0785Vs*, 40  24.888) 

(6-1)

d  65 ft

  23.013  2.949  a max  0.999  M w  0.016  Vs*, 40 

1  

 16.258  0.201  e
0.104( 65 0.0785Vs*, 40  24.888) 
rd (d, M w , a max , Vs*, 40 )   0.0014  (d  65)    r
  23.013  2.949  a max  0.999  M w  0.016  Vs*, 40  CETIN d
ET AL. (20018) FC CORRECTION
1  
 0.104( 0.0785Vs , 40  24.888) 
*
16.258  0.201  e

d < 40 ft d  40 ft

  r (d)  d 0.850  0.0072

d

  r (d)  40 0.850  0.0072

d

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Table 1. MSF values proposed by various researchers

Seed & Idriss Idriss Arango Andrus & Youd and Noble Liu et al.
Mw Idriss 1995 1999 Ambraseys Distance Energy Stokoe <20 <32 <50 Field Lab. Ave.
5.5 1.43 2.20 1.69 2.86 3.00 2.20 2.78 2.86 3.45 4.44 2.07 1.46 1.65
6.0 1.32 1.76 1.48 2.20 2.00 1.65 2.09 1.93 2.35 2.92 1.87 1.36 1.52
6.5 1.19 1.44 1.30 1.69 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.34 1.65 1.99 1.65 1.24 1.37
7.0 1.08 1.19 1.14 1.30 1.25 1.10 1.26 0.94 1.19 1.39 1.44 1.12 1.23
7.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.88 1.00 1.25 1.01 1.09
8.0 0.94 0.84 0.88 0.67 0.75 0.85 0.81 - - 0.73 1.09 0.91 0.98
8.5 0.89 0.72 0.77 0.44 - - 0.66 - - 0.56 0.95 0.82 0.87

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

CETIN ET AL. (2018) Kand KMw CORRECTIONS

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

CETIN ET AL. 2018 LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.016

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Boulanger and Idriss, 2012 Moss et al. 2006

Curves of CRRM=7.5; v=1 atm versus N160cs for probabilities of

liquefaction of 15, 50, and 85% Fig. 6. Contours of 5, 20, 50, 80, and 95% probability of triggering
of liquefaction as a function of duration-corrected equivalent uniform
cyclic stress ratio _CSR*_ and “fines” adjusted CPT tip resistance
(qc,1,mod) for Mw=7.5, ’v=1 atm.

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Kayen et al. 2013 - Liquefied zone with low residual undrained strength

(a) Edge Failure/Lateral Spreading by Flow

(b) Edge Failure/Lateral Spreading by Translation

(c) Flow Failure

Fig. 4. Plot showing means of field case histories of liquefaction (solid

circles) and nonliquefaction (open circles) and new probabilistic correlation
curves; the recommended deterministic curve from this study is
(d) Translational Displacement
a factor of safety (FS)=1.17 and corresponds with a PL = 15%; the
PL= 50% corresponds with a FS of 5 1.0

(e) Rotational and/or Translational Sliding

Fig. 7: Schematic Examples of Liquefaction-Induced Global

Site Instability and/or “Large” Displacement Lateral
Spreading

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Figure 8. Chart for determination of volumetric strain as

function of factor of safety (after Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992)

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Fig. 9: Recommended Relationship Between Su,r and N1,60,CS (Seed and Olson and Stark, 2003
Harder, 1990)

Fig. 10: Relationship Between Su,r/P vs. N1,60,CS as proposed by Stark and
Mesri (1992) Idriss and Boulanger (2015)

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Kramer and Wang (2015) Weber et al. (2015)

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Cetin et al. (2009a) Probabilistic Models for Cyclic Straining of 0.6

>20.88

Saturated Clean Sands >17.03

  0.025  N1, 60,CS  ln( CSRSS , 20,1 D ,1 atm )  2.613  >20.85 18.47 5.01
4
0.5
ln(  max )  ln    1.880
>16.34 1.50
>25.14

 0.004  N1, 60,CS  0.001  1.48

3.9
>33.84 18.50 2.3
>14.2

lim: 5  N1,60,CS  40 , 0.05  CSRSS ,20,1 D ,1atm  0.60 and 0%   max  100%
>9.5
>45 >26.94 >13.9 >15 0.29
0.4 >17.16
>22.3 3.80 8.1 11.6
4.46
>26.84>8.84

CSRSS,20,1-D,1 atm
4.8 7.2
>2.2 6.6
>27 0.80
4.2 8.1

 
>10.7
 780.416  ln( CSRSS , 20,1 D ,1 atm )  N1,60,CS  2442.465 
17.4
10.49 8.4 5.4 5.5

ln(  v )  ln 1.879  ln 
>23.5
  5.583  0.689 7.5 >11.9 1.9 6

  636.613  N1,60,CS  306.732   0.3 22.29

>40
>24.2 >25
>11.01
6
0.49
5.6
2.5
7.5
>8.91
>7.8 >7.01 0.5
>25.4 1.5
>37 >14.2
lim: 5  N1,60,CS  40 , 0.05  CSRSS ,20,1 D ,1atm  0.60 and 0%   v  5%
>17.5 0.46
19.6
>9.67 4.23 0.43
28.3 1.0 2.7 3.61 3.5
>33 0.4
>11.2 0.7
>33 >27.5 17.5
0.2 21.1 >10.2 7.5
>35.8 >27.4 >12 0.25
>11.43 11.7>11.1 11 0.12
>34.7 >14.8 0.5 0.6
>27.8 0.6 >15 16 7.5
>20.6 8 0.25 19 6.6
>35.1 >6 7.5
>22.7 4.7 0.15 8.1 0.4 0.5
6.1 0.7
0.2 0.10 0.21
0.15 0.2 4.4 7.5 7.5
0.1 0.2
0.1 7.5
0.1
0.10
>11.25 0.2

Wu et al. (2003)
Bilge (2005)
Others

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
N1,60,CS

35 50 70 80 90
DR

60 90 130 170 190 220

q c,1/Pa
Figure 8. Recommended maximum double amplitude shear
strain boundary curves

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

0.6
Cetin et al. (2009b) A Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of
>1.78

>1.5 Cyclically-Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements

1.50 0.88

 
0.5
>2.1 >1.6
<1 0.57  780.416  ln( CSRSS , 20,1 D,1 atm )  N1,60,CS  2442.465 
ln(  v )  ln 1.879  ln 
>1.3
  5.583  0.689 (1)
<1.3

0.60   636.613  N1,60,CS  306.732  

>2.19 1.74 <0.5

0.4
>4.81
>2.3

>2.02
>0.01 1.28 >1.620.29 1.2
>1.8
0.83 lim: 5  N1,60,CS  40 , 0.05  CSRSS ,20,1 D ,1atm  0.60
CSRSS,20,1-D,1 atm

>1.1 0.41 0.52

>1.95
<1.9
CSR field (2)
CSRSS , 20,1 D ,1atm 
>1.84 <1.5
<1.6
>1.71

1.51
>1.46
<1.2 0.32
<1.5
K md  K M W  K 
0.3 >3.3 <1.3 <1.2

K md  0.361  ln( DR )  0.579

>1.75
>2.1 <1.9
>1.3
(3)
>1.88 0.62 0.20
1.20 0.69
<1.5
87.1 (4)
K M  2.217
>5 3.4
>2.71 >1.6 1.81 0.44
0.2 >1.45 0.72 W
>2.3
>2.8 <1.7 Mw
>1.5 <1.7 >1.9 <1.7
f 1 (5)
>2.7 1.7 <1.8 <3.6
  ' v ,0 
K    
<2.4 <2.4 0.33
0.13
<1.9

0.1 0.01
 Pa 
Wu et al. (2003) f  1  0.005  D R
Bilge (2005)
di (6)
0.0 DFi  1  , where d i is the mid-depth of each saturated
0 10 20 30 40 z cr  18m
N1,60,CS
cohesionless soil layer from ground surface.
  v,i  ti  DFi
35 50 70 80 90
(7)
DR
 v ,eqv. 
60 90 130 170 190 220
 ti  DFi
q c,1/Pa
sestimated   v,eqv.  ti (8)
Figure 9. Recommended post-cyclic volumetric strain boundary
ln( scalibrated)  ln(   sestimated )    (9)
curves

Handout #1: Liquefaction

 CE 5601 GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2017 FALL

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PROF. DR. K. ÖNDER ÇETIN

Table 5. Results of the Maximum Likelihood Analyses Gently Sloping Sites

Method 1 
This Study 1.15 0.61
Tokimatsu and Seed (1984) 1.45 1.05
Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) 0.90 1.12
Shamoto et al. (1998) 1.93 1.36
Wu and Seed (2004) 0.98 0.71

HAMADA ET AL. (1986) LATERAL SPREADING MODEL

Hamada et al. ~1986 compiled lateral spread and borehole data from Niigata and
Noshiro, Japan and developed the following preliminary empirical equation for
estimating lateral spread displacement
D:predicted lateral displacement (m), H:the thickness of the liquefied layer (m);
the ground slope (%).
YOUD ET AL. (2002) LATERAL SPREADING MODEL
Free face sites:
R:the horizontal or mapped distance from the site in question to the nearest bound of the
seismic energy source, Ro:a distance constant that is a function of earthquake magnitude,
is M, and R* the modified source distance.
DH:the estimated lateral ground displacement, in meters; M:the moment magnitude of
the earthquake, R:the nearest horizontal or map distance from the site to the seismic
energy source, in kilometers, T15:the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers
with corrected blow counts, (N1)60 , less than 15, in meters, F15:the average fines content
~fraction of sediment sample passing a No. 200 sieve for granular materials included
within T15 , in percent, D5015:the average mean grain size for granular materials within
T15 , in millimeters, S:the ground slope, in percent, and W:the free-face ratio defined as
the height ~H of the free face divided by the distance ~L from the base of the free face
to the point in question, in percent.

Handout #1: Liquefaction