Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils

TLDR

After the 1964 Alaska and Niigata earthquakes, Seed and Idriss introduced the simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction resistance, which has become a widely adopted standard that has evolved empirically but has not been formally updated since 1985. The 1996 NCEER workshop aimed to reach consensus on updates and augmentations to this simplified procedure. Twenty experts reviewed and developed recommendations on criteria based on standard penetration tests, cone penetration tests, shear‑wave velocity, Becker penetration test, magnitude scaling, overburden and slope corrections, and earthquake input parameters. Although probabilistic and seismic energy analyses were examined, the workshop did not issue any recommendations regarding them.

Abstract

Following disastrous earthquakes in Alaska and in Niigata, Japan in 1964, Professors H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss developed and published a methodology termed the “simplified procedure” for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. This procedure has become a standard of practice throughout North America and much of the world. The methodology which is largely empirical, has evolved over years, primarily through summary papers by H. B. Seed and his colleagues. No general review or update of the procedure has occurred, however, since 1985, the time of the last major paper by Professor Seed and a report from a National Research Council workshop on liquefaction of soils. In 1996 a workshop sponsored by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) was convened by Professors T. L. Youd and I. M. Idriss with 20 experts to review developments over the previous 10 years. The purpose was to gain consensus on updates and augmentations to the simplified procedure. The following topics were reviewed and recommendations developed: (1) criteria based on standard penetration tests; (2) criteria based on cone penetration tests; (3) criteria based on shear-wave velocity measurements; (4) use of the Becker penetration test for gravelly soil; (4) magnitude scaling factors; (5) correction factors for overburden pressures and sloping ground; and (6) input values for earthquake magnitude and peak acceleration. Probabilistic and seismic energy analyses were reviewed but no recommendations were formulated.