Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Liquefaction Triggering Analysis/Evidence
Method evidence record

Liquefaction Triggering Analysis

Liquefaction triggering analysis evaluates whether saturated, loose granular soils will lose strength and behave like a fluid during earthquake shaking, using the simplified stress-based procedure that has anchored geotechnical earthquake engineering since Seed and Idriss introduced it in 1971. The method compares demand against capacity: the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) imposed by the earthquake versus the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) the soil can sustain, both expressed as ratios of cyclic shear stress to effective overburden stress. Capacity is read from in-situ penetration tests — standard penetration test blow counts or cone penetration test tip resistance — through empirical curves calibrated on field case histories of sites that did and did not liquefy. The Youd and Idriss 2001 NCEER consensus report standardized these curves and the correction factors, and Idriss and Boulanger's 2008 monograph refined them. The ratio of resistance to demand gives a factor of safety against triggering at each depth. It is the workhorse first-order screen for liquefaction in routine practice worldwide.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Liquefaction Triggering Analysis (Simplified Procedure)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / disaster-studies
  • Youd, T. L., & Idriss, I. M. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(4), 297-313. · DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:4(297)
  • Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. · ISBN 9781932884364
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyDeterministic Seismic Hazard Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyLiquefaction Hazard Assessmentmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familySeismic Hazard Deaggregationmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account