Summary of SPT based field case history data of CETIN (2016) database

Abstract

This report provides documentation of the Cetin et al. (2016) field performance case histories, probabilistic maximum likelihood assessment and the sources of differences between the liquefaction triggering resistance estimations (CRR values) of the widely used liquefaction triggering relationships of Seed et al. (1985), Cetin et al. (2004, 2016) and Boulanger and Idriss (2012). Cetin et al. (2016-a) presented a concise summary of the improved database and the updated triggering relationships. For the sake of completeness, as part of Chapter 2 of this report, Cetin et al. (2016-a) manuscript is re-presented, as edited to include the electronic supplements, and a broader and more detailed documentation of all of case histories. This broader and more detailed documentation along with the interpretations of other researchers is presented in Appendix A. Similarly, site response analyses details and results from Cetin (2000) is re-presented in Appendix B. To enable the readers to quickly refer to Cetin and Seed (2004), it is also included in Appendix C. The sources of differences between the liquefaction triggering resistance estimations (CRR values) of the widely used liquefaction triggering relationships of Seed et al. (1985), Cetin et al. (2004) and Boulanger and Idriss (2012) were discussed in Cetin et al. (2016-b). Again, for the sake of completeness, as part of Chapter 3 of this report, Cetin et al. (2016-b) manuscript is re-presented, as edited to the include of electronic supplements, and a detailed response to issues addressed by Idriss and Boulanger (2012). Also, the technical response letter (Cetin, 2014) prepared at the request of the members of the NRC Committee on the State of the Art and Practice in Earthquake Induced Soil Liquefaction Assessment, is given in Appendix D, which is helpful to follow the technical discussions. This report is intended only as a concise summary of a vast amount of data. The interpretations presented are those of the research team. A more detailed description of some of the details of the methods and procedures used to evaluate and analyze these field performance case histories is also presented in Cetin (2000) and Cetin et al. (2000) though the final evaluations presented in this report are the most recent interpretations undertaken under these current studies.